Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

borkencode posted:

I don’t see what could possibly move the needle on gun control at this point. A classroom full of dead kids at Sandy Hook did nothing, members of congress being shot has done nothing. Moloch demands sacrifices and no effort will be mustered to prevent them.

Yes, this is indeed the line that the gun lobby promotes. Thanks for the futility rhetoric. Great contribution, A+.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
It's worth emphasizing that gun control is generally popular- the issue is the distribution of Republican voters on the subject. What's happening now, and has been happening the last couple years, is an attempt by industry and its proxies at a counterpunch narrative that will link the issue to Republican wedge messaging on trans individuals and "wokeness" generally.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Fister Roboto posted:

I'm asking DV to provide people with some reason to feel hopeful rather than scolding them for feeling hopeless.

e: Like I said, mass shootings have been a major problem for 25 years. The majority of the population support gun control, but somehow this has not translated to meaningful legislation. You can't lay the blame entirely on the Republicans, because the Democrats have had opportunities in the past but have squandered them.

I'm not saying that people should feel hopeless, to be clear. But I don't think it's very helpful to make sarcastic comments about spreading "futility rhetoric".

A bunch of gun control laws were passed just in the last year. I know we've had this conversation before, and I know you know I have provided a whole effortpost description of how this framing is used to derail discussion of policy change, including specific examples from the NRA. I also know you know that setting "reason to feel hope" as a standard for proof shuts down discussion because it's unfalsifiable, just like shifting your standard to "meaningful" legislation is. It's also why blaming "politicians" is nonsense when, as we've also already covered, it's overwhelmingly the Republicans and specifically their control of the courts that are keeping gun control laws from happening.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Madkal posted:

I have probably mentioned this in other threads but every victim of gun violence got together to form a lobby and bribed every pro gun politician one dollar more than the NRA then gun reform would happen the next day.

The gun lobby isn't particularly driven through donations- they have been effective through tying themselves to right wing cultural issues such that their constituency serves as a conservative voting bloc. That is, again, why there is such a concerted effort to tie the issue to other culture war elements that had served as wedge issues, a pattern that emerged with the revolt at Cincinnati in 1977. Pro-gun politicians are concerned that they will lose elections for compromising on gun control, far more than that they will lose dollars. The industry itself is too unstable financially- which is part of why its power has continued to weaken, helped by the NRA's gradual self-destruction.

...I should do some effortposting on feedback forces and radicalization in trade associations sometime, the NRA's instructive of broader phenomena.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Mar 29, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
The point of the "arm teachers/more cops in schools" messaging is it forces a reframing of the subject where gun control advocates have to argue against the pro-gun framing, shifting discussion away from gun control.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Main Paineframe posted:

It's gonna get buried in the Trump stuff now, but the FBI released their investigative report about Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas mass shooter from 2017, for whom no motive was ever conclusively determined.

The whole thing's like three hundred pages and unsearchable, so I'm just gonna rely on a press report to summarize the results, though I'm going to add my own emphasis to a couple of points that seem important yet were never publicly mentioned before.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/us/las-vegas-shooting-gunman.html

As far as I can tell, this is the first time that any hint of his political leanings have been revealed, and woof, it sure is a doozy. Guess we'll just never know why the guy who admired McVeigh and Hitler shot a bunch of people! :thunk:

Can you find an actual link to the document set? I've not immediately had any luck.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Main Paineframe posted:

It's here, split into two parts:
https://vault.fbi.gov/stephen-paddock

Utter pain in the rear end to go through, though. 600+ pages combined, heavily redacted, it's not OCRed so it can't be searched easily, and stuff like webpage printouts and evidence spreadsheets are mixed in haphazardly with the rest of the report.

Thanks. Note the document at page 241 of the second set and subsequent, describing the sourcing of the individual who found or "found" the letters in the office sent to the FBI, and discussion of the work that went into identifying the sender. The redaction gaps are quite interesting. I can't tell if the reference to an ongoing case just refers to the investigation of Paddock or something else.

