Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

Read an article today that football star Odell Beckham “is laughing at us now,” since he decided to take his entire salary one year in Bitcoin. The amount was $750,000, and he bought it when Bitcoin was in the low or mid 50s. So (the article said), it’s now worth a bit over $1,000,000.

Observation One: He would have made even more money if he had just stuck his salary into the stock market. So, while his gamble did give him a very strong rate of return; so would have a much lower-risk investment. So, the idea of, “Ha, ha…see who’s smarter now?!?” would not make sense.

Observation Two: I’ve never invested in crypto, so I don’t know the answer to this. Why not just take your salary and buy Bitcoin with that money? The article implied that there was some financial and/or tax benefit to doing it via Beckham’s “direct, pay me in crypto” way, but I can’t figure out what benefit that would be. (eg, the IRS doesn’t give a crap what you do with your salary–absent a few specific carve-outs, like IRA contributions, charitable donations, medical/casualty deductions, etc.–when it calculates your tax obligation. And, to the extent that Beckham’s investment was tax deductible; that would apply equally to buying with one’s liquid funds [ie, after cashing your normal paycheck] vs getting the Bitcoins directly from his team.)

[Commenter_XY]

I'd much rather pay the capital gains rate than income tax rate, when I have to spend money to live. You're right about just investing in a total US Mkt index fund being a better investment for that approx time period.

[Ridgeway]

That is SM’s point, though. You pay standard income tax on your salary regardless of whether you receive it in dollars, BTC, gold or wampum. Then you can invest the balance as you see fit, and pay cap gains on any appreciation.

I guess getting paid in BTC eliminates the step of having to buy the BTC yourself, but that is the only benefit I see, unless the Rams were able to get a better “exchange rate” than OBJ would on his own.

[David Nieporent]

I’d much rather pay the capital gains rate than income tax rate,

SM's point is that you don't avoid income taxes by taking your pay in this form. You get hit with the value of the pay when you get your pay.

[Lennyk78]

And he'd have to sell that stock to realize the gain. The stock market is in a bubble rivaling the one from 2000.

[Kazinski]

Which of course is one drawback of IRA's and 401k's, except Roth's of course, you pay ordinary income rates on withdrawals, even though most of the money you are withdrawing is capital gains.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Which of course is one drawback of IRA’s and 401k’s

That's really only a drawback if one ignores the tax-deferral benefit on the contributions, which for most households increases the end value of the investment by more than enough to offset the difference between income tax rates and long-term capital gains tax rates on the earnings.

[Brett Bellmore]

Especially when one considers that the withdrawals are expected to occur after your income has dropped due to retirement, so you anticipate paying those income taxes in a lower bracket.

[Frank Drackman]

not an OB jr. fan, but he's probably given more away to charity than you've ever earned.

[DaveM]

I've never been attracted to any of these anti-fiat money "investments". So say you buy a share of gold or some crypto as a hedge against inflation. Your money isn't doing any work. It isn't funding the expansion of a business, or building an asset, or even providing relief. It's just a monetary lump.

Sure, it's a "riskless" investment, but it's also an anemic one. The point isn't to have money, the point is to USE the money to do good things.

[bernard11]

I agree with everything DaveM says, except that gold is hardly riskless. Just check out the price fluctuations.

[Ridgeway]

I think the word he was looking for is "non-productive" not "riskless"

[Lennyk78]

Is buying a share of stonks so that the execs can use it to buyback their own stonks a "good thing?"

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Is buying a share of stonks so that the execs can use it to buyback their own stonks a “good thing?”

How exactly does investor "A" buying a stock from investor "B" enable a company's execs to buy back any stock?

[Lennyk78]

It doesn't. It only enables that if the company is issuing new stock.

[Commenter_XY]

DM...Warren Buffet said the same thing about gold in one of his shareholder letters, years ago. Gold has no generative capacity.

[not guilty]

Here is an interesting video about the timing of Donald Trump announcing his intention to nominate Matt Gaetz as Attorney General and Rep. Gaetz's sudden resignation from the House of Representatives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UJfAdv613E

As Robin Williams said, God gave man a penis and a brain. And only enough blood to run one at a time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously your youtube commentator is posting with a YUGE hard-on.

[Michael P]

Not just his Youtube guy, either. See below where ng is too engorged in the moment to handle a minor and obvious editing error.

[not guilty]

What are you talking about, Michael P?

[Michael P]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/11/14/thursday-open-thread-217/?comments=true#comment-10800123

If you directed more blood to your upper head, you might have figured out it yourself.

[not guilty]

I'm still missing something. What do you claim I got wrong?

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume failing to realize that "declined to press" was actually meant to be "pressed", or the neither/nor was meant to be "both". That he'd accidentally committed a double negative.

Honestly, if the text is grammatically correct, (And it was here.) you're doing the right thing to assume it means what it says. So I think he's got nothing on you here.

[Michael P]

I think the rest of that comment, including the use of the double negative, made it clear that the intended meaning was that neither the FBI nor DOJ *decided* to press any charges but an editing or similar error inverted that.

[not guilty]

I made no error, as Commenter_XY, whom I was responding to, acknowledged.

"Decided" and "declined" are antonyms here. Commenter_XY said something 180 degrees opposed to what he intended to say, and he was gracious when I pointed that out.

[Commenter_XY]

This is the correct interpretation. NG 'tweaked' me, and it was perfectly delivered. 😉

[Riva]

One might think you and your little lawfare buddies might be a little hesitant to invoke Lavrentiy Beria but self-reflection is not a hallmark of the repulsive gaslighting left. And, you also might want to rephrase that men/penis comment in light of your party’s trans insanity, just trying to be helpful.

[not guilty]

Riva, "gaslighting" is primarily a noun. It is sometimes a transitive verb. It is never an adjective.

It has become one of the most frequently misused words in these comment threads. Those who use it as an epithet, however, never admit that they have been led into questioning their own sanity, memory, or powers of reasoning. When no one has been "gaslighted," there has been no "gaslighting."

[Noscitur a sociis]

“Gaslighting” is looks to me like an utterly conventionally-formed present participle from the basic verb “gaslight”. As such, “repulsive gaslighting left” is perfectly grammatical. (I express no opinion on its semantics.)

[ducksalad]

Words and phrases can change meaning (“awful”, “nice”) or add meanings (“gay”, “compromise”). When it happens it offends sticklers for detail like yourself, but it’s a fact.

Yes, gaslighting used to mean the specific tactic used in the movie. But now it includes the intentional denial of obvious facts for any bad purpose, e.g. frustrating attempts at rational discussion, raising people’s blood pressure, etc.

The former meaning was very rarely needed and we didn’t have a good word for the second meaning. I think it’s a useful change.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes, gaslighting used to mean the specific tactic used in the movie. But now it includes the intentional denial of obvious facts for any bad purpose, e.g. frustrating attempts at rational discussion, raising people’s blood pressure, etc."

That was my impression was well, based on the variety of ways I've seen words used.

But NG's insistence to the contrary really had me questioning whether I'd really seen words used loosely in a variety of ways.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Heh.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, gaslighting used to mean the specific tactic used in the movie. But now it includes the intentional denial of obvious facts for any bad purpose, e.g. frustrating attempts at rational discussion, raising people’s blood pressure, etc.

I agree that words can change meanings through use. But until that has sufficiently happened, it is just misuse. And I do not agree that it has sufficiently happened with "gaslighting."

The former meaning was very rarely needed and we didn’t have a good word for the second meaning. I think it’s a useful change.

The good word for the second meaning is "trolling."

[not guilty]

What grates like fingernails on a chalkboard is that those who misuse "gaslighting" conflate successful gaslighting with unsuccessful attempts at doing so. That is just perverse.

By way of analogy, a placekick that sails right or left of the uprights is not a field goal -- it is an unsuccessful field goal attempt.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why? Charles Boyer didn’t succeed in the end either.

[Armchair]

When the dictionary defines gaslighting as "to grossly mislead or deceive (someone) especially for one's own advantage"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslight#

It is not misusing it.

[Armchair]

"I agree that words can change meanings through use. But until that has sufficiently happened, it is just misuse."

The dictionary (Merriam Webster) disagrees with you.

1 : to psychologically manipulate (a person) usually over an extended period of time so that the victim questions the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and experiences confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and doubts concerning their own emotional or mental stability

2: to grossly mislead or deceive (someone) especially for one's own advantage

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslight#

[Riva]

NG, the supporters of lawfare invoking Lavrentriy Beria is such an absurd distortion of reality that it certainly deserves the gaslighting label. But if you don’t like that characterization, we can just call it repulsive. Does that make you feel better?

And you have yet to apologize for your transphobic slur.

[not guilty]

Transphobic slur?? What in blazes are you talking about?

[Riva]

Read your initial absurd comment above, that would be the one with the clip showing the little creep lawfare advocate whining about being held accountable and absurdly invoking Beria, the lawfare godfather. At the end, you tried to make a joke, do you think that joke would go down well with your party’s trans insane champions who claim that men are women and vice versa?

[not guilty]

There is nothing transphobic about Robin Williams's witticism that I quoted.

I realize it may be difficult for you to understand, but those of us who accept transgender folks don't fear them.

[Riva]

Not really sure what trans crazies you know, but the ones I see would be driven into a drooling rage if one suggested that the male gender exists let alone that only they have those soft dangly things between their legs. But maybe the lawfare supporting clowns you hang out with are different.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Transphobic slur?? What in blazes are you talking about?"

"God gave man a penis and a brain."

You're erasing the existence of men with vaginas! That's literally violence!

[Armchair]

"Riva, “gaslighting” is primarily a noun"

Incorrect. Unless you are literally talking about lights lit with (natural) gas, "gaslighting" is a verb.

The is the second time I've had to correct you with the proper definition of "gaslighting."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslight#

[Stella Link the dog]

“gaslighting” is a gerund which is a verb form most commony used as a noun. If you want a clearly obvious related verb it would be “gaslight.” When someone gaslights another (verb), the result is gaslighting (gerund).

For a “dictionary” example of gerund use consider “do you mind my asking you?” “Asking” is a gerund serving as a noun.

edit: Not that any of this matters at all -- just pedantic bullshit. And that someone pushing old age fails to remember 8th grade grammar is no indication of anything. The only reason I remember is because my 8th grade English teacher was a woman named Mrs Judd who I have been trying to forget ever since.

[Armchair]

Mmm... Grammar.

"Gaslighting" can be used as a gerund, and commonly is, as are many other verbs (Playing, Asking, Working, etc). It would be it a mistake to call it a noun however. Just like someone wouldn't say that "playing" is primarily a noun.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the conversation. It's the comments. Pedantic bullshit is what it's good for.

[Stella Link the dog]

‘Just like someone wouldn’t say that “playing” is primarily a noun. ‘

Depends on whether it is being used as a present participle or as a gerund. Jesus, this brings back bad memories. One thing will say for Mrs Judd, she never kicked my ass, unlike the science teacher.

n.b. the forgoing is a joke.

[John F. Carr]

If Trump manages to get Gaetz out of the House and scandal keeps him out of the Cabinet, we will have something to thank Trump for.

[santamonica811]

True dat.

[SRG2]

Here's a test of whether you're (a) moronically committed to the Trump cult or (b) whether you're at least partly rational and in control of your own cognition.

Do you think Matt Gaetz is a suitable choice for AG?

If yes, then (a), if no, then (b).

[Joe_dallas]

Probably not - however most everyone though garland was a good pick.

[SRG2]

That's a different issue. You can certainly have people whose selection seems reasonable but they turn out to be a bad choice.

[Joe_dallas]

I dont know enough about Gaezt to have an opinion at this point, though my first impression is not positive.

[David Nieporent]

Probably not – however most everyone though garland was a good pick.

Certainly in retrospect he was much too timid in investigating and prosecuting Trump, but the lesson of "This qualified person did a bad job" is not "Therefore, qualifications don't matter."

[Riva]

Yeah, you're right crazy Dave, only one FBI raid on President Trump's home and 2 meritless federal prosecutions charging a virtual life sentence combined. And, of course, he probably had nothing to do with whatever the fuck was underlying Colangelo's move to the fat slob Bragg's Manhattan DA office and the DC visit of Fani's "special" prosecutor. But he made up for this lackadaisical approach to President Trump by harassing the living shit out parents peacefully protesting at school board meetings and sending grandmothers praying against abortion to jail.

[David Nieporent]

Bot is malfunctioning again, just repeating nonsensical false talking points gleaned from social media.

[Riva]

Not sure I really understand crazy Dave. When the mental fog clears up, feel free to explain what you think is false. In non crazy terms if you can manage that. Even get some help from your alter ego Sarcastr0 if you need it. Or just channel the other voices in your head. Whatever works for you.

[David Nieporent]

feel free to explain what you think is false.

1) There was no FBI "raid" of Trump's home. They non-violently executed a search warrant. Unlike the immigrants Trump wants to target, no kicking in doors in the middle of the night and hauling people away.

2) There were no meritless federal prosecutions.

3) A grand total of zero parents were harassed by the FBI for protesting (peacefully or otherwise) at school board meetings. It's a right wing nutjob social media lie. The FBI was not in any way involved in any activity related to school board meetings.

4) Nobody — not grandmothers, not anyone else — was sent to jail for "praying." That's the same rhetorical trick that the pro-Hamas campus protesters use: claiming they're being arrested for "protesting" rather than for blocking off areas of campus, disrupting other people's classes and speeches and such, camping out w/o permission, etc. Blocking access to clinics is a crime, whether one is praying or standing silently or dancing the Macarena.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks to David Notimportant for his report to VC readers from the alternate universe.

[Bwaaah]

"That's a lie. There is no universe, and there never was."

David Nieporent

[Riva]

1) In an act unprecedented in American history, armed FBI thugs authorized to use deadly force descend on the home of the former president, executed what looks a helluva lot like a general search warrant, even rummaging through the former first lady’s underwear drawer. It may not have been a panty raid, but this crap certainly merits the description of “raid”

2) There were 2 actually, lead by an unconstitutionally appointed special counsel who is going to have to answer a few questions himself. And facilitated by a conflicted DC judge. (Maybe recent events can also result in some treatment of the cancer that seems to have metastasized in the federal DC courts in their zeal to punish all things j6?) And of course there’s Colangelo, the top DOJ official that made the odd career move to work for the fat slob Bragg just to prosecute President Trump. And the hours billed by Fani’s “special” counsel in meetings with WH counsel. There’s a reason DOJ leadership is panicking over Gaetz’s nomination.

3)That’s just a fucking lie. Whistleblowers exposed the federal harassments and Garland wrote an f’ing memo to further intimidate parents. More for Gaetz to look at.

4) More garbage lies. Garland’s zeal in harassing pro-life protesters is also unprecedented, including armed raids he seems to love so much. And in addition to praying grandmothers, even sweeping into his net an 87 holocaust survivor for a 2021 event a video of which shows those committed to pro life peacefully praying.

[Lennyk78]

I thought Garfinkel was a terrible pick, even before he became the rabid leftist who uses the DOJ as a weapon to help his pedophile boss.

[Lennyk78]

No, because he went to a TTT for law school and a pervert. But if he was the same abrasive asshole who went to a T10 and without the liberal sexual proclivities, I'd be thrilled with him.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Who was the most recent AG who was suitable for the post (s)he held?

[Lennyk78]

Jeff Sessions.

Before then, Ashcroft.

Before then, Janet Reno.

Alberto Gonzalez was the child of illegals, Holder and Lynch were angry uppity blacks, and Garfinkel is a piece of shit.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is that last paragraph a parody?

[Lennyk78]

No.

[William of Brooklyn]

He's a terrible choice. Entirely unsuited to the role on every level. Let us hope that the trepidation some GOP Senators have expressed results in a better choice once he is rejected.

[ReaderY]

Why shouldn’t the folks regulated be entitled to a little representation on the agencies regulating them? We’ve had mediocraties on the Supreme Court. We’ve had a coal industry executive running the EPA. We’ve had a pharma executive running the FDA. Why shouldn’t we have a criminal running the Justice Department?

And while we’re at it, we’ve never had a white supremacist running the Civil Rights Division. It’s about time they got a little representation, too. After all there are good people on both sides.

Of course, representation only goes so far. I don’t expect to see an educator running the Department of Education, a worker running the Department of Labor, or an immigrant running Immigration any time soon with this administration.

[not guilty]

What do you mean, we’ve never had a white supremacist running the Civil Rights Division? Have you forgotten William Bradford Reynolds during the Reagan Administration?

[Kazinski]

Trump is playing 4D chess with the Gaetz nomination.

I have to admit I was shocked at first, but you can't argue with the results.

[santamonica811]

Yup. This might mean that Republicans in the House (who, obviously, know the contents of the ethics investigation that was about to be voted on for release later this week) will be successful in hiding the results from the American people. Swamplike behavior, from the swampiest swamp-dwellers in the smelliest and nastiest part of the Washington Swamp.

Makes me proud to be a Republican. I only hope that this frees up time for my party to do truly important things, like investigating Nancy Pelosi. Maybe her husband too, for him using his skull to willfully damage the hammer of his innocent assaulter?

[Kazinski]

The result, so far, is Trump got Gaetz to resign from the House.

Johnson didn’t seem upset about that at all.

What do you think the house investigation found that the FBI couldn’t?

But there might be a loophole in Goetz’ resignation. Can he resign from his 2025-26 term before he takes his seat? Or does it only apply to his current term which ends Jan 2?

Johnson seems to think they can have the special election by Jan 3, but I’m not so sure.

[santamonica811]

"...What do you think the house investigation found that the FBI couldn’t?..."

Kaz,
1. I have no idea what the FBI investigation found. Do you? Does anyone out in the general public? (Genuine question.)
2. Could be that the FBI found examples of horrific behavior--things that would appall me or you or any normal person--but it did not rise to the level of criminal behavior. (Assuming that was true, I think you and I would agree that such behavior would be disqualifying for anyone trying to get the highest law enforcement position in the entire United States, yes?)
3. The FBI could have found examples of criminal behavior, but did not believe that it could meet its burden of beyond any reasonable doubt at a criminal trial. Assuming that *that* is true, I trust that, again, you and I both agree that we would disqualify such a person from becoming AG, yes?

We want overwhelming evidence before we take away a person's freedom. We obviously don't want to require that quantum of evidence before we are willing to discard the application of a person for a job that literally 100+ other people would be extremely well-qualified to do.

(For example, if 8 different neighbors tell us that they have seen a certain middle-age neighbor caught in compromising situations with female teens on our block, on multiple occasions, there is no way in hell that you would hire this person to babysit your young teen daughter. EVEN IF the police investigated and couldn't find enough evidence to arrest him. You wouldn't take the risk . . . you'd instead hire one of the 20 other adults who live on the block and who don't have repeated accusations against them.)

What Trump has done here is deliberately give the middle finger to Americans with this nomination. I'm not sure what his end-game is re Gaetz's nomination. But I'm *really* struggling to see how it benefits him politically, either short-term or long-term.

[Commenter_XY]

Well sm811, we know that neither the FBI nor the DOJ, run by a Democrat administration, declined to press any charges whatsoever against Congressman Gaetz.

Senator Thune ran for the job of Majority Leader. Now he gets to round up votes for confirmation and deliver. Poor bastard. I don't envy him; it is a yuuuuuuge lift to get Gaetz a vote, let alone confirmed.

The American people voted for change. 😉

[Stephen Lathrop]

The American people voted for change.

As an all-purpose justification, can you think of anything stupider to say than that?

[Commenter_XY]

Need some copium, lathrop? Try draino. Drink it today.

[Sarcastr0]

For all the rhetoric on this site, I've not see a 'kill yourself' before.

Back to mute. Lasted less than a day.

[Michael P]

He's just relaying advice from Bette Midler: https://pagesix.com/2024/11/06/celebrity-news/bette-midler-implied-shed-drink-drano-if-donald-trump-won-election/

[Mr. Bumble]

Il Douche lives in a bubble (or a douche bag).

[Sarcastr0]

When you need to go all the way to Bette Midler to tu quoque, you're working too hard.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 very salty that people are laughing at him for coming in from the top rope after missing an obvious allusion. News at 11.

[Commenter_XY]

This was the correct allusion.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

And muting was the correct action. Two less assholes cluttering up these comments.

[bernard11]

No he's not, you moron.

Midler was talking about something she might do.

XY was urging someone he doesn't like to do it.

Both, I presume, were speaking figuratively, but there is a clear difference between the two statements.

[Drewski]

I've seen a couple "kill yourself" posts, both of which resulted in bans (The End of the Left and Jon Affleck), although those were directed at Conspirators rather than commenters.

[not guilty]

“Well sm811, we know that neither the FBI nor the DOJ, run by a Democrat administration, declined to press any charges whatsoever against Congressman Gaetz.”

Au Contraire. The FBI and the DOJ did decline to pursue charges against Rep. Gaetz.

Of course the question of whether the government could obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt is separate and distinct from the House Committee’s inquiries. The DOJ reportedly had concerns about the credibility of two central witnesses. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/23/gaetz-no-charges-sex-trafficking/

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, duh! You are correct, of course. 🙂

[Riva]

I would fully expect a lawfare advocate such as yourself NG to find nothing wrong with meritless intimidating FBI investigations. I’d be shocked if you didn’t support such abusive chilling tactics, as long as they’re used against your political opponents.

[Noscitur a sociis]

neither the FBI nor the DOJ

You realize the FBI is part of DOJ, right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not just middle finger -- this could be Trump's excuse to shut down the Federal Government indefinitely.

[Martinned2]

Not sending people's social security cheques, that's always a great way to ge popular.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How would this accomplish such a thing, and why would that be desirable if it did happen?

[David Nieporent]

(For example, if 8 different neighbors tell us that they have seen a certain middle-age neighbor caught in compromising situations with female teens on our block, on multiple occasions, there is no way in hell that you would hire this person to babysit your young teen daughter. EVEN IF the police investigated and couldn’t find enough evidence to arrest him. You wouldn’t take the risk . . . you’d instead hire one of the 20 other adults who live on the block and who don’t have repeated accusations against them.)

