Thursday: Hili dialogue

January 11, 2024 • 6:45 am

Welcome to Thursday, January 11, 2024, and National Hot Toddy Day. Wikipedia describes it:

A hot toddy, also known as hot whiskey in Ireland,  and occasionally called southern cough syrup within the Southern United States, is typically a mixed drink made of liquor and water with honey (or in some recipes, sugar), lemon, herbs (such as tea) and spices, and served hot. Recipes vary, and hot toddy is traditionally drunk as a nightcap before retiring for the night, in wet or cold weather or to relieve the symptoms of the cold and flu. In How to Drink, Victoria Moore describes the drink as “the vitamin C for health, the honey to soothe, the alcohol to numb.”

And the name?

The word toddy comes from the toddy drink in India, produced by fermenting the sap of palm trees. Its earliest known use to mean “a beverage made of alcoholic liquor with hot water, sugar, and spices” is from 1786. It is often referred to as a ‘Hot Toady’.

I don’t think these really relieve cold symptoms, but they probably help you ignore them.  A hot toddy:

It’s also Girl Hug Boy Day, Healthy Weight, Healthy Look Day, National Milk Day, Prithvi Jayanti, celebrating the unification of Nepal, and, in the U.S.,National Human Trafficking Awareness Day.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this by consulting the January 11 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*In a breathtaking case of “wrong perp,” South Africa has brought a charge of genocide against Israel in the International Court of Justice. Although Israel is not bound by its decision, it has decided, for some reason (perhaps world opinion) to contest the charges:

The International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ highest judicial body, will begin hearings this week in a case brought by South Africa that accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

The hearings, the first step in a lengthy process should the case go forward, will be the first time that Israel has chosen to defend itself, in person, in such a setting, attesting to the gravity of the indictment and the high stakes for its international reputation and standing.

Genocide, the term first employed by a Polish lawyer of Jewish descent in 1944 to describe the Nazis’ systematic murder of about six million Jews and others based on their ethnicity, is among the most serious crimes of which a country can be accused.

In its submission to the court, South Africa cited that lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, to expand the definition of genocide. South Africa, whose post-apartheid government has long supported the Palestinian cause, accused Israel of actions in Gaza against Hamas that are “genocidal in character.” It says Israel has killed Palestinian civilians, inflicted serious bodily and mental harm, and created for the residents of Gaza “conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.”

The allegation, which Israel categorically denies, is laden with a particular significance in Israel, a country founded in the wake of the near wholesale destruction of European Jewry and that soon after became a haven for Jews expelled by the hundreds of thousands from Arab lands.

Israel, a signatory to the 1948 international Convention against Genocide, is keeping the details of its defense for the court. But Israeli leaders say South Africa’s allegations pervert the meaning of genocide and the purpose of the convention. A more fitting case, they say, could be brought against Hamas, an internationally labeled terrorist organization that is the target of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

And here’s the rub:

“There’s nothing more atrocious and preposterous than this claim,” President Isaac Herzog of Israel said on Tuesday. “Actually, our enemies, the Hamas, in their charter, call for the destruction and annihilation of the state of Israel, the only nation state of the Jewish people.”

Israel is not trying to wipe out the Gazans, which it could have done at any time in the last 18 years. In fact, the population of Gaza has mushroomed. It’s clear to anybody with eyes that Israel is acting in self-defense, not trying to wipe out all Palestinians but trying to erase Hamas, which unfortunately loves to put itself among civilians.  A much better case could be brought against Hamas and Gaza for genocide, specially since Hamas’s stated aim is to wipe out Jews, which they try repeatedly, not bothering to distinguish between civilians and armed forces. But of course no country in the world is sufficiently sympathetic to Israel (the U..S. isn’t a member of the Court) to bring such a case, a fact that is shameful. Where is Britain, France, or Germany.  My guess is that because nearly the whole world hates Israel, it will lose this case. What consequences that would have for the country remain to be seen.

*The Houthis, another terrorist group, has struck again in the Red Sea in their drive to stop all Israeli shipping, although they’re actually attacking everyone. This time it was a big-time attack, but the U.S. and the Brits repelled it.

 U.S. and British naval forces shot down 21 drones and missiles fired by Yemen-based Houthis on Tuesday towards the southern Red Sea, the United States said, with Britain hinting at further measures to protect international shipping lanes.

British Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said it was the largest attack in the area by the militants to date as the three-month-long war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza spills over into other parts of the Middle East.

“This is an unsustainable situation,” Shapps told reporters, adding “watch this space” with regards to further possible action by Britain and its international partners.

“This cannot continue and cannot be allowed to continue.”

U.S. Central Command said no injuries nor damage were reported, adding that this was the 26th Houthi attack on commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea since Nov. 19.

Later in the day, Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said the Iranian-backed militants fired a large number of ballistic and naval missiles and drones at a U.S. ship that was “providing support” to Israel.

. . . The U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is based in the Gulf region and has along with Britain deployed naval forces to protect Red Sea shipping from an upsurge in Houthi attacks, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

How many fronts is the fighting on?  The Red Sea, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, West Bank, and I’ve probably forgotten some.  And of course it’s all Israel’s fault.

*Ruth Marcus, an associated editor at the Washington Post, tells us “The justices will keep Trump on the ballot. Here’s how (and why) they’ll do it.”

The Supreme Court isn’t going to save us from another Donald Trump presidency. The justices announced Jan. 5 that they will take up the question of whether states can exclude Trump from their ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which makes former officials who engaged in insurrection ineligible for future office.

The court was correct to take the case — an appeal from a Colorado Supreme Court decision declaring Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s GOP primary ballot — and, given the need to get the Section 3 issue settled, to speed up the proceedings, with the case set to be argued Feb. 8.

But those who are looking to this once-obscure, rarely invoked provision of the Constitution for salvation are apt to find themselves disappointed. It would be extraordinary for any Supreme Court to declare that the front-runner for his party’s nomination can be barred from the ballot; doing so would unleash widespread confusion, and worse, on the nation. This Supreme Court, with six justices nominated by Republican presidents, isn’t going to take that step — and, as I’ve written before, I expect they’ll be joined by some or all of the Democratic appointees.

The chief mystery — and one that will be fascinating to watch as the case unfolds — is how the court will arrive at that conclusion. That might take some intellectual gymnastics for the conservative justices who are professed originalists, committed to hewing to the constitutional text. Trump’s lawyers, in a goulash of a brief, served up an array of arguments for Trump to run — some tendentious, others more compelling. What follows is an assessment of some possible outcomes.

She gives three possibilities for how the Supreme court will rule for Trump; I’ll show two of them:

Trump remains eligible to hold office because it isn’t clear he engaged in insurrection.

This would be the most straightforward basis for ruling, but I suspect the justices will be reluctant to plunge the court into the political thicket of deciding whether the former president is an insurrectionist. The court doesn’t have to agree on its reasoning, but garnering a majority for that proposition might be difficult as well. Still, that’s the fundamental question, so let’s go through the arguments. . . . .

Section 3 doesn’t apply to Trump because it doesn’t cover presidents.

This sounds preposterous, but it might provide a tempting off-ramp for the justices. In describing those subject to disqualification, Section 3 specifies those who are senators, representatives, presidential electors, or “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State” and who previously took an oath “as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States.” Is the presidency such an office and the president such an officer

*The WSJ tells us “How much caffeine you should actually have—and when“.

Generally, government and health groups recommend that healthy adults consume no more than400 milligrams of caffeine a day. That comes out to about four, 8-ounce cups of coffee, says Jennifer Temple, a professor of exercise and nutrition sciences at University at Buffalo School of Public Health and Health Professions.

(No, that 20-ounce Starbucks Venti doesn’t count as one cup of coffee.)

And believe it or not, we are doing pretty well on this target. The average American adult consumes about 200 milligrams of caffeinea day and in Europe, it is 270 milligrams, according to a 2017 review study.

But not everyone is optimizing their caffeine intake to maximize how it can help them—by sharpening concentration for work or giving them a boost before a run—without hurting their sleep or overall health.

Here’s how to think strategically about getting the most out of your daily dose.

About 100 to 150 milligrams—or one to 1.5 cups of coffee—is a ballpark amount that will deliver a boost, says Astrid Nehlig, an emeritus research director at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, who has studied caffeine’s impact on brain activity, though it varies from person to person.

The effects generally kick in about five minutes after consumption and increase to become optimal for between roughly 15 and 120 minutes, Nehlig says.