...from the later redacted material (p. 266 of the second set), it appears likely that the person who mentions ADOLF HITLER was involved in selling Paddock guns. Other gaps suggest a common activity with some of the interviewees such as a militia or shooting group, but it's hard to distinguish valid sources of information from cranks.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
There has already been a significant shift in coverage of shootings by most outlets to spend less time on the shooter and their motivations, and to not cover manifestos or similar statements. This has been happening for at least a couple years.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Apr 1, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Ither posted:

I have no idea why my fellow Americans are so obsessed with cheese.

When ordering food, I always have to say "no cheese" because its addition is the default for many things.

Who's bright idea was to corrupt salads, burgers, and chili?

USDA checkoff organizations, probably.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Srice posted:

A fun lil fact: When McDonalds was trying out a plant-based burger, in the UK you'd just order it and it'd be vegan, simple as that. But in the US it wouldn't unless you specifically asked for no cheese, since the dairy industry pressured McDonalds into having that be a default topping for that burger.

Do you have a source on this? I'm curious about the entity and mechanism of pressure.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kavros posted:

that's got shades of the Margarine Wars and doing things like forcing margarine to be dyed pink to protect dairy

That was state law, though- unlikely to be applicable here. My understanding was the domestic McPlant launch failed (and, in theory, have been set up to fail) due to poor test market selection, and the use of mayo and standard cheese may have been a matter of initial customer expectation projections (or further sabotage).

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
While retail food chains do try to standardize as much as possible, it's usually not as much the case between the US and other countries, and especially between US and EU, since the associated supply chain efficiencies are less present (and regulatory requirements are different).

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Automata 10 Pack posted:

All food science is a grift, you hate to see it.

Fister Roboto posted:

I'm absolutely shocked that scientists and doctors could be susceptible to bribery and propaganda like this. It makes me so mad that I need to smoke one of the cigarettes that 9 out of 10 doctors recommend!

PhazonLink posted:

Isnt the red wine thing mostly just rich people covering up that red wine and pills taste good together and might be the only wine pairing that tastes good.

The red wine claim was the result of specific and infamous fraud.

The "moderate drinking" concept was similarly the result of unprecedented and horrendous capture at NIH. NIH has serious issues, but this sort of poo poo was highly abnormal.

Nutrition science is generally an especially severe shitshow for a number of reasons. This does not mean all research, or science, is equally poor.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
:siren:Voting on the annual political cartoons awards, the Kellies, has been extended through midnight this Saturday, April 8th.:siren:

The list of nominees begins right here.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

SpeedFreek posted:

Like diet soda or anything with artificial sweeteners? Below is a rough description of what they do to some people.

That's specific noncaloric sweetners, not all noncaloric sweeteners. And noncaloric is not the same as "artificial."

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
VoA makes sense as being labeled as state media. NPR does not. Like a lot of other recent actions, this reads as Musk exploiting the platform to favor right-wing narratives.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

That's...still not NPR.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
Here's the actual notice of proposed rulemaking. It's 116 pages and I don't have time to parse all of it in detail, but in short, this looks like the administration is obligated by current sex-discrimination permissiveness in legislation to theoretically offer the possibility of discrimination against trans athletes, and they're attempting to use the sex discrimination standards under Title IX and more recent trans-friendly caselaw to create a standard for discrimination that no one will be able to meet.

A couple elements:

Some interesting context on last-minute actions by the Trump administration in the area:

quote:

In the months immediately following the Supreme Court’s June 2020 decision in Bostock, 140 S. Ct. 1731, OCR made several statements on Bostock’s application to Title IX. For instance, on August 31, 2020, OCR issued a revised Letter of Impending Enforcement Action in its investigation of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) and six school districts. OCR Case No. 01-19-4025, Conn. Interscholastic Athletic Conf. et al. (Aug. 31, 2020) (revised letter of impending enforcement action) (archived and marked not for reliance in February 2021) (Revised CIAC Letter), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/01194025-a2.pdf. The letter stated that OCR was providing an update in light of Bostock and took the position that when a recipient provides “separate teams for members of each sex” under 34 CFR 106.41(b), “the recipient must separate those teams on the basis of biological sex” and not on the basis of gender identity. Revised CIAC Letter at 36. The letter departed from OCR’s typical practice concerning enforcement letters by stating that it “constitutes a formal statement of OCR’s interpretation of Title IX and its implementing regulations and should be relied upon, cited, and construed as such.” Id. at 49.