Well, I'm not sure why a young teen needs a babysitter in the first place.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Well, I’m not sure why a young teen needs a babysitter in the first place.

I'm sure Doug Emhoff could offer some excus...er, I mean...reasons.

[David Nieporent]

Emhoff had an affair with one of his kids' teachers, not a babysitter, despite some online gossip.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Emhoff had an affair with one of his kids’ teachers, not a babysitter...

The affair (which he's admitted to) was with kids' nanny, not a teacher...you clueless tool.

[Absaroka]

Well, googling shows reports of 1)nanny, 2)a teacher at the kids school, and 3)someone who was a teacher at the kids school and also a nanny. It seems a bit up in the air.

CBS says "All three (anon sources...ed) said that, contrary to the Daily Mail report, the woman did not work as a nanny for the Emhoff children. She taught at their school, though she was not teaching either child at the time of the relationship with Emhoff, the sources said."

(I'm a little curious ... why does anyone care whether the second spouse fooled around years ago? Especially if separated at the time. It's 2024 ... people making whoopee outside of the marital bed is ... not much of a scandal anymore.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Emhoff's daughter was around eight years old, not a teen.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have to admit that I've wondered if Trump isn't leaning heavily into nominating House members in part to clean the stables over a the House. After all, if they don't work out he can always fire them, and they won't get their seats back if they've already been replaced, while their replacements are likely to have some gratitude to Trump for clearing the path for them.

Back in his first term he nominated Niki Haley to be ambassador to the UN, but he didn't do that for Niki, he did it as a favor to McMaster, instead, who took her place as Governor. So it's not like he doesn't have a history of doing that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, that's politics. How do you think TR got picked to be VP?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh yeah, I remember Brett's 4D chess takes back in the first Trump admin.

Lotta work ahead for this guy.

[Kazinski]

Reportedly that is why Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, to get him out of California and make it easier for Nixon's to dominate the GOP there.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that's actually regular 2D chess.

[jb]

It's theoretically possible that Trump is a really smart guy, he knows that Gaetz isn't going to get confirmed but that this will get him out of Congress, and he wants Johnson to have a more workable majority so that some stuff can actually get done in Congress for his first two years.*

Also possible that this is just a favor to Gaetz. Trump would be totally fine with him as AG, but mostly this just gives Gaetz a face-saving way to avoid the embarrassment of the ethics investigation.**

But the most likely explanation by far (especially when you look at his picks holistically): what he took away from his first administration was that if only he would have had more loyalists, he'd be able to do what he actually wanted. There's probably some truth to that, but also it turns out that there's some administrative skill required in effectively running a very large organization and this was already absent in the first Trump administration and looks like it will be almost entirely absent from the second one. The Hegseth nomination in particular seems kind of like nominating Ryan Blaney for Secretary of Transportation because he looks good driving cars real fast. Oh, except that Blaney isn't a Trump sycophant, so probably he'd go with Danica Patrick instead.

* I'm pretty skeptical of this explanation because while it would explain the Gaetz nomination, Stefanik seems to be not just loyal to Trump but a functional part of House leadership.

** And since there's no good reason for Gaetz to resign this early other than to avoid the ethics investigation results being released, you have to assume that this is at least part of the explanation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's also possible that it's a throwaway, Gaetz gets rejected so the Senators feel that they didn't give Trump everything they want, then they confirm his other nominees.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'd guess you are looking too deeply. He just wants people who will be totally loyal to him personally.

[jb]

I'd roughly lump that into the second bucket--Trump doesn't really care if he gets confirmed or not. There's some other reason he's nominating him, but it's not to try to get him out of the House to make it a more functional body.

[bernard11]

Could be, and the reason might only be because he felt like poking some people in the eye.

[Voize of Reazon]

The result, so far, is Trump got Gaetz to resign from the House.

Trump gave Gaetz an exit door. It was a gift, to Gaetz and to the House majority, since his resignation will prevent the release of what would likely be a damning ethics committee report.

What do you think the house investigation found that the FBI couldn’t?

Probably nothing, but the DoJ still mostly follows the rule that it won’t release investigative results unless it plans to lay charges.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that if they don't have enough evidence of wrongdoing to prosecute, the evidence they do have is hardly "damning". But then, I'm not one of those people who think you're obligated to credit accusations without accompanying evidence.

[Voize of Reazon]

James Comer will be disappointed to hear that you don't appreciate his work.

[David Nieporent]

Trump gave Gaetz an exit door. It was a gift, to Gaetz and to the House majority, since his resignation will prevent the release of what would likely be a damning ethics committee report.

It will not — not if he doesn't drop out of the nominating process. First, there's no chance that a finished ethics report on a nominee for AG wouldn't leak. Second, even some Republican senators have said they want to see the report as part of the confirmation process.

[Voize of Reazon]

I'm pretty sure the committee won't release a report. They canceled the Friday meeting where this was to be discussed, and absent a vote nothing happens. At least some members argue their activity ceases immediately once a member resigns.
You're right that it could leak anyway. It would be a shame because Ethics, the only House standing committee with an equal number of majority and minority members, at least pretends to be a holdout against partisan rulebreaking.
Still, although the attempt at suppression might fail, it is still the only sensible explanation for Gaetz resigning so very urgently.

[David Nieporent]

A leak does not necessarily mean "partisan rulebreaking." Lots of Republicans do not like Gaetz, and it just requires a single person on the committee — which includes committee staff, not just the actual members of Congress — to go rogue and do it.

[Voize of Reazon]

True, but violating a norm of confidentiality opens the door to partisan action whether or not it resulted from partisan action.

[David Nieporent]

Johnson seems to think they can have the special election by Jan 3, but I’m not so sure.

That's batshit if true. You can't hold a special election unless there's a vacancy. There's a vacancy right now, but there's not enough time to hold a special election. (And who would run to hold an office for just a couple of weeks?) Starting January 3, there's no more vacancy unless Gaetz resigns again, and only that event would trigger a special election, to be held down the road.

[Lennyk78]

There's plenty of time since Republicans in Florida are in charge.

If the Democraps out in California were running it the way they run their fake elections, it would take until June.

[David Nieporent]

There’s plenty of time since Republicans in Florida are in charge.

Unless you mean that Republicans will just break the law, no. Pursuant to Florida law, the earliest time a special general election could be held is six weeks from now. That would take us to December 26, when Congress won't be in session anyway and the new Congress would take office a week later on January 3.

[Lennyk78]

A special election could be set within the next week.

[David Nieporent]

Not under Florida law it cannot. It is a multi-step process, starting with announcing an election, publicizing it, giving people time to declare themselves as candidates, holding a primary, and then holding a general election.

[hobie]

If the Democrats are smart, they should vote to confirm Gaetz and all the other lunatics in the Senate. Gaetz is a level of disaster so large, it will be like getting almost a billion dollars of political advertising for free for the next midterms

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't need no stinkin' Dems to confirm.

[Kazinski]

If Gaetz doesn't get at least 20 Democratic votes he will not get confirmed.

In fact I think the strategy is to go for a recess appointment, but I don't think the GOP Senate will allow Trump to install him that way.

[hobie]

Ed Whelan at National Review wrote this:

"I’ve been hearing through the grapevine of a crazy plan in which Donald Trump would exercise his authority under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution to adjourn both Houses of Congress so that he could recess-appoint his Cabinet officials. Trump’s stunning announcement that he intends to select Florida congressman Matt Gaetz as his Attorney General lends credence to this rumor, as it is extremely unlikely that the Senate would confirm Gaetz.

The plan would require the complicity of the Speaker of the House in eviscerating the Senate’s advice-and-consent role."

As I see it, there is no way Gaetz would resign from congress as he has, unless his nomination was in the bag

[Kazinski]

I think the Senate could foil that plan by holding an vote on Gaetz nomination before they could recess.

But at any rate, there would be a price for Trump, and Johnson, trying run roughshod over the Senate, 3 votes is not a big majority.

They may have a plan, but not all plans work out.

[John F. Carr]

Constitutionally, voting against a nominee is the same as not holding a vote at all. Garland and Bork were in the same boat, not eligible because the Senate had not consented.

There are some statutory rules about paying people serving in senior roles without Senate confirmation. Is Gaetz willing to serve without pay?

[Commenter_XY]

If memory serves, Gaetz is a multi-millionaire (8-figure).

[John F. Carr]

I found the law. 5 USC 5503.

§5503. Recess appointments
(a) Payment for services may not be made from the Treasury of the United States to an individual appointed during a recess of the Senate to fill a vacancy in an existing office, if the vacancy existed while the Senate was in session and was by law required to be filled by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, until the appointee has been confirmed by the Senate. This subsection does not apply-
(1) if the vacancy arose within 30 days before the end of the session of the Senate;
(2) if, at the end of the session, a nomination for the office, other than the nomination of an individual appointed during the preceding recess of the Senate, was pending before the Senate for its advice and consent; or
(3) if a nomination for the office was rejected by the Senate within 30 days before the end of the session and an individual other than the one whose nomination was rejected thereafter receives a recess appointment.
(b) A nomination to fill a vacancy referred to by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of this section shall be submitted to the Senate not later than 40 days after the beginning of the next session of the Senate.

If Garland resigns now and Biden does not nominate a replacement then Trump's recess appointment may not be paid. If Garland stays on until January and the Senate goes into recess within 30 days, Trump's recess appointment can draw a salary. If Biden nominates Gaetz and his nomination is rejected in December, then Gaetz can not be paid if he receives a recess appointment in January.

[ducksalad]

I don’t think the GOP Senate...

Assuming Democrats are executing Plan Hobie, all it takes is about 13 Republican senators who want Gaetz + 47 Democrats. That's 60 votes to either directly approve Gaetz, or vote for recess, or vote to disapprove the House request to recess. Any of those three paths gets Gaetz into office.

[Sarcastr0]

As Popehat posted: "Clown shoes are preferable to jackboots."

[Riva]

You’re right Sarcastr0. As JD Vance pointed "The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings. Oh wait, That's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general."

[Commenter_XY]

The question is, hobie...disaster for whom?

What's the motivation behind nominating former Congressman Gaetz? All you need to do is look at CSPAN, and simply observe Rep Gaetz in hearings. See his interviews, Rep Gaetz was not exactly bashful in speaking his mind. He has resigned his seat that he was just re-elected to (he knew FL law, who knew?).

If a POTUS Trump is serious about 'right sizing' DOJ bureaucracy, then he nominated a man in Rep Gaetz who is intimately familiar the 'Deep State' and intends to do something about it. I have seen many, many House hearings with Rep Gaetz participating actively. He is no dummy. Do not make the mistake of underestimating him.

All I can say is that Rep Gaetz is a very heavy lift for Senator Thune as Majority Leader. But that goes with the job; he ran for it. Now he has to deliver 51 votes*.

*If there really is something blatantly disqualifying, then I would expect Rep Gaetz to withdraw. There are plenty of others who would relish the task of right-sizing the DOJ.

[David Nieporent]

Thune does not work for Donald Trump and does not "have to" deliver any votes. There are several plausible explanations for this pick:

1) Trump neither knows nor cares what the government does, and just wants someone who will be loyal to him. Gaetz will, and that's good enough.
2) Trump is trying to clear the runway for his other terrible nominations by throwing a sacrificial lamb to the "moderates" of the GOP. They get to reject one of Trump's picks to "prove" they're not mindless rubber stamps, and then can safely mindlessly rubber stamp all of his others.
3) Trump is hoping this will disgust the DOJ so much that everyone there will resign.

[Commenter_XY]

David, some might say your #3 is just a good start. 🙂

[Noscitur a sociis]

There are a lot of deeply unserious people out there, so I’m sure there are some who would say that. But they’re wrong.

A few comments down, you (appropriately) express your righteous disgust at Asif Rahman. What do you think would happen to him if there weren’t any federal prosecutors?

[Commenter_XY]

Nas...Let's be realistic about #3. There is no scenario on Planet Earth where everyone in the DOJ resigns en masse, in disgust. You know and David knows and I know that will not happen. This is Washington, DC. Will there be some who leave? Yes, for sure. Will I be sorry to see them go? No, not particularly. That said, I wish them best of luck in their next endeavors outside of government.

Keep in mind some of those DOJ and FBI bureaucrats will stand up and applaud, having been promoted into the positions of those who left in disgust. They'll stick around to prosecute the Asif Rahman's of the world, and send their asses to the clink for a long time.

[Moderation4ever]

There is far too much politics going into confirmation today. The rule should be simple. The President picks his choice and if they meet the qualification for the job the choice should be confirmed. You don't have to like the President's pick, they are his and no one else's.

[Commenter_XY]

It used to be that way...simple. Today, not so much.

[ducksalad]

Opposite. There is far too much politics going on with AGs and the confirmation process ought to screen out hacks.

The Senate should not be deferential, furthermore, they should insist on the advice part of "advice and consent". Just not liking the pick is plenty good reason to vote no.

And if that gums up everything when the POTUS and Senate are of different parties, so be it. When that happens it's because the voters gave a mandate for gridlock.

They should have voted down Garland for AG; he was already an obvious bad pick at the time. In retrospect they should have voted down Alberto Gonzalez and Eric Holder, too.

[David Nieporent]

Well, you should travel back in time and lecture Alexander Hamilton on his foolishness when he said,

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

But what did that guy know?

[Bob from Ohio]

"prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."

But it has done none of those things. So maybe 235 years of experience says AH was wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sheesh. Ten years of experience was enough to prove AH wrong about a lot of things.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The fact that some cabinet appointees have been unfit doesn’t mean that confirmation doesn’t improve the their overall quality.

[Riva]

And then there’s that little constitution thing about recess appointments but you go one with your new Hamilton fixation crazy Dave. Before using whatever AI tool you used to find this Federalist quote, the only thing you knew about Hamilton was a couple of songs.

[David Nieporent]

As Hamilton also explained, the recess appointment power to be "nothing more than a supplement to the other, for the purpose of establishing an auxiliary method of appointment, in cases to which the general method was inadequate. The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments "during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.''

The purpose of the recess appointment clause was to allow vacancies to be filled in emergencies at a time when primitive travel methods prevented the Senate from reconvening on short notice. Not to evade Senate confirmation because the president wants to appoint manifestly unfit people.

[Riva]

Well you’ve certainly proven you can copy text from internet searches. But I think I won’t take the one dimensional cut and paste exercise from crazy Dave as controlling as to the constitutional limits of the interplay between 2 separate branches of government in regards to the appointment of high level officers. And in the end, Gaetz will be AG and there will be accountability and reform in the DOJ, regardless of what crazy Dave finds playing on the internet.

[David Nieporent]

Bot is just fed inputs; it doesn't know whether those inputs are from @MAGAdog034711's twitter feed or from the Federalist Papers. Indeed, it doesn't know the difference between those sources.

[Riva]

You do nothing but cut and paste material for your simplistic responses devoid of any real depth of understanding of the interplay between the branches in the context of the political reality of President Trump's overwhelming win and end your little whine with the same nonsensical repetitive insult. You're not really putting much effort into your trolling these days Crazy Dave. I hope your not too depressed.

[David Nieporent]

QED.

[Riva]

Kinda pathetic, even by troll standards crazy Dave. Not even the Harris trolls are competent. No wonder she lost.

[Don Nico]

Confirming Gaetz is too cynical even for you. He is Trump's burnt offering to assure approval of Gabbard and his Sec Def pick.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know that Trump's that sophisticated. I also think that the current political climate doesn't really require such sacrificial lambs.

I do know that complicity in the Trump admin by the Dems for whatever rationale will not end well for them.

[Riva]

Not ending well is something that should concern a lot of the repulsive lawfare thugs in the Biden DOJ/FBI.

[Sarcastr0]

Reflexive, unengaged, talking point.

Bot-like typing detected.

[Michael P]

Oblivious irony detected.

[Riva]

Don’t forget to post that picture of you screaming senselessly at President Trump’s inauguration. You can cry too if you want. And I’m still really curious if you work for a university in Oregon.

[Don Nico]

Maybe he is not. But is not unusual for one pick to get voted down. And if you wanted a lightning rod, Gaetz sure is one.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's true, but as I commented above, I think Trump's only intent is to have people in his cabinet who will totally loyal to him personally, unlike his perception of his last cabinet.

[bernard11]

I agree with Alpheus.

He just wants someone who will do what he wants. Nothing else.
If Trump says, "Go after x, y, and z," Gaetz will do it, even if x,y, and z are newborn infants.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In that example, Trump should clarify that he means to prosecute them, not to sleep with them.

[myself]

If the Democrats are smart, they should vote to confirm Gaetz and all the other lunatics in the Senate. Gaetz is a level of disaster so large, it will be like getting almost a billion dollars of political advertising for free for the next midterms

I'm pretty sure burn down the country so the other party's President gets blamed was the GOP playbook. I'm not sure Democrats want several years of a hyper-partisan AG who was nearly charged with sex-trafficking minors.

[Frank Drackman]

Some people aren't ready for a strong male Attorney General

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure they are. We had Janet Reno, didn't we?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey-Yo!!!!!!!!! (Rim Shot) we now bring you a message from Publisher's Clearinghouse!

[myself]

Trump is barely able to manage 1D chess.

The Gaetz nomination is simple, Trump wants the DOJ to be completely obedient to him, ignore GOP crimes and prosecute and Democrats he doesn't like. Gaetz has been among the most consistent Trump defenders so he's likely to be the most obedient AG.

If you want to let Trump play 2D chess then he pulls Gaetz after the outcry and gives him some other cushy gig that doesn't require a confirmation hearing (Gaetz really just wanted to avoid the ethics report) and nominates someone like Cannon who now looks sane by comparison.

But I don't think Trump plans that far ahead.

[Don Nico]

"I don’t think Trump plans that far ahead."
You're kidding yourself. He is too devious not to.

[myself]

Really? Putting myself in Trump's shoes I can imagine Gaetz as the sacrificial lamb, but I can't recall Trump using a strategy like that before and it feels like projection.

He understands attention, "I ignore the GOP primary and so will the voters!", same with doing stuff to troll the left. So I could see the Gaetz nomination as having the benefit of distracting, but I don't see any evidence that he does the level of planning where the main objective of nominating Gaetz is part of some greater hidden plan. He wants Gaetz as AG, and he wants Gaetz to prosecute Dems. I suspect he's not even thinking about how nasty the confirmation hearings might be (unless he thinks he can just recess appoint without any hearings).

[myself]

If you want to see Trump at his most "devious" look at his comments about term limits.

He obviously wants to do a 3rd term, and he knows that he can't start asking for it outright, so he keeps making "jokes" about it. If people get outraged he says he's obviously joking and they're freaking out over "fake news". But he's trying to normalize the idea so at some point the GOP gets on board and he figures that he can do the same that Evo Morales did in Bolivia and have the SCOTUS simply ignore that part of the constitution.

And really, that's Trumpism at it's most pure. He understands if the party is completely on board, and the party controls the courts as well, then the constitution isn't a constraint anymore.

[Don Nico]

You're protecting too far.

[PaulS]

If not approved, have AG (once approved) appoint him as special council to go after Garland & Smith - without senate approval.....?

[David Nieporent]

The word is "counsel," not "council." And "go after" them for what?

[Commenter_XY]

The men were identified, the government will find the crime. Just like the last four years.

[David Nieporent]

It's weird how such small numbers of Trumpkins were punished if that's what "the last four years" were like.

[Commenter_XY]

David, just remember: The shoe can be on the other foot.

I said this many times. So did The Dersh.

Contempt of congress is a real thing, as we have seen. I think we'll see referrals for contempt of congress to the DOJ in the not so distant future.

[David Nieporent]

Contempt of congress is a real thing, as we have seen. I think we’ll see referrals for contempt of congress to the DOJ in the not so distant future.

If people refuse to testify despite a valid subpoena for no other reason than that they don't want to, like Navarro and Bannon, I expect so.

[Kazinski]

The other nomination that has everyone’s knickers twisted, is that Tulsi Gabbard was nominated as DNI.

While I do question her judgment about two things: meeting with Assad during the Syrian civil war, and giving some credence to Russia’s assertion that the US was funding Ukrainian bio-weapons research.

Those are two serious concerns, however I will note that Nancy Pelosi went off the reservation and met with Assad in 2007, while US troops were fighting in Iraq, and Syria was providing covert aid to the insurgents.

And Obama’s DNI Clapper and CIA director are so gullible they claimed they thought Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation.

So at least she would be an upgrade over those two.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm more worried about the SecDef being a pro-War Crimes Iran hawk.

I predict the partisan excuse of 'I don't like what Trump did but Dems bad' going to get a helluva workout in the near future.

[Don Nico]

My worry with the SEC DEF is the lack of management experience and demonstration of visible command authority

[SRG2]

Yes, but he's a Fox News TV pundit so must know what he's talking about. I wonder whether any of the Trumpists here have the guts to criticise this choice.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Got into a heated debate with my mom when I said Hesgeth was Trump's worst decision (at the time--since surpassed). I like the guy a lot. He is better suited to run comms for the Pentagon, not run the whole damn thing.

I do not like what Austin has done to the military, but he knew how to implement the far-left identity policies the administration wanted. The bureaucracy will eat Pete up. You must know how it works before you can fix it.

Voted Trump three times pres--zero times primary.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure if you mean to imply what that seems to about your position on war crimes and the US going back in to the Middle East hunting WMDs.

[Don Nico]

My worries are just what I wrote down.
I was not implying anything about your issues. I actually did not know about the war crimes matter. As for the Bush Iraq disaster, it was the worst presidential decision in my lifetime.