Caffeine has been linked to physical benefits, too. People walked more on days they drank coffee than on days they didn’t, according to a 2023 study of 100 people in the New England Journal of Medicine. Participants took an average of 1,000 more steps on days when they drank caffeinated coffee than when they didn’t.

Where to get your caffeine.

The best source of caffeine is unsweetened coffee or tea, says Dr. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. These drinks have other beneficial ingredients, such as polyphenols, which have antioxidant effects which reduce inflammation.

. . .Kids under 12 should avoid caffeine, while 12- to 18-year-olds should have no more than 100 milligrams a day, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Pregnant women are advised to have no more than 200 milligrams of caffeine a day.

People with chronic conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease might want to be more cautious about their caffeine consumption,

Learn anything? I have a latte made with a double espresso once a day, and that’s it I often used to have another double espresso after lunch, but found that it kept me up, and I no longer crave it.

*Lauren Boebert is in a mess again, though her ex-husband is in a worse mess. First she gets kicked out of a movie theater for vaping and salacious canoodling (see also here) but now she’s been accused by her ex-husband of punching her. She was cleared, but the guy is facing charges:

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert was cleared on Wednesday of domestic violence allegations after her ex-husband recanted his claim that she punched him during an altercation in a restaurant where they’d gone to try to get on better terms, according to police and court documents.

Jayson Boebert was arrested Tuesday on misdemeanor charges stemming from Saturday’s incident in the rural Colorado town of Silt. He allegedly refused to cooperate with police after calling 911 to report domestic violence and then had to be forcibly removed, police said. He is also accused of getting into a physical fight with the couple’s 18-year-old son and taking out a rifle as the teen called authorities, according to an arrest affidavit.

The altercation came just over a week after Lauren Boebert, a Republican, announced she was switching congressional districts, avoiding a likely rematch against a Democrat who has far outraised her and after an embarrassing moment of groping and vaping that shook even loyal supporters. The Boeberts’ divorce was finalized in October.

Jayson Boebert did not respond to a request for comment. He previously told The Denver Post that he called police on Sunday morning to say he didn’t want to press charges in the incident at the Miner’s Claim restaurant.

“Due to a lack of any evidence, the allegations of domestic violence against Rep. Lauren Boebert are unfounded and the investigation into Rep. Lauren Boebert is closed,” police said.

Lauren Boebert told police she and her ex-husband went to the restaurant to finish a conversation they had started at their old home earlier that night as they tried to reconcile and get on good terms, according to Jayson Boebert’s arrest affidavit. But she said that things got heated after they started talking about their new partners and she placed a finger on Jayson Boebert’s nose to end the conversation, according to the document. Jayson Boebert, who police said was “highly intoxicated,” then called 911 to report domestic abuse and later claimed that he had been punched in the face, the document said.

Remember, she’s a Congresswoman! Is this the best we can find in Colorado to represent her district. Well, she’s switching districts this year because she might lose to a Democrat in her own. Let’s hope she loses in the new one

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili had a bit of Andrzej’s steak last night.

Hili: I don’t remember when I last ate a sirloin steak.
A; Yesterday.
Hili: It’s been a long time.
In Polish:
Hili: Nie pamiętam kiedy ostatnio jadłam polędwicę.
Ja: Wczoraj.
Hili: To dawno.
And a photo of the loving Szaron:

*******************

From Paul on Tik Tok: a Jewish cat eating matzoh ball soup! I wonder if he likes chopped liver and gefilte fish?

@batgirandlprincessleia

#jewishcat #jewishcatsoftiktok #jewishcatskilks #jewishtiktok #matzoballsoup

♬ original sound – MisheeMe

From Thomas, a Gary Larson Far Side cartoon:

From Science Humor; this emphasizes the importance of punctuation and grammar:

We have two tweets from Masih today showing Iranian women defying their regime’s dictatorial dress-and-behavior code, I love this first one of a girl dancing to the muezzin:

 

From Sue.  Get it?

From Simon; the words of JFK slightly altered:

From Barry: the code of Cat Jail:

 

Another good cat video, this time from Malcolm. I can’t explain it; you have to watch.

From the Auschwitz Memorial, a Czech Jewish woman, and a poet, was gassed two days after entering Auschwitz. One of her poems, translated, is below.

