arthur_trudeau

That's quite the unsupported claim, which is why I wish I could find the decision. Enhancing penalties in certain situations is incredibly common, even with respect to trespassing - trespassing in certain industrial facilities, or in connection with a conspiracy, or involving breaking and entering, all have increased penalties. I don't really see the rationale for not being able to extra-criminalize trespassing for the purposes of recording (regardless of how advisable it is) when there is no right to record entirely private activity in the first place.

When your job is, eg, slaughtering pigs, or swearing at engines, or dealing with abusive customers (or abusive editors I suppose), you might reconsider.

You don't in general have a right to trespass, or break-and-enter, and record what you find.

Would you want someone secretly taking video of the most embarrassing, context-free 5 minutes they could find of your job, and invoking a mob to attack you on that basis?

These environments, or disrupting their operations because you're trying to get a sweet shot, can be legitimately dangerous. Discouraging people from trespassing in search of publicity could certainly constitute a rational basis for such a law.

It's a neat trick to ask what possible justification there could be and then downvote the explanation.

Reporting on legal decisions is garbage when it doesn't even include the name of the case, or better a pointer to the opinion, so I can read the ruling myself.

But it seems tenuous to me to claim that the state can criminalize trespassing, but not trespassing for the purposes of X, or conspiring to trespass to commit X, regardless of X.

The Russian invasion was in a large part driven by the population of Afghanistan rebelling against the central government attempting to impose that sort of liberalism. This isn't particularly controversial, even the baseline Wikipedia article about the invasion mentions this in the first couple paragraphs.

Afghans in the West are a ridiculously unrepresentative sample; you might as well talk about the views of Americans in Mecca.

I am in dead seriousness not interested in playing just-the-tip with social engineering in central Asia; nor am I interested in wielding one segment of their population as a weapon against another in an attempt to "reform" their society, which is exactly what PR exercises like the story in question are aiming to support.

You owe me an explanation as far as why we should be messing around with their society in any respect, not the opposite.

I definitely can be asking why the US apparently has an interest in spending vast amounts of money and lives, mostly from flyover country or Afghanistan itself, in the interest of changing Afghan society in a direction most Afghans aren't down with. It's extremely non obvious to me.

I'm guessing you have some moral premise about it being virtuous to spend other people's lives and money to help "the oppressed", by some construction, but I'm not sure how explicit you're willing to be about that premise, and I'm fairly sure I and many others don't agree with any plausible formulation along those lines.

I mean, if the US had lost a war, been occupied by people with the explicit stated goal of destroying their existing social fabric, who then heavily funded and sponsored "suffragettes" at the point of a bayonet after stating this was a key tactic in doing so, yeah, people might be concerned!

Right, the US project for 15 years now has been explicitly to destroy their traditional society via, amongst other things, emancipating their women. My question is why I or other Americans should care about that goal.

It seems like a travel ban is a really effective way to make sure that we don't in fact need to care how they run their society.

Why in the world should we care, especially when the overwhelming majority of their countrymen don't believe they should be engaged in the activity at all?

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court's decision is with respect to "overconcentration" of blacks, in a context where, when divided, they were able to elect their preferred candidates. Their guiding principle is still that blacks must be neither diluted enough to make their votes irrelevant in "their own" areas, nor concentrated enough to make their votes irrelevant outside - as the dissent notes, this itself amounts to a racial gerrymander (you don't get to club yourself in the head when drawing district lines and "forget" that certain areas are heavy in both blacks and democrats). They did not overrule Gingles, they cite the state's action as contravening it.

Unsurprisingly their jurisprudence on this is a shitshow as they try to square this circle while pretending like it is some sort of neutral antidiscrimination provision while also attempting to secure a minimum threshold of black political power.

Current US law requires racial gerrymandering to ensure blacks are able to elect black congressmen. This bill does not obviate that requirement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/09/how-a...

Economists would label it basic price discrimination, albeit with a floor of 0, and as a way to suppress competition rather than capture value on the low end.

If you think "nazi ideology" or their actions are uniquely horrible, you are either historically illiterate, or so parochial that only their particular victims are of concern to you. History, especially twentieth century history, is a charnel house.

Defense contractors are more prominent, but I would be astonished if they were not heavily targeting generic US tech firms as well, especially those involved with key infrastructure components and services.

This becomes a lot easier when a fifth or more of their employees are Chinese nationals.

Money laundering in practical terms means whatever the government wants it to mean. It has been successfully prosecuted as the simple deposit of funds the government doesn't like the origins of. The obstacle isn't law, it's the resources required to bring a successful case.

Palma competitors routinely hit out to 1000 yards with iron sights (in reality, aperture sights). They are extremely effective.

It's somewhat surprising for the NYT to put forward the proposition that ethnocentrism and disregard for worker safety is a part of Chinese culture, but I guess I'll take their new wokeness as a sign of progress.

Reading between the lines, a lot of the mole suspicion seems to focus on ethnically Chinese CIA employees.

Note that this is "low income" for the purposes of eligibility for HUD programs. Through the Obama administration, those programs have had the goal of dispersing black and hispanic families into white (and usually high income) areas, particularly suburbs, rather than providing "affordable housing" per se in poorer / cheaper areas.