[Joe_dallas]

Nico - those are valid concerns, Though the focus of the military seems to have shifted away for the core mission beginning during the obama administration. Compare and constrast the marshall/eisenhower et al with the command structure starting with milley

[Don Nico]

Consider people such as Bob Gates and Leon Panetta and way back Bill Perry those were substantial leaders as well as patriots

[Joe_dallas]

Nico - I am not disagreeing with you, though the thought process may be that the top of the military command has diviated too far from the core mission, and someone with more front line experience vs someone that rose through the ranks grounded in the current concepts may be a better choice to weed out those that have abandoned the core mission.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Sounds good in theory. I agree. But what experience does Hesgeth have navigating the bureaucracy? He may have the greatest ideas ever, but if he can't implement them, he is useless.

[Joe_dallas]

At this point, I dont know, hopefully yes

[Joe_dallas]

Reports are that the intention is to terminate a lot of top dogs at the pentagon, including most of the Milley appointees. Getting rid of the Milley appointees may be a very good thing.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-team-drawing-up-list-pentagon-officers-fire-sources-say-2024-11-13/

[Commenter_XY]

Of the two, command authority is the more important. The staff of the SecDef manages the department; to me, the deputies are far more important.

Hegseth is battle tested (two bronze stars), and has smelled the smoke. His job is to provide clarity and implement POTUS Trump's agenda. I also think he'll be far less likely to recommend the military 'sledgehammer' option in favor of diplomatic options. His stated focus is improving the lethality of our military. Seems reasonable, as an objective.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
I am in favor of abandoning the knee jerk neocon approach and desire for world wide regime change.
I probably should have referred to executive skills rather than management experience. They are different and the top guy needs the former

[Joe_dallas]

That explains why Eisenhower was made supreme allied commander of the european theater. He had very good diplomatic
and executive skills. Though some people only credited him with medicore tactical skills.

[Commenter_XY]

You're talking leadership; I think two bronze stars gives a sense of the man's leadership (under fire) abilities. In that building (Pentagon), for those people (uniformed military), that kind of leadership matters. A lot.

No one doubts his concern for the troops.

He wants a highly lethal military that will scare the living shit out of any opponent; so the military will never have to be used. That is a man who is serving the interest of this country, and demonstrates leadership.

[Satchmo_Lives]

OK, given what you say is true that his deputies are the important part of implementation, his years spent in and around potential staff at the Pentagon will certainly help, right?

Reform is almost impossible in bureaucracies for this reason. If one is outside, it is difficult to know how to accomplish what one wants. If one is inside, protection of the status quo is a religion. And if someone is high enough to be considered staff for SecDef, they have had "agency first" ingrained for decades.

[Commenter_XY]

Satch...the mission is quite simple. Increase very significantly, the lethality of the military. The deputies, who are tasked to work with the bureaucracy, have a pretty simple test: does x kill more enemies? No?...then fuck it. If there is no mission creep, and they keep the focus narrow, there is a decent chance (maybe 50%) the bureaucracy can be 'right-sized'.

Rotations, natural attrition and not filling positions that are vacated will handle the rest.

But I keep saying...you must start with the service academies, from Day 1. That would be my absolute top of list item as SecDef.

[bernard11]

You and Sarcastro are both right.

[Kazinski]

My worry is he will know enough to call in sick, and even tell the president, when he goes into the hospital for a procedure and is sedated and unavailable.

[Commenter_XY]

As DNI, Tulsi would bring the perspective and experience of the 'end user' of the intelligence data we generate to use in the field (the military is one end user of IC data, among many). Experience that Clapper and Brennan never had. That is one immediate improvement.

It is the DNI advisory staff that needs 'right-sizing'.

[bernard11]

As DNI, Tulsi would bring the perspective and experience of the ‘end user’ of the intelligence data we generate to use in the field (the military is one end user of IC data, among many).

WTF are you talking about, XY? Did you get that from some GOP press handout?

Her highest rank was Lt. Colonel in the Reserves. How much high-level intelligence data did she even see? And the job is, broadly, data gathering and analysis. How much experience does she have there?

[Absaroka]

I (obviously!!) know very little about her military career, but her wiki bio says "On July 4, 2021, Gabbard was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant colonel, while she was deployed to the Horn of Africa working as a Civil Affairs officer in support of a Special Operations mission."

I've read enough military history/bios that "in support of a Special Operations mission" and what I have read about the Horn of Africa mission would make me reluctant to bet she didn't a reasonable view of intelligence at the pointy end.

Does she have the background of Schwarzkopf or Eisenhower? Absolutely not. Is Trump giving her the job so she won't be criticizing from the outside? Quite possible.

But "perspective and experience of the ‘end user’ of the intelligence" seems like a pretty reasonable statement to me.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And the job is, broadly, data gathering and analysis. How much experience does she have there?"

The current DNI is just a lawyer.

[David Nieporent]

She is not "just" a lawyer, unless by that you simply mean not a veteran. That's true, but she has substantial career experience in the intelligence community.

[Absaroka]

Well, not exactly an Intelligence newbie: "Haines previously was Deputy National Security Advisor and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the Obama administration. Prior to her appointment to the CIA, she was Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs in the Office of White House Counsel." (from her wiki page)

Saying she wasn't an 'end user' might or might not be fair, but 'just a lawyer' seems a bit harsh.

Other DNI's with no military experience include Dan Coates, John Ratcliffe, Richard Grenell, and Lora Shiao, all appointed by Trump, and John Negroponte (appointed by GWB).

[Bob from Ohio]

" Deputy Director"

Guy she replaced served 33 years at the CIA in line positions, all her prior "intelligence experience" was as a lawyer, not evaluation, collection or operations.

[Frank Drackman]

She's better looking also

[Michael P]

So you're saying she could be the next Henry Kissinger?

All right so people say that you don't care
But you've got nicer legs than Hitler
And bigger tits than Cher

[Don Nico]

Kissinger-like skills are not in her playbook. But she is not a neocon war hawk like Liz Cheney.

[Frank Drackman]

Disco! (HT Mia Wallace)

[David Nieporent]

No, she's a Putin stooge like Donald Trump. And you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which stooge are you; Moe, Larry or Curly?

[Frank Drackman]

Shemp

[Stella Link the dog]

Hadn't seen any of the Stooges work in about 60 years but was recently encouraged to watch their Axis satire from 40 and 41 -- available on youtube. Very funny stuff.

[Don Nico]

David,
You are the neocon stooge, always calling people Russian stooges like a true McCarthyite or John Bircher.
Tell us, how many kids do you have in the US military. Jerks like you are always ready to send someone else’s kids to war.

[David Nieporent]

You may have missed this 50-year old news, but we have a volunteer military.

[Mr. Bumble]

So because they volunteered it's OK to send them off to bleed and die in bullshit conflicts?

[David Nieporent]

So because they volunteered it’s OK to send them off to bleed and die in bullshit conflicts?

Which Americans are being sent to bleed or die in bullshit conflicts?

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/military-deployments/

[David Nieporent]

That does not actually identify any Americans being sent to bleed or die in bullshit conflicts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not only are you Notimportant but now you morphinh into Il Douche II.

[Don Nico]

What a very weak duck.
In other words, you're pleased to send others' sons and daughters off to war. How typical.

[David Nieporent]

Those are indeed other words. The actual words are that you're employing 50 year old stupid talking points, ignoring that everyone in the military chose to enlist in order to fight when in our national interests. Of course, in this case, nobody is being sent to war, so that makes it doubly stupid.

You, on the other hand, are pleased to hand all of Ukraine over to Vladimir Putin, comrade.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/military-deployments/

[Don Nico]

Typical neocon talking point. And how easy to forget those killed in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and also how many betrayed when we bugged out. Live in your Bircher fantasy bubble David.
All that your ilk have accomplished is the death of 700,000 in Ukrainian war and no possibility of having the Donbass remaining in the Ukraine.

[bernard11]

Gabbard has pretty consistently been pro-Putin and pro-dictator. She shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our intelligence operations.

[Don Nico]

Pro-Putin means that she opposes the siren call of the US military-industrial complex. I'm sorry that you are so unsophisticated when it comes to foreign policy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For a whole lot of goods and services—cars, watches, air travel, dining, clothes—there are luxury versions that are a couple orders of magnitude more expensive than the ordinary kind. The one area where that doesn’t seem to be true is electronics: as far as I can tell, there’s no Maserati equivalent of an iPhone. Is that true? And if so, why?

[Mr. Bumble]

Because the iPhone is the Maserati?

[santamonica811]

I vaguely recall years ago, that the large-screen ultra HD TVs were about $25,000, while a normal TV was in the $1,000 range.

I'm a pretty serious photographer. It's my impression that Zeiss and Leica lenses for 35mm cameras, and Hasselblad (for medium format) are multiples higher than even the best versions of Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al), so you're really paying a premium for those brands.

But your general point re electronics is true. Most of all for computers. My first laser printer, which I bought during law school in the late 80s, was CRAZY EXPENSIVE. Now, I have one that is perfect for my home law practice...and it also does scanning and copying, for 1/10th the purchase price. On my first world trip, 2008, I bought a 4 GB compact flash card for my digital camera, and that cost me around $800. Now, you can buy cards that are upwards of 500 GB, for around $30. (And they are much much much faster and more reliable). $30 today would have cost between $10-15,000 bucks back then!!!

[Commenter_XY]

I have a photography question. Or maybe a creativity question.

How do you 'see' and 'find' the killer shot?
Is it innate, or can you develop that talent (seeing and taking the killer shot)?

[Mr. Bumble]

Shit happens.

[Frank Drackman]

You just show up to Dealey Plaza at the right time

[Mr. Bumble]

Timing is everything.

[Commenter_XY]

You two are incorrigible!! LOL 🙂

It was a serious question.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was a serious answer: You practice getting your composition right to the point where it becomes a reflex, and then you just take a shitload of photos, expecting to throw out 99% of them.

The killer shot is a winning lotto ticket, and the more tickets you buy, the better your odds of winning.

That's not the whole story, of course, there are killer shots that are carefully planned in advance, but it's better than half the story.

[Commenter_XY]

You’re telling me there is no innate recognition?
It is just a totally random thing?

Geez, how much time do you spend deleting pix? Sounds like a huge time investment for the hobby.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never heard the whir of a motor drive when photographers shot film? Never watched NFL films?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not totally random, as mentioned before, you should have a good sense of what the picture will look like.

And you develop that if you take lots of pictures. You should understand things like lighting, compressed space, rule of three's, etc.

But take lots of pictures.

[Don Nico]

And throw most away.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which is much easier and cheaper today with digital media vs. film.

[Brett Bellmore]

My trip to Utah a few years ago filled several DVDs to the brim with ~6MB image files. (The sort where you can zoom in on somebody's sunglasses, and identify the photographer by their reflection.) Only a handful got actually printed.

[Don Nico]

I hate the word "shots" in photography. The best images are made not shot.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, that Saigon Police Chief executing the VC Terrorist was a pretty good "Shot"

[Brett Bellmore]

There are good photos that are carefully planned in advance, and there are good photos that you just luck into through taking a LOT of photos.

For instance, that photo of the Trump assassination that caught the bullet in flight? If that was carefully planned in advance, better let the DOJ know. But the composition was reflex, and the guy probably took a hundred other photos before that one that got scrapped.

[Stella Link the dog]

Sometimes it's just being in the right place and recognizing that what you're looking at is extraordinary. I think that John Filo's photo of Mary Ann Vecchio is an example.

[Mr. Bumble]

Momma don't take my Kodachrome away...

[santamonica811]

Brett sounds like a photographer. I agree with pretty much everything he’s said.
1. You’re shooting a landscape. You spent a lot of time thinking about your composition. Where you want the tripod, if you want to use a graduated neutral density filter (to ‘bring out’ the sky), etc. On the edge of the Grand Canyon, I might walk around for 15 minutes before I figure out where I want to start shooting.
2. You are in Africa shooting animals. You do a set up in advance, based on where the animals are located. So, you have your general focus set up. If they are totally sedentary (eg, ungulates eating in the middle of a flat area), you can totally take your time and shoot one shot at a time. If they are moving around, or interacting with each other, then you shoot a bunch, and later pick the best one(s).
3. You are shooting people who are moving quickly (eg, a sporting event). You set up way in advance, to shoot a specific event (eg, a baseball player batting, a football player crossing one of the end zones) and have your specific lens and focus and aperture already dialed in. You have a completely different camera, with a different lens by your side, just in case you see something interesting happening in a different part of the field/stadium. And, when your experience and skill tells you that something important is about to happen, you spray and pray…you shoot a burst as quickly as you can. Later, you sift through those 75 shots and hope you got one keeper.
1 & 2, above. There is a ton of skill, about what is the best composition. Which lens to use, etc. For 3, the skill is all in the set-up. Actually getting the decisive moment after that is pure luck. . . . Well, 99% luck. There is some skill there too. If you go to a sporting event, you will often see literally a dozen pro photographer all standing directly next to each other, with their lenses pointing in the identical direction (eg, at Shohei Ohtani, at the plate). But, over time, you will see certain photographers get the best images often, and see other photographers do that rarely, even though they all have identical equipment, they are all pointed in the same direction, and they all have their fingers hovering over their cameras’ remote controls.

As Brett alluded to; in my first photography class, in the first day of class, the professor said to us, “The biggest difference between you and me in terms of photographic skill is that, if you go somewhere on vacation, you will shoot a roll of film (ie, 36 shots), which will cover the 6 places you visited. And you will show me all the ones from those 36 images that were in focus and with proper exposure. I, on the other hand, will shoot 500 shots, and will show you only the best 5-6 out of all of them.”

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, what a fascinating discussion. Glad I asked.

[Don Nico]

sm,
Ihave found that sports photography is pretty hard. Not only do you have to think well ahead, you also need extremely quick reflexes beyond what shooting a 5 or 7 shot burst can do for you. I have only done photography of the Boston marathon from an advantageous position using 2 cameras. Not easy and lots of poor images.

[santamonica811]

Don,
Totally agree. I've shot a few sports events, and I kinda hated it. Intense pressure, since you never know what moment will be the game-decider, and you have to always be ready. So, there was--for me, anyway--zero enjoyment in terms of being a fan watching the games. I look at the work of someone like Lucas Gilman and am gobsmacked.

[Don Nico]

My take is that you develop your taste first by identify images that are grabbers for you.
You must also learn how to make the camera record what you think that you see.
Then you learn how to develop a large fraction of what you shoot.
Finally, you take care in what you print; certainly that is the Ansel Adams approach. The image is the "print" not the click

[bernard11]

Yes. Adams said the negative is the score, and the print is the performance.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, that is my approach even if I am not in the same league as a composer or Maestro.

[SRG2]

Back in England I knew a well-known photographer called Barry Lategan (RIP) - we were members of the same gym. Barry would walk around with a small pocket Olympus so he could take photos opportunistically. (He took snaps of me with my parents which he then mounted and captioned and gave to me - great present!) The pics always came out better than anything I could managed with my Olympus SLR - because he had a better eye, for the spontaneous shots and better understanding of composition for the planned shots. And that is, I think, innate, but can be improved upon with training.

[Commenter_XY]

This is what I was after = The pics always came out better than anything I could managed with my Olympus SLR – because he had a better eye, for the spontaneous shots and better understanding of composition for the planned shots. And that is, I think, innate, but can be improved upon with training.

So practice makes perfect?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask Mrs. Commenter.

[Commenter_XY]

Whoo, hey now. LOL.

[bernard11]

My opinion is that it involves anticipation, patience, planning, and readiness.

In a given situation think about what shot you want ahead of time. Set up, and wait. So you see a nice street scene - quaint buildings, brick walls, posters, maybe a drizzle for some mood, but what you want is a woman with a bright umbrella walking through. So find your spot, set up your camera, focus it, and wait. Try to use manual focus so autofocus doesn't mess up your idea.

Cartier-Bresson said that in any human interaction there is a time when the geometry perfectly describes the interaction. That was his "decisive moment." And he sometimes waited quite a while for it to happen.

The point here is that you have a better chance, by far, if you know what you are looking for.

[bernard11]

How do you ‘see’ and ‘find’ the killer shot?

One thing you can do, in addition the suggestions of others, is look a lot. At paintings, photographs, drawings, by outstanding artists. Go to the museum. If you have these kinds of "coffee table" books around open them up and really look at the images. It's a sort of drill.

[Don Nico]

great advice!

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I appreciated your thoughts bernard11. Made a lot of sense.

[John F. Carr]

I have Zeiss lenses. They were cost competitive with the better lenses from Nikon and some of Canon's "L" lenses. They are manual focus.

Leica's cameras seem to have a huge brand name and style premium. I remember admiring Leica in a camera store. The owner told me the camera I already had was just as good.

[Don Nico]

Zeiss optics are superlative. Leica is more than just a brand name; both have high prices that derive for expensive production lines. But if you want to go high end, there is Hasselblatt and for movies, the Red One. They are truly high precision machines.

[John F. Carr]

Somebody sent me a picture that included a cart loaded with movie lenses. Four wheel cart one person could push. The cases were labeled with the lens type. I started looking them up and the cart probably had over $200,000 worth of equipment on it.

[jb]

Movies are probably a good example of where it's "worth it" to pay for the diminishing returns to get a couple of 10% quality improvements that cost 10x each to get with your equipment. The rest of your production budget is so high that the camera lenses aren't going to meaningfully affect it, and having the picture look 20% better makes a difference in how your consumers are going to react to it.

[Don Nico]

I think that you are correct.

[bernard11]

I use some Zeiss lenses also. They are excellent. I'm not totally convinced that there is a lot of difference at a given price point, or if there is that it all favors a particular brand. Maybe it does because of superior manufacturing technique or something.

As for Leica, I was once told by a professional photographer that he uses Leicas because of their extreme durability and reliability. As he said, he puts (back then) thousands of rolls of film a year through his camera, and he needs it to work, every time. He thought it was pointless for amateurs to spend the money given their much less demanding requirements.

I don't know. I've thought about buying a Leica - I use top-end Sony's - but both the bodies and the lenses are quite pricey, and that rangefinder focusing is tough with my old eyes.

[Don Nico]

Top of the line prime lenses from Canon and Nikon are also very pricey, but here again the optical quality and price match.

[bernard11]

I just looked at B&H to get an idea about relative prices. For roughly portrait focal length lenses (75-105mm) Nikon and Canon top out at about $2000, and the two priciest, one of each brand, are also tilt-shift lenses.

Leica has a 75mm at $4895 and a 90mm at $4195. After that you're into 5-digit prices. Superb lenses, no doubt, but still.

I ask myself two questions:

1. Are there other ways to spend the incremental $2-3000 that will improve my images more than buying Leica instead of Nikon or Zeiss/Sony?

2. Given that I do buy high-end lenses, is lens quality really a binding constraint on my photography? IOW, what do I, as opposed to a more skilled professional photographer, get for the Leica premium?

That said, I'd love to get one, if just for the panache. Veblen good.

[Don Nico]

I have been very happy with the Nikon 24-70 lens for almost all my photography as testing wide open on a clear day it delivers diffraction limited resolution (power lines at 5 km) that I want for very large prints with great detail.
Unless you do a lot of indoor interior work, I would not pay the extra for the perspective control. Photoshop can take care of almost all of the perspective distortions.

[santamonica811]

B,
The difference between a great lens and the absolute best lens is extremely small, in terms of what you can actually see. When my friends ask me for buying advice, the first thing I always ask is: How do you intend your images to be viewed? On a cell phone? Printed at about 8x10" or so? Printed at about 3x5 feet? On a HD computer or TV screen? Projected onto a wall via projector?

For most uses; I'd bet that your current lenses are good enough for almost all end results. Especially if you are using the lenses at their optimal settings. (Which, for almost all lenses, is about 2 steps down from wide open aperture). If you are using a really really cheap (ie, crappy) lens, and you are shooting wide open (at the largest/widest) aperture, then you might have some noticeable blurring in the corners.

If you are shooting medium or large format file or slides, then you might even notice the difference with average lenses, but probably only if viewing on a HD screen, or if printed out in a *huge* size. I buy expensive lenses, because (a) they are weather-sealed, and will not be ruined by being in fog, or freezing weather, or 120 degree weather, (b) they tend to [but not always] have larger maximum apertures, (c) they tend to have more pleasing bokeh, (d) they are more sturdy and will last longer. 2024 was literally the first time I've had to fix an "L" lens (ie, a pro lens), and that was after being banged around for 25 years, around the world, in all sorts of bad conditions.

To answer your actual question: What would I (SM811) get by using Leica? Frankly, absolutely nothing, in terms of what I can produce, and for what I print out. (Owning Leica lenses would also mean having to buy cameras that will take Leica lenses...no thanks; I'd rather use that pile of money to buy another house!) 🙂

[Don Nico]

I had a friend who was a top photojournalist during the Vietnam war. He said exactly the same thing about Leica. They could literally go through the war exposing many thousands of rolls of film and still be reliable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Manufacturing small run electronics is insanely expensive if you want them to be higher performance and compact, too. And then you've got custom hardware that needs custom software to run.

So the price differential isn't going to be one or two orders of magnitude, it's going to be four or five, to get a significant performance difference.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The military can afford to do this, and then there are the civilian spinoffs.

[Michael P]

I can't think of any. The major difference seems to be total non-recurring engineering costs; if the cost to produce serial #1 is huge compared to the cost to produce serial #2, the NRE should be amortized over a relatively large number of units. There's not enough of a certain market to produce a super luxe iPhone -- it's simpler for artisans to reskin a normal iPhone with platinum and diamonds or whatever.

The same is true of airplanes; prices vary by several times when you fit out options and trim, but to get to orders of magnitude you need to look at different categories of planes.

[Krayt]

Electronics are luxuries when new. Affordable only by the rich anyway. Cell phones, nav radios, these bleeding edge things were way expensive at first.

My grandma was the first person on her block to have a TV. Not because she was rich, quite the opposite, but because she and her siblings inherited a house and sold it and she used her part to buy first car and TV. The TV was teeny and black and white and $700 in 1950s money. And way cool I'm sure. They still had it stored in the attic when I was a kid.

[Krayt]

Inflation calculator suggests $8200. Yeah, people still taking the bus to work won’t be having one in general any time soon.

[Krayt]

Well, the screen was teeny. It was a good sized piece of furniture.