Two tweets from Dr. Cobb. First, a chipmunk has an epiphany.  And the second tweet shows what must be British hyraxes!!

26 thoughts on “Thursday: Hili dialogue”

  1. On this day:
    532 – Nika riots in Constantinople: A quarrel between supporters of different chariot teams—the Blues and the Greens—in the Hippodrome escalates into violence.

    630 – Conquest of Mecca: The prophet Muhammad and his followers conquer the city, and the Quraysh association of clans surrenders.

    1569 – First recorded lottery in England.

    1759 – The first American life insurance company, the Corporation for Relief of Poor and Distressed Presbyterian Ministers and of the Poor and Distressed Widows and Children of the Presbyterian Ministers (now part of Unum Group), is incorporated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    1787 – William Herschel discovers Titania and Oberon, two moons of Uranus.

    1908 – Grand Canyon National Monument is created.

    1922 – Leonard Thompson becomes the first person to be injected with insulin.

    1927 – Louis B. Mayer, head of film studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), announces the creation of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, at a banquet in Los Angeles, California.

    1935 – Amelia Earhart becomes the first person to fly solo from Hawaii to California.

    1949 – The first “networked” television broadcasts took place as KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania goes on the air connecting the east coast and mid-west programming.

    1964 – Surgeon General of the United States Dr. Luther Terry, M.D., publishes the landmark report Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States saying that smoking may be hazardous to health, sparking national and worldwide anti-smoking efforts.

    1972 – East Pakistan renames itself Bangladesh.

    1994 – The Irish Government announces the end of a 15-year broadcasting ban on the IRA and its political arm Sinn Féin.

    1996 – The Space Shuttle Endeavour is launched on mission STS-72 to retrieve the Japanese Space Flyer Unit.

    2003 – Illinois Governor George Ryan commutes the death sentences of 167 prisoners on Illinois’s death row based on the Jon Burge scandal. [Burge, a police detective and commander in the Chicago Police Department had been found guilty of having “directly participated in or implicitly approved the torture” of at least 118 people in police custody in order to force false confessions.]

    2020 – COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei: Municipal health officials in Wuhan announce the first recorded death from COVID-19. [As of this morning, the global death toll stands at 6,711,939.]

    Births:
    1503 – Parmigianino, Italian artist (d. 1540).

    1650 – Diana Glauber, Dutch-German painter (d. 1721).

    1755 – Alexander Hamilton, Nevisian-American general, economist and politician, 1st United States Secretary of the Treasury (d. 1804).

    1807 – Ezra Cornell, American businessman and philanthropist, founded Western Union and Cornell University (d. 1874).

    1814 – James Paget, English surgeon and pathologist (d. 1899).

    1858 – Harry Gordon Selfridge, American-English businessman, founded Selfridges (d. 1947).

    1885 – Alice Paul, American activist and suffragist (d. 1977). [Today’s Woman of the Day, see next post below.]

    1887 – Aldo Leopold, American ecologist and author (d. 1948).

    1899 – Eva Le Gallienne, English-American actress, director, and producer (d. 1991).

    1906 – Albert Hofmann, Swiss chemist and academic, discoverer of LSD (d. 2008).

    1911 – Nora Heysen, Australian painter (d. 2003).

    1924 – Roger Guillemin, French-American physician and endocrinologist, Nobel Prize laureate.

    1924 – Slim Harpo, American blues singer-songwriter and musician (d. 1970).

    1931 – Betty Churcher, Australian painter, historian, and curator (d. 2015).

    1931 – Mary Rodgers, American composer and author (d. 2014).

    1933 – Goldie Hill, American country singer-songwriter and guitarist (d. 2005).

    1938 – Arthur Scargill, English miner, activist, and politician.

    1942 – Clarence Clemons, American saxophonist and actor (d. 2011).

    1945 – Christine Kaufmann, German actress, author, and businesswoman (d. 2017).

    1946 – Naomi Judd, American singer-songwriter and actress (d. 2022).

    1946 – Tony Kaye, English progressive rock keyboard player and songwriter. [Best known as a founding member of the progressive rock band Yes.]

    1954 – Kailash Satyarthi, Indian engineer, academic, and activist, Nobel Prize laureate.

    1958 – Vicki Peterson, American singer-songwriter and guitarist. [The lead guitarist for the Bangles since their foundation in 1981.]