In January 2021, the Department posted a memorandum from its General Counsel’s office commenting on Bostock’s application to Title IX. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Memorandum from Principal Deputy General Counsel delegated the authority and duties of the General Counsel Reed D. Rubinstein to Kimberly M. Richey, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Office for Civil Rights re Bostock v. Clayton Cnty. (Jan. 8, 2021) (archived and marked not for reliance in March 2021) (Rubinstein Memorandum)https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/correspondence/other/ogc-memorandum01082021.pdf. The Rubinstein Memorandum stated that “if a recipient chooses to provide ‘separate teams for members of each sex’ under 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(b), then it must separate those teams solely on the basis of biological sex, male or female, and not on the basis of transgender status or sexual orientation, to comply with Title IX.”

The prior Biden administration rulemaking:

quote:

The Department’s July 2022 NPRM proposed amendments to the Department’s Title IX regulations would clarify, among other things, that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and sex characteristics in federally funded education programs and activities. See 87 FR 41571. In addition, the proposed amendments would clarify that (a) in the limited circumstances in which Title IX or the Department’s Title IX regulations permit different treatment or separation on the basis of sex, a recipient must not carry out such different treatment or separation in a manner that discriminates on the basis of sex by subjecting a person to more than de minimis harm, unless otherwise permitted by Title IX or the Department’s Title IX regulations; and (b) a policy or practice that prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with their gender identity subjects a person to more than de minimis harm on the basis of sex. Id. at 41534-37. The July 2022 NPRM also recognized that despite Title IX’s general prohibition on sex discrimination against an individual, there are circumscribed situations, including with respect to sex-related eligibility criteria for male or female teams, in which Title IX or its regulations may permit a recipient to separate students on the basis of sex, even when doing so may cause some students more than de minimis harm. Id. at 41537. The July 2022 NPRM did not propose any changes to the Department’s Title IX regulation governing athletics, however, instead reserving that issue for this Athletics NPRM. Id.

The actual justification for needing to allow a basis for applying sex-discriminatory criteria instead of gender identity distinctions seems to cite to section 844 of the Education Amendments of 1974 in several places- I'd need to look into it further. The specific standards applicable to such criteria are that "those criteria, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level, would have to be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective and minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied."

The details of the burdens such criteria would have to meet start on page 45 (46 in the file). I don't have time to dig through the entire 30 or so pages, but it appears they are attempting to make the standard as impossible to meet as possible, e.g.:

quote:

Therefore, criteria that assume all transgender girls and women possess an unfair physical advantage over cisgender girls and women in every sport, level of competition, and grade or education level would rest on a generalization that would not comply with the Department’s proposed regulation.

quote:

If a school can achieve its objective using means that would not limit or deny a student’s participation consistent with their gender identity, its use of sex-related criteria may be pretextual rather than substantially related to achievement of that important educational objective.

The NPRM also asserts that it's proobably impossible to satisfy these burdens in any athletics context at least through middle school, and states that any sex discriminatory criteria would basically have to be justified from scratch for the sport, age, and level of competition. It also implies that it would be impossible to satisfy in team sports where athletes play different roles.

On the harm minimization standard, they are also setting it up so there's no way to effectively drive an athlete out of a sport, which goes further than the standard sex-discriminatory "oh, we can't have a girl wrestler, and there's no female wrestling team, oh well, play another sport":

quote:

...But when sex-related criteria do limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team consistent with their gender identity, the student is subjected to harms based on sex that are distinct from the harms otherwise permitted under the Department’s longstanding athletics regulation (e.g., a girl who is not selected for the girls’ soccer team based on her athletic skills or a boy who is not eligible to play on the girls’ volleyball team when the recipient does not offer a boys’ or coeducational volleyball team).