[Frank Drackman]

Family’s first Color TV was an early Hanukkah present November 1972 (OK, Dad was flying B52’s in Thailand, so Mom was a little free-er spending with the Shekels) excuse was so we could see the last Apollo Moonwalks in Color (and the “Immaculate Reception” although we didn’t know it yet) and every time before when we got a TV mom would say that old joke “It’s Color, Black and White!”(Black is technically the absence of Color, while White is all colors mixed together, so I guess she was right)
19” Zenith in the $300 range (multiply x 7 for 2024$) No remote, we did have “Cable” which consisted of the Denver local Stations plus the 3 from Rapid City, Was our only Color TV until Dad upgraded to a 25 incher (hey now!) in 1983, took the 19 inch (and the TV) to med school where it served well until one of the tubes gave up the ghost in 1988, ended up as a target at one of the unofficial dumps outside of Auburn, saw that Moonwalk, Nixon’s Resignation, probably almost every “Bicentennial Minute” every World Series, Superbowl, hundreds of Braves/Cubs/Mets games in the 80's,
I loved that TV!!!!!!

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

I disagree with those saying it's about cost or benefit. None of those luxury versions offer much other than signifying cosmetics. That's an easy after-manufacturing add-on if they wanted to. Like the

It's gotta be cultural. Were there luxury versions of cars and watches and air travel when they were less than a generation in?
The adoption has been lighting quick, but the industry may need to make more of that trip from novelty to necessity to background noise.

But I would expect such a market sometime, for sure.

[Don Nico]

"those luxury versions offer much other than signifying cosmetics"
With respect to cameras, you are simply wrong. The statement shows real ignorance of these products.
If you are saying that a good photographer can take high quality photos with a pocket camera that true.
If one takes photos for prints in the few foot x few foot size (or larger), the top quality optics make an immense difference.

[Sarcastr0]

I have some photographers in my family, and will cede that space for sure.

It's almost a continuum. Certainly not like the other luxury items Noscitur motioned.

Why optoelectronics is such a different biz from microelectronics wide, I don't know.

[SRG2]

Because technology, particularly wrt electronics, gets cheaper and better as time passes. The same cannot happen to other goods except when technology is a major part of what is used to produce them.

[Bwaaah]

The style challenge, which is an engineering challenge, is to cram all that technical capability we expect in a phone (for example) into a small, elegant form factor. How would a fashion house improve upon that? They don't have the technical talent in their wheelhouses to reduce that size nor increase the capabilities within that size. So all they could do is add to it...dress it up or make it bigger. Given the simplicity of phone style as it is (thin, smooth, monotone), the first casualty of any enhancement is likely to be elegance. And if they did dress it up, would it not appear as a thin veil of style draped over a technical tour de force?

There is, of course, the Louis Vuitton iPhone 15 case for $445.

[jb]

The main place you see luxury electronics is in the "audiophile" space where there's a lot of dumb stuff like $75,000 speaker cables or $225,000 speakers.

I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen a stupidly expensive Android phone. The rationale other folks have given make total sense as to why Apple hasn't made a super premium iPhone*, but you could imagine someone deciding to make a phone where all the wiring was gold or something like that and then still being able to run stock Android on it for a decent enough user experience while differentiating the hardware in a "luxury" way that was pretty meaningless as to the actual specs.

* Although the experience with the Vision Pro maybe demonstrates that maybe there's just not that much demand for very expensive electronics even if Apple were willing to make them.

[Don Nico]

But in the audiophile space very expensive speakers and preamps and DACs do sound much better.

[jb]

Just as I'm sure a $3700 Brunello Cucinelli sweater is actually better-made and more durable than a $99 one from Uniqlo, there's certainly going to be some audiophile products that are better than stuff from Vizio. But as with fashion or watches you get into diminishing returns pretty quickly.

A lot of audiophile stuff is pure nonsense, though. There's been lots of testing done to show that a coathanger works just as good as a speaker cable as high-end products and since digital cables are just carrying ones and zeros, there's not even a hypothesis for why you should be paying $4500 for an HDMI cable.

[Don Nico]

"a lot of audiophile stuff is pure nonsense"
That is also true

[Brett Bellmore]

My wife occasionally buys me something from LL Bean for Christmas. It's always at a price I'd never be willing to pay in a store, but admittedly, the quality IS much better than I'd get in that store, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

L.L Bean is not what it used to be. But then what is.

[DaveM]

This is a really cool observation. I'll have to think on it.

You're quite correct, but perhaps only because we're limiting ourselves to consumer-grade electronics. As I understand it, the only way to manufacture chips profitably is to scale up the process massively. Chip plants cost billions both to buy and to operate. Thus, you're going to get the same level of chips in an entire class of products at a time.

However, if you broaden the scope to include software, well then the story there is completely different. Even software purchased "off the shelf" is typically customized to a fare-thee-well, at enormous expense -- to say nothing of software written from scratch.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is actually possible to manufacture small run electronics at the bleeding edge, without those expensive plants. "Direct write" using electron beams instead of lithographic masks, and chipletts to achieve wafer scale integration. But you're going to be spending insane amounts per piece doing that.

[bernard11]

For some of these things the high price is the point. Google "Veblen goods." Watches and clothes are very good examples.

Basically, the idea is that you buy exclusivity and signal your wealth by conspicuous consumption.

Of course the high-end item must be of good, but not necessarily wondrous quality. Having your watch stop running does not convey prestige.

Why is there no ultra-lux iPhone? Maybe because there is no way to show off its alleged superiority, and any advanced features can easily be included in regular ones, and will be next year.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For some of these things the high price is the point. Google “Veblen goods.” Watches and clothes are very good examples.

Basically, the idea is that you buy exclusivity and signal your wealth by conspicuous consumption.

Yes, that’s kind of what I’m getting at. It just struck me as odd (if it’s true) that when it comes to some of their most frequently used pieces off property, even the most status—obsessed celebrities and billionaires use the same phone that I do, and can’t get a better one no matter what they do.

[Absaroka]

I could be way wrong, but my sense is that it's a lot easier to make a Rolex or Lamborghini than an iPhone (or for that matter, the $149 Samsung my wife just got). Making engine blocks isn't a casual hobby, but it is way simpler than making chips.

Then there is writing an operating system. That's a big job in itself, then you'd have to get apps ported to run on luxOS, then customers face a learning curve to use it, assuming it isn't just a clone of iOS or Android. If it is a clone, then you haven't really distinguished your product. And you'd have to convince people that running Tiktok on their luxFone is totes better than running it on a plain old iPhone or android, which might be a harder sell than saying a Lambo gets more looks than a Camry.

No doubt the luxFone is just about to hit the market, proving me all wrong 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Hoping Pete Hegseth gets confirmed and immediately turns on the pumps to drain the swamp that is the Pentagon (built on an actual swamp).
A good start would be reducing the General Officers corp. by 1/2.
Too many brass ass hats biding time before they go to work for defense contractors.

[santamonica811]

One wonders why Trump did not run on this promise: "Elect me and I'll decimate the military."*

(That's tongue-in-cheek...of course we know why Trump did not run on that message.)

*Using 'decimate' to correctly mean, "To reduce by 10%.")

[Mr. Bumble]

Equating the General officer corp. with the military as a whole is disingenuous.
Does the country really need over 600 General/Flag officers (over 40 of 4 star rank)?

[Commenter_XY]

We won WW2 with 30ish-year olds as generals and admirals, newly promoted into leadership positions when their bosses died. We managed to win, anyway.

You need to start at the service academies.

[apedad]

You see, this is where it's funny/sad because you guys don't even understand what you want.

Appointments to the service academies are big business for Senators and Representatives and there's no way they're going to let Trump run over that.

Same with Bumble's remark about the Pentagon.

Sure, Trump will make some changes about "woke" stuff but anything that involves reducing programs - and I'm talking about money - is also a non-starter.

The Sens and Reps love them some Pentagon dollars.

Just look at Trump moving U.S. Space Command to AL from CO and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala) already drooling over those bucks.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, when I said service academies, I meant administrative staff, the educational staff, and the people running them. That is where some of the military leaders of tomorrow are being formed, in their youth. It is the root of our military.

That is where you want to remove malignant 'woke' ideology and the application thereof from the ranks...starting at the service academies.

[Frank Drackman]

Gonna step on a few Schlongs here, but getting rid of the Service Academies wouldn’t be a bad start, they get just as good if not better Officers from ROTC, at 1/10 the cost, out of the most recent USAF Academy graduating class of 1,000 only 400 are going into Pilot Training, the other 1000 or so Pilots they need come from ROTC, they’ve also decided they need to have real Foo-bawl teams, so that’s 100 spots that won’t ever do anything useful militarily (OK, there’s the occasional Chad Hennings/Roger Staubach, most get cushy Admin spots if they even serve, see Robinson, David)
Then once they graduate, the Academy grads act like their shit doesn’t stink, they’re called “Ring Knockers” because they wear these huge Academy Class Rings (you know, the rings even most High School kids have too much class to wear) to let everyone know they’re “West Point/Annapolis”(OK, Air Force is only a Semi-military organization)
and yes, I’m prejudiced because me and my dad were both ROTC

Frank

[myself]

Appointments to the service academies are big business for Senators and Representatives and there’s no way they’re going to let Trump run over that.

They said the same thing with Putin and the oligarchs.

Trump owns the GOP and is about to own the DOJ as well. No one is stepping out of line.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How many has Putin gone through?

[David Nieporent]

Does the country really need over 600 General/Flag officers (over 40 of 4 star rank)?

I don't know. I doubt you know, and I am quite certain Trump doesn't know.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Let's not forget that the last Secretary of Defense disappeared for several days and no one noticed.

[Frank Drackman]

and with someone as svelte as Lloyd Austin, that's no mean feat

[Riva]

Not the military fighting force, just some worthless hacks at the Pentagon

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the history of Eisenhower before he made Supreme Commander some time.

[Riva]

To the best of my knowledge, we fought WWII with a handful of the general staff bloating the rolls now. Some cleaning up from the messes left by past Democrat administrations, especially Obama, is long, long overdue.

[Frank Drackman]

The President can fire any Commissioned Officer at any time for any reason, says it right there in the Commission
"This Commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the United States of America"
Truman did it with MacArthur (as Barry Hussein would say, "Stupidly") saying
"I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail."

Frank

[Bwaaah]

And let's not forget Obama having fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal for having said a not-nice thing, in the back of a bar, about Joe Biden.

So, yeah, the deep strategic reasoning behind Presidential control of the military.

[David Nieporent]

Let's not forget something you made up. McChrystal was fired because he talked on the record to a reporter disparagingly about pretty much everyone above him or around him, including his CinC, Biden, the National Security Advisor, and the U.S. ambassadors to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[Bwaaah]

Here's the Wikipedia account of what happened. He didn't say any of that "on the record." It would appear that your corrections are distortions.

[sarcasm]And certainly, David, as a boss for many years, I never tolerated a subordinate who was heard saying critical things about me.[/sarcasm]

If I were Obama, I'd have had a sit-down to straighten it out before I'd have created a public show of it. But no...Obama's reputation had been sullied; his command had been brought into question. "The people demand I show my dick is the biggest." (Some shit about "commander-in-chief.")

Pretty Barack pulled out his proverbial white gloves, and drew them across McCrystal's unmoving jaw. And then he "accepted" the general's resignation. Tut tut.

That was so weak, and so emphasized the importance of McCrystal's position and Obama's fear. And you know that didn't shut down the disdain in the ranks, don't you, David?

Are you one of those pussy bosses, David?

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court has denied Mark Meadows's petition for certiorari regarding his attempt to remove the Fulton County, Georgia prosecution to federal court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111224zor_4fci.pdf

The Georgia Court of Appeals will hear argument on December 5 as to the trial court's denial of several defendants' motions to disqualify Fani Willis and the State's cross-appeal of the dismissal of certain counts of the indictment. Upon remand it will likely be necessary to sever the pending charges against Donald Trump from the charges against Trump's remaining codefendants.

[Mr. Bumble]

…and if Miss Fanny gets disqualified would any other prosecutor touch this case?

[not guilty]

If that happens then the case would be sent to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia for a new prosecutor to be assigned. I surmise that the successor would make an independent evaluation of whether and how to proceed.

One aspect of this raises a question that I don’t know the answer to. Not all defendants sought to appeal the trial court’s decision declining to disqualify, and proceedings before the trial court have continued as to those defendants. I don’t know whether the appellate court could or would disqualify Ms. Willis from further participation as to the defendants who declined to appeal.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, pragmatically, I tend to think that if The Smasher is disqualified from the case, and a new prosecutor assigned, it fades away. The GA election results probably killed this case.

[hobie]

A Georgia grand jury true billed an indictment for conspiracy,election fraud, false documents, witness intimidation and computer theft. You want crime to go unpunished?

[Commenter_XY]

I want the interests of justice to be served, hobie.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There's a lie which nobody is going to believe. You're quite good at those.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, I'll go out on a limb here. There is a meaningful difference between the legalities and the interest of justice, in some cases. The definition of 'in some cases' very much depends on your perspective. GA just had an election where this case was a significant backdrop to the vote; it was a factor in making their decision for whom to vote. Given GA results, it is clear there are many people in GA who probably don't share your perspective on this.

There is a GA legal process; follow it. From the looks of it, this case is 'iced' until January 2029, in any event.

[SRG2]

What makes you think that the wishes of the majority and the interests of justice are the same?

[Bwaaah]

From the progressive minority that presumes a righteous monopoly on the redefinition of justice for all.

[SRG2]

That doesn't follow from anything I said, unlike my response to XY.

The interests of justice are independent of majorities or minorities.

Obviously you don't believe that.

[Bwaaah]

Obviously, we have differences in our views of justice and what it means, more precisely, to implement them.

But for you, I believe that is irreconcilably wrong. I can't be right, There is only one notion of justice, as you describe, "independent of majorities or minorities."

That's typical absolutist, in-your-head, my-way framing of the problem. It is a soft form of extremism...uncompromising in its assumption of a mythical moral singularity. That thinking is especially common in young people, but thankfully, all but a few grow out of it.

If you insist on a pseudo-orthodoxy, why not go with a more traditional, mature religion? They strongly embrace the core elements of morality, and have even had centuries to adapt to symbiotic coexistence with political life. (Many now seamlessly integrate gay people into their clergy, having weened their doctrinal interpretations away from literal historicism.)

But no. One justice. SRG2 justice. Not deplorable. And nobody caught in the J6 net deserves a pardon; another chance? I hope that's not your position.

[Noscitur a sociis]

it was a factor in making their decision for whom to vote.

What is your basis for this claim?

[Commenter_XY]

Nas, be pragmatic. This case has been the subject of wall to wall coverage in GA (and nationally) for months and months and months. People are people, Nas. They form opinions over time. Many factors go into the final decision of a vote. It is not a sterile decision. My point is that it was certainly a factor (not necessarily the deciding factor) for many in GA.

[David Nieporent]

So, the answer is that you don't have any basis. (Note, incidentally, that Willis herself was reelected.)

[bernard11]

There is a meaningful difference between the legalities and the interest of justice,

True. Which is part of the reason I find Trump's plans for illegal immigrants abhorrent. To arrest, imprison, and deport people who have been here for years, have families and friends, have done nothing wrong (Yes, they crossed the border without proper documents, some time ago. Worth forgiving, IMO) is not remotely "justice."

It is nothing but catering to bigotry.

[Commenter_XY]

My thought is the immediate focus will be on convicted criminals, and gang members. There are plenty of them.

Understand that the majority of this country has voted for change, bernard11, and one of the things they voted for was the removal of these illegal aliens from our country. The border and illegal aliens flooding the country was one of the pre-eminent issues of this election. The people did speak. You don't like what they said.

DACA is a separate class. There are some unique issues there. It will need a different solution.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You have no idea which of Trump's bullshit or lies the idiots who voted for him cared about.

On the other hand, maybe next time around we can deport slime like you.

[SRG2]

I’m reminded of the joke of the novice attorney sent to defend a client in the sticks in the old days. At the end of the trial he sends a telegram back to his partner: “Justice prevailed”. He receives a return telegram, “Appeal”.

[Frank Drackman]

Of Course not, dig up Ted Kennedy's Corpse (with all that Cutty Sark he's probably well pickled) and try him for the murder of Mary Joe Kopeckney, the Statue of Limitations for Murder never runs out!!! And while we're at it, dig up JFK and try him for Treason for leaving a battalion of Cuban Freedom Fighters to die at the Bay of Pigs (leaving peoples to die in/near Bodies of Water seems to be a thing with the Kennedy Klan.

Frank

[not guilty]

The Georgia election results will likely preclude any trial of Donald Trump while he holds office as President, but Trump is but one of nineteen defendants. (Four have pleaded guilty.)

Except that Fani Willis was herself re-elected, the election results mean bupkis as to the criminal culpability of the fourteen remaining defendants.

[Commenter_XY]

O/T....GA politics is 'spicy'. There is a little bit of everything. But always, it seems, a lot of heat. Is it cultural? Is it a vestige from distant times = the roiled nature of GA politics.

[Frank Drackman]

It's mostly confined to Atlanta, where it's the exception when a mayor doesn't go to prison or only doesn't go because he's a drooling Idiot (See Reed, Kasim). Current Mayor Andre Dickens is a pretty sharp guy, Georgia Tech grad, sort of did a reverse Hey-Zeus and threw the Homeless out of Atlanta-Zimbabwe-Hartsfield, I can tolerate a guy asking for handouts by the taxi stand, but in the Delta Sky Lounge??

Frank

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, how long have you been on a first name basis with "Miss Fanny"?

[Frank Drackman]

The list of peoples who've nailed Fanny in the Fanny is long and distinguished, like my Johnson.

[Riva]

That’s cute. You really think this repulsive lawfare has a future? You should keep up on current events. The lawfare thugs are the ones who will soon need to lawyer up. Big time. Fani’s “special” counsel was not taking visitor tours of the WH. These thugs will be falling over themselves trying to cover up their wrongs.

[David Nieporent]

This is bad AI-generated poetry.

[Riva]

If only you were AI generated but I'm afraid the world has to live with the bat shit crazy real thing. And probably clinging to whatever threads of sanity remain (if any) in light of President Trump's recent nominations. Maybe you and your alter ego Sarcastr0 can have a good primal scream session together?

[Commenter_XY]

Re: Antisemitism at Univ of Rochester
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/399165

This was reprehensible behavior, but is it illegal?

[not guilty]

I don't see a basis for criminal prosecution. If the subjects of the posters are falsely accused of genocide or other crimes, that may be actionable defamation. Accusations of racism are probably assertions of opinion rather than fact, though.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, how about NY state harassment laws? The faculty and students pictured in the posters - grounds for harassment?

[David Nieporent]

No.

[Commenter_XY]

Title VI violation?
(waiting for you to tell me no, lol)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Could be vandalism with a hate crime enhancement.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It may be libelous if the false accusations are specific enough to meet judicial standards. But the term “war criminal,” like the term “racist,” has been watered down so much – it basically means “someone I don’t like” – that it would be hard to prove such a statement libelous.

The accusation of having a sister-city relationship with a West Bank settlement, if false, might be a more promising avenue of attack, because normal moderate Americans distinguish between Israel proper and the occupied territories and might be uncomfortable with a sister city arrangement with a Jewish settlement in the latter – if it actually happened, and the article says it didn’t. Of course, to the activists, all of Israel is occupied territory and the specific detail of whether Israelis live in the West Bank or in regular Israel is irrelevant; they are all settler colonialists.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/399128

When John Ratcliffe takes over CIA, a housecleaning is in order.

What kind of sentence is there for willful retention and transmission of national defense information? Who hired Asif W. Rahman?

[hobie]

Sigh...4 more years of this

"Months after leaving the White House, former President Donald Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with a member of his Mar-a-Lago Club -- an Australian billionaire who then allegedly shared the information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists, according to sources familiar with the matter."

[Commenter_XY]

So...what kind of sentence awaits Asif W Rahman (gee, I can't say I am surprised at the surname)?

President Donald Trump was just re-elected as President, so we know the sentence: Four more years in the fetid DC swamp. 😉

[apedad]

As Dr Ed correctly points out with former/future Pres. Trump, Rahman has ALLEGEDLY retained and transmitted classified information and should receive all the safeguards and presumptions of innocence that Trump has received.

[Commenter_XY]

The dude was caught, in Cambodia(?). He'll have a fair trial, which I would expect. Then after he is found guilty, what sentence awaits - better or worse than that Texiera guy (15 years).

[bernard11]

Trump was likewise caught, at Mar-a-Lago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ALLEGEDLY....

[hobie]

The Australian has already given a sworn deposition to authorities. If he lied he could get jail time

[Riva]

Now do Russian collusion again.

[Bob from Ohio]

"potentially sensitive information"

What exactly? Because it could cover all sorts of things.

[John F. Carr]

Leaking top secret national defense information under circumstances not amounting to espionage has a guidelines sentence around a decade. Espionage has a much longer sentence.

[hobie]

When Trump pardons all the Jan6-ers, a couple hundred of them will be cop beaters. I take it everyone is cool with that?

[Commenter_XY]

hobie, the prevailing attitude I sense is anyone who has 'blood on their hands' isn't getting bupkis. Nor should they. Rioters who destroyed property must pay a price for that, maybe in the form of delayed commutation. Since we have extensive video coverage of the Capitol Building riot, it will be a straightforward exercise to see who assaulted LEOs (or anyone else, for that matter) and who destroyed property.

I would just note that this is a good example of why I want a POTUS' pardon to be absolute. It is a very effective tool. The Founders showed considerable foresight here. Who you pardon and who you don't can communicate a message to the electorate.

Hobie...my question to you: Would you change the constitutional pardon power of the POTUS?

[hobie]

Nope. The pardon power is just fine. We just have to hope it isn't abused

[Frank Drackman]

Who's this "We" you talkin' bout' Willis?

[David Nieporent]

Hobie…my question to you: Would you change the constitutional pardon power of the POTUS?