    1961 – Jasper Fforde, English author. [His books abound in literary allusions and wordplay, tightly scripted plots and playfulness with the conventional, traditional genres. They usually contain elements of metafiction, parody, and fantasy.]

    1963 – Petra Schneider, German swimmer. [Schneider’s victory in the 400 m event at the 1980 Moscow Olympics left silver medallist Sharron Davies of the United Kingdom 10 seconds in arrears. This particular victory, however, has been proven to be fraudulent as Schneider later admitted to doping as part of the Stasi era’s drugs programme wherein many female athletes were put on testosterone to enhance their outcome. She has apologised to Davies and offered her gold medal to Davies, which the latter declined. Davies’ 2023 book Unfair Play: The Battle for Women’s Sport is highly recommended.]

    1971 – Mary J. Blige, American singer-songwriter, producer, and actress.

    Death comes in a flash, and that’s the truth of it, the person’s gone in less than 24 frames of film. (Martin Scorsese):
    1757 – Louis Bertrand Castel, French mathematician and philosopher (b. 1688). [Invented the Ocular Harpsichord.]

    1836 – John Molson, Canadian businessman, founded the Molson Brewing Company (b. 1763).

    1928 – Thomas Hardy, English novelist and poet (b. 1840).

    1929 – Elfrida Andrée, Swedish organist, composer, and conductor (b. 1841). [An activist in the Swedish women’s movement, she was one of the first female organists to be officially appointed in Scandinavia.]

    1941 – Emanuel Lasker, German mathematician, philosopher, and chess player (b. 1868).

    1953 – Roberta Fulbright, American businesswoman (b.1874).

    1969 – Richmal Crompton, English author and educator (b. 1890).[Best known for her Just William books.]

    2000 – Betty Archdale, English-Australian cricketer and educator (b. 1907).

    2001 – Denys Lasdun, English architect, co-designed the Royal National Theatre (b. 1914).

    2008 – Edmund Hillary, New Zealand mountaineer and explorer (b. 1919).

    2013 – Tom Parry Jones, Welsh chemist, invented the breathalyzer (b. 1935).

    2014 – Ariel Sharon, Israeli general and politician, 11th Prime Minister of Israel (b. 1928).

    2015 – Anita Ekberg, Swedish-Italian model and actress (b. 1931).

    2019 – Michael Atiyah, British-Lebanese mathematician (b.1929).

    2023 – Carole Cook, American actress and singer (b. 1924). [Best known for appearances on Lucille Ball’s comedy television series The Lucy Show and Here’s Lucy.

    1. Woman of the Day:
      [From Wikipedia]
      Alice Stokes Paul (born on this day in 1885, died July 9, 1977) was an American Quaker, suffragist, feminist, and women’s rights activist, and one of the foremost leaders and strategists of the campaign for the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits sex discrimination in the right to vote. Paul initiated, and along with Lucy Burns and others, strategized events such as the Woman Suffrage Procession and the Silent Sentinels, which were part of the successful campaign that resulted in the amendment’s passage in August 1920.

      In 1907, after completing her master’s degree at the University of Pennsylvania, Paul moved to England, where she eventually became deeply involved with the British women’s suffrage movement, regularly participating in demonstrations and marches of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). After a “conversion experience” seeing Christabel Pankhurst speak at the University of Birmingham, Paul became enamoured of the movement. She first became involved by selling a Suffragist magazine on street corners. Considering the animosity towards the Suffragists, this was an arduous task and opened her eyes to the abuse women involved in the movement faced. These experiences, combined with the teachings of Professor Beatrice Webb, convinced Paul that social work and charity could not bring about the needed social changes in society: this could only be accomplished through equal legal status for women.

      Paul often suffered police brutality and other physical abuse for her activism, always responding with nonviolence and courage. She was jailed under terrible conditions in 1917 for participating in a Silent Sentinels protest in front of the White House, as she had been several times during earlier efforts to secure the vote for women in England.