It also treats any potential disclosure of confidential information or privacy invasion as a harm under the harm analysis:

quote:

For example, a recipient might adopt sex-related criteria that require documentation of student-athletes’ gender identity based on its interest in providing, consistent with Title IX, equal athletic opportunity on male and female
teams under § 106.41(c). Under proposed § 106.41(b)(2), the recipient would need to design those criteria to minimize the potential harms imposed on affected students (e.g., difficulty of obtaining documentation, risk of invasion of privacy or disclosure of confidential information). If the recipient can reasonably adopt or apply alternative criteria that cause less harm and still achieve its important educational objective, the recipient would not be permitted to adopt the more harmful criteria.

Notably, on my brief read the NPRM provides zero examples of scenarios where a title IX institution could actually get away with sex-discriminatory practices cutting against gender identity. It's entirely a list of different ways that trans-discriminatory policies wouldn't be permitted under the regulation.

This is an NPRM, so there's a comment opportunity. Everyone can comment on the rule in any way, but the NPRM asks for comment on specific issues:

quote:

The Department therefore specifically invites further public comment on:

a. Whether any alternative approaches to the Department’s proposed regulation would better align with Title IX’s requirement for a recipient to provide equal athletic opportunity regardless of sex in the recipient’s athletic program as a whole;

b. What educational objectives are sufficiently important to justify a recipient imposing sexrelated criteria that would limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team consistent with their gender identity and whether those objectives should be specified in the regulatory text;

c. Whether and how the permissibility of particular sex-related eligibility criteria should differ depending on the sport, level of competition, grade or education level, or other considerations;

d. Whether any sex-related eligibility criteria can meet the standard set out in the proposed regulation when applied to students in earlier grades, and, if so, the type of criteria that may meet the proposed standard for those grades;

e. How a recipient can minimize harms to students whose eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team consistent with their gender identity is limited or denied by the recipient’s adoption or application of sex-related criteria; and

f. Whether regulatory text in addition to the text in the proposed regulation is needed to provide recipients with sufficient clarity on how to comply with Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination, including gender identity discrimination, in the context of male and female athletic teams, consistent with the principles and concerns identified in the discussion of proposed § 106.41(b)(2).


The comment docket's not active yet, but it's going to be on regulations.gov under ED-2022-OCR-0143 for 30 days if folks want to comment. I'd note that having a press release before federal register publication isn't usually normal for an agency, so they're probably trying to draw attention and comment on this. Bear in mind that the Dept of Ed will have to respond to any relevant "substantive" comment in any final rule.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 6, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
Again, link to the actual notice of proposed rulemaking, quotes, breakdown, summary, history, information about where and when to comment on it, right here.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
They're linking a defendant motion from a member of the Proud Boys and claiming it's true.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
I'm confused by Paoletta's framing, since Old Parkland is, well, literally an office complex. A large number of businesses rent space there, and they have a space that's rented for private events. Crow and conservatives have some influence over the place (it's promoted for its "civic value" and they run debate events that favor their views), but speaking at an event there is hardly an endorsement of the owner.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Apr 10, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Mellow Seas posted:

I can't find anything that isn't on Twitter about Jeffries and Crow having any kind of interaction whatsoever. Is this some Twitter telephone game thing?

e: lol, finally, the synergy of DV's red text/av and mine back-to-back

Jeffries probably did have a talk at the place and will have done so knowing it's a venue of (potentially conservative) Texan business leaders-it may have been a fundraiser for Texas dems, since it's listed on the calendar as a district work period.

Mark Paoletta is a right winger, and the other people going to bat for Harlan Crow are, so far, similarly oriented hot take artists, National Review types, etc. It's likely they represent elements of his broader personal network. It's flak, and not very good flak.

From the images I've seen of Crow's garden floating around online, I think it's more likely he's an America First-style racist ultranationalist than a direct Nazi - the "dictator garden" seems to be primarily old communist statues arranged to try to evoke a "graveyard of ideas" thing. He's got a separate set of very clearly venerated busts of Italian Renaissance figures, in case you had any illusions about his eurocentric chauvinism.

The Nazi memorobilia is more suspect, but from past coverage that was the source of the current coverage, it's on the Germany wall of his "here's everything I've been able to buy or steal relating to World War 2" room.

edit: lmao, here's a video of Old Parkland, which is as ridiculous and kitsch as you can imagine. And you'll never guess who's in it!