If I were asked to edit the constitution, I would make explicit that a president can't pardon himself, but would not otherwise change it. (I would, of course, also make even more explicit that there's no such thing as presidential immunity, but that's a different question than the one asked.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

the prevailing attitude I sense is anyone who has ‘blood on their hands’ isn’t getting bupkis.

And where do you sense that?

[Riva]

No, pardons and commutations not enough. The j6 victims should be adequately compensated for what they endured. And I want to see some government accountability for the abusive prosecutions. Some transparency on all those gov’t agents present that day would be nice, as well as some disclosures on the DNC bomb threat that wasn’t.

[Frank Drackman]

Where does Ashli Babbit go to get her life back?

[Riva]

I would add that there’s no statute of limitations on murder. Looking forward to how AG Gaetz will resolve matters.

[not guilty]

Per 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a), there is no federal statute of limitations for first degree murder within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; there is for second degree murder, which is not a capital crime. 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a) provides in relevant part:

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

IOW it takes more than a dead body to prove up a charge of first degree murder. It would be difficult to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing of Ashli Babbit by Capitol Police was willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated.

[Riva]

A little premature there little guy. The disclosures are yet to come.

[Commenter_XY]

Absent a political agreement between Team R and Team D, this won't happen = The j6 victims should be adequately compensated for what they endured. I very much doubt DC-based courts will involve themselves in that.

The transparency and accountability....maybe.

[David Nieporent]

The only "J6 victims" were the people working at the Capitol that day. The J6 perpetrators were already compensated — though probably not adequately enough — with jail time.

[Riva]

Would that be the mysterious DNC fake bomber too? It would be interesting to know a little more about that, wouldn't it crazy Dave?

[SRG2]

Hahahaha! What a cretin.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, I think the question about the pipe bomber(s) is a very legitimate one. VP Harris was in the DNC HQ for a period of time while the bomb was there. That is a massive failure by the USSS, to me.

We cannot figure out who the bombers were in the most heavily surveilled city in America?

[Brett Bellmore]

After tracking the guy who planted them through cameras, and actually getting a shot of the license plate on the car that picked him up, yet.

[Riva]

Why do you think their heads are exploding (no pun intended, well maybe a little) at the prospect of AG Gaetz?

[SRG2]

Heads aren't exploding. Intelligent and intellectually honest people are surprised at the selection, doubt Gaetz's competence and character, deem him likely to be more loyal to Trump than to the Constitution, etc.

What makes you think he's such a good choice?

[Frank Drackman]

Same reason Barry Hussein picked Eric Hold'em and Lorretta Lynch'em

Frank

[Riva]

That's true also. The president is entitled to some deference as to his choice for AG. And that some DOJ officials are scared shitless is a bonus.

[Riva]

Because all right people (democrats, the TDS deranged, assorted DOJ/FBI refuse) are acting like frightened little girls at the prospect.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2...What is Pres Trump's goal? = What makes you think he’s such a good choice?

Spend more time thinking about why Gaetz was selected, and how his skill set aligns with what Pres Elect Trump's goal wrt DOJ, FBI actually are. Rep Gaetz knows the DC bureaucracy at DOJ, FBI. How many hours of hearings has he sat through? How many questions has he asked of how many DC bureaucrats?

[not guilty]

Some January 6 victims, including several members of Congress, have sued Donald Trump for monetary damages. See, Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2023). And thanks to Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), those suits can proceed while Trump is in office.

[Riva]

We’ll see how far those suits go when the dems fairytale about J6 collapses under the weight of the coming investigations and disclosures (or we could say the dems gaslighting collapses but I know how much that term bothers you). Some of those plaintiffs may find themselves to be defendants very soon.

[not guilty]

"Some of those plaintiffs may find themselves to be defendants very soon."

What is your legal theory as to these plaintiffs, and on what facts do you base your off the wall statement, Riva? Please be specific.

[Riva]

The comment was somewhat facetious. Wit is wasted on fools. But, to the extent there may be some accountability/liability, that would apply to government actors who have abused their authority. It is absurd to ask for specifics until the investigations and disclosures noted above but, as noted earlier, conspiracy to violate rights may be one area to look at, depending on the facts of course.

[not guilty]

The plaintiffs in the damages suits are Capitol Police officers and members of the House of Representatives who were present at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Whose rights do you speculate that they conspired to violate, and which specific federal constitutional or statutory rights are you talking about? What was the object of the supposed conspiracy, and what facts evince each person's participation therein?

The devil is indeed in the details.

[Riva]

Yeah, that's why I suggested waiting for the disclosure of all those details the democrats and FBI tried to hide, Clarence Darrow.

[SRG2]

And thanks to Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), those suits can proceed while Trump is in office.

Dollars to donuts the SC overturns Clinton using its recent decision in Trump v US – even though the latter concerns criminal cases – similar spurious and dishonest reasoning can be applied in both cases.

[Bwaaah]

"When Trump pardons all the Jan6-ers, a couple hundred of them will be cop beaters. I take it everyone is cool with that?"

Nope. I'd let all the assault and property destruction convictions stand. But for all the rest, I'd be fine with a pardon. Let's just treat them like they're all black and this was a Black Lives Matter protest (only they're not black, and for you, their lives probably don't matter; something about "symbolism").

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The only pardon I'm aware of concerning a BLM protest is the Texas guy who killed a BLM protestor and was subsequently pardoned by Gov. Abbott. Is that the symbolism you mean?

[Bwaaah]

No. I'm talking about convictions for non-violent, non-destructive acts. Do tell.

[SRG2]

Should all people guilty of non-violent non-destructive acts be pardoned, or only Jan6 rioters?

[Bwaaah]

I am only talking about people convicted of J6 crimes. I'm talking about Trump's option, and inclination, to issue pardons. I'm trying to carve out an area worth forgiving.

[SRG2]

Why is participating in a riot intended to prevent the confirmation of a legitimately elected president worth forgiving, while selling a bag of weed not?

[Bwaaah]

For the same reason government executives have pardon powers...to create exceptions at their will. And in this case, the President-elect looks like he has such will, with a huge number of sympathetic citizens who are like-minded (in some regards, at least). So I'm trying to carve out a conciliatory compromise for non-violent, non-destructive people whose only crime was the disruptiveness of their protests.

I'm not endorsing a rule. I'm endorsing a special exception, for strictly political purposes. Consider how disruptive political protests are typically handled, and the inclination of prosecutors to avoid prosecution of the non-violent, non-destructive participants who participated in those protests.

This type of forbearance is the rule, not the exception, in treatment of political protests. I understand that J6 is viewed by many as an exceptional protest that warrants no such forbearance. I try not to get caught up in symbolism or viewpoint preferences when considering this type of issue.

[David Nieporent]

I understand that J6 is viewed by many as an exceptional protest that warrants no such forbearance.

J6 is not regarded as a protest at all, but an insurrection or coup attempt.

[Mr. Bumble]

...by people divorced from reality.

[Bwaaah]

David Nieporent: “J6 is not regarded as a protest at all, but an insurrection or coup attempt.”

That statement, as if there are no alternative perspectives, is so revealing of a major defect in your worldview.

Are there no other reasonable perspectives in consideration of each protestor’s actions? Is it honestly that simple to you, David? Are you honestly that simple?

Get real. Life is complicated with as many perspectives as there are people. Stop acting like one of those absolutist douches who can’t reconcile any perspective except his own. It’s a lazy way to stomp around.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No you aren't, you brought up black BLM protesters and said we should treat non-violent J6 protesters like them. For some reason.

As for your bigger point, we'll see who Trump pardons and if there is some principled distinction being made. I suppose that to some extent, pardoning them would be an admission of responsibility and an acknowledgement that they were acting in response to his words. Something he and most conservative commenters here have denied.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, what he said was, "this was a Black Lives Matter protest (only they’re not black".

So far from bringing up black BLM protesters, he did the exact opposite. Not that you noticed.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I take it everyone is cool with that?"

Should have thought of this before DOJ abused the whole process.

1. DOJ prosecuted people who did not even enter the building.
2. DOJ brought every case in US District Court to get longer sentences when all the misdemeanors could have been brought under the DC code where they would have gotten probation, not prison.
3. 1000+ prosecutions over 4 years. Unprecedented, especially for a riot.

Everyone, including the cosplaying "Proud Boys" should get pardoned. Then fire every DOJ lawyer involved.

[SRG2]

DOJ brought every case in US District Court to get longer sentences when all the misdemeanors could have been brought under the DC code where they would have gotten probation, not prison.

Wherein Bob from Ohio suddenly becomes a liberal on law-and-order issues.

[Bob from Ohio]

When SRG2 suddenly becomes a conservative on law-and-order issues.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He might want to review the sentences to see if they were excessive or not. Some say the sentences were excessive, so why not take a look?

By this time, I imagine that the guilty are in prison expiating their debt to society. How much more expiatin' must they do? Another look wouldn't do any harm.

[apedad]

A U.S. jury awarded $42 million in damages to three Iraqi civilians Tuesday, holding a military contractor accountable for torture during the “war on terror.”

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights representing the Iraqis along with firms Patterson Belknap and Akeel Valentine, the case, heard by a federal court in Virginia, is the first to include survivors of U.S. post-9/11 torture testifying in a U.S. courtroom.

The claims stem from CACI Premier Technologies’ contract with the U.S. to assist with interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq outside of Baghdad. According to the three plaintiffs, middle school principal Suhail Al Shimari, fruit vendor Asa’ad Zuba’e and journalist Al-Ejaili, they were tortured at the prison’s hard site. The U.S. never charged the three men with any crimes.

News outlets broke the story of the torture of Iraqi prisoners there in 2004, leaking photographs and video showing naked, hooded detainees posed in human pyramids, prisoners on leashes and widespread sexual assault. A military investigation ended with the courts-martial of low-level military personnel and the finding that CACI worked to “soften up” prisoners before their integrations.

The Iraqi(s) sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). This 1789 law allows noncitizens subjected to violations of international law to bring a case in U.S. federal court, including against a U.S. corporation, when there is a sufficient connection to the United States.

https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-holds-military-contractor-accountable-in-torture-of-iraqi-civilians/

Not a shining moment in our nation’s history.

It’s interesting to see the 1789 law is still active.

Since 1980, courts have generally interpreted the ATS to allow foreign nationals to seek remedies in U.S. courts for human rights violations committed outside the United States, provided there is a sufficient connection to the United States. Both case law and jurisprudence differ on what characterizes a sufficient U.S. connection, particularly with respect to corporate entities. (wiki)

[John F. Carr]

The punitive damages may be reduced as the $11 million punitive to $3 million compensatory ratio (per plaintiff) is rather large. Legal fees will eat up a lot of that. This case has been going on since 2008.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4405152/al-shimari-v-caci-premier-technology-inc/?page=12

The jury answered yes to the question

Has plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc. is liable to plaintiff for conspiring with military personnel to inflict torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrating treatment on detainees in the Abu Ghraib hard site that resulted in plaintiff being tortured or subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

[John F. Carr]

Sorry, typo. The document didn't have selectable text I could paste. The verdict form was filed as a scan because parts needed to be redacted.

[Swede425]

Side note: I was in a LRS unit that ran missions in Baghdad and Fallujah and we were stationed at Abu Ghraib 2 weeks before that story broke. It was my first tour and the first place we were stationed. Abu Ghraib is actually several different prisons, each with their own walls and towers, inside an enormous compound with walls and towers. I was a medic at the time and there was a California National Guard MP unit there that was just getting ready to go back home. 2 of their medics got with me and asked if I wanted any of their supplies before they left so I took them up on the offer. While I was shopping through their stuff, they were talking to me about some weird stories they heard about what was going on in one of the detainee prisons there. They didn't believe it and neither did I but they said that was the rumor. I remember being in our operations room and watching CNN and seeing that story break. We could literally walk outside of our walled compound and see the other compound where everything had taken place. Absolutely surreal. Over the next couple of weeks I saw more brass flying in by helicopter than I'd ever seen all together in my life. I also saw Dan Rather set up outside the main compound as we were coming back in from a mission. I ended up spending most of the rest of that tour in Baghdad at Camp Victory and then up in Tikrit but it has always stuck with me to see that story unfold in front of us.

[Bwaaah]

Interesting take. (Sounds like real life.)

[apedad]

Thank you for doing an incredibly dangerous job - and making it back!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't know how to think about these crimes from the era of George W. Bush. Are the Bush people still officially the bad guys, or have they been rehabilitated after endorsing Harris?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s possible someone to be wrong about one thing, and right about another thing.

Unlike Trump, most of us are (dare I say it?) non-binary thinkers.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"wrong about one thing" means their signature "achievement" was getting into a horrible war, an "achievement" of which they were (are?) quite proud.

Since the same kind of foreign-policy issues which the Bushites confronted also face the new leaders, we at least have the assurance that they dislike Trump's foreign policy. So the foreign policy can't be all bad.

Yet, not being a binary thinker, I doubt his foreign policy is all good, either.

Being a nonbinary thinker, I even tried to escape the duopoly plantation and its binary assumption that, to paraphrase Gilbert and Sullivan

Every boy and girl brat
That's born into this world of pain
Is either a little Democrat
Or else a little Republican.

[Michael P]

The state of California is still printing, I mean counting, the last 10% of its ballots. Even a third world "shithole" would be ashamed to be so inefficient. Does any non-US country take so long to count votes? India counted ballots in their 2024 election in one day. Mexico took four days. Pakistan took three.

[Sarcastr0]

You pick the stupidest hobby horses.

[Michael P]

That's certainly one way to admit that California makes the rest of the US look like our electoral system is corrupt.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, you're going to keep saying that for a month; no one is going to buy it, and then you're find the next 'this PROVES badness by leftish thing X' to go on about.

I mean, I respect the hipster hustle - the usual nonsense FOX News feeds you won't do; you need the *deep cuts* that probably no one has heard of.

[Malika the Maiz]

I would think accuracy of vote count is more important than speed, have you evidence of the lack of the former?

[Michael P]

Sure. Nobody else needs that long to count votes, which suggests that California is manufacturing some in the process.

I understand you don't like that evidence, but it absolutely is evidence.

[Moderation4ever]

If you think it is evidence, then take it to a court. I am guessing no one will because it is opinion and not evidence. It is like so many of the claims based on ignorance of the election process.

[Michael P]

Again, I understand you don’t like that evidence, but it absolutely is evidence (and relevant, at that). FRE 401:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lol, his argument is it’s not very good evidence, but it is evidence!

What a troll.

[David Nieporent]

How does taking a long time to count votes make it "more probable" that they're "manufacturing" ballots? If they wanted to do that, why not just do it in advance? Is this something where they have to outsource a printing job to Malaysia or something and wait for the new forged ballots to come in by boat?

[Life of Brian]

To maximize odds that extra ballots won't/can't be detected, at a minimum:

1. They need to know who didn't already vote.
2. They need to know roughly how many they need.
3. They need to know how to spread that amount around roughly proportionately so it doesn't create an improbable statistical bulge.

None of that information is available in advance.

That doesn't seem particularly complicated.

[not guilty]

Relevance under Rule 401 is not the only test of admissibility. Michael P. here conveniently overlooks Rule 602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Suggests” is not good evidence.

Also, I think you’re wrong that other nations don’t take that kind of time. This “suggests” Canada doesn’t finalize their vote counting until many days after the initial election. Guess I just “proved” Canadians are manufacturing votes!

https://elections.bc.ca/news/update-on-recounts-final-count/

[DaveM]

No, the long process doesn't "suggest" that California is "manufacturing" votes. You're just making that leap in your own head.

What it tells you is that California's process is a complete muck-up, which it is. They have created such a nightmare of a process that they literally cannot count any faster.

[Malika the Maiz]

Btw-they we’re still counting votes in federal races in Alaska, Iowa and Ohio (to name a few states) when doofus wrote this. Such suggestion!

[Frank Drackman]

You mean "other Third World Countries", even the beautiful Eva Longoria couldn't stand living there, now splitting her time between May-he-co and Spain. Doing my VA job in San Diego, a number of Vets come for their procedures from May-he-co, most saying they live there not because of the lower housing costs, taxes, prices, but that it's safer than Southern California

Frank

[DaveM]

The reason California takes so long to count votes is simply because they allow all kinds of overlapping records to be created which then have to be curated at great expense in time and money to come up with a plausibly legitimate count.

California is a no-ID state. It both mails ballots to all registrants and allows in-person voting. It allows anyone to harvest registration applications and ballots. It allows a voter to request a second and even a third ballot if they declare they didn't receive a ballot.

In other words, a complete data integrity mess, overlapping ballots, overlapping registrations, no way to positively identify a voter, and reliance on the US postal service, which isn't a guaranteed delivery service and has never claimed to be.

All of this creates a firestorm of issues all of which have to be cured before they can be counted. Of course it takes a month.

Don't be like California.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are aliens abducting VC commentators? The Rev., Queenie, Nige and now Dr Ed. all quiet.

[Sarcastr0]

Dr, Ed posted an hour ago in the Theodore Olsen thread. QA posted just below.

You should be less weird about monitoring posters.

[Bwaaah]

Il Douche, upset by a hint of humor in an interesting remark.

Lemme guess...the alien abduction remark wasn't humor to you, and you wanted to use a Democrat campaign word post-election as to suggest you will always be a tool.

How's it feel to be a part of the resistance? No change? Same old same-old?

[Frank Drackman]

Shhhhhhhh!!!!! Be Ve-wy Quiet, they're hunting Reverends, Queenies, and Niges (I think Dr. Ed's computer froze up and he's waiting for his teenage nephew to restart it)

Frans

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump’s recent nomination announcements further demonstrate what I’ve been saying all along: at the heart of MAGA is an inability to appreciate/seething resentment of professionals and professionalism.

[Michael P]

You are conflating bureaucracy with professionalism.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dems have been doing that since Wilson.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Scalia did he same thing, but with cops.

I've seen Trump wants to restrict legal consequences for things police are criticized for in the course of their duties, and rely more on their sense of professionalism to deter police misconduct.

[Sarcastr0]

Professionalism is about self-discipline, and taking pride in something larger than your own ego.

Looking at Trump's picks, it very hard to argue professionalism is something Trump cares about.

[Frank Drackman]

Pete Hedgepath (Hedge-seth? you know, the “Fox News Guy”) served in Ear-Rock, and Off-Gone-E-Stan, JD Vance in Ear Rock, Colonel Gabbard also, where did you serve? What uniform did you wear? (Your Village People Sailor Suit doesn’t count)
“Professionalism”???? you mean like that Fat Fuck Lloyd Austin (Lloyd Christmas would do a better job) can’t even meet the Army’s weight standards, and goes to Walter Reed to have his cancerous Prostrate removed without telling anyone? a friggin E2 would get NJP (I’d tell you but…..) for Unauthorized Absence.

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran, military service does not automatically equate competence, integrity and sanity. Michael Flynn and yourself being prime examples

[Frank Drackman]

I know, I know, you'd have served except for that whole "Hernia Checks in Day Care" incident, tell the truth, are you the Revolting Reverend on Ludes?

[Krayt]

Trump himself ripped on a guy who refused to leave his men while being held and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton.

[Frank Drackman]

Total Bullshit, he agreed that McCain was a Hero, precisely for those reasons (it certainly wasn't for his Naval performance prior to being captured)

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah, the FBI's frame-up of Michael Flynn was super-"professional"...

[David Nieporent]

I don't think you understand what the word "frame" means in the criminal justice context. It means manufacturing fake evidence to implicate an innocent person. That certainly never happened in Michael Flynn's case; he was indisputably guilty, as he admitted. It's just that they decided that it shouldn't count that he lied repeatedly.

[Don Nico]

He only cares about winning.

[Michael P]

Hahaha. Next you'll tell us that Trump allows his underlings to be undisciplined and to put their egos above the direction he wants the organization to go.

Make up your mind.

[Sarcastr0]

Makes sense Michael wouldn't know what self discipline means.

[Malika the Maiz]

No, that’s be the person that thinks that Gaetz, Hedspeth, etc have demonstrated the levels of qualifications, experience and temperament (all three are key elements of professionalism) to be qualified for the offices.

[Bwaaah]

Not only do they conflate bureaucracy with professionalism; they conflate it with humanity too. (Remember DEI? It's only half gone, and still not apologized for.)

[Frank Drackman]

The "Best and the Brightest" gave us Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan, and are currently fucking You-Crane like a monkey fucking a football, and NASA? what haven't they fucked up in the last 20 years?

[Martinned2]

“I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”

https://www.london.edu/think/who-needs-experts

[Ed Grinberg]

Wow, you actually said (well, quoted) something sensible!

[Martinned2]

Retweets are not endorsements. The (Oxford graduate) populist who said that just got turfed out of parliament by his constituents, once they got a newfound appreciation for expertise in the wake of Covid and Brexit.

[SRG2]

Experts sometimes get things wrong, despite their knowledge. Ignoramuses sometimes get things right, despite their ignorance.

That's not an argument in favour of preferring ignoramuses, though it seems to be accepted by you and others of your ilk.

I wish there was more consistency. People like you should always go to homeopaths rather than those nasty experts, doctors.

[David Nieporent]

That’s not an argument in favour of preferring ignoramuses, though it seems to be accepted by you and others of your ilk.

Well, that's a simple matter of self-interest on their part, no?

[Commenter_XY]

The shoe is on the other foot.

[DaveM]

Please no more of that kind of "professionalism". We can't afford you.

[hobie]

Little Marco - Secretary of State - Putin can hire Christie to humiliate him again
Noem - Homeland Security
Gaetz - Attorney General
Stefanik - UN Ambassador

When you include Vance, Trump is doing a good job of getting all the crazies out of congress. But where the hell is he going to put Michael Flynn? He pledged and oath to Qanon in 2020, so could he even be given security clearance?

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when one of his picks is an ugly dude who walks around in a woman's admiral uniform and heels, or a Fairy who steals women's clothing from Airport Luggage Carousels, (you gotta do it while they're in the dressing room at Macy's)

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

You mean this, uh, appointee?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Levine
Or this employee?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brinton

[Bob from Ohio]

"Stefanik – UN Ambassador"

A great pick. She toppled the presidents of three Ivy schools because they couldn't answer basic questions. UN is a PR job, advocating the US point of view, she will be excellent at this.

Rubio is an experienced senator. Two Dems have already endorsed it.

[apedad]

Massachusetts Air National Guardsman gets 15 years for leaking classified documents

A 22-year-old technology support staffer for the Massachusetts Air National Guard was sentenced to 15 years in prison Tuesday for posting classified documents to a group on the social media platform Discord.

Jack Teixeira was charged under the Espionage Act for leaking six documents, five of which were labeled “top secret,” the highest classification. The documents described Ukrainian troop movements, deliveries of military supplies to Ukraine, a plot by a foreign country against U.S. forces and internal actions by foreign nations.

(Defense attorney Brendan) Kelley also argued that Teixeira was unlike Julian Assange and he had no intent to help foreign adversaries. But (U.S. District Judge Indira) Talwani replied, “Maybe he didn’t think about where it would end up, but isn’t that part of the problem? He didn’t care.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/massachusetts-air-national-guardsman-gets-15-years-for-leaking-classified-documents/

The article also states that an "arsenal of weapons was found in his home . . . and that in November 2022, he stated on social media that he would like to “kill a [expletive] ton of people” as a way of “culling the weak minded.”

Fifteen years for a 22 year old must seems like a lifetime.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tell David DePape who got life without parole for assaulting Paul Pelosi.

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure I agree with your Police Work there Bumble, DePape is 44, and I don’t care if Mr. Pelosi didn’t send flowers when they broke up, or forgot their Anniversary, creep (DePape, not Pelosi) deserves all the anal rapes he’s getting in whatever Maximum Security Federal Prison he’s in (ironically, the Prisoners in USP Florence probably have the least raped Ani of all, only having to worry about the Screws Screwing them)

Frank

[bernard11]

What do you think, Bumble? It should have been a year of unsupervised probation?

[Commenter_XY]

apedad...was the sentence appropriate, in your judgment?

[Mr. Bumble]

No.

[Frank Drackman]

It certainly wasn't, should have been shot at dawn like Mata Hari

[apedad]

Hard to tell since sentencing involves more than just punishing the criminal act.

Has he been assisting authorities capture other suspects?
Was there a plea bargain?

But ballpark-ish it sounds about right.

[Commenter_XY]

I figured I would ask you. A harsh sentence.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is a strict liability offense, you get told that when you get your security clearance. The only real defense if you did it is being an important political figure the current administration isn't out to get.

[John F. Carr]

The law requires proof of a "willful" act or omission, except that losing national defense information by gross negligence is also a crime.

[Michael P]

Posting anything to social media is pretty strong evidence of willfulness when it comes to “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it”.

Yes, technically not strict liability, but the bar for willfulness is extremely low.

[Brett Bellmore]

The willful act or omission is willfully taking the risk of breaching security, rather than taking proper care.

You set the file on the seat of your car and have the valet park it? Violation. Doesn't matter the valet left it alone, you deliberately took the risk he'd read it.

You set the file on the seat of your car while driving, and then have a heart attack, and somebody reads it after the ambulance carries you away? You're in the clear.

But, again, this is the standard for little people, not important people.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is not an accurate description of the elements of the crime at issue, the meaning of “willfully” as a men’s rea, or the definition of strict liability.

[Voize of Reazon]

Now we'll get 20 comments about why is there no women's rea and is there a trans's rea and why can't Democrats tell the difference.

[Moderation4ever]

First, I suspect that it will end up being less than 15 years. Hopefully it will be long enough to teach the 22-year-old to think a little harder about his actions. While he is a legal adult at 22, he will be closer to an actual adult at 37.

[Frank Drackman]

and hopefully he gets raped up the ass every day of his sentence, maybe even by a fellow prisoner occasionally.

[Dr. Ed 2]

85% which means 12 years minimum.

[John F. Carr]

"no intent to help foreign adversaries"

If he had intended to help foreign adversaries he would be sentenced to a much longer term as a spy. He was sentenced for just plain leaking. Under the sentencing guidelines these are the same:

1. Keeping Top Secret documents in Mar-a-Lago after being told to return them.
2. Showing Top Secret documents to a person who has a clearance but does not need to know.
3. Posting Top Secret documents online to impress some gamer buddies.

Do any of these and the guidelines call for a sentence of around a decade.

[TwelveInchPianist]

BBC:My daughter was branded a terrorist for taking part in a protest...

Where they allegedly drove a truck into a building owned by a defense contractor and beat employees with sledgehammers.

[Ed Grinberg]

I asked Clare whether there is a difference between the right to free speech and direct action.
"Someone taking direct action to disrupt the Israeli arms industry, there is a law that oversees that and it is called criminal damage," she maintains. "It's not terrorism."
"If you look at what the suffragettes did, they were quite violent, they destroyed property, they put bricks through windows. We look on them as heroes.
"I think people will look back at people who took direct action in this context as heroes in the future."

It's the old leftist refrain: "the end justifies the means."
As Ayn Rand put it (source):

I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” ... The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means.

[apedad]

But one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The winner gets to write the history books.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

All the more reason not to let the anti-Semitic terrorists win.

[bernard11]

It’s the old leftist refrain: “the end justifies the means.”

Hardly a leftist refrain. And I believe it's "The end justifies any means."

[Martinned2]

Hannah Arendt quote someone just posted on social media:

'This process includes the replacement of all first-rate talents, regardless of their political loyalties, with crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is the best guarantee of their loyalty.' (The Origins of Totalitarianism, renewed version, A Harvest Book New York, 1976, 339)

[Michael P]

This process is also known as leftism's "Long March Through the Institutions".

[Sarcastr0]

That's some serious death of the author right there.

[Martinned2]

Reality has a well-known, etc.

[SRG2]

So first-rate talent is somehow leftist? What a maroon.

[Roger S]

Biden appointed based on DEI. Trump's appointments will be much better.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK you described the Biden administrations picks but what does that have to do with Trump's picks?
By the way, is Amsterdam still burning?

[Martinned2]

Amsterdam is fine, but Dutch politics has descended into complete apoplexy as the right-wing parties (who between them have had the majority in Parliament for the last few decades) shout at each other that this is the definitive proof that left-wing immigration policies have failed, that "these people" will never become proper Dutch people with proper Dutch values, that they should have their citizenship taken away, etc.

It's all completely unrelated to anything that actually happened, but I guess it's better than having them trying to actually do something.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks for the report Herr Quisling

[Michael P]

Are French gala attendees also soccer hooligans in Martinned's book?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/paris-protesters-target-pro-israel-far-right-linked-gala-ahead-of-tense-soccer-match/

[Martinned2]

That looks primarily like a bunch of people exercising their right to free speech to me. Or are you saying that French people aren't allowed to demonstrate against the presence of an Israeli far-right politician in their country?

[zztop8970]

The politician wasn't present in the country, but don't let facts confuse you, xenophobe.
And in to civilized peoples, breaking shop windows is not legitimate protest, it is criminal vandalism and destruction of property. You are obviously not in that category

[Martinned2]

I apologise, I misread, but I'm not sure that matters for anyone's right to demonstrate about anything they damn well please.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, unless they are Jews or oppose Muslim rape gangs.

[zztop8970]

For civilized people, breaking shop windows is a criminal offense, not part of the right to demonstrate.
But as you are not one, you wouldn't know.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any of you geezers out there looking to spend part of your retirement cruising the country in an RV had better not live in California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey because those states will not allow you to register an RV unless it meets new CARB standards (zero emissions).

[apedad]

In other words, please drive your nasty, old-emission-standards RVs in the flyover states.

You can easily identify them as Red on a political map.

[Frank Drackman]

gonna blow your mind when you find out what powers all those jets landing at LAX and SFO

[Frank Drackman]

Guess you missed that day in Science class when they taught about the "Jet Stream"

[hobie]

State's rights and all that stuff, amirite?

[Longtobefree]

No one paying taxes in those states can afford an RV, so no problem.

[jb]

LOL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income

The top 10 are all blue states, and 15 of the bottom 16 are red states. Someone in DC or Maryland (if you want to count actual states) is still netting almost $10K more after taxes than someone from Utah (where the effective tax rate is nearly as high) or $7K more than someone from Alaska (where there's no state taxes).

You're probably one of those people who thinks it's good to earn less money because they more you earn the more you have to pay in taxes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"15 of the bottom 16 are red states"

40 years of "Free Trade" gutted a lot of the country.

[jb]

It's a fair argument to make that indeed the current Republican/MAGA alignment exists largely because of this fact.

But it still doesn't make Longtobefree's idea that somehow people in blue states have less money than people in red states any less stupid.

[Frank Drackman]

"45/47" Carried most of Long Island and all of Staten Island.
OK, not Westchester (only 37%) or Manhattan (17%) but he got more votes in NY State than he did in Georgia.

[David Nieporent]

It did not.

[bernard11]

Suddenly Bob hates free markets.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now compare this to other countries. You're down to Missouri, (#38 in the US) before Germany shows up.

This is something people need to remember, when it's suggested we be more like Europe: Europe is poor.

But, yes, it's good to live in the capitol of an empire, feasting on wealth extracted from distant lands. Those people in Maryland have it good.

[John F. Carr]

Who wants to live in California when you can live in a better place, visit the scenery in California, and roll coal through Sacramento if you're in the mood?

Note that enabling coal rolling is still illegal. A modification to spew black smoke is a "defeat device." Just last week a father and son were charged in the Eastern District of Washington for importing illegal emissions override devices for trucks. One reporter took that to mean the trucks were rolling coal. I think it was more like the VW scandal. The VW diesels worked fine as far as anybody without testing equipment could see.

[Commenter_XY]

One more reason to leave the People's Republic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Having fun with AI:
https://x.com/arikuschnir/status/1856739100222718261

[jb]

That is honestly amazing.

[M L]

lol

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A computer program made all that up?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, that just scratches the surface of what you can do.

[apedad]

Giuliani’s lawyers quit over ‘fundamental disagreement’

Rudy Giuliani’s attorneys on Wednesday asked to quit representing the former New York City mayor as he battles with two Georgia election workers over their efforts to collect a $146 million defamation judgment.

Attorneys Kenneth Caruso and David Labkowski cited New York’s rules that allow attorneys to withdraw when they have a “fundamental disagreement” with their client.

They also cited provisions allowing withdrawal when a client insists upon presenting a claim that can’t be supported in good faith and when a client “fails to cooperate in the representation.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4989819-giuliani-lawyers-quit-over-fundamental-disagreement/

Man, the Mayor just CANNOT catch a break!

But you know it's bad when the lawyer's lawyers quit on you.

You can help him though by donating at GiveSendGo toward the Rudy Giuliani Freedom Fund.

Be a mensch!

[Roger S]

Maybe they quit because Giuliani had no money to pay them.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He’s gone over the deep end. Should be committed, possibly to a facility for assisted living. And kept away from alcohol.

[apedad]

The Great State of Northern Virginia (and those lesser areas) has been busy!

Virginia’s House of Delegates’ Privileges and Elections Committee — a Democratic-controlled committee in Virginia’s General Assembly — held an out-of-session meeting on Wednesday culminating in a vote to advance a trio of controversial amendments.

Abortion Rights Amendment: Would grant Virginians reproductive rights, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management and fertility care.

(Felon) Voting Rights Amendment: Would automatically restore voting rights after felons serve their sentence.

Marriage Equality Amendment: Would repeal constitutional language defining marriage as only a union between one man and one woman — and the related provisions that are no longer valid as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — passed 16 to 5, with four Republicans joining the Democrats.

In two sessions, the General Assembly must pass the resolutions to change the state’s Constitution. Should the amendments pass in 2025 and 2026, voters will have their say during the 2026 election.

[hobie]

Nice to see a little freedom advance for once out of a legislature

[DaveM]

Virginia as a whole is moving steadily to the right on these issues, but, as you note, Northern Virginia is still solidly Blue.

I don't know how quickly other states change directions, but Virginia tends to move extremely slowly. Over the past 20 years, though, I've seen the margins for Dem/Rep move from 70/30 to 55/45 in this last election. The trend is quite unmistakable.

As to the abortion issue, I have only one thing to say: I love babies. I can't imagine intentionally hurting even so much as a hair on their cute little heads. Doesn't everyone love them?

The marriage "equality" amendment might have a chance, but my guess is that the Democrats will try to rope in transgender issues and that will absolutely kill it.

[Frank Drackman]

No, everyone doesn't love babies, especially the black and brown ones, that's why nearly 100 million have been aborted since Roe v Wade, and ironically enough, even more since it was overturned (I told you not everyone loves babies) and don't tell me about Adoption, you literally can't give the black/brown ones away.

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Would automatically restore voting rights after felons serve their sentence."

Only afterward? That's racist - convicts should be able to vote from prison.

[Brett Bellmore]

And only the voting rights; It's an effort to maximize the number of voters who will vote for gun control, because they don't get 2nd amendment rights anyway.

And it relies on the fantasy that just telling a criminal they can't legally own guns means they won't be able to own them.

Restore ALL constitutional rights to ex-cons once their sentence is over, and get rid of this BS practice of having some of the population walking around 'free' be second class citizens lacking basic civil liberties.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Like female citizens lacking the liberty of determining the use of their own bodies.

[John F. Carr]

Five years ago, maybe on this day in 2019 and likely close to it, somebody in eastern China ate a bat. Or tore his protective suit. Or cuddled a raccoon dog. We don't know for sure. But happy birthday, COVID-19.

[Commenter_XY]

God how we changed. So much.

[Moderation4ever]

While there is a great deal of interest in the exact origin, people don't seem to grasp the idea that a small thing like a virus can have a great impact on humanity. Have we learned from the pandemic or has amnesia set in again?

[Mr. Bumble]

"...that a small thing like a virus can have a great impact on humanity."
Especially when it is used as an excuse to justify out of control government actions.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We learned the US Government should stop illegally funding this illegal bioweapons research in 3rd world countries like China or the Ukraine.

[Sarcastr0]

So your positing that the US secretly funded the development of a bioweapon...in China, for some reason.
A bioweapon that is a slow-acting and impossible to contain once released on purpose or not.
For reasons and target not at all clear.

And it's also going on in Ukraine. I guess Putin must have invaded to save us all from another lab leak.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Fauci was illegally funding gain of function research at Wuhan, Sarcastr0. I know you’ll never believe anyone in the government would do something bad, especially one of your cherished high clerics.

But it’s true.

Putin invaded lower Ukraine to save ethnic Russians from being genocided by the US-backed corrupt Ukrainian government.

[Sarcastr0]

So from "illegally funding this illegal bioweapons research?" to "illegally funding gain of function research."

And utterly leaving behind "And it’s also going on in Ukraine."

Just backpeddaling from one lie to another. Not sure why you bother.

I don't like Fauci - he conflates policymaking and science.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Uh,

The illegal gain of function research was the bioweapom research. It is a fact that the Pentagon funds/funded 46 labs in the Ukraine.

I guess you'll next ask me to link to where the Pentagon also states the labs were doing illegal bioweapons research...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don’t like Fauci – he conflates policymaking and science.

He was in a policy-making role as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The two are not completely overlapping and I would need to see some evidence he was not able to separate the two.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't like Fauci, but to be clear I'm not on the 'Fauci is the greatest criminal known to man' *at all*.

But when he went on media, he spoke as a scientist-expert, and a policy-communicator. Often in response to the same question.
Those should be different hats. 'I am the science' is not something that should come out of a policy guy, even a policy guy with impecciable technical chops.

I really think there should be a strong wall between the science/facts/risks side and the policy/values/choices side. Otherwise you risk society viewing scientists as wise priests, and while they are experts and sometimes geniuses, they very much are not that.

I'm trained as a cosmologist, left to go to law school, and now I do science policy. But opinions are off my own dome; I don't have a cite or anything to the values/science wall.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I am the science" isn't something that should come out of ANYBODY'S lips.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, I see you don't work with scientists much.

[Bwaaah]

You probably work with too many of those “policy communicators,” those people who wear both the science and the policy hats. And you’re confused by that, calling them the “scientists.” They are politicians. They’re engaging with you, a science policy maker.

Some scientists, most people who do science, present themselves through their work, not their policy preferences.

You’re in the funk. "Science policy." Indeed.

[Krayt]

Iirc patient zero has been traced to at least September.

[John F. Carr]

Now I feel like George H. W. Bush talking about the anniversary of Pearl Harbor on September 7.

[Frank Drackman]

or maybe since the Corona Virus originated in the town with the Corona Virus Lab, it originated in the Lab, crazy theory I know.

[dwb68]

Gaetz might get confirmed. Caputo: “Everyone else looked at AG as if they were applying for a judicial appointment. They talked about their vaunted legal theories and constitutional bullshit. Gaetz was the only one who said: ‘Yeah, I’ll go over there and start cuttin’ f—in’ heads.'”

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/14/behind-the-curtain-why-trump-picked-gaetz

I mean he’s not wrong. Skulls need to be smashed, I am not sure Gaetz is the one to do it. Large bureaucracies can be extremely passive aggressive at resisting change.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What about that article made you update your priori towards Gates getting confirmed?

[Commenter_XY]

I’ll go out on a limb here and surmise that Pres-Elect Trump, the Ice Maiden and Senator Thune and the GOP caucus all spoke before the announcement.

Like I said, it is a very heavy lift for Senator Thune. He wanted the job.

I have to be honest. I don't know how Thune gets to 51 votes.

[dwb68]

I thought Gaetz was an unserious troll nomination, or designed to get him to resign. But, Trump is serious about smashing the FBI (which tbh needs to be smashed). Which means Trump will fight for Gaetz. GOP senators like money for their districts, so they may change their mind and make a deal. All opposition in D.C. fades once money is on the table.

[Roger S]

The real problem with Gaetz is that he agrees with the Biden antitrust prosecutions. Some big tech companies are likely to quietly lobby against him.

[Bob from Ohio]

Kahn at FTC just said he'd be a good pick for AG!

[M L]

I too am skeptical Gaetz is the right pick.

He might have the right energy and willingness, but not sure he has the brains, focus, temperament, and bureaucratic skill/knowledge.

But I don't know much about it or him - I guess we'll see.

[jb]

Lack of bureaucratic skill/knowledge is a problem across the board for most of the Trump nominees. He probably thinks this is good from a "drain the swamp" kind of perspective (although a lot of them are still awfully swamp-y, Gaetz included), but it seems unlikely that most of them are going to be able to get very much done.

(Which was a huge problem with the first Trump administration. Trump obviously blames the "deep state" for a lot of this, but a big part of the problem was just incompetent administration of policy preferences which resulted in not much getting done.)

[John F. Carr]

The Onion bought Infowars for an undisclosed sum. According to a statement on The Onion's web site, "No price would be too high for such a cornucopia of malleable assets and minds."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sounds like an Onion satire.

(Actually Jones’s allegations as to Sandy Hook sounds like an Onion satire; unfortunately it was true.)

[Commenter_XY]

The sale is evidently off.

[SRG2]

BTW what happened to the Tuesday book recommendations? I really enjoyed that.

Might I suggest Books on Art

Art & Illusion by Ernst Gombrich – wonderful hypothesis and review of how artists are necessarily affected by prior artists' works.

Landscape & Memory by Simon Schama – how culture and nature are connected (coincidentally I read a section referring to legends of walking trees or dead trees coming to life again at the same time as I was bingeing on the LotR DVDs)

Painting by Numbers – by Komar and Melamid. They polled people from different countries about what their most and least liked paintings would look like, and then they painted the results. Surprising and fun.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great video for those who love freedom and liberty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1vYhFCuh-Y

Is Bureaucracy Killing Civilization?

Betteridge's Law of Headlines.... yes. With receipts.

If you love your neighbor and want a good future for your children, this fight against the Federal Bureaucracy is existential. They are the most inhumane of all masters, and given the pay incentives, some of the most stupid.

Vivek's odd-numbered SSN bureaucrat decimation might just save humanity as we know it.

[Roger S]

Too bad they cannot just lay off the incompetent DEI and leftist hires, and leave the ones who were hired on merit.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There would be no one left in the government. It was never a meritocracy. Bureaucracies get rid of people who perform as that undermines the survival of the institution.

[David Nieporent]

Just say the n-word, Roger. You're not fooling anyone, and you know you want to.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I'll say it,
"Not Qualified" what's so hard about that?

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the public can learn the names of up to 28 important people accused of paying for sex. This follows a nearly year-long dispute over whether an informal hearing meant to speedily screen criminal complaints should be private or public.

In November of 2023 federal authorities arrested three people running "sophisticated high-end brothels". Cases against customers were referred to the state. Alerted by a press release, local news organizations asked for the "show cause" hearing to be public.

These hearings are usually private. The clerk-magistrate decides whether the police have probable cause, whether the case is too minor to be worth the court's time, and whether the defendant is a VIP or otherwise deserves special treatment. Local news organizations successfully argued for a public hearing so the public would have confidence in the process. Quoting the SJC:

The clerk-magistrate's subsequent findings explained that the investigation and filing of the complaint applications had garnered significant public interest. In balancing the public interest against the individual privacy interests of the accused, the clerk-magistrate further explained, "there has been a historical trend to protect or, at the very least, not name buyers who 'fuel the commercial sex industry, '" rendering them unaccountable. "Reversing that practice and providing the public with access that will allow it to evaluate the fairness of treatment provides a strong counterweight to the privacy interests of those responding to the complaints." Finally, she stated that the Acting United States Attorney's description of these individuals as powerful, wealthy, and well connected raised legitimate public concerns about preferential treatment, and "[t]he only effective means to dispel those concerns is to conduct all the hearings for all [the accused] in public without regard to status or station."

Today the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the opening of the hearing to the public.

Boston University v. Cambridge District Court

The Trustees of Boston University are a party because BU's radio station, WBUR, wants to report on the case.

We might not have learned about these cases if the US Attorney had not put out a press release saying they were being referred to the state. The situation reminds me of when a town police chief got in a drunken driving crash on federal land and federal law enforcement waited at the scene to make sure local police didn't pretend nothing happened.

[Roger S]

Is the purpose to charge those people, or just to wreck their reputations without charging them?

[John F. Carr]

I don’t know if police want the charges to go forward, or if the local prosecutor Marian Ryan does. They may have felt obliged to take a referral. Like presenting a police-involved shooting to a grand jury knowing that nothing will come of it. Or they may believe that high end prostitution is wrong and customers must be dealt with.

Police already have the power to arrest a person so his name appears in the arrest log.

[Martinned2]

Another way to summarise that is to say that it's a bunch of people being publicly tarred & feathered for doing something that shouldn't be a crime in the first place. (Unless I overlooked the part where minors are involved.)

[John F. Carr]

There were no minors involved. One of the federal defendants pleaded guilty and the list of sentencing guideline adjustments did not include any minor-related adjustments. The sex charge is "conspiracy to persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one or more individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution". The word "and" means "or". The facts alleged are closer to the "persuade" end of the list than the "coerce" end of the list.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/operators-high-end-brothel-network-indicted-grand-jury

[Commenter_XY]

Should the 28 names be published, in your opinion? What do you think?

[John F. Carr]

Go ahead and publish. I don't like it when laws are kept on the books because of selective enforcement. Making paying for sex illegal means going after the Robert Krafts of the world as well as the nobodies.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree. Selective enforcement is wrong. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 😉

[David Nieporent]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

It's certainly better than injecting bleach!

[Commenter_XY]

I have to agree, David. LOL. 🙂

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He lived a long, blessed life for a cat. RIP Hadji

https://www.mlb.com/mets/news/keith-hernandez-cat-hadji-dies

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://old.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/

Why aren't all the Save Democracy At All Cost institutions stopping these Blue Anons from harming our Sacred Democracy that Dies in Darkness?

[Martinned2]

Who could have seen that coming? The far-right Dutch government is going to introduce a bill to regulate "informal education", by which they mean any situation where knowledge is transferred in an organised way, other than schools and other educational organisations that are already regulated. The goal is to regulate what the children of "those people" learn in the mosque during the weekend, so technically the law will regulate church schools and secular organisations like the boy scouts too.

The goal will be to make sure that those poor children aren't taught to discriminate. Apparently it will be OK to teach them that certain groups have lifestyle choices that are wrong, but it will be forbidden to teach that any group is inferior.

Unsurprisingly, the inspectorate of schools, which would have to enforce this law, doesn't think any of this is workable. Muslims and Christians are (rightly) united in their outrage. Now we'll have to wait and see what the bill looks like when it's introduced in Parliament, and what it looks like if/when it is passed.

Meanwhile, Martin Niemöller comes to mind:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't they already ban homeschooling? Are you surprised that a bunch of Leftists don't want you learning anything outside of the State?

[Kazinski]

There have been lots of proposals in the United States to regulate home schooling too, both recently and historically.

The Supreme Court had a couple of cases striking down Oregon's ban on private and religious schools, and Nebraska's ban on teaching foreign languages over a century ago.

Here's a website that shows homeschooling regulations by state:
https://hslda.org

And of course California fairly recently had its regulations that invalidated teaching subjects like horseshoeing, barbaring, hairdressing and nails to adults that had not completed High School.

[Martinned2]

In terms of small graces, this is explicitly not about home schooling, but only about schooling that is "organised", i.e. done by some kind of organisation. So mosques and churches are in, but religious nuts who want to teach their kids at home are out. (Though that is quite difficult under Dutch law anyway.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think I see your problem. When he expressed regret at not speaking out when they came for the Jews, he wasn’t saying he should have spoken out to defend the people coming for them.

Hope that helps you do better going forward!

[Kazinski]

I did just hear on Bloomberg that Trump said he is eliminating the $7500 EV tax credit.

I heartily approve. There shouldn't be subsidies for any energy source, or for vehicles that use that energy source.

As a Toyota exec recently said the current CARB mandates are impossible to meet anyway.
https://www.thestreet.com/electric-vehicles/toyota-exec-slams-impossible-ev-mandate-amidst-political-chaos

There is isn't enough demand for 35% of new cars to be EV's, and its not likely the grid or charging infrastructure can handle that many cars charging anyway.

[Martinned2]

So when are you getting rid of the subsidy on petrol?

[Bob from Ohio]

What "subsidy"?

[Kazinski]

What he means is tax breaks where oil and gas and mining reserves get what is basically a depreciation deduction, like that for buildings and other capital expenditures.

I used to be the programmer responsible for running and maintaining Texaco's Oil and Gas Depletion tracking and calculating system, as well as Intangible Drilling Costs expensing system, back in the late 80's. So I actually know a little about it, or did.

[Mr. Bumble]

No more of a "subsidy" than depreciation in any other business.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

And to Statists, you keeping more of your own money is a "subsidy".

[Absaroka]

I dunno what Martinned2 is referring to, but according to Matt Yglesias some people refer to not having a carbon tax as a subsidy (scroll down to "The case of the mystery fossil fuel subsidy").

[Martinned2]

Yes. It's a scarce resource that people who drive petrol cars get to use at a bargain. That's 100% a subsidy, just like it would be a subsidy if, say, a city in the US used its public domain powers to grab a chunk of city and then gave it for free to an NFL team to build a stadium on.

[Stella Link the dog]

"basically a depreciation deduction"
Typically, depreciation gets amortized over some period of years. In the case of the oil industry and "intangible drilling costs," expenditures that would normally be spread over a period of years are allowed to be deducted immediately. I don't know enough about oil industry accounting to fully understand how this works, but it's my understanding that this is a significant tax subsidy that the oil industry gets that other industries do not.

[Stella Link the dog]

“Depletion tracking and calculating system”

Is the following correct:

“Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613. Active). Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs."

[SRG2]

Trumpsters don't understand foreign policy so wouldn't think about how a dependence on petrol has huge costs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Whose dependence? Europe, China?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What about being dependent upon rare earth minerals for batteries so we wouldn't be dependent upon petrol?

[Kazinski]

Dependence on energy of any kind has huge costs.

But lets see the real costs.

Elon concurs:
https://x.com/SebGorka/status/1857084511051305093?t=DqnRCgkKsmCex15AHY_xog&s=19

The other thing is Oil Depletion deductions don't really subscribe oil and gas prices, they subsidize profits. This is because Oil is an international commodity, and Oil Depletion allowances only impact domestic production profitablity, which on the whole will increase after tax income, which will tend to increase production which will lower prices.

[SRG2]

In the specific case of oil, the indirect subsidy by having a foreign policy - including war - to protect oil supplies runs into the trillions.

[David Nieporent]

The word is "gas." Speak English.

[Martinned2]

Unless your car drives LPG, it's not a gas. It's petroleum, or petrol for short. Which is what English people from England call it when they speak English. What Americans call it in American is up to them, but no concern of mine.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You shall bend your linguistic usage to our will, or suffer our stern reprobation.

[Bwaaah]

Martinned2: "So when are you getting rid of the subsidy on petrol?"

Typical redefinition of words by the left. The traditional definition of "subsidy," in the case of a government subsidy, is when the government gives you capital. Martinned's definition of a subsidy is when the government take less capital from you than it could.

As they say, "There's no difference."

Here's an example of Martinned's subsidy. Walk up to somebody and ask if they have a $10 bill. Tell them you you just want to show them a trick. Take the $10 dollar bill, and then give them back $9. When they complain that you took $1 from them, say, "I just gave you a $1 subsidy."

"How do you figure?" they'll ask.

"I was going to take $2, but I only took $1. So there's your subsidy."

[Martinned2]

The subsidy is that the government lets you use scarce resources, in this case the world's carbon budget, without paying for it.

[Bwaaah]

That's not a subsidy. That's a tax you wish to impose based on an abstract hypothetical cost.

Where's your payment for the real increases in costs of almost everything, the reduction in economic activity, the hardship to humanity for the energy production inefficiency that your policies impose? What's your "budget" for that, Mr. Helpful, and why don't you call that a "subsidy?"

[Bwaaah]

This isn't supposed to be about cars. It's about environmental justice.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In other words: You're still an idiot who can't see the forest for the trees.

"Elon Musk, one of Trump's biggest backers and the world's richest person, said earlier this year that killing the subsidy might slightly hurt Tesla sales but would devastate its U.S. EV competitors, which include legacy automakers such as General Motors."

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/trumps-transition-team-aims-kill-biden-ev-tax-credit-2024-11-14/

[M L]

Cellular carriers have told Congress they possess intact phone usage data from the vicinity where two pipe bombs were planted during the Jan. 6 incident, directly disputing FBI testimony that agents couldn't identify a suspect because the phone data was corrupted, a key House chairman tells Just the News.

https://justthenews.com/government/security/hldcell-companies-refute-fbi-testimony-j6-pipe-bomber-investigation-loudermilk

[Kazinski]

Not only that, the FBI downgraded the quality of the security footage the DNC had of the person who planted the pipebomb, then deleted their copy.

An investigator from the Department of Homeland Security IG office viewed the footage at the DNC, and said their footage was much higher quality than the FBI released. And that is also supported by the fact that there hasn't been a security camera sold in the last 20 years that had as few fps as the footage the FBI released.

The footage is here, compare the fps of the first video, with the other video they released below it"

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/fbi-washington-field-office-releases-video-and-additional-information-regarding-the-pipe-bomb-investigation-090821

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Who at the FBI is gonna go to jail for this crime?

[M L]

Lol.

I'm sure they didn't do that intentionally. One FBI agent with an iPhone probably sent it as a video text message to another FBI agent who had an Android.

[Brett Bellmore]

Standard procedure for video evidence! [/sarc]

[M L]

Well, it's an argument.

The Left should welcome Matt Gaetz as attorney general

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-left-should-welcome-matt-gaetz-as-attorney-general/

[M L]

If this story is true, should everyone involved be arrested or merely fired?

Whistleblower: James Comey had FBI ‘honey pot’ spies infiltrate Trump’s 2016 campaign

Alleged off-the-books investigation predated FBI's Russia collusion probe

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/oct/29/whistleblower-james-comey-fbi-honey-pot-spies-infi/

[Kazinski]

Well what's the statute of limitations?

[not guilty]

What's the crime or tort, Kazinski? If you claim there is a crime, please cite the relevant statute(s).

[David Nieporent]

"If this story is true" is doing so much work that it violates federal labor law. Not only is there zero corroborating evidence, but the person already has an explanation for why there's zero corroborating evidence. (But not why the person waited 9 years to mention it.)

But even "if this story is true," what do you think someone should "be arrested" for?

[Kazinski]

You are not so naive that you think the investigative agencies of the federal government don't ever resort to honeypot operations?

Its probably mostly informants, but still it happens.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think my statement expressed any opinion whatsoever on what investigative agencies of the federal government "don't ever" do.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The same reason Jean Carol waited 35 years with zero evidence, witnesses, or corroborating anything?

[David Nieporent]

You are, as always, wrong. E. Jean Carroll offered two witnesses who testified that she told them at the time it happened.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Woah! I didn’t realize her case was so strong!

My bad. That’s as bulletproof as it gets! Not one, BUT TWO??!? Wow, and they actually confirmed that they recall 35 years ago Carol telling them about it? Wow, that's like being in that dressing room!

How traumatic for them! Being eyewitnesses to a mention of something so horrific!

It's the shoah!

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, your ipse dixit assertion that a litigant has "zero evidence, witnesses, or corroborating anything" can be shown to be false by the existence of even a single corroborating witness. So it ill behooves you to kvetch that David brought up two.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

FYI, not guilty, those were not corroborating witnesses to the alleged assault. I can't believe a man of your integrity and honesty would mislead the readers by making such an outrageous false statement... lol of course you would, you do it all the time.

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, “zero evidence, witnesses, or corroborating anything” are your words. Don't crawfish away from them now. You didn't say no "corroborating witnesses to the alleged assault" upthread -- you brazenly asserted "zero evidence".

An assault victim's testimony is itself evidence. The testimony of a single witness who is believed by the finder of fact is ordinarily sufficient to support a verdict. There are exceptions where the testimony of a single witness must be corroborated, such as the testimony of a criminal defendant's accomplice, but that is not the case here.

After a victim in a rape or sexual assault case has testified herself, testimony from outcry or fresh complaint witnesses -- persons to whom the victim disclosed the event near to the time of its occurrence -- is routinely admitted to corroborate the victim's testimony and to rebut any suggestion that the victim has fabricated her account. That, too, is evidence, which is not hearsay according to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

It is unseemly to throw around legal terms of art such as evidence and corroboration when you have no clue what they actually mean.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

None of the parties, Jean nor her two friends could even recall the year the event occurred.

Consider that fact against what you wrote here:

>After a victim in a rape or sexual assault case has testified herself, testimony from outcry or fresh complaint witnesses — persons to whom the victim disclosed the event near to the time of its occurrence — is routinely admitted to corroborate the victim’s testimony and to rebut any suggestion that the victim has fabricated her account. That, too, is evidence, which is not hearsay according to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

See what a dishonesty your hyperpartisanship compels you to do?

What sort of abuses of the sacred "Rule of Law" can happen when you have dishonest, hyperpartisans prosecuting it? Any? Or is that simply an impossibility?

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, I understand that you don't regard the testimony of Ms. Carroll and her witnesses as being particularly persuasive. But to characterize their testimony as "zero evidence," as you did upthread, is simply a falsehood.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just what time was that, since even Carroll can't remember exactly when it happened.

[Roger S]

Those are not witnesses. That is hearsay.

So all three of them compared notes, and still could not say when it happened? Not even the year, or even the decade? That is even worse than I thought.

[David Nieporent]

Your mother may have been of questionable character, but she was a lawyer. You are of low character and you are not. Maybe don't assume you know the rules of evidence just because you watched a few episodes of Law & Order?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Your mother may have been of questionable characte"

Insulting people's mothers now. Classy!

[David Nieporent]

His mother was not exactly a private figure.

[not guilty]

“Those are not witnesses. That is hearsay.”

A witness whose credibility has been attacked is entitled to offer evidence of having made prior consistent statements to rebut an express or implied charge that the witness recently fabricated it. That is non-hearsay according to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

In rape and sexual abuse cases, both criminal and civil, evidence of the victim’s outcry or fresh complaint is routinely admitted.

[Kazinski]

Well then they should have been able to come within a decade of pinpointing when ot happened.

There is a fundamental unfairness in having to rebut allegations when not even the month and year are provided.

[David Nieporent]

First, I don't know where this myth comes from. It was pinpointed down to a specific year.

Second, it's not clear why you would expect someone to remember, decades later, the date that someone told them something happened to them. I'm sure a friend or relative of yours was in a car accident, or met a celebrity, or something memorable, and called you and told you about it. Unless there's something to anchor the date — e.g., it happened when you were in college — why would that date stick in your mind?

In any case, that's a question for the jury. They heard and observed EJC and her witnesses. They did not hear Trump directly because he didn't testify, but they did hear excerpts from his deposition testimony that undermined his credibility.

[M L]

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. Do you think they should be fired, at least? Or promoted, patted on the back and given an “attaboy” for a job well done?

Is it legal for the FBI to conduct “honeypot” or any sort of spying operations against political candidates they don’t like?

[Commenter_XY]

“If this story is true” is doing so much work that it violates federal labor law.

Ok, this was pretty funny. Still, not as good as the Seven Deadly Sins crack. That is tops for 2024.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not a serious response.

Would you respond in that way if the question was asked in a law school class ?

He was asking for a cite. Is there one?

[Kazinski]

Sure, its a whistleblower allegation to the House Judiciary Committee.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-infiltrated-trump-campaign-with-honeypots-whistleblower-says-report/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Russian troll posts same bullshit from three days ago because it didn't generate enough outrage!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

eVeryOnE I doNT LiKE is A RuSsiaN tRoLL

[grb]

M L : “If this story is true ….”

But you never care if any of the garbage you post is true. Why develop scruples now? As David Nieporent points out, there’s zero evidence to support this off-the-wall bullshit, but let’s set that aside.

Because it’s not credible even in the evidence-free world in which you live. Look, you can’t despise Comey more than me. Hating that clown is one of the few areas where Right & Left can link arms in total harmony. From our side, his unethical conduct installed Trump in the Oval Office. All the damage to the country since can be laid at his feet.

But his misdeeds (Right & Left) share a common root and are manifested in a similar way. The man’s a prig with an obsessive self-regard of his own moral rectitude. Listen to an interview and he’ll inevitably find some way to praise his personal morals. I’m convinced the pig can’t pass a mirror without pausing to admire what a fine upright fellah he sees. That self-regard and willful blindness has led him to repeatedly bend the rules to do things he wanted to. After all, if you’re the most ethical person who ever lived, how can a little fudging be wrong?

But that’s not what you’re describe with this latest fantasy nonsense. What you describe isn’t possible with Comey. As loathsome as he is, he couldn’t do what you claim.

[M L]

Wait, so when a “whistleblower” says something, that is “zero evidence” now? That seems like quite a change of tune.

Interesting argument based on psychoanalysis of Jim Comey, it falls far short of convincing me that this isn’t possible, but it's worth considering.

[grb]

1. As Nieporent observes above, your “whistleblower” has credibility issues high & wide as Mount Everest. You can always find a “whistleblower” to prove anything you please, from Area 51 alien remains to Bigfoot conspiracy theories. But the designation isn’t some magical incantation that eliminates the need for entry-level skepticism.

2. If I failed to convince, so be it. But I’m right. Comey is a sanctimonious prig who felt he could bend the rules because he’s holier than you, me, or anyone. The idea he would sign off on what you propose is completely impossible.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So I sent my CV into @doge in response to their open call for high-talent patriots to help clean house in the vipers den of midwits and other assorted leftards.

*fingers-crossed* what a blessing it would be to serve this great country and her future generations.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Bucks County Democrat Commissioners have voted to brazenly violate the law in an effort to insurrect and steal sacred Democracy.
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1857149843463889163

What should happen to these people for treasonously violating the law and harming our democracies?

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone planning on starting a Go Fund Me page for Whoopsie Goldberg?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14082879/Whoopi-Goldberg-view-trump-rant-financially.html

[Bwaaah]

Alms for the pill.

[M L]

Should this teacher be fired?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14080383/Cerritos-High-School-Spanish-teacher-MAGA-shirt-email.html

[ThePublius]

Yes.

[Bored Lawyer]

Adios, amiga.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/catholic-woman-fired-refusing-covid-vaccine-wins-over-12m-michigan-court

Catholic woman fired for refusing mandatory Covid vax wins $12m jury verdict

[John F. Carr]

That's a little less than the Abu Ghraib prisoners won recently for being abused in prison but a lot more than the BART employees won after being fired for refusing to get vaccinated.

[Joe_dallas]

If you were not at risk for severe covid, there was little benefit from the vax. You were still at risk for infection and transmission (relatively small reduction in risk of infection and transmission ) and a lower level/less robust long term immunity.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The vaccines were safe and effective…Hawaii has the least amount of natural immunity and the lowest Covid death rate and everyone got Covid. I haven’t heard of a mysterious spike in excess deaths in Hawaii lately which is what RFK predicted.

[Joe_dallas]

safe but only marginally effective
Hawaii had the benefit of being an island and this restricted travel into the state

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't forget that Hawaii has good weather and abundant sunlight; Two of the best weapons against respiratory viruses: Getting outside so that you're not in a confined space with people coughing, and vitamin D.

One of the biggest mistakes the made with Covid, (The competition is fierce!) was closing the parks, when people really should have been anywhere but indoors all day.

[Sarcastr0]

This is hindsight. No one knew how well it spread outside. Remember washing surfaces and food? That was based on the best knowledge we had at the time.

[Joe_dallas]

BS – It was not hindsight. – It is very well known characteristic of respiratoray viruses.

[Sarcastr0]

What, that it doesn't to as well in open spaces? Sure, but *how much less well* was an important question we didn't know the answer to.

Remember when it might have been fomites? Don't pretend this is simple.

[Joe_dallas]

The precise answer may not have been known, though the broad answer was and is very well known.

[Sarcastr0]

Now you're backpeddaling into nonsense.

'The broad answer was very well known' is a meaningless statement.

[Joe_dallas]

Its nonsense to you because you are attempting to argue against a well known fact.

Brett's statement is correct - you instead want to argue against what is commonly known.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we all know how much you like to lean on 'well known fact.'

It's invariably bullshit. Because you are lazy and go on vibes, but still try to hang with people who aren't lazy and go on facts.

Thus your disengaged responses like this.

[Joe_dallas]

Is your inability to have any grasp of well known facts or is it your refusal to accept commonly known facts or its that only leftists experts are privileged to know commonly known facts

In any case, what Brett stated is a a commonly known fact, and your denial doesnt change that.

Its also very petty and CS to argue continue Bretts point

[David Nieporent]

I mean, she's obviously lying about her religious beliefs, but if the Fox story is right, the insurer was being unreasonable; there's no reason someone working from home needed to be vaxxed. (Well, I mean, there's good reason for such a person to be vaxxed, but not a good reason the employer needs to mandate it.)

[F.D. Wolf]

There is some speculation that Kamala Harris may run for governor of California in 2026.

She may be trying to emulate Richard Nixon's career path. Nixon, as the incumbent Vice President, lost the presidential election in 1960, lost the California gubernatorial election in 1962, then won the presidential election in 1968. This is generally considered the greatest comeback story in American political history (or was until last week, at least).

[Roger S]

Nixon had a vision for what he wanted to do, if elected. He could answer interview questions, and was knowledgeable on many issues. Harris is just a DEI token.

[Joe_dallas]

Roger - you grossly overstated her qualifications

[Dan Schiavetta]

Why do you think she’s stupid ? She was AG of the nations largest state. She actually prepares for important events and made Trump look like such a fool at that debate that he ducked out of a rematch. At no point has she exhibited Trump’s ignorance of government.

[Joe_dallas]

She didnt display Trump's ignorance of government constitutional procedures because she didnt display knowledge of any subject.

[grb]

captcrisis : “Why do you think she’s stupid?”

Take a step back and look at the big picture. George W. Bush was clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. The generous way to describe it was he’s “intellectually incurious”. So what happened? After eight years of W, the hive mind of right-wing-world was obsessed with claims Obama was stupid, not the author of his books, and unable to speak without a teleprompter.

It was obviously absurd – you only had to watch the man lap circles around a roomful of Republicans at a free-form all-day healthcare seminar to see that – but it fulfilled a psychological need. Right-wing-world doesn’t mind when their candidates are dunces. Hell, they seem to prefer that. But good Lord above, don’t they get touchy when other people mention it!

And it’s not ignorance alone. They didn’t (and don’t) care Trump is a lifelong criminal. But that resulted in the endless pathetic spectacle of their insisting on the “Biden crime family.” Year after year of jokey proof, countless promises a revelation just around the corner, evidence that fell apart at a glance and the emptiest accusations.

Thus Joe_dallas. He doesn’t care his Orange-Tinted Lord is a deeply stupid buffoon who breaks the law just for sport. That won't stop him from tongue-polishing Trump’s shoe leather gleaming bright. But as a coping mechanism he has to insist the opponents of Trump are equally criminal and just as dumb.

It’s not true. Hell, he probably knows that. But a Trump supporter can’t have much personal integrity left after all these years of being humiliated, week after week. He copes as best he can.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Harris may run for governor of California"

Our loss is California's loss.

Newsom is governor now, Harris is just more of the same.

[Joe_dallas]

Bob -See Capt's and GRB's comment above. While I am no fan of Trump, Those two like may woke leftists are dealing with a complete detachment from reality. Its nearly impossible for any logical or coherent thought to penetrate that echo chamber bubble.

[grb]

Joe_dallas : “While I am no fan of Trump….”

The shame must cut pretty deep. Ya know what I’d like? A dime for every right-wing hack insisting he’s “not a fan of Trump” even while providing cult services more eagerly than any Manson girl ever did for Charlie. I could retire off that alone.

Friggin amazing the man got even a single vote given the number of people too humiliated to admit their support!

[Bored Lawyer]

As I said before the election, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, Trump was the worst presidential candidate. Except for all the other presidential candidates. I would have strongly preferred he retire to Mar-A-Lago and let someone else run. But he is still a vast improvement over the alternative.
Some of his worst qualities will be checked by other branches of government. The chance of Gaetz being confirmed as AG, for example, I peg at less than 10%.

[Commenter_XY]

Don't be so sure = 10% 😉

[David Nieporent]

Some of his worst qualities will be checked by other branches of government. The chance of Gaetz being confirmed as AG, for example, I peg at less than 10%.

If you're mistaken and he is confirmed, and some of the other terrible nominees are also, will that change your assessment of the election result?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hypotheticals suck.

[grb]

I dunno. It was a "hypothetical" Trump would rule like an addled thug, more interested in cartoon trolling & petty vengeance than addressing the needs of his voters (much less those who voted against him).

We're ten days into his time as president-elect and that hypothetical is looking more & more prescient.

[Joe_dallas]

Kennedy got nominated for HHS - He could do something erractic and stupid like funding gain of function research!

Oh Wait !

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It’s definitely a great time to be an American. All that harm the bureaucrats have done can finally get begin to be mitigated. Hopefully with a healthy dash of accountability.

[ThePublius]

I'm thrilled.

[Bwaaah]

Congratulations (seriously). Didn't you say good-bye until next Thursday?

[ThePublius]

No, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[grb]

ThePublius : “I’m thrilled.”

Of course you are. By now, the nation’s governing is much like a pro-wrestling match to you. The more grotesque and ludicrous the spectacle, the more you’re entertained. Sure it’s all a fraud, but that makes cheering yourself hoarse all the easier.

Real facts and meaningful policies can tend so grey. ThePublius wants cartoon thrills and bizarre fireworks for his viewing pleasure. And what’s a little damage to the country if it keeps him amused?

[ThePublius]

Wow. Thank you for the analysis.

[grb]

You're welcome. Now, grow up, willya?

[ThePublius]

You're an internet bully. "Grow up?" How about making a cogent argument?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when you voted for Bush/Cheney?? That was weird, right??

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hopefully he'll purge all the sickos who support mutilating children. Members of that cult have no business in HHS.

[Joe_dallas]

Good point - for all RFK' s bad points its still massive improvement over mr/Ms levine

[Sarcastr0]

Any actual policy issues you have to put forth, or is just hating her existence enough for you to paper over the crazy person being put in charge of our nation's health policy?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You can read Alabama's amicus in Skrmetti and see how he interfered with the WPATH science because he didn't want it to support political positions he disagreed with.

[M L]

Which looks HEALTHier, A or B?

A: https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1854305503117217792/3_0A42h0?format=jpg&name=large

B: https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/levinerachel_bidentransitionteam01192021.jpg?w=980

[myself]

If you're concerned about children I'd question the choice to put an alleged child sex trafficker in charge of the DOJ.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd question giving anybody who's in the mood to level an accusation the power to dictate who the President can put in charge of an agency. This whole "We must treat accusations as true until proven false!" thing is nuts. It would be nuts in a normal context, in a political context it's double nuts.

[Mr. Bumble]

...well that and it's always a one way street.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL Brett, defending Gaetz with the innocent until proven guilty thing.

This isn't a court of law, it's advise and consent. Gaetz is well established to be a sex pest.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you are well established as a douche!

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “I’d question ….. ”

Now we know why House Speaker Mike Johnson is eager to bury the House Ethics Committee report on Gaetz:

“An attorney representing two women who were witnesses in the House Ethics Committee’s investigation into now-former Rep. Matt Gaetz is calling for the release of the committee’s report, telling ABC News that one of his clients testified that she witnessed the Florida congressman having sex with a minor.”

But given Brett has blithely excused Trump’s attempt to sabotage the voter’s choice in an election he lost, we can hardly expect him (Brett) to worry over something so trifling as sex with an underage girl.

Elsewhere, Mr. Bellmore explained to us how maintaining norms is essential to protecting our democracy. But – he rushed to add – Trump is blameless when it comes to violating those norms. Trying to criminally steal an election and nominating a pedophile as Attorney General apparently don’t count. Of course, Trump could shoot an innocent stranger on Fifth Avenue and Brett wouldn’t see any norm violated then either. The victim might though …..

https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-woman-told-house-ethics-panel-witnessed-gaetz/story?id=115897603

[grb]

myself : “If you’re concerned about children I’d question the choice to put an alleged child sex trafficker in charge of the DOJ”

And if you’re concerned about our nation’s defense, why pick someone who’s never managed anything larger than a platoon to run the world’s largest and most complex organization? Aside from his being a Fox News talking head, that is.

It’s funny; the Right’s handlers rushed to provide a package of excuses for the pick, convinced (pre-Gaetz, Gabbard, and RFK Jr) that it was the worst heavy-lifting they’d have to do over Trump nominees. The excuses ran as follows: (1) Hegseth went to Ivy League schools. (2) He served (with distinction) in the military at the platoon level. (3) Trump wants to be “disruptive”. (4) Endless repetition of the word “woke”.

Hardly a convincing list. The last one only proves people on the Right are braindead enough to believe their own vapid bullshit. I guess if you’re dumb enough to think “woke” ranks anywhere in the top two hundred military problems, you’ll find it perfectly normal to put a Fox News media personality in charge of an organization with seven branches, 2,079,142 military personnel, 778,539 civilian employees, and a budget approaching one trillion dollars.

[grb]

myself : “If you’re concerned about children I’d question the choice ….”

And if you’re concerned about our nation’s security, why pick someone with zero qualifications as Director of National Intelligence? Aside from her frequency appearing on Fox News, that is. Gabbard main “qualification” seems to be her skill at parroting phony disinformation from America’s most odious enemies. That’s not to be sneezed at. I owned a parrot once and the damn thing refused to repeat what it was told. But in Gabbard’s case, her parrot’s skill comes with a weakness for wacko conspiracy theories and yearning soft heart for Assad and Putin. At times it’s seemed like she’s a tween girl and they’re part of her favorite boy band. I could picture her mooning over their posters pinned to her bedroom wall.

Not the traits I’d seek in a DNI head. But Trump doesn’t give a damn about national security. His first & only priority is trolling. Just like a tween boy giggling over his own immature mischief.

[grb]

myself : “If you’re concerned ….”

And if you’re concerned about our nation’s health, why put a loony-toons flake in charge of HHS? Let’s set aside his brain worm which (to remind everyone) entered the public record during divorce proceedings: RFK JR claiming the worm reduced his brain functionality, thus limiting his earning potential, and therefore should reduce his alimony. Heck of a worm, eh?

Instead let’s review some of his favorite tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories:

1. Vaccines cause autism.
2. Covid was engineered to spare Jews.
3. HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
4. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are Covid cures.
5. 5G wireless is used to ‘control our behavior’
6. Antidepressants cause mass shootings
7 Government employees want to ‘mass poisoning’ the American public.
8. The coronavirus vaccines were the ‘deadliest vaccine ever made’
9. Children gender identity issues are caused by water.

Not a comprehensive list, to be sure. Most conspiracy loons are equal-opportunity gullible; they never get enough. But the list is more than adequate to disqualify Jr. from any health-related post. Unless you’re Trump, that is. He’s only interested in trolling the American people with the most Dadaist absurdities possible. And RFK at HHS is funny. Unless you care about public health. Then it isn’t funny at all.

[ThePublius]

It's delightful to watch grb and others melt down over Trump's victory, the Republican majority Senate and congress, and Trump's cabinet and other picks. 🙂

RFK, Jr. is indeed eccentric, but no more so than many, many others in the Democratic party and mainstream media. I can live with that. I think he will do a lot of good, especially around food quality and health, children's health, and trying to end a lot of the regulatory capture in the food and drug industries.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Not a single fact can pierce your skull, and you refuse to engage with any of them. Beyond that, you confuse 'eccentric' with being completely uninformed and wrong. Of course we've already determined that you're illiterate, so no real surprise there.

Thank you for the perfect illustration of why you people are considered to be the dumbest Americans to ever live.

[SRG2]

How authoritarian are Americans?

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/how-authoritarian-are-americans-trump-surveys-autocracy

If you're an authoritarian the results of the analysis should not bother you - after all, an article saying, you are what you are is hardly shocking - unless for example you don't like the consequences of your opinion to be known, or you don't like the idea - or the publishing of the idea - that some of your fellow authoritarians are genuinely pro-dictatorships, or perhaps your self-image may be impaired, the "I'm a libertarian, but..." position.

[M L]

“The Democratic Party, it’s like the Empire. They’re all Imperial stormtroopers. And we’re the ragtag Rebel Alliance. And it’s an uncomfortably diverse, heterogenous group. And you have a teenage Chewbacca and a Princess Leia–type character. And then we have an autistic C-3PO policy wonk person. It’s a ragtag Rebel Alliance against the Empire.”

More clips from Thiel interview with Bari Weiss: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/11/14/peter_thiel_if_the_machine_could_defeat_trump_it_would_have_become_a_one-party_state.html

[JasonT20]

Jesus Christ, is there anything more ridiculous than a billionaire talking about his side of the political divide as the "ragtag Rebel Alliance."

Apparently, in the same conversation as the one you quoted he said this:

"If you did 60% across-the-board tariffs on China, it probably would be very, very bad for Chinese companies and China," Thiel said. "It would only be mildly bad for U.S. consumers because an awful lot of stuff would get shifted away from China."

I find it hard to believe that someone as successful as he is would really believe that. Trump, yes, because his business success is an illusion anyway, but Thiel? He strikes me as being too intelligent to think that a massive level of protectionism like that would have so little impact on U.S. consumers. Which makes me think that he is lying.

Trumpism has been the biggest con job on American voters ever. They actually have so many blue-collar voters fooled into thinking that they are the ones that will make their lives better, even while Trump tells a gathering of the super-rich that he will keep their taxes low.

Democrats, for their part, have Bernie and AOC and the like, but they rely just as much on corporate donations as Republicans, so they won't ever bite that hand that feeds them as hard as they say they will. And that is why there are tens of millions of voters that have been swinging back and forth against the party in power every four years. Millions of Biden voters (that voted against Trump in 2020 because they knew that he was an incompetent fool that only talked like he understood and cared about their economic pain) stayed home this time around because they knew that Biden/Harris didn't do anything to change the fundamental ways that the economic system in this country is rigged in favor of the wealthy. Democrats are not going to do better than trade position with Republicans every 4-8 years as the working class continues to stagnate and become less secure. That is, unless the working class wakes up and realizes not just that neither party is currently serving their interests, but that they actually do have the power to change that if they are willing to use it.

[M L]

It's Friday, do a little Trump dance and have a good weekend!

https://x.com/punished_paco/status/1855453440312295555
https://x.com/TonemanLives/status/1855930493453095074

[ThePublius]

Congrats to Karoline Leavitt on being named press secretary for President Donald J. Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Congrats to Pete Hegseth on being the first Trump nominee to become a scandal after his nomination.

[ThePublius]

Snark.

[Don Nico]

No, Gaetz was the first, even before his designation.

[David Nieporent]

Read what I wrote. Hegseth was the first to become a scandal after his nomination. Gaetz's scandal was pre-existing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Gaetz’s scandal was pre-existing."

And Hegseth's scandal is non-existent.

[JasonT20]

Other than the fact that he's completely unqualified to run the department with the largest budget and largest workforce, I would agree that he's scandals are weak sauce. But I would not agree that they are non-existent.

[David Nieporent]

Being accused of sexual assault seems a bit suboptimal, though for Trump that may actually constitute a recommendation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

An accusation that didn't go anywhere.

Suboptimal? Sure. Scandal? Not unless something more substantial emerges.

[ThePublius]

And Lloyd Austin was scandal free?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"....first Trump nominee to become a scandal after his nomination."

Try again you illiterate moron.

[David Nieporent]

1) Lloyd Austin, I'm pretty confident, was not a Trump nominee.
2) I do not recall any scandals involving Austin, so I'd say yes to your irrelevant question.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The one "scandal" I know of is when there was a controversy over his failure to disclose to the president and the public when he was incapacitated and had to go to the hospital resulting in a deputy taking over.

Austin admitted his mistake:

"I want to be crystal clear. We did not handle this right, and I did not handle this right. I should have told the President about my cancer diagnosis. I should have also told my team and the American public. And I take full responsibility. I apologize to my teammates and to the American people.

Now, I want to make it very clear that there were no gaps in authorities and no risks to the Department's command and control. At every moment, either I or the Deputy Secretary was in full charge. And we've already put in place some new procedures to make sure that any lapses in notification don't happen.

In the future, if the Deputy Secretary needs to temporarily assume the office -- the duties of my office, she and several White House offices will be immediately notified, including the White House Situation Room, and so will key officials across the Department. And the reason for that assumption of duties will be included in writing." [quoted in Wikipedia]

The matter was notable in part since overall Austin did not cause problems for the president.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"when there was a controversy over his failure to disclose to the president and the public when he was incapacitated and had to go to the hospital resulting in a deputy taking over."

He literally disappeared for three days. The deputy who would have taken over was on vacation and didn't know he was out until a few days later.

That beats some evidence-free allegations and a tattoo.

[David Nieporent]

The one “scandal” I know of is when there was a controversy over his failure to disclose to the president and the public when he was incapacitated and had to go to the hospital resulting in a deputy taking over.

I agree that it was a blunder on several people's parts, including Austin's. I do not agree that it was a scandal.

Scandal, n. an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.

Nobody thinks Austin either broke the law or did something immoral.

[ThePublius]

I call it a scandal because what he did was incredibly irresponsible for someone in his position, and his unexplained absence caused a great deal of concern.

[TwelveInchPianist]

PBS and most other news outlets referred to it as a scandal at the time. You are of course free to call it whatever you want.

[ThePublius]

1. I didn’t suggest Austin was a Trump nominee;
2. the “scandal” was as JoeFromtheBronx detailed.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, you did not. You somehow think that David's point has to do with the position he was nominated for.

As I said previously, you're an illiterate moron.

David's point is that a Trump nominee is *already* a scandal merely a few days after nomination.

[ThePublius]

You're an insulting troll. I'm going to start flagging every post of yours where you use foul language or insult people. I hope others will do the same, and you will go the way of others who have been banned for violating this blog's only rule: "We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic." You are usually not civil, and you detract from this experience.

[Bwaaah]

I don’t flag or mute, but to the rest of your point, I agree. Cavanagh centers the type of nasty invective that typifies the louder voices who seek “social justice.”

Do keep in mind that the more people like Jason speak, the more their interest groups become despised for their fundamental foundation of malice. The only people who could see Jason Cavanagh as a force for good are similarly nasty people who, at their core, are filled with disdain and disrespect for so many people on earth.

The voters hear Jason Cavanagh loud and clear. But don’t expect him to change. There is no alternative place for him to go. This is a big part of who he is, and it’s likely he’ll carry his anger, proudly, to his grave.

I call it hate. He calls it "resistance."

[JasonT20]

Do keep in mind that the more people like Jason speak, the more their interest groups become despised for their fundamental foundation of malice. The only people who could see Jason Cavanagh as a force for good are similarly nasty people who, at their core, are filled with disdain and disrespect for so many people on earth.

I leave this here, just in case you were unaware of this phenomenon.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection

When I comes to looking at a group or subgroup of citizens and their motivations, it is hard not to see a "fundamental foundation of malice" that is more at the forefront than among MAGA fans. Jan. 6 was ultimately the expression of longstanding belief that "the left" is dangerous, or even outright evil (see QAnon). Their hatred of the left stems from its views - the way it states many of its goals as being to protect marginalized groups that the MAGA supporters view negatively, to put it mildly.

The voters hear Jason Cavanagh loud and clear. But don’t expect him to change. There is no alternative place for him to go. This is a big part of who he is, and it’s likely he’ll carry his anger, proudly, to his grave.

Your side won, no question. If you want to mistake the people that switched to Trump because they cared more about the economy than more abstract principles about democracy and equality (or the people that had voted for Biden to oppose Trump in 2020 that stayed home) for support for MAGA values themselves, go right ahead. If Trump and the subservient GOP Congress disappoint those voters by being their true MAGA selves instead of working to improve their lives, then prepare for another reversal like there was in 2020.

[Bwaaah]

"Your side won"

That's your binary worldview. I don't have a side. (You probably don't believe this.) Donald Trump won. That doesn't tell me what he'll do, what will happen now, or what benefit there may be in the unfolding future. So that win/loss notion is quite premature from my point of view. But your remark suggests that it would be similarly true for me to say that, "your side lost." If so, that's a you thing, not a me thing.

Me describing Jason's type of invective as malicious isn't "projection." That there is nastiness, by common social conventions, nastiness. I don't have to project to imagine it. It's right there, dripping down the page.

I'm not talking about the world. I'm not talking about Democrats. I'm talking about Jason Cavanaugh. And there are a lot of other nasty, angry, hateful people like him. It has nothing to do with GOP or Democrat. That hateful voice is a negative ding for any group it purports to represent. Try to visualize the world as it is, in which most people are pretty respectful and civilized in how they speak to other people. Nastiness like that is pretty universally viewed as being negative.

You call that "projection."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Tone-policing by a Trump supporter = priceless.

It amuses me to no end how you people don't seem to understand why you're treated the way you are. If you lie, or support Trump, I'm not going to be nice, and I'm not going to mince my words.

Maybe we should look at the various things you've said to others, such as Sarcastr0? Or maybe your hypocrisy is plainly visible for everyone else to see, and I should just run for President so you can stop pretending like your pearl necklace needs a hug.

You get what you deserve. I am not going to be kind to those who lie or support a fascist (while crying about civility lol!).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Cavanaugh

Get it right.

As to the rest of your projection: laughable bullshit from the MAGA-supporter who literally voted for a guy whose entire campaign was hatred, demonization, and vengeance, right out of the authoritarian's playbook.

You voted for Orange Hitler (the piece of shit even quoted Hitler and none of you batted an eye), so you can take all your unserious accusations and shove them back up your ass.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Were I to presume that you have any ability to read or comprehend the written English language, my response to you would be to not threaten me with a good time.

Anything to say about your utter failure to follow David's point, or should we just sit here and laugh at your inadequacies?

Flag away, idiot.

[ThePublius]

The NY Times has lost its mind.

"Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many artificial ingredients, questioning why the Canadian version has fewer than the U.S. version. But he was wrong. The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada’s has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used “for freshness,” according to the ingredient label."

Excuse me? He was wrong? Yea, same, only different. The U.S. version has dyes and BHT, the Canadian product doesn't. How is he wrong?

[Absaroka]

That seems like pretty unthinking journalism. Especially since I think they are talking about this interview where he says "Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients, and you go to Canada and it’s got two or three?”, which is way off. The two times a day a stopped clock is right are not the examples to use when pointing out its inaccuracy.

[ThePublius]

I'm not following you. Don't you see the glaring contradiction in what the times published? And why do you infer that they are referring to a particular interview? They didn't mention when or to whom he said 'too many artificial ingredients. And, contrary to the Times' 'he was wrong,' he was right!

[JasonT20]

Yes, there is a clear contradiction in the way the NY Times article worded its description of how RFK Jr was wrong. But he was wrong. Froot Loops cereal does not have "two or three" ingredients in Canada, compared to "18 or 19" in the U.S.

If he is going to be Secretary of HHS, then he'll have to stop getting facts wrong when he talks about food safety. If he wants to question why the U.S. allows all kinds of artificial dyes, preservatives, and other garbage be used in food for children, I'm behind taking a serious look at that, 100%. But he won't be effective at doing anything about it if he can be so easily dismissed because he's throwing numbers around that are clearly false.