      After 1920, Paul spent a half-century as leader of the National Woman’s Party, which fought for the Equal Rights Amendment, written by Paul and Crystal Eastman, to secure constitutional equality for women. She won a major permanent success with the inclusion of women as a group protected against discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Paul

  2. I remember doing a physiology experiment on the effects of caffeine, in which we showed that caffeine made a stress induced rise in blood pressure last longer than it would without caffeine. The funny part was the way we induced stress: we gave university lecturers an IQ test, in which some questions had been altered so there was no right answer, and imposed a time limit that we said would be generous, when in fact it was not. And being young and cruel, we placed them in headphones playing loud white noise. Poor devils had to attend twice (placebo and caffeine visits, all double blind). What fun!

      2. In those days, penurious medical students were used in experiments like this because even with payment they came out cheaper than laboratory animals and there was less troublesome regulation around their welfare.

        Besides, to paraphrase an old joke, there are some things a rat just won’t do.

        1. I got £5 for devoting two days to a trial of hydralazine at a time when that was a week’s food. Only fainted once from low BP so well worth while!

    2. I love this. Do you remember any of the questions you asked that had no right answers?

      Also, how did you administer the caffeine?

      1. I crushed caffeine pills (200mg) and placed the powder in an opaque capsule. Did the same for the placebo, which I seem to remember was a crushed ‘Love Hearts’ candy.
        The tests were shamelessly taken from Hans Eysenck’s Test Your IQ, and we used the pattern recognition matrices, and replaced the correct option with one that was also wrong. As undergrads doing this for marks all we had to do was satisfy our prof (Olof Lippold, lovely man), and he did not expect us to get permission from publisher or review boards. I remember borrowing some kind of pantograph device from my father to measure the area under the BP/time curves. But that was in 1977, so the details are fuzzy. I’m still married to my fellow investigator, so caffeine is, perhaps, beneficial to relationships!

        2. Thanks for the great story!

          And I would certainly hope that an IRB would have passed on your study. If I had been one of your subjects, I’d have gotten a kick out of learning that the questions I’d been sweating over had been rigged to make me sweat!…. You DID tell them, didn’t you?

    3. Dang, Stanley Milgram and the cats from the Stanford Prison Experiment got nothin’ on you guys. 🙂

  3. I have a gut feeling that the cat with the hat (shoe) is shown in reverse. He’s really removing it. Just a gut feeling.

  4. What consequences that would have for the country remain“““rfvfxcx to be seen.
    Has Hili been appointed editor-in-chief of WEIT in addition to her role at Listy?

  5. “British Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said it was the largest attack in the area by the militants to date as the three-month-long war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza spills over into other parts of the Middle East.”

    “This is an unsustainable situation,” Shapps told reporters, adding “watch this space” with regards to further possible action by Britain and its international partners.

    In an expanded report Shapps said that the “unsustainable” situation was also in no small part due to the airborne interception of drones costing low thousands of dollars required using missiles that cost approximately £1 million St each. This will result in a concerted attack on the originator locations of these drones and devices. “Watch this space indeed”
    If these Houthi rebels, surrogates of Iran, continue attacking, escalation is inevitable if commercial shipping and naval military vessels are to be defended.

    1. The Houthi pirates would have been taken out long ago but for the nagging suspicion that somewhere, somehow some small portion of the benefit of their demise just might maybe accrue to Israel. Oh no! If the blue-water navies do act, it will be only because Israel is fixin’ to do it unilaterally.

      1. True, very true, but perhaps the waste of these expensive missiles plays some small part although we don’t hear the USN complaining, they just shoot to kill and don’t p**$ about. Nevertheless Israel will get blamed and Iran zilch!
        Reminds me of the Aden skirmish in 1967 when we (RAF) bombed parts of Yemen because of “errant tribesman” we hadn’t got around to calling them “terrorists” or “Islamic Jihad” and similar. Isn’t that a lovely term, “errant tribesman”? They were certainly erring about something, independence if memory serves.

  6. The Supreme Court doesn’t have to decide whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist. All they have to do is observe that he has not been charged or convicted.

    1. Can you point to where in the text of article 3 of the 14th amendment (or where in the contemporaneous statements expressing the original intent of the 14th amendment’s framers) you find this “charged or convicted” requirement?

  7. Section 3 does not require the person be convicted of insurrection (or charged). Such a provision makes no sense, given the context of adoption, the immediate aftermath of the US Civil War. And it is not supported by the contemporaneous commentary and discussion during adoption.