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Apr 10, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

JesustheDarkLord posted:

I've thought about it a lot and have ideas, but I really can't come up with a platform that would make the Democrats competitive in Tennessee.

I'd really appreciate your going into more detail here. Who are the powerbrokers and the major extant demographics in Tennessee?

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
https://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP/status/1645954122628079616

Tim Scott is an interesting potential candidate. I spent some time studying his political base in SC awhile back, and he's very well established in the party apparatus there- I don't understand why he would seriously pursue the presidency.

He is relatively competent and sophisticated in conventional backroom politics, and has staked out a really efficacious powerbase in business and church in SC. He's not, to my knowledge, a populist firebrand- he's got major backing through Seacoast, the networked megachurch near Charleston, which is, well, a conservative megachurch, but not one of the further out there right wing ones. He's known for offering up an insufficient, but way-further-than-other-Republicans police reform bill, which is pretty much the only place he's broken the party line. He's someone who recognizes and operates culture war issues only as a means to supporting his business backers.

The announcement of a presidential exploratory committee likely indicates he has at least some networked support from "moderate" business paleocons and the more sophisticated religious right. but, well...

He's black, he's not a visible psychopath, and as his recent SotU response indicates, a well-coached but not particularly striking or skilled speaker. I think he'd struggle to generate R turnout. That's even leaving Trump out of the equation.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Apr 12, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

GoutPatrol posted:

Scott has said he isn't running again in 2028. He's not under re-election in 24, so why not just go for it if it can't actually help you and you can sell some books through a money laundering schemeget your voice out there to the people?

Scott's not particularly hard up for money or influence and his brand would if anything be hurt by a national campaign. I think he might be a considered alternate if Trump actually loses his base/a path to nomination.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
Although I've previously endorsed it, STAT News varies wildly because it in part relies on access models for things like drug development issues, which has introduced capture problems. This has come to a head during Covid.

"US MSM" is not a useful way of evaluating sources of information.

There's a media analysis thread with some useful material on evaluating sources of information- I'm going to try to get it going again now that some of the trolls who've been sabotaging it are less active.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Apr 12, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
Opposition to an ill-defined "mainstream media" is effectively pre-selecting for information one finds favorable to their prior beliefs, which in turn just makes you more vulnerable to disinformation. It's the coin in trade of motivated reasoning.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
Leaker of U.S. secret documents worked on military base, friend says
The online group that received hundreds of pages of classified material included foreigners, members tell The Post

quote:

The man behind a massive leak of U.S. government secrets that has exposed spying on allies, revealed the grim prospects for Ukraine’s war with Russia and ignited diplomatic fires for the White House is a young, charismatic gun enthusiast who shared highly classified documents with a group of far-flung acquaintances searching for companionship amid the isolation of the pandemic.

United by their mutual love of guns, military gear and God, the group of roughly two dozen — mostly men and boys — formed an invitation-only clubhouse in 2020 on Discord, an online platform popular with gamers. But they paid little attention last year when the man some call “OG” posted a message laden with strange acronyms and jargon. The words were unfamiliar, and few people read the long note, one of the members explained. But he revered OG, the elder leader of their tiny tribe, who claimed to know secrets that the government withheld from ordinary people.

...

This account of how detailed intelligence documents intended for an exclusive circle of military leaders and government decision-makers found their way into and then out of OG’s closed community is based in part on several lengthy interviews with the Discord group member, who spoke to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. He is under 18 and was a young teenager when he met OG. The Post obtained consent from the member’s mother to speak to him and to record his remarks on video. He asked that his voice not be obscured.

His account was corroborated by a second member who read many of the same classified documents shared by OG, and who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. Both members said they know OG’s real name as well as the state where he lives and works but declined to share that information while the FBI is hunting for the source of the leaks. The investigation is in its early stages, and the Pentagon has set up its own internal review led by a senior official.

There's a lot of detail about the "origin" server for all this stuff, and the user who spread it.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Apr 13, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
FTC has sent a notice to around 680 companies in the OTC drug and supplement sectors putting them on notice for unsupported health claims. This is not the same as a formal accusation, but it's laying the groundwork so that if FTC follows up with a formal proceeding against any one of the companies, there's no question of that the company is deliberately violating the law.

This is potentially huge, as it signals enforcement of a standard that companies selling, in particular, dietary supplements, actually have to have evidence to substantiate the euphemistic "supports memory" type structure-function claims they make on their products...and FTC basically requires high-quality scientific studies. FTC also posted the list of companies.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
The big drug and food companies are probably on the list because they own dietary supplement companies.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Google Jeb Bush posted:

throwing the bolded on the pile of "probably reasonable agency rules that sound silly when described in a vacuum"

the threshold is 5 kcal, and it's both measurement inconsistency, actual production inconsistency, physical possibility, and "it's 4.999 calories, it doesn't matter". I think the only context where it gets exploited is tictacs.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

BougieBitch posted:

Between the articles about the IRA having greater immediate impact than expected, the emission regulation on cars, and this aggressive pursuit of nutritional claims it feels like there is some repositioning to achieve more goals through the executive branch since losing the house. Is this accurate, or is it reporting bias due to a lack of equivalent legislative actions?

A lot of this has been going on since Biden came into office. For example, this mass notice thing from FTC is actually the fourth time they've done it, after losing a court case that limited their ability to more aggressively pursue companies under another statutory provision a couple years ago.

People just don't read enough of the news, or the federal register, to notice.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Lone Badger posted:

This discussion is interesting to me because I work in the field and frequently advise marketing what we can and cannot put on a label.
In Australia there are labelling regulations as part of the Food Standards Code, including a lot of information on what standards you have to make in order to make specific claims.
There is also a requirement enforced by the ACCC that a label not be 'deceptive'. Importantly, this second requirement is entirely seperate and distinct from our legal obligations under the Code. Even if what you're doing is explicitly permitted by a strict reading of the Code, the Australian Consumer & Competition Commission can still decide that it is deceptive to the average consumer and order you to stop (and sue you if you refuse).

FTC has the same authority, but for straightforward reasons they try to avoid setting up potential conflict with other agencies most of the time.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

CuddleCryptid posted:

It's tricky too because infants can't have real medicine, so even the stuff that doctors recommend you are "English ivy extract" and "grapefruit seed extract". It's easy to get confused.

Docs shouldn't be recommending that. Why would they do so? There are drugs approved for infants.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Apr 14, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
Missouri's a castle doctrine state, so there's room for any proceeding to go very badly.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I AM GRANDO posted:

Does castle doctrine allow you to shoot someone through your door? The castle is everything from the driveway to the street?

It shouldn't, but then it shouldn't exist in the first place. Its presence permits all sorts of absurdity in arguments.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Apr 17, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
F.B.I. Arrests Two on Charges Tied to Chinese Police Outpost in New York
Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn charged the men with conspiring with the People’s Republic of China and destroying evidence in connection with a Chinese police outpost in Lower Manhattan.

quote:

Two men were arrested early Monday on federal charges accusing them of conspiring to act as agents of the People’s Republic of China in connection with a police outpost it operated in Manhattan’s Chinatown, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The outpost was one of more than 100 Chinese police operations around the world that have unnerved diplomats and intelligence officials. The case represents the first time criminal charges have been brought in connection with such a police outpost, one of the people said.

The case against the men, Lu Jianwang, 61, and Chen Jinping, 59, grew out of an investigation by the F.B.I. and the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn into the Chinatown outpost, which conducted police operations without jurisdiction or diplomatic approval.

Last fall, F.B.I. counterintelligence agents searched the outpost’s offices, located on the third floor of a nondescript building at 107 East Broadway, indicating an escalation in the global dispute over China’s efforts to police its diaspora far beyond its borders.

...

It could not be immediately determined whether the men had lawyers. Mr. Lu, who is also known as Harry Lu, lives in the Bronx and is a naturalized American citizen. Mr. Chen lives in Manhattan; his citizenship could not be immediately confirmed.