    1. Well, sure. If the bloodletting of a civil war happens again and you decide to, again, give amnesty to the ringleaders after it’s over, then you can invoke the A14(3)in case any of them don’t take the hint and try to run for office in the reconstructed Republic. But for all other situations, the opinion of a state elections bureaucrat is surely subject to judicial review to the Supreme Court. And even in considering the original purpose, do you really think Jefferson Davis would not have been able to avail himself of the same right of review?

      The Constitution also has age, natural citizenship, and length of residency restrictions on who can be president. A bureaucrat’s ruling on all these, including age, could be challenged by the candidate or his opponents.

      Anyway, we’ll find out soon enough.

  8. How are these effects of caffeine in the context of tolerance. For instance, is the increase in alertness exceeding or merely returning users to their tolerance free baseline? Same for walking and other activities?

  9. Two and one-half (12 oz.) mugs of coffee per day = 30 ounces. BUT. I grind my own beans in a 1/3 caffeinated, 2/3 decaffeinated mix. At 100mg caffeine per 8 ounces of coffee, that comes to (30/8) x (.33 x 100) = 123.75 mg/day. That’s right in the sweet spot!

    The above may seem like a complicated ritual, but it’s trivial if you have a nice grinder and some great beans. Takes just a few seconds to create the mix and grind.

  10. I don’t think a Scotus opinion will be any difficulty at all, and may end up being a one or two page unanimous opinion. First of all, I agree with DR. Brydon above.

    I was not a Constitutional lawyer during my career, so take what follows with a bit of salt. I will be interested in any discussion, corrections, counter arguments that may be forthcoming. But please bear in mind I am not a Trump supporter. Far from it.

    One of the privileges and liberties every American citizen enjoys is to be able to run for and hold office, within the qualifiers of the Constitution. Under the Contitution, neither Colorado nor Maine, or any state for that matter, can deprive any aspiring candidate of the opportunity to run for office.
    Any prohibition for holding office must have some manner of fact finding to determine if a person is disqualified from holding office. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:
    (1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    So, for example, one of the qualifiers of the Constitution for holding office is the age requirement under section 5 of Article 1. If someone is elected President but is alleged to be under the age of 35, for example, when s/he is to be sworn in, that person cannot serve. But that person would be entitled to some sort of due process if s/he believes that they meet the age requirement and have an original birth certificate to prove it. The Courts would have to make a finding of fact about that one way or the other before the swearing in date. Since one’s age is not a crime, and no money damages are at issue, a hearing before a judge would probably meet the due process requirements.
    Insurrection, however, is a crime. Here is the relevant section:
    18 US Code Section 2383. Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
    As noted, Mr. Trump has neither been charged or convicted of the crime of insurrection, so he is not disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
    Furthermore, even if he were, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says nothing about being disqualified for “running” or disqualified from being a “candidate” or “nominated” for office or even being “elected”. So, anyone, even if convicted of insurrection, can run, be a candidate, be nominated or even win an election. Only after they should be elected, they cannot be sworn in since the Constitution says such a person is incapable of holding office if they engaged (that is, were convicted of engaging in) an insurrection.
    Since Trump has not yet been elected to a second term yet, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent him from trying to get there.
    I don’t think Trump’s argument that the word “office” in section 3 does not apply to the Presidency has any merit, since Article 1 refers to the “Office of the President”.

    1. Hopefully someone better qualified will respond. I am not an attorney. I do not see a requirement for conviction of rebellion or insurrection under 18 US Section 2383 in order to apply the 14th Amendment. It looks like S2383 was passed long after the 14th Amendment so it seems unlikely a conviction under a not yet written statute would be a requirement. The Court could make a decision of findings of fact necessary to comply with the 14th amendment.

      1. I don’t think the non-existence of the criminal statute at the time of the amendment will matter, which I believe was adopted in 1948 . Prior to that insurrectionists would have been tried under the common law, as Aaron Burr was for treason (and acquitted) in the early 1800’s. Your last point will be the key one,I think That is, whether the 5 day trial that occured in Colorado was sufficient due process to find that Trump committed an insurrection. There was no jury, and the burden of proof was clear and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The Scotus might say that’s enough. The dissent in Colorado – as I read it, said a conviction would be required. Anyway, there are multiple issues here. If the Scotus takes a dive into all of them, the decision may take a while. The lack of a criminal conviction would be the easiest way out.

        Here is the link to the Colorado opinion:
        https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

Comments are closed.