In 2018 IRS filings, Mr. Lu was listed as the president of a nonprofit organization called the America Changle Association NY, whose offices housed the police outpost. The nature of Mr. Chen’s connection to the group could not be immediately determined.

...

When news of the search was first reported in January, the Chinese Embassy in Washington downplayed the role of the outposts, saying they were staffed by volunteers who helped Chinese nationals perform routine tasks like renewing their driver’s licenses back home.

But The New York Times reviewed Chinese state news media reports in which the police and local Chinese officials described the operations very differently.

The officials, cited by name, trumpeted the effectiveness of the offices, frequently referred to as overseas police service centers. In some of the reports, the outposts were described as “collecting intelligence” and solving crimes abroad without the involvement of local officials.

Those public statements left it murky who exactly was running the offices. In some instances, they were described as being led by volunteers; in others, by staff members.

The org's actually referred to as America ChangLe Association, and it was raided in January. All their online materials are already scrubbed. Major initial coverage was a December 2022 report by the Spain-located org Safeguard Defenders, who I can't immediately find enough information about but who may be a proxy for Falun Gong. These outposts are very straightforwardly clandestine international military/intelligence offices and a disturbing problem, despite the fact that the main source of attention has often been the right wing press for various lovely reasons.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Apr 17, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

CuddleCryptid posted:

I'm not clear on what they mean by "police outpost", is it actual Chinese cops policing Chinatown for political impurity or is it more of a local gang?

The former, and it's not Chinatown, it's the world.

vvv yeah, it's probable that a lot of it is oriented toward monitoring expats and their families, including using them as collateral for the compliance of relatives back home (and vice versa).

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 17, 2023

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
Relating to the earlier arrests in New York, DoJ has announced charges against another 40 or so individuals in the Chinese state police and Cyberspace Administration for coordinated campaigns to harass, repress, sabotage and target dissidents, as well as subvert social media platforms and recruit unwitting proxies. This, too, builds upon earlier investigations.

quote:

United States v. Julien Jin, et al.

This amended complaint charges 10 individuals, including a former PRC-based Company-1 employee, six MPS officers, and two officials with the CAC, with conspiracy to commit interstate harassment and unlawful conspiracy to transfer means of identification. Nine of the defendants are believed to reside in the PRC and remain at large. The tenth defendant is believed to reside in Indonesia or the PRC and also remains at large.

“The amended complaint charging a former PRC-based employee of a U.S. telecommunications company illustrates the insider threat faced by U.S. companies operating in the PRC,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Pokorny for the Eastern District of New York, who thanked Company-1 for its cooperation in the government’s investigation. “As alleged, Julien Jin and his co-conspirators in the Ministry of Public Security and Cyberspace Administration of China weaponized the U.S. telecommunications company he worked for to intimidate and silence dissenters and enforce PRC law to the detriment of Chinese activists in New York, among other places, who had sought refuge in this country to peacefully express their pro-democracy views.”

The other complaint, United States v. Yunpeng Bai, et al., basically points to an entire troll farm operation targeting dissidents specifically and including threat and harassment campaigns.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
A bunch of additional charges for US and Russian propaganda agents today.
Four were leaders of a pretty fringe political separatist party, the African People’s Socialist Party, which was tied up in the same network previously swept up in charges against Aleksandr Ionov a few months ago. As a recap, Ionov recruited various left and right wing fringe parties to promote secession, eventually bringing their leaders to Russia do things like record propaganda messages which were deployed in the DPR. Several quasi-independent entities were set up for this purpose, though the whole thing was remarkably overt.

More interesting and novel are separate charges for Natalia Burlinova, head of an org called PICREADI or Public Initiative "Creative Diplomacy", which apparently was set up to do similar recruitment work in academia. Some googling says she was also involved with a few other similar orgs. As with Ionov, she was the public face of the organization and reported directly to an unnamed FSB officer who managed funding for the groups she runs.

DOJ announcement with link to legal docs here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-citizens-and-russian-intelligence-officers-charged-conspiring-use-us-citizens-illegal

A quick glance at orgs affiliated with PICREADI

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Apr 18, 2023

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply