Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

I guess Trump has had a rough week, his nominees being grilled on Capitol Hill, non-stop headlines about deportations and dust ups with foreign leaders, firing Inspector Generals, judges reversing his grant spending freeze, blanket buyout offers for federal workers.

And Emerson just came out with a poll showing his approval rating at +8, 49-41%.

https://emersoncollegepolling.com/january-2025-national-poll-trump-starts-term-with-49-approval-41-disapproval-rating/

Its almost like he's doing exactly what the voters expected him to do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

With biased media coverage like he has had, Jesus Christ himself would be lucky to have poll results half as good..

[SRG2]

FWIW the GOP wouldn't have voted for Jesus - too liberal and "woke". And brown, of course.

[Joe_dallas]

As compared to the faux compasion and faux anti-racism of the woke.

[SRG2]

"Whatabout?"

[Riva]

Putting aside that Democrats, not Republicans, have a history of, shall we say, negative treatment of “brown” peoples, the blistering ignorance of your comment otherwise speaks for itself and serves as its own rebuttal.

[SRG2]

Yup - and the Democrats changed in the 1960s, and now the party of racism is the GOP. Why you support them, of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

All Democrats changed in the 1960s was who got to be the beneficiaries of their racial discrimination. Kennedy made a start towards real reform on that front, and LBJ took it and replaced it with racial preferences.

[Riva]

And President Trump has finally ended this nightmare of Democrat race exploitation, or as much as he can at the federal level.

[SRG2]

Implicit in your post is condemnation of the VRA and CRA because they merely gave equal rights to "those people". I doubt that's your intent but it's in your argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Implicit in your post is condemnation of the VRA and CRA because they merely gave equal rights to "those people". I doubt that's your intent but it's in your argument."

I'm fine with people having equal rights, in fact, I demand it. But having equal rights virtually never results in equal outcomes, so if you force equal outcomes, it can only be at the expense of equal rights.

You can make rights equal, or you can make outcomes equal, but not both at the same time.

[Riva]

No, the post, quite clearly, is condemning the racial preference system President Johnson began with Executive Order 11246 in 1965.

[Riva]

Democrats have changed only insofar as they have expanded the scope of people they exploit, although it is amusing to see a religious bigot masquerading as an atheist trying to distort a faith for his own political purposes.

[RedheadedPharoh]

When people like you see a black man on the street you think " that poor man can't get by in society on his own, hes just too inferior. Us Whites must him so he can do basic things like get a photo ID and force people to hire him."

When people like me see a black man on the street we just grab our wallets and our women and go to other side of the street.

That's the difference between people like me, am egalitarian, and people like you, a racist.

[not guilty]

Riva, I am proud that my party during the mid-twentieth century repudiated its sordid history of support for slavery and racial segregation. Are you proud of how eagerly your party stepped into the breach?

[Riva]

Republicans have always supported civil rights. They ended slavery, opposed Democrat segregation, and voted for the Civil Rights Act, which Democrats filibustered.

And when exactly did the Democratic Party issue that statement apologizing for slavery and segregation? Sure like to see a copy of that. But I won’t. Just like I won’t ever see a picture of Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster, 2 other things that don’t exist.

[Bob from Ohio]

"brown, of course."

The "brown" came from the Arab invasion, 500 years after Jesus. The "color" of the pre-Arab invasion population was Mediterranean white, like many current Lebanese or Syrians.

If you want to snark, learn something first.

[RedheadedPharoh]

After all, Jesus had blond hair and blue eyes.

[not guilty]

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Redhead? While we don't know what Jesus looked like, it is highly likely that a Mediterranean Jew in his era had darker features.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Don't you know any history?

[SRG2]

Unlikely, given the environmental advantage of darker skin.

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess you're discounting that his father was God.

[SRG2]

Unevidenced, so no need to bother addressing this.

[Stella Link the dog]

If his father was god and he inherited god's eye and skin color, what would they be?

[Voize of Reazon]

Rainbow.

[Bob from Ohio]

We have evidence in the population right now. You just want the racism card.

[SRG2]

Genetically, Jews most closely resemble Palestinians and Kurds. not Syrians nor Iranians.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Genetically modern Jews are more related to the Canaanites than to the ancient Hebrews.

[Michael Ejercito]

He is not an American.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump has 'flooded the zone' quite deliberately, and this will continue for some time. It would appear that POTUS Trump used the interregnum period at Mar-A-Lago quite well.

It is nice to have a POTUS and VPOTUS with a working brain and can speak well extemporaneously, respectively.

[Martinned2]

Constantly starting diplomatic disputes left and right is certainly one definition of speaking "well"...

[RedheadedPharoh]

Defending our national interests is exactly what a US President should do.

I'm sorry that you're not accustomed to it and your 3rd world shitholes are used to ripping us off.

[Bwaaah]

"starting diplomatic disputes left and right"

The first sign of any disturbance of the status quo: disputes among diplomats.

Some of us aren't trembling at this.

[Riva]

If one can call the embarrassing hysterics of the Democrats “grilling.” Answer the question Mr. Kennedy! Do you or do you not support these onesies?

[Bored Lawyer]

Is there any remaining point to the nomination hearings by the Senate? Their ostensible purposes is to investigate the qualifications and fitness of the nominee for office. They have descended to a circus that produces media sound bites. They add little to the Senate's ability to "advise and consent" the president's nominations.
So do away with them.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, there is = a point to nomination hearings

At some point in the future, the fever will break. We need the procedural safeguard.

[Bored Lawyer]

I agree the Senate needs to confirm nominees. That's a good check on presidential power. The hearings, however, are nothing but a circus. The committees already vet the nominees thoroughly, and ask them written questions.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I completely agree. The hearings (today) are just a circus. It was not always like that, and it can change.

[bernard11]

You mean the voters want him to blame the air crash on DEI, Biden, Obama, etc?

If they do, it's only because they've swallowed enough of his lies to make that seem reasonable.

In fact it's one more disgraceful statement from this disgraceful man.

[Krayt]

I don't know if I'd call it a rough week. The same ol' same ol' attacked everything relentlessly, but that's not the same thing. That's expected from the last 8 years.

[David Bremer]

Congrats on finding this one poll. Meanwhile, aggregating polls shows that he's actually decreased in popularity since inauguration.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wait until the tariffs kick in, lol.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ooh, impressive! His approval rating has dropped from 49.7 to 49.1! IOW, it's easily within their margin of error of where it started.

The disapproval rating has significantly risen, of course, from 41.5 to 43.7.

I'd love to see the partisan breakdown on that. Maybe it's just some Democrats who were hoping he'd break all his campaign promises dropping off.

[bernard11]

Unbiased analysis there, Brett.

The drop in approval is insignificant (I agree), but the rise in disapproval is just foolish Democrats - an explanation pulled out of your ass to reassure yourself about Trump.

[Absaroka]

FWIW: a gun forum I read had a thread on the crash. As you might expect the forum members trend conservative. It was an informative thread, with a number of airline and helo pilots commenting, including ones who have flown that approach. It was a pretty clueful discussion.

But when the discussion turned to Trump's comments, 100% of the replies were more or less "WTF is the matter with that guy".

There are a fair amount of centrist normies out there who don't like either fringe. In any given election, their votes are up for grabs.

[PLP 2]

What has that got to do with Professor Volokh's assessment of the case?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Now that I'm finally proudly atheist, having shucked my Catholic upbringing, I'm fascinated by how the New Testament came to be. No longer feeling the finger of God pointing at me and saying, "You must believe every word!" I no longer have a dog (god spelled backwards) in the fight.

Scholars are now saying that Mark really intended to end his Gospel at 16:8. It's an odd and incomplete ending, with women seeing the empty Tomb and running away and not telling anyone. It seems so reasonable to posit that the original ending has been lost. I don't know why that idea gets so little love these days.

[Kazinski]

As a fellow atheist I'm not sure why you care.

Of course I became an atheist pretty early in life when the Bishop's daughter slapped me for talking back during Sunday school when I was 5.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If you're not interested in the topic, don't respond.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Don't blame God for her. That is stupid.I can tell worse but I am a Catholic.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Don't blame God for her. "

We atheists don't blame god for anything.

[Armchair]

" I'm not sure why you care."

Because he's an angry atheist, determined to prove religion wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

...because he has failed at everything else and is a miserable person who dislikes anyone who doesn't agree with him.

[Sarcastr0]

He doesn't seem angry.

You sure do, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

Far from it Il Douche. Most ho his and your comments are a source of humor.

[not guilty]

"Scholars are now saying that Mark really intended to end his Gospel at 16:8."

That is nothing recent -- scholars have said that for eons. I must say, though, that I wouldn't be sorry to see more self-proclaimed fundamentalist "Christians" heed the mandate of Mark 16:18 to take up serpents and drink poison.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Only recently does it seem to have become a majority view, at least among historical-critical people.

Of course, there was no critical study of the New Testament at all until the Enlightenment.

It's pretty obvious that the ending which includes 16:18 was a later addition. It introduces Mary Magdalene as someone new to the narrative which is a break in continuity; the oldest manuscripts don't have it; and Matthew and Luke, working from Mark and writing only 15 years later, diverge after the events described at 16:8.

[Krayt]

There were so many ancient writings that looked like various parts of the Bible evolved from them, I used to joke some day a TV preacher would suggest these were pre-planted by the Devil to cast doubt on the Bible.

Then I learned some guy around 400 AD had long since suggested exactly that. Beware that crafty Satan!

[Dan Schiavetta]

An important person having a special birth (like a virgin birth) was quite common in ancient mythology. Also there were others (such as Augustus) who were referred to as "the Son of God" -- though ironically it's unclear whether Jesus ever called himself that.

The New Testament only got into its present shape around 400. What was in, and what was out, and what version to use, depended on the theological proclivities of the people in charge, and not on any concerns about authenticity.

[John F. Carr]

A Christian with a degree from a Divinity school told me his education included reading the Apocrypha and understanding why various books did or did not get included in the official Bible.

The main Armenian church split off from the Catholics around the time of formal codification of the modern Bible and official doctrine. They have heretical beliefs about the nature of the Trinity, if I recall correctly.

[Martinned2]

*different beliefs

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed.

Most Protestants don't accept the extra books that appear in the "Catholic Version" RSV which I bought in high school, for example Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 2 Maccabees. It is no longer a reason for schism, fortunately.

[Martinned2]

Not where you live, maybe. But Dutch conservative Calvinists are still constantly splitting their congregations. (And occasionally merging them again.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Division, at least to such an extreme intent, seems to be a uniquely Christian characteristic. I don't know of any other faith which split so much, often with deadly results. Even in the earliest Christian writings (the letters of Paul) we see this happening.

For example (this is Garrison Keillor, talking about the faith he was raised in, the Brethren):

"Unfortunately, once free of the worldly Anglicans, these firebrands were not content to worship in peace but turned their guns on each other. Scholarly to the core and perfect literalists every one, they set to arguing over points that, to any outsider, would have seemed very minor indeed but which to them were crucial to the Faith, including the question: if Believer A is associated with Believer B who has somehow associated himself with C who holds a False Doctrine, must D break off association with A, even though A does not hold the Doctrine, to avoid the taint?

"The correct answer is: Yes. Some Brethren, however, felt that D should only speak with A and urge him to break off with B. The Brethren who felt otherwise promptly broke off with them. This was the Bedford Question, one of several controversies that, inside of two years, split the Brethren into three branches. Once having tasted the pleasure of being Correct and defending True Doctrine, they kept right on and broke up at every opportunity, until, by the time I came along, there were dozens of tiny Brethren groups, none of which were speaking to any of the others."

[Artifex]

Division, at least to such an extreme intent, seems to be a uniquely Christian characteristic. I don't know of any other faith which split so much, often with deadly results.

Nope. Perhaps you have never heard of the Sunni and Shia ? I suspect division over small things in any form of fundamentalism is an endemic human quality. The level of violence will simply scale based on the level of majority/minority control by whatever fundamentalists happen to be in the majority.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't think Islam holds a candle to Christianity as far as the extent of division in its history, all the divisions that happened from the very beginning, and the amount of bloodshed and torture.

The basic problem is monotheism. If I believe there's only one God, then anyone who believes in a different God (or multiple Gods) is wrong. And then combine that with the instruction to convert others (e.g., Matt 28:19 - 20).

Jews have always been monotheist but they've never been proselytizers. All they wanted was to be left alone in their Israel and be Jews.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, and to some extent on the degree to which their beliefs actually sanction violence.

Remember, Islam initially spread by military conquest, not persuasion. Mohammad was a warlord, who spread his new religion at the edge of a sword. This contrasts pretty conspicuously with the origins of Christianity.

Accordingly, Islam officially, as a matter of fundamental doctrine, rejects both separation of church and state, and religious liberty.

So, violence against members of other religions and against other sects within your religion can be argued to be a perversion of Christianity, but making that case for Islam is really hard.

[SRG2]

Famous Emo Phillips joke:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

[Stella Link the dog]

Artifex: "I suspect division over small things in any form of fundamentalism is an endemic human quality."

What Freud called "narcissism of small differences. " Jonathan Swift may have identified these tendencies at an earlier date.

[bernard11]

Remember, Islam initially spread by military conquest, not persuasion. Mohammad was a warlord, who spread his new religion at the edge of a sword. This contrasts pretty conspicuously with the origins of Christianity.

Well, origins aside, an awful lot of Christianity's spread was at the edge of a sword, and the point too, not to mention that its internal theological disputes were often settled that way as well.

It has no shortage of violence in its history, so possibly the smugness is uncalled for.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

What bullshit. THREE HUGE ERRORS

1) historical criticism of Gospels goes back to Origen and the HExapla...moron
2) Many things you call Gospels were rejected outright. IF Mark was accepted by the Church it was accepted on an already existent Faith. How could it be otherwise?That is an argument from silence.
3) And you are Guinness Book stupid to think one could not have any real Faith prior to Marcan Priority.

I am llight years more educated and smarter than you but I base this all on the fact that either Jesus was utterly wrong that there was a basis for Faith even then or He was not. I know you don't approve of old poorly-educated spinsters having access to Faith without a Doctorate but that stems from your shittly self-serving God, who doesn't accept whom you don't accept

[Dan Schiavetta]

No reason to put up with your constant flood of juvenile insults. Muted.

[Mr. Bumble]

Capt. Dan the muting man strikes again.

[grb]

Dan Schiavetta : "No reason...."

I recently reread Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, which has the overall thesis that Jesus saw his mission as a political one before the approaching end times, as not as delivering metaphysical salvation. It was moderately persuasive but not conclusive or complete. No biography or vision of Jesus can be with the available primary sources.

This time I looked into the reaction to the book and that was kind of interesting. The outlier was one vulgar Fox piece focusing on the author's Muslim background, but it was so determinately crude & stupid, the book's critics all agreed it did their cause more harm than good.

The more common reaction was snide condescension from Biblical scholars. They sometimes managed to say Reza Aslan was both completely wrong & saying things already known for ages in adjoining sentences. They sniped over minor issues (such as the term "Zealot" occurring long after Jesus' death, a fact noted in the book's opening pages), snipped over petty quibbles (yes, he acknowledged his influences, but should have done more), and sneered at his lack of credentials. Though it might have been acerbated by the religious subject, this was clearly a general case of people furious an outsider had found success on their turf.

Bottom line? It's impossible to reconstruct Jesus's life and purpose from the existing evidence. Too many blanks must be filled in by a person's preconceptions.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/140006922X/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Dan Schiavetta]

I've read that book. He does not explain why, if Jesus really was a traditional political "Messiah", Jews as a whole didn't support him. They seemed to be rejecting him because of his otherworldliness. Jews had been under Roman rule for generations. "Love your enemies" is not the kind of thing they needed to hear.

There's certainly nothing wrong with an "outsider" looking at things. That is one benefit of psychotherapy. Often they can see things that the person in the middle of them can't. (Though Islam does see Jesus as a prophet.)

Henry Abramson, a Canadian Jew, has an online series of lectures on Jewish history, and a couple of them deal with the beginnings of Chrisitianity. I much recommend them.
https://youtu.be/Ng7D4beNmeA

[SRG2]

not conclusive or complete. No biography or vision of Jesus can be with the available primary sources.

There are no primary sources - that's the problem. The Gospels are secondary, and Paul never encountered Jesus in the latter's lifetime.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's either a problem...or an opportunity!

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

It's not mandate, fool.Not an imperative in Greek or Latin. And it would be simful to 'test God' by doing that.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So you wouldn't be sorry if a bunch of Americans committed suicide, while also believing successful black conservative men are "Uncle Toms".

You're a lunatic dude.

[Riva]

Why do you all try to hide your Christian, and more pointed Catholic, bigotry by calling yourselves “atheists”? Show some intellectual courage, if you have any.

[Commenter_XY]

Dan/Kaz, please permit me a personal question.

Do you believe in life after death?
Do you believe that when this body dies, it is the end of life? Or is there something else?

I've wondered how atheists think about those questions.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

after decades or experience with them ....many won't allow themselves to think on religious lines anymore. THe believs of even a Plato or a Cicero are utterly lost on them
I taught for 10 years at a seminary , a Catholic seminary, and one course that was very popular was Natural Theology, reasoning about God solely from nature

If you want a lifeline look up the LOGOS doctrine of the pagans
you don't consult sheep livers because of the Bible faiths you mock

[Commenter_XY]

I don't see either (life after death, or is there something else) as a religious or theistic question at all.

[Ridgeway]

Maybe in the abstract, but I've never met an atheist who wasn't also a materialist (in the philosophical sense). IOW, what the believer sees as an independent soul, the atheist/materialist sees simply as an artifact of brain function, so once the brain function ceases, so too does the soul (or whatever term you use to describe our own self consciousness).

[Martinned2]

How could there be "something else"? Or, if there was, wouldn't that be before death by definition?

None of this is worth thinking about at all. The questions themselves are plainly absurd.

[Bwaaah]

I am a not-proud atheist (and Jew) here. I inferred myself to be an atheist only after around the first 40 years of my life when, never having seen compelling evidence of a god in any coherent sense, I figured it was most accurate to describe myself as an atheist. (I've never liked being atheist. But neither is it something I particularly dislike.)

I have little but the most abstract of beliefs in life after death. When my body dies, but more pointedly, when my brain becomes satisfactorily afunctional, that appears to be the end of me in any form that matters to me. I become compost.

It has long humored me that humans often call themselves the "top of the food chain." But that seems like hubris. We'd never admit the position of maggots in that chain because, well, they're "just maggots." We should perhaps eat some maggots during our lives, at least to attain a kind of symbolic parity with our maligned brethren, and sort of share that link in the food chain as both the eater and the eaten.

Though I don't believe in god, this miracle of existence persists (without explanation), and that alone leaves everything in the range of the possible, even if evidently improbable.

Call me skeptical, but impressed.

[DaveM]

I inferred myself to be an atheist only after around the first 40 years of my life when, never having seen compelling evidence of a god in any coherent sense

The most compelling coherent evidence that God exists is that you have looked for it. Only those created in God's image would even have the ability to doubt His existence, logically.

The way forward here is to ask yourself the question, "as opposed to what"? Let us assume for the sake of argument that God does not exist -- as opposed to what? What is the alternate theory for the existence of the universe?

Nothingness? No, it can't be just "nothing". Everything comes from something.

Randomness? That's nonsensical. Would a random being even have a concept of "compelling evidence" at all?

We do not/can never know? The universe forced its existence upon you; perhaps you can pretend not to notice it, but it is what it is.

No, I submit that examined objectively, by far the most rational conclusion one can draw about the nature of our existence is that there must be a God.

[Bwaaah]

The god theory is quite compelling to me, perhaps more than any alternate theories. But even if it's the most compelling theory, that doesn't fill the evidentiary burden I have adopted.

I try to apply a philosophy of sciency empiricism. Carl Sagan said something like, "As scientists, in the absence of evidence, we have a responsibility to withhold belief." I like to consider myself, at least in part, a scientist.

I try to abide by that. And paradoxically, I don't know that I can tell you what would satisfy the burden of evidence of god. I am quite convinced (so far) that I don't know enough to make such a determination, and have learned to tolerate an absence of belief despite signals that point toward conclusions.

"Faith" was always the most sensible way to move beyond my non-belief. It doesn't require evidence. I believe in faith and its transcendence. Can I have faith without belief? I think so. I'm not sure. Maybe I do.

If there is a god, he knows I'm trying to know that, and to be a scientist, at the same time. (I think I am a stalwart defender of the philosophy of science.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Life after death: no, I don't. It's possible that there is a spiritual element that survives bodily death. But I haven't seen any evidence of it, nor is it necessary for there to be one.

I think one reason belief in the afterlife exists is because we simply can't imagine our existence ending. We can't imagine our own death. As Freud observed, we think we can imagine it, but actually in our imaginings we survive as a spectator.

At death my body will rejoin the organic matter on this planet, which is no shame and no defeat. Of course, fantasies are useful sometimes.

[Krayt]

When you're dead, you're dead. I dunno. The first 14 billion years went by pretty fast before I found myself born. I imagine a google googol years until the last proton evaporates will go by just as quickly.

I like to hold out a slim hope for a Techno Rapture, where fantastically advanced science resurrects the dead. This is unlikely, but is not a religious idea. I have no intention to make their work exponentially more difficult via cremation.

Hey, wait. Is the brain one of the organs the funeral home removes? Shit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I figure that if there IS an afterlife, I'll find out when I die. Contrarywise, if there isn't an afterlife, there will be nobody to find out. It's not like experiencing an eternity of no longer existing is a logical possibility.

I'm not in any particular hurry to settle the matter, and nothing would change in my behavior if I knew one way or the other, so it's not a matter I have to have a firm opinion about.

Consciousness, the subjective awareness of one's own existence, is a strange thing from a rationalist perspective, isn't it? I know for an absolute fact that there have been periods when my body existed, but which I have no memories of.

Some, like a boring drive that includes no events worth recording in your memory, I am very confident that I actually experienced at the time, even though I have no memory of doing so.

Others, like being under deep anesthesia, physically precluded my brain from functioning and recording memories, so if I'd been experiencing anything at the time, how would I now know? But if there's nothing more than biology, I certainly wasn't aware.

Sleep, of course, is an intermediate situation. I'm very confident that I'm having subjective experiences at least some of the time while I sleep, but I can seldom recall them in any detail.

Is death more like deep anesthesia, or sleep? I guess I'll find out in due time. Or not. In the meanwhile I don't sweat it, because there's nothing I can do to change that answer, and nothing in my life now that's contingent upon it.

I'm back to being a Catholic because I observed first hand that people who were confident there was no God tended to be nasty, and would the truth do that to you?

It's a small thing to base belief upon, I'll grant, but it suffices.

[Stella Link the dog]

I've been an atheist* since long before I knew there was such a thing.

Do I believe in life after death? No, I do not. I am aware of no good reason to believe such a thing, but I also have no way of "knowing" that such a belief is false.

Do I believe that when this body dies, it is the end of life? Or is there something else? Mostly, that is a question I don't concern myself with though I will say that it appears to me that there is no good reason to believe that there is anything beyond life. In other words, I do not believe that "there is something else." As I said, it is something of no concern to me as I have of no way of knowing and there's nothing I can do about it. If I believed "there is something else" it wouldn't change anything for me.

*For years I claimed that I was not smart enough to be an atheist and considered myself to be agnostic but, ultimately, I realized that my assessment of the probability of there being a god, and particularly the heavenly narcissist of Christian faith, was vanishingly small and there was no reason to classify myself anything other than an atheist.

[Kazinski]

Worms eat you, unless you are cremated.

But you do live on in the memories of people you have known, and of course on your TikTok channel.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Reputation is "the immortal part of myself". Othello, II, iii, 282 - 283.

[Brett Bellmore]

Woody Allen:

“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.”

I tend to agree with him, though since actual immortality seems precluded by the fundamental laws of physics, (Thermodynamics uber alles.) and a reasonable approximation of it seems unlikely to arrive in my lifetime, (Though I have high hopes for my son enjoying it.) living on in the memories of the people who have known me seems likely to be the best I can expect.

[Kazinski]

I don't long for immortality, I am reminded of Winston Churchill's last words at 90:

"I am so bored with it all".

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's a consequence itself of aging; Depression and ahedonia. Biological immortality would necessarily mean remaining physically young, including your brain, because it's the aging that kills us in the end.

[Don Nico]

My mom waited until after her 100th birthday for that

[Krayt]

With biological immortality, you'd be exceptionally lucky to make it 20,000 years. Just the occasional accident will get you.

I read somewhere car accidents lop 6 years off the average life. Whether correct or not, that's the kind of stats you're working with.

Even ignoring biology, murder, suicide, and anything less than major trauma with nobody nearby, and carerful living, good luck getting to 100,000, much less a million, much less a billion or some number the universe might even bother to notice.

[bernard11]

One idea I've seen, which makes a little sense, is that the accident rate would drop dramatically, as immortals would be much more cautious than we are.

In fact, the article went on to argue that an immortal society would be so risk-averse that it would stagnate. You'd be reluctant to drive anywhere, for example.

[Brett Bellmore]

I recall a calculation that the half life, (Average lifespan wouldn't really be applicable to people who didn't age.) would be perhaps about 300 years, if you applied the lowest mortality rate for any age currently.

[bernard11]

Why would you calculate it that way?

[Kenneth Almquist]

It has always seemed to me that the early scribes were right to conclude that there was a missing ending that had to be reconstructed.

The case against a lost ending seems to be based largely a reluctance to assume the existence of something that vanished without a trace. It’s pretty clear that the authors of Matthew and Luke both worked from copies of Mark that lacked the hypothesized missing ending. Presumably the copies of Mark were on scrolls which were rolled up with the beginning on the outside, so if a small portion of a scroll had been lost because the scroll was damaged, what would would have been lost would have been the beginning of Mark, not the end.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Evertything in Mark is after the fact, so that the Church accepted it as a Gosple MUST MEAN that they accepted it in the form they "published" it.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Laughable that you aregue that way but not against Quelle

The pericope of the Woman caught in adultery appears and not appears in many places but the Catholic Church accepted it on its own understanding of the Faith haned down. I have studied Bible for 45 years and taught it but I always tells students : Chrsitianity is not a book religon, the book comes from the Church and not the Church from the book

[RedheadedPharoh]

>It has always seemed to me that the early scribes were right to conclude that there was a missing ending that had to be reconstructed.

...that had to be resurrected.

You missed that one.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Kenneth:

The endings (and beginnings) of ancient writings were the most likely parts to be lost. It's also possible that Mark was originally on a codex and the last "page" got lost.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm curious why you chose "atheist" rather than "agnostic".

I've always understood the difference being that an "agnostic" denies knowing if there is a God, (And is maybe indifferent to the subject.) while the "atheist" affirmatively denies that there is one.

My confirmation essay was on the topic of how all the classical proofs of God's existence embodied logical fallacies, and though raised as a Catholic I spent half my life as an agnostic, so I'm somewhat sympathetic to that position, but atheism seems a logical bridge too far. The move from lack of evidence to affirmatively concluding non-existence is logically unjustifiable.

Agnosticism is a lack of religion, while atheism is just another religion, so far as I'm concerned. I can't really see the appeal to any rational person.

[Michael P]

As an atheist, I've always thought of agnosticism as falling for the monotheistic fallacy at the heart of Pascal's wager. I hold the same position on the Christian god as I do to Allah, the Roman pantheon, Hindu, Shinto, and so forth. Instead of disbelieving N-1 religions and being unsure about one, I view all their stories the same way. (Their moral systems are a very different matter.)

[Bwaaah]

I think if I were more educated on the subject, I'd say it much more like you do. I used to call myself "agnostic" until I asked myself, "What is it you are holding a place for?" (I had no answer.)

Still, I find most self-described atheists to have an alternative set of beliefs, often resentments based in particular histories. I find myself in more of an absence-of-belief position, and eventually let go of the unfounded clarity that might appear in agnosticism.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

True, you DO NOT see. Most of pagan Greek and Roman philosophy accepts God on rational grounds. IF you say reason can't know two things follow
1) you can't be atheist
2) you have to accept 'faith' has a part OR else be the blind man saying 'they cannot see what I don't"
There is not denying it: you can't lean on Reason and then say Reason can't be leading others where it isn't leading you. ( And of course that suggests a moral component, doen't it)

[Martinned2]

My view is that it doesn't matter. None of it matters. Religion is mildly amusing, and as an aspect of history it can be fascinating, but if you take it too seriously it's like meeting an adult who still believes in Santa Clause, or someone who truly believes cats are bad luck. You shake your head and go on with your day.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Still, you sound like a fool, Marin.
You have doctors, policeman, civil servants, co-workers and untold numbers of people you like and depend on and they are --- unknown to you -- believers. They should be congratulated for putting up wiht a pompous jerk like you.

[Martinned2]

There are also untold numbers of people who believe in horoscopes in the newspaper. I don't think truth is decided by voting, despite some politicians' best effort.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Meanwhile you worship the humans who make up the State.

It's laughable. You still have faith in a god, yours is just institutions created and operated by humans.

[Bwaaah]

So true. Too true.

[David Nieporent]

It's laughable. You still have faith in a god, yours is just institutions created and operated by humans.

I don't have any faith in the state, but at least there's evidence it exists!

[RedheadedPharoh]

You don't have any faith in the State, yet you're one of the most prolific State bootlickers and excuse makers on this board.

Weird.

[David Nieporent]

It is weird that you think that, yes.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You think it's weird that I think your pathological authority worship and bootlicking isn't congruent with your claim that you have faith in the State?

Odd.

[Don Nico]

"don't have any faith in the state"
That is because you confuse "faith" with "confidence" or maybe "trust"

[Sarcastr0]

...do you think DMN has faith confidence OR trust in the government?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Clause"

Claus

"You shake your head and go on with your day."

I often feel this way after one of your comments.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Brett:

I suppose then that I'm a proud agnostic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough, that's a reasonable position.

[not guilty]

Whose name do atheists call out at the point of orgasm?

[Dan Schiavetta]

In the case of an old girlfriend of mine, it was her prior boyfriend, which was a red flag.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I've always understood the difference being that an "agnostic" denies knowing if there is a God, (And is maybe indifferent to the subject.) while the "atheist" affirmatively denies that there is one."

I'm not sure that I've ever encountered anyone who would meet your definition of "atheist." In any discussion that I've ever had, and in any discussion on the topic I've ever observed it's always been acknowledged by the "atheist" that there is no way to demonstrate that there is no god. And, if you were honest, it is my suspicion that you would admit that you can't "prove" that your Catholic faith is true and that you are completely without doubt. If I am correct, would that make you an agnostic?

"The move from lack of evidence to affirmatively concluding non-existence is logically unjustifiable."

Perhaps so but it is my strong suspicion that there are many ideas/assertions that you reject because of lack of evidence to the point of "affirmatively concluding" something. For example, what is your opinion of the story of Joseph Smith and the golden plates and his encounter with the angel Moroni? Do you consider yourself "agnostic" on the issue?

"Agnosticism is a lack of religion, while atheism is just another religion, so far as I'm concerned."

I've never understood why a religious person who values religious beliefs would call atheism a religion. I can't think of any features of religious belief that are necessarily features of being an atheist. I know that it's either trite or banal to so state, but being an atheist is a lot like not being a philatelist and nobody calls that a hobby.

"I can't really see the appeal to any rational person." If atheists claim to know that there is no god of any possible description and to a similar degree to there belief that, for example, the earth is not flat and that the moon is not made of green cheese, perhaps you are correct. But, I think your idea of what atheists actually believe and assert is wrong -- a cartoon created by believers to disparage those of us who find ideas like the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, magically fixing cut-off ears, and transubstantiation to be difficult to accept.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I've never understood why a religious person who values religious beliefs would call atheism a religion."

I'd call Thugee or Ball worship a religion, too. I don't value "religious beliefs" as a class, I value specific beliefs that happen to be religious.

What you're doing here is depriving the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" of their distinct meanings, making them total synonyms. I don't like impoverishing language that way.

From Dictionary dot com: Atheist vs. Agnostic: What’s The Difference?

[Stella Link the dog]

From Dictionary dot com:
"An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being."
"Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god."

"In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist."

Do you think this clears anything up?
I don't believe in the existence of a god or divine being. I believe that there is no god. I assert that it’s impossible for me to know with certainty how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist. Am I an atheist or am I an agnostic?

" I don't like impoverishing language that way."
"Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views"

[Stella Link the dog]

"I'd call Thugee or Ball worship a religion, too. I don't value "religious beliefs" as a class, I value specific beliefs that happen to be religious."

Ok, lets look at this a bit more. According to the cite you offered, I am either an agnostic or an atheist, I'm not sure which. If I am an atheist because it is may assertion that I do not believe in any god or divine being, how is that a religious belief? What features of my belief system, a system which you are declaring to be a religion, identify it as such? I have no dogma practices or rituals associated with my atheistic beliefs, I don't go to meetings. I don't proselytize. If you, as do many religious people, claim that atheism is religious because we atheists have some degree of faith (depending on the value of the variable "faith") in our belief, does that not detract from, for example, the high regard that many Christians assign to their faith in that which can not be proven?

In other words, what is your definition of religion which causes you to assert that atheism is a religion rather than what I consider atheism to be -- a complete lack of religion?

nb Thuggee has features which appear to be religious in nature. I have tried to find out what Ball worship is, but have failed.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a typo for Bhal worship. Part of the dyslexia I got from chemo I that I tend to type homophones.

[Stella Link the dog]

I was beginning to wonder about you. Google "Ball worship" to understand why.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I get older my dyslexia gets worse, along with my peripheral neuropathy, so my speed and accuracy at typing the wrong words is declining...

[Stella Link the dog]

"so my speed and accuracy at typing the wrong words is declining..."

Typing wrong words or right words?

Personally, I type wrong words and right words with about the same speed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Both, actually, I was just trying to be amusing about something quite vexing.

[not guilty]

I thought it is spelled Baal or Ba'al.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's spelled lots of ways, not originally having been in our alphabet...

[John F. Carr]

The ' represents an unpronounceable consonant akin to the Arabic ayin. In kinder languages it becomes a glottal stop or nothing at all.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/ba%CA%95l-

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Agnosticism is a lack of religion, while atheism is just another religion, so far as I'm concerned"

I don't think that's entirely fair, though my view is exactly yours : I'm an agnostic because religious truth is logically unknowable. But an atheist might say the preponderance of evidence on religious claims (miracles & such) and the way religions have manifested themselves throughout human history strongly suggests they are a human phenomena without any metaphysical basis.

And that's a very rational conclusion with a strong evidentiary base.

[windycityattorney]

Just use Hitchen's razor "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Easy peasy.

[not guilty]

Or as Jonathan Swift said: “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.”

[SRG2]

My approach is not religious. I think it is irrational to believe in the existence of entities whose claimed properties violate known scientific theory. This encapsulates the Philosopher's Stone, the Shamir, the alkahest, the chimaera, perpetual motion machines - and gods in general. The Judeo-Christo-Muslim god is one such entity. (Note that the complement of a religious belief is not inherently religious.)

[SRG2]

As Terry Pratchett said, atheism is a religion the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[Brett Bellmore]

And he'd have been right if he'd just said "agnosticism".

[Stella Link the dog]

'And he'd have been right if he'd just said "agnosticism".'

So you claim.

You haven't answered the question:

In your view, according to the definitions you accept, is someone who does not believe in any gods or deities but does not claim to know with certainty an atheist or an agnostic?

[Ridgeway]

That is an agnostic using BB's definition (which has always been my understanding of the distinction as well).

[Stella Link the dog]

BB offered a cite to dictionary dot com to explain the difference between atheist and agnostic. I pointed out that my beliefs fit in both categories per that site.

[Ridgeway]

They way I have always understood the distinction is that:
1) An atheist affirmatively denies the existence of God.
2) An agnostic either (a) individually has no belief that god exists, but acknowledges that he does not know for certain one way or the other, or (b) takes the position that human beings cannot know one way or the other whether God exists.

[Stella Link the dog]

By that definition I'm not sure athiests exist.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I used to draw the same distinction Brett does, but in later years I decided that it makes no real difference.

Agnosticism is simply the polite expression of atheism.

[SRG2]

I am not the only one to have noted the desperation with which believers insist that atheism is a religion.

[not guilty]

I like the analogy of not collecting stamps. Why do some religious folks feel the need to impute religiosity to nonbelievers?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I used to view atheists' repeated and strident opposition as a "religious" or quasi-religious pursuit.

I suppose that makes some sense if you assume (as I once did) that atheists arrive at their beliefs in the same way theists do: through indoctrination at an early age and constant reinforcement throughout life.

But that is not how most atheists (I'd wager) become atheists. Perhaps it does apply to people who have never known religion, and whose atheism is a product of their environment, rather than a result of introspection and investigation, but I would think most such people (being human beings, who seem to have an innate need for "answers") would instead embrace some kind of informal theism or "nature worship".

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Yet you are still stupid. Ask yourself, why would a beliver , MARK, co-traveler with Paul, who saw Jesus, even write a Gospel, even be accepted as a Gospel.
And just because you are ex-anything must you degrade those who still value what you don't I do not wish you ill, but do listen to your disgraceful language

[Martinned2]

You realise that none of the gospels are written by the person whose name is on them, right?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Yet you are still stupid. Ask yourself, why would a beliver , MARK, co-traveler with Paul, who saw Jesus, "

Mark traveled with Paul? That's an assertion I've never heard before -- perhaps you should publish on that theory.

As for Mark's author's beliefs, can we conclude that Mark (i.e. the author of Mark, whoever he was) believed anything which is not found in his book? For example, can we conclude that Mark believed in the Trinity, or the virgin birth, or the perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of god, or the immaculate conception, or transubstantiation, or even the resurrection?

Note that in his extant writings, Paul did not claim to have seen Jesus.

"Yet you are still stupid." Indeed.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mark was traditionally identified with "John Mark", a companion of Paul (as is mentioned in Acts). But there are too many divergences between Paul's accounts (at least in the letters Paul actually did write) and what we see in Mark for this to be plausible.

Another tradition is that Mark was writing the reminiscences of Peter, which is even less likely.

More broadly: As Luke points out in the first verse of his Gospel, there already were "many" gospels in existence before he even began research on his own. 1) except for Mark, they've all been lost. 2) the implication is that there was something incomplete or wrong about them and they vary significantly from that Luke ended up writing.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Mark was traditionally identified with "John Mark", a companion of Paul (as is mentioned in Acts). "
"Another tradition is that Mark was writing the reminiscences of Peter, which is even less likely."

Maybe I knew that at some point but got confused. I've long thought that the assertion was that Luke (whoever that was) was Paul's doctor (perhaps in the same way that the REMF is a doctor) and that the author of Mark was supposed to have been an associate of Peter and that Mark's stories were based on Peter's experiences. Obviously, I was wrong.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Luke's Gospel evinces a degree of medical knowledge, and in Colossians Paul refers to his friend Luke who's a physician. Paul didn't write Colossians, but that was for later, critical scholars to figure out.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Luke's Gospel . . ."

That's the story that I am familiar with.

[Martinned2]

I've read two books about this over the holidays. (Coincidence)

The actual history of the text is a mess, because of all the imperfect copying, and the way in which oral traditions and the development of various texts coincided. That's how popular stories, like the prostitute in the temple and that whole "forgive them father" business came to be inserted into texts where they didn't originally appear. People liked those stories, and so scribes stuck them in there, first in the margins, and then into the actual text.

But the whole history of Judaism and early Christianity is much more interesting still. The way Judaism evolved out of polytheism, the way the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes competed against each other during the time of Jesus, before the latter two were almost completely wiped out during the rebellions against the Romans, while the Pharisees reinvented the religion so that it would work without a Temple. Then there's the whole question of whether Christians have to obey the Jewish laws, before it turned out that making converts is much easier if you skip over the whole circumcision and kosher thing. It's all fascinating.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

This person is an ignorant fool. We know that the Jews were so devoted to textual accuracy that they would count the number of letters when copying.
And 2/3 of the Bible is the OT

[Martinned2]

The Torah was rewritten from memory after the Babylonian exile - there is no way of knowing what was in it before. And all the other Jewish texts that may or may not be included in various versions of the Christian bible certainly went through many variations, and had varying degrees of acceptance among different Jewish groups at different times. The most commonly historical view is that the Hebrew Bible Canon was still being debated well after the start of the diaspora.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like how wikipedia articles are written.
Plenty of edits.

[SRG2]

Only with Wikipedia you can see the edits and the references. Huge difference. Presumably you find Conservapedia more reliable still

[Mr. Bumble]

Nope, just take everything with a grain of salt and some skepticism.

[Dan Schiavetta]

All good points. Thanks.

[SRG2]

Yup. There is no historically definitive text. Often where there's a discrepancy between the DSS and the Masoretic text, the Septuagint agrees with the DSS, which suggests but does not prove that the DSS is closer to the "original" text.

[Moderation4ever]

I would recommend the book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible by Bart D. Ehrman. There are many reasons that the bible we read today is not original. Some of changes are unintentional and some of the changes are intentional. The result is a basic story that is wrapped in friction.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Be sure to read his teacher too , Princeton's Bruce Metzger, who disagrees with his student. Run along

[Moderation4ever]

Bart Ehrman words on Bruce Matzger

"Anyone who says that he and I were at odds simply has no clue about our personal relationship. I’d be surprised indeed if anyone heard from him that we were at odds, and I know they haven’t heard it from me."

[RedheadedPharoh]

Does it talk about the Jewish manipulations of the Schofield Bible which created this Zionist worship we see by evangelicals today?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Evangelicals these days are Zionist only because they believe Jews will convert to Jesus on the last day.

[grb]

RedheadedPharoh : "Does it talk about the Jewish manipulations..."

Biblical scholarship from the Child Nazi!

[David Nieporent]

Hey, this is the same guy whose previous handle was based on him falling for a medieval hoax.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Yeah dude, the smart thing to do is to listen to what modern Jews, who hate Jesus and His Church, say he looks like!

Not contemporary sources...

[David Nieporent]

The smart thing to do is assume — if he existed at all — that he looked like all his contemporaries. The idiotic thing to do is believe something which is nonsensical, contradicts things in the book supposedly about him, and is widely known to be a hoax.

[grb]

David Nieporent : " ... nonsensical, contradicts things in the book supposedly about him, and is widely known to be a hoax"

When your goal is braindead bigoty, why let facts or common sense get in the way?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Blond hair, blue eyed, fair skinned people were present in the Levant during ancient times.

How ignorant are you?

[David Nieporent]

What were all those Swedes doing in Israel?

[Brett Bellmore]

Taking a break from Viking? (Joke; The Vikings didn't start their raiding in a major way until hundreds of years later.)

Honestly, I'm kind of curious what his basis for that claim might be.

[RedheadedPharoh]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/anomalous-blue-eyed-people-came-to-israel-6500-years-ago-from-iran-dna-shows/

Blue-eyed, fair-skinned settlers inhabited the Levant some 6,500 years ago, according to an international interdisciplinary team of scientists.

You poor ignorant bastard. Now you can't criticize the source or the scientists since they are Jews. And any criticism of them is ANUDDA SHOAH!

So you're fucked now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that does indeed represent evidence that there were some blond, blue eyed people living in the area over 4,000 years before Jesus walked the Earth.

Now demonstrate they were still around 4000 years later.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>"The general public and a lot of egyptologists think that the ancient Egyptians had very dark brown or black hair," Dr Davey said. "But this shows there were fair-haired Egyptians.

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/some-ancient-egyptians-were-natural-blondes-20160426-gof9hn.html

However, Dr Davey said, she was now convinced that there were blondes dotted among the ancient Egyptian population during the Graeco-Roman period, which spanned from 332 BC to around 395 AD.

[RedheadedPharoh]

https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html

>For example, the allele (one of two or more alternative forms of a gene) that is responsible for blue eyes was associated with 49 percent of the sampled remains, suggesting that blue eyes had become common in people living in Upper Galilee.

Weird. Where have we heard "Galilee" before? What very famous person was born there? Any guesses?

[not guilty]

"Weird. Where have we heard "Galilee" before? What very famous person was born there? Any guesses?"

I give up. Are you perhaps referring to someone who was reportedly born in Bethlehem, may or may not have sojurned to Egypt and later lived in Galilee?

[RedheadedPharoh]

"“How would a woman who is nine months pregnant travel 175 kilometers on a donkey all the way to Bethlehem of Judea?” he asked. “It makes much more sense that she would have traveled seven kilometers,” the distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of the Galilee."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/was-jesus-born-in-a-different-bethlehem/

Wow, so not only are you a racist, you're an anti-semite too.

[not guilty]

Redhead, did you actually read the article you linked to? I notice you omitted this quotation therefrom:

Aviram Oshri spent nearly eleven years excavating artifacts in Bethlehem of the Galilee — an ancient biblical village near Nazareth that was later settled by German Templers — which he believes show that the traditional account of Jesus’s birthplace may be wrong.

But when he produced his findings for his employer, the Israel Antiquities Authority, he found his proposal dismissed and called “worse than a joke.”

And how on earth do you detect anything in what I said to indicate that I am in any way "an anti-semite"? Are you drunk?

[RedheadedPharoh]

You are criticizing a Jew. That's antisemitic and practically a modern day Holocaust. In fact, that's illegal in several European countries.

[not guilty]

"You are criticizing a Jew. That's antisemitic and practically a modern day Holocaust. In fact, that's illegal in several European countries."

Uh, no, Redhead. I have not said anything critical of a Jew on this thread.

I mentioned that Aviram Oshri's employer found fault with his work, but my criticism was directed at you for omitting that detail from the quotation in your comment.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>I mentioned that Aviram Oshri's employer found fault with his work

Woah. You could be arrested in Germany for such bigotry and hatred towards a Jew.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Moderation4ever:

I have that book, a very good book. Bart is also online in some instructive interviews and lectures (though he tends to giggle too much, a sign perhaps that his journey from evangelical to atheist is not yet complete).

It's hard to find New Testament scholars who don't have a "dog in the hunt" and he's one of them.

Another good person to listen to is his friend (the recently deceased) Dale B. Martin. Hard to find others, though.

[not guilty]

I surmise that Dr. Ehrman's scholarship has benefited from his upbringing and early training (Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College) as a Christian fundamentalist. He understands the perspective of those whom he disagrees with.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's certainly true.

[Moderation4ever]

My sense from reading his book is that Bart Ehrman's fundamentalist upbring created a great desire in him to study scriptures and in doing so to go back into the source documents. As with any area of study the deeper you get into the topic the more you find flaws and uncertainty. The student then has to address those uncertainties in the context of their studies.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Bart Ehrman has an interesting weekly podcast with Megan Lewis.

He has an online blog in which people can pay for additional content & the money goes to charity.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I've done both. Well worth it.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I am proudly not a proud atheist. I am still an atheist--just a proud closet atheist. Never felt the need to wag my finger at believers even if their finger is in rapid oscillation millimeters from my nose. "Ha, scholars say The Gospel of Mark ended at 16:8. That'll show ya to have faith. Scholars know it all."

Also, I could never bring myself to tell my parents. They would worry for the rest of their lives. I couldn't do that to them.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One nice thing about the internet is that it allows one to discuss issues like that with people who are not part of one's personal life. In fact practically the only serious discussions I have these days about politics or religion are online.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Off topic perhaps, but this was a touching moment, what Frank Pickle says at 1:15.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x56zluy

[Satchmo_Lives]

The Vicar of Dibley was never one of my favorites.

Fun fact: KERA in DFW, the local PBS, was the first to bring Flying Circus to the US. I still have a Monty Python coffee mug and t-shirt from a pledge drive.

KERA had a block of Britcoms with Are You Being Served, Last Of The Summer Wine, Open All Hours, Benny Hill, Fawlty Towers (my favorite), Allo, Allo, and of course last was The Flying Circus. I am not sure I understood anything above "Dead Parrot", "Ministry Of Silly Walks", or "Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge." But I watched them anyway hoping for a flash of boobs (ON BROADCAST TV!!!). I certainly didn't understand "The Philosophers' Football Match." Not to be confused with the "Upper Class Twit Of The Year."

Well. that was rather a long walk down memory lane.

[Stella Link the dog]

Of the old British comedies, "Fawlty Towers" is among my favorites. Also Good Neighbors (aka "The Good Life"). For amazingly funny (to me anyway) absurd satirical humor, "The Brittas Empire" is hard to beat.

[SRG2]

Re: Vicar of Dibley

The actor who played David Horton, Gary Waldhorn (z"l) was a family friend - his parents attended my parents' wedding! - and I regularly had pizzas with him after our gym workouts.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Now that is cool!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes that is cool!

The most interesting character on the show. In some ways like Major Winchester on "MASH": usually wrong, but a serious person.

[Frank Drackman]

New Testament same as the Old Testament,
Moses: "Hear me! Oh, Hear me! All pay heed! The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen (crash)...Oy! ten, ten commandments for all to obey!"

Frank

[hobie]

Dan, there's a new creator named Dan McClellan. A biblical scholar who's mind is like a supercomputer. Daily he puts to bed all the biblical fallacies that animate the hatred felt by all these rednecks here. He's a breath of fresh air and mesmerizing

[Dan Schiavetta]

hobie:

Thanks -- I'll look him up.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Just saw his interview with Alex O'Connor. Knowledgeably guy, objective, not committed to any one viewpoint. Thanks again.

[hobie]

Yeah. He's never mean or judgmental. He just lays things out using tons of data and grace

[Riva]

How can you be proud of ignorance? Atheists are nihilists who irrationally reject the existence of God. And what you really appear to be, as most who call themselves “atheists,” is simply anti-Christian.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I don't think "most" atheist are anti-Christian. They are, however, a very vocal minority.

[Riva]

If you say so but the commenters here professing to be “atheists” certainly have a decided anti-Christian bias, although they have a special hatred of the Catholic faith..

[Dan Schiavetta]

A lot of self-declared atheists aren't really atheists. Rather, they are rebelling against certain forms of theism.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I don't know. I think those people call themselves agnostic. Self-declared atheists seem pretty sure there isn't a higher power. It may have been born from antagonism toward religion, but they are not typically wishy-washy saying "I don't know."

Agnosticism, which as Penn Gillette likes to opine, is a term people use when they don't want use the often pejorative atheism. But in reality, one either believes in a god or they don't. Saying "I don't know. I am waiting for proof" means you don't believe in a god.

[SRG2]

Atheist Jews generally tend not to have turned to atheism as an act of rebellion - else why would we happily celebrate bar- and bat-mitzvahs, Passover, Hanukah, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

But there's a difference between not believing in something, and affirmatively believing it doesn't exist.

I don't believe there's a horse wandering around in the woods behind my house. But if one were found there it wouldn't shatter my preconceptions, because I don't HAVE any concerning that question.

[SRG2]

How would you describe your degree of belief in Wotan and Zeus?

[Brett Bellmore]

Asymptotically approaching zero.

[Stella Link the dog]

"affirmatively believing it doesn't exist."
I'm not sure what that means. I don't believe in any gods or deities but I don't claim to have any special knowledge outside of the way the world appears to work -- or the way that I believe the world to work.

Question -- the term "agnostic" was invented in the 19th century to distinguish classes of non-believers. Of those non-believers extant prior, were they atheists of some stripe or theists of some stripe?

[Riva]

No, agnostics doubt the existence of God but are open to proof. Atheists are nihilistic. They absolutely deny the existence of God. A negative “faith.”

[SRG2]

I presume you're nihilistic wrt Zeus and Odin.

[Riva]

I believe in the one true God. And he doesn't dress like those two.

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever you believe in, it doesn't seem very Christ-like.

I know a Christ of mercy, and forgiveness, and 'vengeance is mine [NOT yours].

One where faith can act as a spur, or a balm, but not a source of hate.

You're full of rage and hate all the time. Maybe you're not doing it right.

[David Nieporent]

Whatever you believe in, it doesn't seem very Christ-like.

He meant Trump.

[Riva]

Bit judgmental, aren't you Sarcastr0? I would say you're not doing it right.

[Sarcastr0]

If you find that judgmental, that's you bringing that in.

I'm observing a disconnect between your behavior here and the faith you profess.

You're the guy who keeps making moral judgements.

[Riva]

No, you’re simply insulting me in a particular obnoxious way by ignorantly trying to cast aspersions on how I practice my faith. A new low.

[Sarcastr0]

What I observe is you're casting judgements on me for putting you to the question.
And you have not answered the question of how you square your constant rageposting and insults with your faith.

I'm sure your take on Christianity is different than mine; but as a Unitarian, that's not bad!
I'd be interested in the answer.

[Riva]

Again, more insults pretending to be a question. And not even a hint of your self-proclaimed "nuance." Kind of pathetic. Get a new playbook.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you feel is insulting or not descriptive of your posting behavior - the rageposting? The insults?

I make a distinction between your posting and you as a person. The Internet is a rarified space, and people's behavior can end up being pretty divergent from the rest of their lives.
But here, you are angry and full of insults.

And a Christian. But one whose faith only comes up here as a way they can feel insulted.

What did I get wrong, or will you continue to refuse to engage?

[Riva]

Conversation over. This has gone on too long and I'm not your therapist.

[Satchmo_Lives]

No, what may happen in the future has no bearing on what you believe now. Hell, if a burning bush starts talking to me, my atheism will wilt away.

[Riva]

And the religious antagonism comes shining through yet again, you can’t help yourself, can you?

[Satchmo_Lives]

It is not antagonism. It is my absolute truth expressed through humor. Substitute "burning bush" with any other miracle and my reaction will be the same; "Well, I missed the boat on that one."

I was raised in a Southern Baptist church and have nothing but fond memories. My dad is a deacon. My brother is a pastor. That is why I don't tell my family I am an atheist. I'll go to church with them a few times a year.

Although, in my younger years I could have been called antagonistic towards Catholicism. Ya know, the pope is really Satan in disguise.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, the Borgia Popes make the current one look saintly. But anybody was going to be a letdown after John Paul II.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Unfortunately, Pope JP II was the pope when I was attending anti-Catholic sessions*. Him condemning communism was just a ruse to lull us protestants into thinking he was really OK.

*We weren't anti-Catholic bigots. We did the same thing for every religion and church outside the Southern Baptist Convention. "What? You mean Methodists can drink alcohol. The heathens."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Ya know, the pope is really Satan in disguise."

Well, the current one is a Jesuit.

[David Nieporent]

See what I mean about snowflakes?

[Satchmo_Lives]

Yeppers.

[Satchmo_Lives]

OK. If believers have a positive faith, atheists have a negative faith, what do agnostics have? An in between faith? Is that like almost pregnant? You either have a positive faith in a god or you do not. If you do not believe there is a god, you are an atheist--by definition. Even if one qualifies with "I am waiting for proof," it still means they no faith--at the moment.

I am no more nihilistic than agnostics. If my grandfather (not named Lazarus) gets raised from the dead, I will certainly reevaluate my belief system.

People often say atheist "know" there is not a god. I no more "know" with certainty there is no god than believers "know" there is a god. I am, however, siding with best available evidence.

[David Nieporent]

OK. If believers have a positive faith, atheists have a negative faith, what do agnostics have? An in between faith? Is that like almost pregnant?

Do you think that your neighbor had pizza for dinner on January 15, 2023? Assuming you're not a stalker, your answer is probably not, "Yes, I'm sure he had pizza," or "No, I know he didn't have pizza," but "I don't have any idea; I hold no belief one way or the other on the subject."

[Satchmo_Lives]

An atheist is one having no belief in a higher power. "I don't know" is an absurd answer to what you believe. Do you know what you believe or not? If one is "waiting for proof there is a god," it means they do not currently believe there is a higher power--an atheist.

"What my neighbors had for dinner" is an easily provable question. There is no faith involved. I believe my grandfather is in heaven is not so easily proved and requires faith. I either believe he is in heaven (faith in a higher power), or I do not.

[David Nieporent]

An atheist is one having no belief in a higher power.

No; an atheist is one who has a belief that higher powers do not exist.

"I don't know" is an absurd answer to what you believe.

That could indeed be the motto of social media, in which one must have an opinion on everything, but in real life, it is in fact possible to have no belief one way or the other.

"What my neighbors had for dinner" is an easily provable question.

Not without a time machine.

[Satchmo_Lives]

It is not opinion to know what one believes. Full stop. Do you know what you believe or not? Your beliefs may be opinion. You may question whether your opinion is correct, but you still have knowledge of what your belief is.

Faith is an on/off button. The relevant question is "do you have faith a higher power exists?" If your answer is no, your are an atheist. "I don't know" is the same as no because you do not have faith at the moment in a higher power.

a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

Merriam-Webster

I can't believe you made me google atheist.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Oh, no time machine needed. Seriously?

I could ask (not 100% proof).

I could check a time stamped receipt (not 100% proof).

I could ask the driver if he, in fact, delivered to a member of the household (not 100%)

I could go through the trash (not 100% proof).

I could date the empty pizza boxes, like archeologists, by what is on top and below (not 100% proof).

If all else failed I guess I could get a stool sample if the need was made in a timely fashion (pretty damn close to 100% proof).

But like the proverbial spider in a well, at what point in time does he leave the well if he traverses half the distance as the step prior? I can get 99.999999% of the way there without the assistance of H.G. Wells.

[David Nieporent]

It is not opinion to know what one believes. Full stop. Do you know what you believe or not? Your beliefs may be opinion. You may question whether your opinion is correct, but you still have knowledge of what your belief is.

Faith is an on/off button. The relevant question is "do you have faith a higher power exists?" If your answer is no, your are an atheist. "I don't know" is the same as no because you do not have faith at the moment in a higher power.

Look, you're the one who confessed above that you didn't understand what agnosticism is. When I tried to explain it to you, you started arguing with me, and then tried to argue it didn't exist and it was really just atheism. You're just not grasping that there are three possibilities, not two:

1) Yes, god exists.
2) No, god does not exist.
3) No idea.

#3 is not a subset of #2.

[Riva]

You’re an agnostic, a particularly obnoxious one (obnoxious because you mock others beliefs), but an agnostic nonetheless, you’re just too ignorant to understand that.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Is that you Brother Snowflake?

That is mocking.

[Riva]

You’re not exactly helping your case. I guess you can’t understand that either.

[Satchmo_Lives]

You literally think I am mocking you by saying "if I see a miracle, I will believe in God."

Snowflake fits.

[David Nieporent]

Snowflake theists — Christians and Muslims alike — always seem to think that failing to share their beliefs is insulting them personally.

[SRG2]

As an atheist Jew from way back, I have little problem dismissing the miraculous elements of NT (as I do the OT). And as we know that the Gospels contain no eyewitness accounts and exist in multiple versions I am hardly surprised that there are inconsistencies, additions and emendations.

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't "atheist Jew" an oxymoron?

[Martinned2]

Why would it be?

[Ed Grinberg]

No. You can be ethnically Jewish but not follow the Jewish religion (Judaism).

Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews#Identity

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, I understand that, but why would you make reference to your ethnicity in regard to your atheism?

[Bwaaah]

I typically include it for a bit of irony and to remind some people why they still have a reason to hate me.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed. One of my professors called himself a "Jewish atheist" and he certainly was that.

In "Crimes and Misdemeanors" the Martin Landau character has a dream about his family gathered after a seder. His father, a rabbi, tries to make sense of a God who allows bad people to thrive. His uncle says he doesn't believe any of it, he just goes through the motions. That uncle is still a Jew. To have a Christian say something like that would be a contradiction in terms.

[SRG2]

I prefer "atheist Jew" to "Jewish atheist" because adjectives modify nouns, and I prefer answering the question, "what kind of Jew are you?" to "what kind of atheist are you?"

Apparently Pew were considering adding the category "atheist Jew" to their religion choices because many atheist Jews didn't like having to choose "atheist" rather than "Jewish" - which feels like denying your heritage (at least, to me).

[Bob from Ohio]

"feels like denying your heritage"

Because it is. Jews largely kept the faith thru centuries of persecution and murder. You just gave that up.

[SRG2]

Nope. Do you think the early Zionists were all believers?

[Bob from Ohio]

No, a lot were godless socialists.

[Stella Link the dog]

Do Jews have an inherited obligation to be observant?

[Bob from Ohio]

No, but they shouldn't call themselves a Jew.

Former Jew. From a Jewish family.

[SRG2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0wbApVCWnc

[SRG2]

Halachically a non-believing Jew is still a Jew.

[bernard11]

Just not true, Bob.

Nor does it make much sense. Must you obey all 613 commandments, or is there a lower threshold? If so, what is it?

[Commenter_XY]

Balaam's talking ass was my favorite, from Torah. 😉

[Satchmo_Lives]

It wasn't the miracles that got me questioning my faith. After all, faith requires belief absent proof. What got me was the stuff that could be proved that was wrong. No, men and women don't have a different number of ribs. No, humans have been around a lot longer than 4500 years (give or take a millennia). No, there are no giants.

[Drewski]

"god spelled backwards"

I assume you're bringing that nugget up because you just noticed. Avoid it: It's sort of a shibboleth that indicates shallow thought.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That was the joke.

I vaguely remember a character saying that in a movie. She was stoned, and even when straight was a bimbo.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bimbo?
So you're a misogynist also?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Bimbo?"

Perhaps trollop or common tart or strumpet would be more appropriate?

It's amusing to me that in this forum anyone would even notice that casual use of the word bimbo. I suspect you are not Italian.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you would be wrong.
Per Favore, Non Mi Rompere i Coglioni.
Grazie.

For what it's worth, I only brought it up because Capt Dan is such a self righteous ass.

[Stella Link the dog]

"and you would be wrong."
I offered my suspicion as my understanding is that in Italy the word "bimbo" is not likely to be used in a misogynistic manner. As for you being an Italian, I'd assumed you were American.

[Bubba Jones]

Scholars are now saying?

My Bible app literally has a note in Mark...

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20]

It's weird to me that people find it necessary to reject God when they reject Catholicism.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't know if you listen to podcasts, but Doug Metzger's excellent "Literature and History" podcast did a really good series of podcasts on both the Old and New Testaments. He talked quite a bit about how they ended up as they now are.

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that Paramount, the parent company of CBS, is negotiating to settle a lawsuit brought against CBS by Donald Trump over editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the election. Paramount executives reportedly believe that settling the lawsuit would increase the odds that the Trump administration does not block or delay their planned multibillion-dollar merger with another company. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/business/media/paramount-trump-cbs-news-settlement.html

That is disgusting. Trump's lawsuit is utterly groundless and abusive, and it reflects a shocking lack of integrity and fortitude that any defendant is entertaining the notion of capitulating. I suspect that Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite are rolling in their graves.

[Krayt]

Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite are rolling in their graves.

Would they also not roll for grossly deceptive editing?

In any case, CBS has every right to edit in the most insidious manner to assist political goals. Or, more accurately, as others point out government has no business being the arbiter of truth spoken about it.

This should also include lawsuits.

And I keep hammering the value of the First Amendment is not in inherent value in every last gooberation, but in denying the power hungry one of the best clubs in the golf bag of tyrant tools.

And finally, "regulation by raised eyebrow", where people and companies fear retaliation by delays or denials of applications, is an out in the open problem.

Of course, it suggests government shouldn't be regulating such things. Naaaah. How will politicians' accounts mysteriously but legally, we assure you, grow?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Would they also not roll for grossly deceptive editing?"

If it was obvious, sure. They preferred curating public opinion in ways that weren't quite so in your face, like by the selection of what to report.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Yet , you contradict yourself for surely when the world gets to see , most will NOT agree with you. Kamala unedited was often a fool and that will show it to one and all

[Commenter_XY]

CBS can join ABC and CNN in being maga-donors to the Trump Presidential Library.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's going to be a huge library, the best one ever. I might just visit it after it's built, I've never had the chance to sit on a gold toilet before. (Heated, I assume!)

I bet he's got a team already working on the design, so they can break ground the moment Vance is sworn in in 2029.

[NvEric]

A silver seat. Silver is the best at transferring heat.

[Sarcastr0]

‘Companies are settling as a way to bribe Trump.’

You: ‘that’s awesome.’

[Brett Bellmore]

More like an apology, I think, than a bribe. Now that they've decided being all in for one political party, and consequently alienating half the electorate, was a stupid business move, they're trying to mend fences.

[Sarcastr0]

The President demanding a monetary apology or else there will be regulatory consequences?

That's a shakedown. I don't care if you don't like the media, you shouldn't like this either.

It's also wild how many of your previous conspiracies you're discarding - no longer is leftism more important than profit for businesses. And no longer is the media committed leftists willing to do whatever it takes to smear the right.

Now they're all businesspeople who are seeing the light.

I guess that's the nice thing about personal delusions - you can tune them when events make them no longer convenient excuses.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>The President demanding a monetary apology or else there will be regulatory consequences?

That's not a shakedown. That's a classic Gaslightr0 lie.

[Krayt]

The President demanding a monetary apology or else there will be regulatory consequences?

That's just threatening section 230 but with extra fewer steps.

[bernard11]

Extortion is the word you are looking for.

Nice little company you have here.

Thuggery. And the MAGA people just love it.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately extortion is ingrained in the ruling class, regardless of fine distinctions.

[Sarcastr0]

A hand-waiving 'everybody does it' is the same whattabout defense of Trump than others have offered.

No, this is not something everybody does. This is new. It is bad. Don't whattabout it away.

[Bwaaah]

I remember, shortly after the Deepwater Horizon well started leaking into the Gulf of Mexico, how Barack Obama shook down BP for $20 billion, offering them no investigation, no hearing, no due process. He offered nothing but the threat of an even greater wrath if the company did not bow to his politically difficult moment.

I think the courts and regulators would have handled the liability issues quite competently AND LEGALLY. But in the theater, there was no time for due process of law. Shame was of the essence.

[David Nieporent]

This is a sad and desperate attempt at a whatabout. Even if Obama negotiating an agreement with BP could be characterized as shaking them down, the money went to victims of the spill, not to Barack Obama personally.

[Bwaaah]

I don't try to justify shakedowns. Who benefits from a shakedown doesn't change the wrongful, extra-legal coercion involved.

The President didn't allow for proper determination and apportionment of responsibility given the key actors in that spill (BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, if I remember correctly). Nope. He just smeared the biggest headline name and left 'im to find justice elsewhere. And for what? To burnish the perceived size of his proverbial dick in the eyes of voters.

Politics is like that. Justice isn't.

Do the needs of the victims make it just to risk holding the wrong party responsible? Of course they don't. And it's not as if political theater was needed in that case to address victims of the spill. Like I said: we have mature legal systems for adjudicating those kinds of issues.

My little nobody whataboutist comment bothers you more than that needless abuse of power?

[Sarcastr0]

You still seem to be whattabouting.

[Bwaaah]

I am. And you're not really troubled by shakedowns.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN kinda blew up your equivalence, so your charge of hypocricy doesn't work.

And yet, still you deflect.

[Bwaaah]

SARCASTRO DECLARES ME TO BE THE DEFLECTOR!!!

[Sarcastr0]

You conflate criticism of comments with the criticism of the person.

You do this the other way as well - long screeds about the person because of their comments.

And oh hey, you used making it personal to deflect. After your BP deflection got blown up both for being a deflection and on it's substance.

At this point, it's hard to see this series of comments as other than being unwilling to defend Trump's mobster behavior, but also not wanting to have to criticize him either.

[Bwaaah]

You _so_ misunderstand me just to fit me into your cartoonish picture of the world and the people in it. But I do not misunderstand you. So at least one of us gets the other.

I may have fun sometimes. But I don't play games. Whenever you want to have an honest conversation Sarc, just say so.

[Don Nico]

You still seem to be refusing to understand the man's point:
"Who benefits from a shakedown doesn't change the wrongful, extra-legal coercion involved."

[Bwaaah]

[David Nieporent]

I don't try to justify shakedowns. Who benefits from a shakedown doesn't change the wrongful, extra-legal coercion involved.

Setting aside the elaborate fan fiction you've written about what Obama said to BP:

As EV has repeatedly explained in the past, a justifiable settlement demand is legal, while an unjustifiable one can be blackmail/extortion. (He has oft cited the Autumn Jackson case, where a woman claiming to be Bill Cosby's daughter threatened to reveal this information if he didn't pay her $40 million. (This was back when Bill Cosby still had a reputation to ruin!) She was convicted of extortion because she had no plausible claim to $40 million.)

So, actually, you're mistaken: who benefits does change the wrongful coercion involved. If it's people actually owed the money by the 'target,' then it's not wrongful.

What makes these suits by Trump into shakedowns is that he had no colorable claim to any of this money. Which is why these companies didn't consider settling until Trump got into power.

[Life of Brian]

If it's people actually owed the money by the 'target,' then it's not wrongful.

In a lawsuit, by definition there's no determination as to whether the plaintiff is "actually owed the money" before the end of the suit.

What makes these suits by Trump into shakedowns is that he had no colorable claim to any of this money.

See above. If that's really correct, the defendants should have had no difficulty convincing the judges to summarily throw out the cases. Ergo, you're just presenting your own wishful thinking as reality.

[David Nieporent]

See above. If that's really correct, the defendants should have had no difficulty convincing the judges to summarily throw out the cases. Ergo, you're just presenting your own wishful thinking as reality.

They wouldn't have! They just took a dive as a bribe to Trump!

[Life of Brian]

LOL. If there wasn't previously such a thing as non-falsifiable circular logic, I'm afraid you've just invented it.

[Sarcastr0]

His offered example wasn't an example.

Cynical nihilism as a way to avoid criticizing Trump?

Weak.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nope. The "$20 billion shakedown" was not a settlement, it was not a cap, and it did not end the legal process against BP in any way.

Indeed, the federal government (Obama's crew) filed a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against BP six months later.

BP got nothing from it's "agreement" with Obama except an opportunity to look like it was taking responsibility for the damage.

However, that you'd mistake Obama's political grandstanding as analogous to Trump's personal lawfare is no longer shocking.

[David Nieporent]

BP got nothing from it's "agreement" with Obama except an opportunity to look like it was taking responsibility for the damage.

Presumably they also got credit for the money they already paid?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I didn't follow the cases closely, but presumably, in any calculation of damages at the end, a court would subtract any amounts already paid?

[bernard11]

What would have happened if BP refused and decided to go to court.

They must have a lawyer or two on staff.

[hobie]

"being all in for one political party, and consequently alienating half the electorate, was a stupid business move"

Got it.

[Swede425]

LOL!
"tHaTh'S jUsT kRaZy!!!"

[SRG2]

they're trying to mend fences.

...by bribing Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

"maga-donors"

Nice pun. The group is getting bigger all the time.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Meta has agreed to pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against the company after it suspended his accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to three people familiar with the matter. " January 29

[RedheadedPharoh]

People interfering in our sacred and most secure ever in human history election of 2024 should be held accountable.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — During the early 60s a trend emerged to replace network broadcast news executives with network broadcast entertainment executives, and to make the news shows compete according to entertainment metrics. The Murrow/Cronkite/Howard K Smith battle was lost right there.

It turned out news shows which remained profitable began to be judged instead as wasteful opportunity-cost centers. The next steps were demands to de-professionalize news reporting, in favor of more-entertainment-slanted approaches to news production, and to audience curation.

Public respect for broadcast news professionalism began its unceasing decline toward Fox News standards when that happened. It has been one of the higher costs a TV-ratings approach has inflicted on the public life of the nation. Whether that trend has run its full destructive course with Trump's crowd-size obsession is a question yet to be answered.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Wake me up when Bragg decides a perfectly legal edit of an interview is election interference. Not too dissimilar from a perfectly legal NDA being charged as election interference.

After waking me up, let me hit snooze unless the Trump Administration actually sends out communication to CBS they will not approve a merger. Otherwise, it is simply your totalitarian porn addiction starring Trump.

He filed a stupid lawsuit. If CBS wants to crater because they think it will help a merger, that is on them.

[Armchair]

" Trump's lawsuit is utterly groundless and abusive, "

Is it? Then it would be dismissed easily. No need to settle.

But I think we need to consider, what circumstances WOULD potentially lead to an interview being considered election interference? What level of deception?

In considering this, I think we should start with the hypothetical that definitely would be considered election interference through deceptive editing. For example, if CBS was to interview Trump, where Trump was clearly expressing his support for Israel. But then if CBS was to splice together his words and choices, to "show" that Trump wanted to "kill the Jews"..,, That might be considered deceptive editing to the point of election interference. No?

[Sarcastr0]

The point is that they're settling groundless lawsuits as a way to bribe Trump into not targeting them.

think we need to consider, what circumstances WOULD potentially lead to an interview being considered election interference?
No we do not need to consider that. The issue is the shakedown; no need to go wanking off about Media Bad.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Yes.
Yes, that MUST be it.
You are so precious.

[Commenter_XY]

I just want to make sure I understand your illogic here; I find the ruminations of the progressive mind utterly fascinating, and entertaining quite honestly. 🙂

You telling us that three networks whose employees and leadership absolutely despise POTUS Trump, would love to see him removed from office (dead or alive), and make no secret about it, decided to pay POTUS Trump a bribe, because 'reasons' (i.e. being targeted for some mythological regulatory retaliation that has yet to materialize).

They (ABC, CNN and soon CBS employees, leadership) would rather die a thousand deaths by being boiled in oil than pay POTUS Trump a dime.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think it matters what flights of fancy you take about the media, shakedowns are bad. Baseline.
A bad decision by both parties.

If you want to know about the shakedown at issue here read the OP. You didn’t.

But you also don’t care even if it’s all true so why bother.

[Commenter_XY]

You say it is a shakedown. Where's the shake?

[Sarcastr0]

Read the OP. Not even the link, it’s in the OP.

But you have made it clear above you think shakedowns are only right, to restore loyalty in the fallen.

[Commenter_XY]

I repeat: Where is the shake. Can you name it? Name the adverse regulatory action targeted to ABC, CNN or ABC that compelled them to pay a bribe (your term).

To borrow an NG phrase....you'll run away faster than Usain Bolt on the track trying to name one.

[Sarcastr0]

Is this sealioning or are you just this lazy/dumb?

"Paramount executives reportedly believe that settling the lawsuit would increase the odds that the Trump administration does not block or delay their planned multibillion-dollar merger with another company."

[Life of Brian]

Reportedly! Believe!

As the saying sort of goes, just because they're not out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid....

[Bob from Ohio]

Which executives?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

After demanding to know the source, now you're questioning the source.

Who could have predicted that response?

[Life of Brian]

After demanding to know the source, now you're questioning the source.

Who are you addressing here, and what are you referring to? As I read the thread, this is both my and Bob's first post in it, and in fact I don't see anyone upstream "demanding to know the source."

[Don Nico]

In other words, Paramount execs are offering a bribe.

[Krayt]

For the record, Americans get to sway each others' opinions on politics. This isn't interference in an election. This is Americans having debate for an election.

I can't see why such a thing wouldn't instantly get tossed from court.

It does jive, though, in a balls out nasty tit for tat response. Which is depressing it got to this point.

[David Nieporent]

That might be considered deceptive editing to the point of election interference. No?

No.

It could be defamation. But there is no such thing as "election interference" as MAGA people use the term, which is in an IKYABWAI?¹ sense. Preventing (or attempting to prevent) people from voting, or hindering the administration of elections (destroying ballots, say) are illegal interference. Saying mean things about a candidate, even if false, even if done with the intent to persuade people not to vote for that candidate, is not interfering in an election; it is participating in it.​
​​
​
¹ That is, they heard people using the term, and just started copying it and unthinkingly accusing those people of it.

[David Nieporent]

I should note that in the case of CBS, the frivolous lawsuit doesn't even accuse the company of lying about Trump, so unlike your hypo it's not even potentially defamation. It accuses them of presenting one of Trump's opponents too positively. (Which, I reiterate, even if true is not "election interference.")

[Satchmo_Lives]

Wasn't "Election Interference" one of the three choices the Trump jury could use as the second crime in NY?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No.

[Satchmo_Lives]

From Merchan's (can't in good conscience call him a judge) jury instructions.

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE
The People allege that the other crime the defendant
intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York
Election Law section 17-152.

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that
any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the
election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and
which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties
thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an
election.

Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy
when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote
or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful
means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in
or cause the performance of such conduct.

Election Interference. Try again. Do better.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Where do you see the phrase “election interference” in that instruction?

[Satchmo_Lives]

I humbly beg your forgiveness for using non-legal terminology assuming most people would understand the concept. I didn't factor in willful stupidity. Again, my bad. I didn't want to write out "two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election."

[Noscitur a sociis]

Uh, you’re the one who put it in quotes, not me.

If you’re claiming that what the statute covers, or what Trump was accused of doing, is “‘election interference’ as MAGA people use the term”, thus refuting David Nieporent, or suggesting that Trump’s alleged conduct is similar to what he’s accusing CBS of doing, that is also wrong.

[Satchmo_Lives]

So now your complaint is a misuse of quotations? Reluctantly, I shall be forced to issue another apology. I am sorry. I dearly am.

...with intent that conduct be performed that would promote...the election of a person to public office by unlawful
means..."

Yeah, misleading the public as to what a candidate said is at least as illegal as a perfectly legal NDA. If FoxNews edited Kamala saying "I hate Jews" would Bragg consider it election interference? Did i properly not use quotations?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The statute requires that the promotion be done by unlawful means. (It’s even in the part you quoted!) Editing an interview (even deceptively) to make Kamala Harris look better than reality is not unlawful. Which is kind of the whole point.

No one likes being wrong, but you really don’t need to be defensive about it. Probably better to calm down and touch some grass.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, misleading the public as to what a candidate said is at least as illegal as a perfectly legal NDA. If FoxNews edited Kamala saying "I hate Jews" would Bragg consider it election interference? Did i properly not use quotations?

Of course, Trump was not prosecuted for an NDA. He was prosecuted for the finances and accounting surrounding said NDA, which were not perfectly legal.

But, yes, lying about Harris's statements would be entirely lawful and not election interference.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, yes, we know: His accountants deceptively labeled payments to his lawyer as "payments to his lawyer". We are all impressed by how dastardly that was.

[Sarcastr0]

At this late date, Brett still doesn't know the facts of the case.

His tuneable memory remains a marvel. Nothing he doesn't want to know gets through!

[Armchair]

"But there is no such thing as "election interference"

Sigh.... after years of yelping about Russian "election interference", Neirporent decides to get technical.

"Technically Speaking" the crimes would be items like "libel" "Fraud" and "conspiracy against the United States" with the goal of affecting the election. Happy?

[David Nieporent]

No, because libel isn't a crime and none of those other things apply, and of course making Harris appear better than she is couldn't be libel anyway.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Enforcing the law is also "election interference", don't forget...

[Riva]

You’re ok, NG, with the weaponization of federal law enforcement resources against political opponents but a private civil action involving a specific political party you dislike? That’s where the outrage begins. I encourage you and all Democrats to continue to wallow in your TDS. It will keep you deservedly out of power for a long time.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This case doesn’t involve a political party: Trump (as an individual) is the sole plaintiff.

[Riva]

No shit. Trump is a party to the case. “Party” can have more than one meaning you know, the context thing again. I didn’t think I’d have to explain the bleeding obvious but I should have anticipated that, especially from you. Get a new alias.

[Sarcastr0]

You wrote political party, genius.

[Riva]

I wrote “a specific political party you dislike,” meaning Donald Trump, “political” in the sense of someone interested or acting in politics, you dumb as F gaslighting clown. Again the expression comes to mind, I know you’re bastards, but do have to be such stupid bastards?

[Riva]

And this bears emphasis because “dumb as F doesn’t” doesn’t do justice here. The topic raised in the comment responded to was civil litigation by Donald Trump. Donald Trump was the only political actor who was a party to the case in the context of the comment and the response. I really didn’t appreciate how dense you are Sarcastr0, or maybe this is just more gaslighting because you are a gaslighting clown.

[not guilty]

Riva, as I have asked before, what comment(s) by Sarcastr0 have manipulated you into questioning your own sanity, memory, or powers of reasoning?

"Gaslighting," when used in context of its cinematic origins, was once a useful and descriptive term. It has since devolved into a general purpose insult flung about by mind numbed robots. That is unfortunate.

If no one has been "gaslighted," there has been no "gaslighting." Or should an unsuccessful field goal attempt count three points anyway, despite sail wide of the mark?

[Riva]

Call him an idiot if you want to, I prefer to call him a gaslighting clown.

Now, as for you and your selective outrage fueled by TDS, I think I'll refer you back to my original response.

[SykesFive]

Fundamentally, what are Trump's damages? He won the election.

[Kazinski]

The blockade against cooperation, at least informal cooperation, between the mainline German parties and the AfD has been broken:

"The leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic party (CDU), Friedrich Merz, received criticism yesterday after his party set forth a proposal to limit migration into the country with the support of the hard right Alternative of Deutschland (AfD) party.

Merz’s party introduced several motions and a draft bill to parliament to modify the country’s immigration and asylum laws in the run up to the forthcoming elections to be held on the 23rd of Feb next.

The two non-binding motions call for heightened security measures and the closure of German land borders to irregular migration in the wake of a series of fatal stabbings across the country where the suspects are migrants.

Last week, a two-year-old boy was stabbed to death in a Bavarian park alongside a 41-year-old man when a group of children were attacked just before midday.

The proposal passed receiving 348 to 345 in favour of the proposal where 75 votes from AfD party members were accepted by the CDU in order to win the motion in a move that has ended a long standing accord of non-cooperation with hardline parties."

https://gript.ie/german-cdu-party-breaks-firewall-by-cooperation-with-afd/

[Commenter_XY]

Angela Merkel hardest hit.

We are seeing an entirely predictable reaction by the German people who are led by weak leaders, and a truly atrocious immigration policy (in place for decades). The people are tired of being murdered for simply being German, by immigrants.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

They gave us two World Wars. WAKE UP.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not really...

[Sarcastr0]

The people are tired of being murdered for simply being German, by immigrants.

Well, that sure is some pure-strain German nativism you're endorsing!
Do you know anything about AfD?
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/alternative-germany-afd-party-what-you-need-know

Kinda Nazi-ish. But hey, around here you pal around with JesusWasBlonde guy so I guess that cat was already out of the bag.

[Martinned2]

The AfD are so far to the right that even the other far right parties in the European Parliament, like Le Pen's RN and Orban's Fidesz, won't work with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots_for_Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Sovereign_Nations_Group

[Frank Drackman]

Did your mommy buy you the shoes with velcro snaps so you wouldn't accidentally hang yourself? AfD is like a milder version of the US Tea Party, 1/2 of their Mitglieder are former Greens or Linke who got tired of smelly Turks harassing their women, their platform contains such radical proposals of requiring the Electorate to approve laws passed by the Legislature, Forcing the Legislators to fund their own Retirement program, Term Limits, Preserving what few Gun Rights Germans still have, and Erection of the German President by direct Popular Vote, OMG it's Literally (Not) Nazi Germany!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank

[Satchmo_Lives]

Hey, where can I get a popular vote for an erection? Considering the electorate would be me and my wife, I am assured of victory. It would be cheaper than a little blue pill. "All in favor, say aye."

Luv ya, Frank.

[Brett Bellmore]

AFD Platform

It's quite long and detailed, I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I assume that the mandatory Nazi salutes are to be found in Chapter 7, "Culture, Language and Identity"?

Nah, couldn't find it there, must be someplace else.

[Sarcastr0]

So your standard is 'so long as it doesn't say anything antisemitic in the party platform, the party is not antisemitic.'

So long, of course, as it's a European right-wing party and not the Democrats.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, my standard is that, if the platform seems kind of reasonable, rather than foaming at the mouth, I'm going to need some other evidence that 99 pages of detailed and somewhat reasonable proposals are just a clever mask for the 5th Reich.

What I actually think is that the center of officially tolerated political parties in Europe is far enough left, (And to the left of the electorate!) that they're going to perceive any party that's actually right wing as rabid fanatics.

[Sarcastr0]

You aren’t clicking on links today or what?

[Satchmo_Lives]

that they're going to perceive any party that's actually right wing as rabid fanatics.

Not true Brett. I have been assured that 77 million voters in America are rabid extremist/white supremacist/xenophobic/racist/misogynistic garbage.

The media and politicians have said it enough I believe it.

[Sarcastr0]

Really calling out those media and politicians who called all Trump supporters all those names by not naming them.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Sorry, I can't help someone who has been playing Rip van Winkle for the last decade.

[Kazinski]

Well CNN had Gov Pritzker on claiming Elon gave a intentionally gave Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/26/politics/video/jb-pritzker-elon-musk-hand-gesture-afd-rally-sotu-digvid

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz, no new goalposts:

" have been assured that 77 million voters in America are..."

[Commenter_XY]

They (supporters of POTUS Trump) were called human garbage by Joe Biden. Remember?

[Martinned2]

No need to read past the first page:

We maintain an open mind towards other nations and cultures, but wish to be and remain German at heart. Therefore, we shall continuously strive to uphold human dignity, support families with children, retain our western Christian culture, and maintain our language and traditions in a peaceful, democratic, and sovereign nation state for the German people.

[Commenter_XY]

It was the uphold human dignity part that was the problem, wasn't it? Like I said, the progressive illogic is fascinating.

[Satchmo_Lives]

"Human dignity" can be a dog whistle for just about anything. "One language, tradition, and sovereign nation" is a dog whistle for the far-right white supremacists like Musk and his Nazi salute. Or so I am told by my betters.

[Brett Bellmore]

Anything can be a dog whistle for anything else, since the whole point of dog whistles is just somebody taking something said by another and asserting that it's a secret code for something else, so that they can claim they're really saying awful things.

The thing to remember about dog whistles is, as they say, if you hear the whistle, you're the dog.

[Martinned2]

The human dignity part is literally one of the elements of the German constitution that are unamendable, and that all political parties have to pay lip service to. Which you would know, if you knew anything about this topic at all.

Article 1 [Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of basic rights]

(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

That, right there, is what the German people wrote at the top of their constitution in 1949, as much as anything in recognition of the horrors that had been committed just a few years before. This is what Elon Musk encouraged the AfD to forget about. But they can't, because under art. 79(3) of the constitution art. 1 cannot be removed or altered.

[Brett Bellmore]

I must have missed the part of the speech where he told them to forget about human dignity and inalienable rights. Was it this bit?

"“Something I think that is just very important is that people take pride in Germany and being German. This is very important,” Musk continued. “It’s, you know, it’s OK to be proud to be German. This is a very important principle.”

Musk said German children should not bear the responsibility for crimes past generations committed, an apparent reference to the Holocaust and crimes committed by the Nazi Party.

“I think there’s, like, frankly, too much of a focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that,” Musk said. “Children should not be guilty of the sins of their parents or even let alone their parents, their great grandparents, maybe even.”

[VinniUSMC]

I think you meant to copy and paste something else.

How far left are you that this passage is remotely concerning? Stupid Nazi martin.

[Satchmo_Lives]

No he didn't. I promise you he believes language such as preserving Christian culture, traditions, and a sovereign nation are dog whistles for Nazi wannabes

[Kazinski]

Nothing in that statement would exclude people who have come to Germany from other places that want to be German, and embrace their language and cultural values. And continue to enjoy the fruits of their culture like Christmas Fairs and markets.

It would exclude people that have come to Germany and want to establish the Caliphate of the Rhine.

[Bob from Ohio]

Is that it? A few isolated comments by a few politicians. Backbenchers say dumb things in the US too.

"banned Nazi slogan"

Banning slogans is kinda Nazi like.

[John F. Carr]

Reading about this alleged tragedy I remember incidents in the U.S. Congress where bills were defeated solely because they came from the wrong party. Winning is more important than governing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Such incidents do happen, but more frequently, this is just how the party that originated them wants you to think, they don't want you to notice what they included in or omitted from the bill that actually resulted in the defeat. Because they were hoping the opposing party wouldn't notice those clauses, either.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Question for the trial lawyers -- it appears that Wednesday's crash at Reagan National was caused by negligence on the part of the US Army in operating a helicopter -- it was ~380-390 feet high where only permitted to be 200 feet high, etc.

Does sovereign immunity preclude victim suits? How about foreign nationals under International Law?

[Dan Schiavetta]

The son of a client of mine, an Army officer, was killed in an Army helicopter crash (which happened on an Army base) and the mother successfully brought a wrongful death suit which resulted in a settlement.

[not guilty]

I would expect litigation under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, how does that work, in general (FTCA). I always thought the Fed Govt had to agree to be sued for liability stuff like this. What if the Fed Govt simply said, "Terrible tragedy; but national security involved here with training. Sorry, but no payout"

Legal?

[Sarcastr0]

FTCA is a law. The government consented to waive immunity when it passed the law.

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of which — as we'll probably find out later today in the Short Circuit post — IJ has just had a case for which cert was granted to try to use the FTCA against some agents who incompetently raided the wrong house. Basically the 11th Circuit said, "Psych; Congress obviously didn't mean it when it waived immunity."

[Satchmo_Lives]

Immunity waived for the agents executing the raid, the agents who planned the raid, or the Fed Govt? I am on board for the latter two.

[not guilty]

With Congressional enactment of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government has agreed to be sued for liability of its employees to the extent of the causes of action in tort mentioned therein. Plaintiffs must file an initial administrative claim with the government agency in question within two years of the incident. Once the agency mails a response, the plaintiff then has six months to file the suit in federal court.

If the employee was acting in the course of his duties, the United States can be substituted as a defendant under the Westfall Act.

[Commenter_XY]

Employees, meaning military helicopter pilots, correct?

[John F. Carr]

The U.S. government was found partly responsible when a snowmobiler crashed into a parked helicopter in western Massachusetts. If collision is like an ordinary traffic accident a victim can sue the same as if the driver had been an ordinary person. They government gets immunity when it is doing some special government thing that ordinary people don't do.

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose one of those NJ 'FAA approved, government research' drones crashed into a private home and killed little Johnny and little Janie.

Are they liable? = They government gets immunity when it is doing some special government thing that ordinary people don't do.

Relatedly, I am continually amazed that people did not follow the latitude line of NJ around the globe. There are many places on that rough latitude line that are of interest to the US military, right now. The NJ shore looks like a good proxy to me for those areas.

[John F. Carr]

If a government drone crashed into a private house the government ought to be liable. Sometimes the government will assert a state secrets privilege. That drone doesn't officially exist even though we can all see the wreckage. There was an "extraordinary rendition" case that the government won despite the facts being out in the open. Officially, there was no such program.

[Gasman]

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2024/09/24/snowmobiler-who-crashed-into-black-hawk-helicopter-awarded-3-million/

Who knew that wearing sunglasses at night while operating a snowmobile was dangerous.

[John F. Carr]

I thought the judge was being sympathetic to a plaintiff who was partly at fault but suffered life-altering injuries. Both sides bear some of the blame. The judge said the government was slightly more responsible.

[Bwaaah]

The tinted goggles, at night, sound like a really bad idea. (I'm trying to be forgiving here.) But then I look at the copter's matte black finish, and those tale stabilizers, and their height, and imagine that absent moonlight or some other significant light source, that helicopter's finish is going to do quite what it's designed to do: disappear in darkness. At an alleged speed of 65 mph, the guy would be just starting to question the suddenly approaching [unusual] darkness as his torso wrapped around that tail stabilizer. The schnook never had a chance. (Schnook shoulda stayed home.)

[santamonica811]

After the unfortunately plane crash yesterday; I wondered if prominent politicians would use it for political advantage. In what must have been the safest bet in recent history; of course it was Donald Trump who immediately had to tweet out that the crash was Biden's fault. Definitely not his, going back to his first term. Or, maybe it was Obama, somehow. Why Trump--that loathsome piece of shit; that spurt of bloody diarrhea, that fucking rapist asshole--felt like he had to ascribe blame before any factfinding could be done . . . well, that's between him and Satan, I guess. I take back any nice things I've said about him in the past. (For whatever reason, this was the back-breaking straw for me. I could get past the first 13,947 awful things he said and wrote and did. But this just pushed my button, and Trump is beyond redemption in my eyes.)

He really is an evil evil man. No, no; he's not another Hitler. Just a man of unbridled ego, motivated by evil, fueled by evil, with a fresh minty evil aroma. I don't wish harm on any human. But, I will be rejoicing on the day he does happen to toss this mortal coil, just as I did a half-century ago, with Chairman Mao.

Yeah, I know; it's gonna be a long 4 years. What we're seeing right now is the softer, restrained, honeymoon-period Trump. It only gets worse going forward. Excuse me while I curl up in the fetal position in the corner, and softly whimper to myself.

[Krayt]

He should have waited until they determined why. It will look mighty foolish if it has nothing to do with it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have this crash on videotape -- and my guess is that the Army told Trump a lot of stuff that isn't public yet.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If that’s true, that makes his reaction worse!

[Joe_dallas]

Early indications are that it was Air Traffic Control error was a significant portion of the cause of the accident. The real question is what actions led up to and/or created an environment that caused the error.

Reports coming out are that ATC was understaffed at the time of the crash - the question becomes why was ATC under staffed? hiring freeze? hiring freeze on qualified applicants? Insufficient qualified applicants? Poor staffing caused by management? stystemic problem or just local problem?

[Life of Brian]

Agree ATC made this sort of catastrophe a lot more likely by (twice!) just effectively saying "hey, see the CRJ out there?" when there were multiple planes coming in for landing in the helicopter's direction of travel, rather than "traffic at your 10, CRJ on final for 33" or something similar that actually would have given the helicopter pilots a point of reference to know they were tracking the correct plane.

That said, it appears beyond doubt that the helicopter had blown altitude, and badly. Had it been under the prescribed 200 foot ceiling, it would have been well under the glidepath the CRJ was on for that runway. That doesn't excuse the ATC omissions, but suddenly made them matter in a way they normally wouldn't.

THAT said, ATC's radar view actually showed the helicopter was too high, and they just let it go. That would have been something else actually useful to communicate in the final few seconds they had to avoid a collision instead of "um, are you SURE you see the CRJ out there?"

[Joe_dallas]

Life - Its was almost definitely human error, and most likely multiple human errors.

In a way I was responding the Sant's hatefest against trumps comment. While I agree that Trumps comment was inappropriate, We do know the Woke (democrats, biden obama, etc) promoted employment policies that put gender/crt, dei, inclusion etc over merit, which raises the legitimate question as to whether those policies contributed to the string of human errors.

The answers to those questions I listed would hopefully resolve that question without the political bias and hatred that spews from the woke.

[Life of Brian]

I absolutely hear you. And I also think the same sort of calm, objective questions need to be asked on the military's side: why were relatively low-hours pilots being allowed to train in those sorts of white-knuckle conditions at night in the midst of heavy civilian traffic; why was that particular flight that far above altitude for so long; etc.

There are lots of near misses regularly due to both ATC and pilot screwups -- I've personally been in many planes where pilots suddenly execute what is clearly an "oh shit" maneuver. Thankfully exceptionally few of those situations end up like this because of the intentional redundant layers of safety, but unfortunately that can make it look like the system is robust and functional when it's really teetering right on the edge.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"We do know the Woke (democrats, biden obama, etc) promoted employment policies that put gender/crt, dei, inclusion etc over merit, which raises the legitimate question as to whether those policies contributed to the string of human errors. "

And that woke dumb fuck Trump too, eh?

https://web.archive.org/web/20201208125057/https:/www.faa.gov/jobs/diversity_inclusion/

"The answers to those questions I listed would hopefully resolve that question without the political bias and hatred that spews from the woke."

We do know the Woke (democrats, biden obama, etc) promoted employment policies that put gender/crt, dei, inclusion etc over merit, which raises the legitimate question as to whether those policies contributed to the string of human errors.

You are hoping that you can blame DEI for this. You are exactly the piece of shit you claim to despise.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If the FAA is focused on people's personal characteristics instead of safety, then DEI probably is to blame.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Good news: They aren't, and only idiots believe otherwise.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You think they're lying when they say they are?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I think you're a dumb fuck who's lying about what they say, since nobody gets hired as an ATC controller who hasn't passed the same exams and training as everyone else, regardless of skin color.

Your reputation as a lying sack of shit is well-deserved.

[TwelveInchPianist]

They say DEI, and none of those letters stands for qualifications.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Indeed.

It's unfortunate that you're stupid enough to think those letters are the qualification that permits someone to direct airplanes, rather than a consideration for qualified applicants before training to the same standards as everyone else.

Please stop polluting the threads with your stupidity.

[Life of Brian]

One important correction (and a link to an excellent new video from an aviation nerd that very nicely ties together radar, the underlying sectional map, and ATC traffic from a much cleaner source than past feeds I'd heard).

The first ATC call is around 7:21 on the video: "PAT25, traffic just south of the Woodrow bridge, a CRJ at 1200 feet setting up for runway 33." That's more than I thought they had said and is not bad, though still ambiguous with multiple planes coming in from that direction.

That almost makes it more glaring that the follow-up, critical call, about 40 seconds later when it was evident something wasn't right, wasn't more definite and actionable than "PAT25, do you have the CRJ in sight?" At that point, there were still at least 15 seconds before impact where both craft could have taken emergency evasive actions (plane up, helicopter down) that apparently neither had any reason to think they needed to take.

[John F. Carr]

It's hard to judge distance of an airliner at night.

When the jets are about 1,000 feet or so TCAS will warn about close traffic. At lower elevation the system is disabled. Here's a video with another helicopter setting off alarms the day before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huVFZ__q2rI

[Life of Brian]

That video just punctuates the no-win situation caused by the overlaid airplane and helicopter routes. Looks like both TCAS RA and the ATC CA warnings trip at around 500 feet of separation, so in this region they're tripping all the time during completely normal and expected crossings and basically desensitizing people to them. And the sort of hair trigger go-around behavior as we see from the Republic flight after its TCAS tripped (probably not actually necessary, but who wants to be on the wrong end of that call?) just clutters the sky that much more.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, those are not the early indications.

You are an uninformed dipshit.

PAT 25 was more than 100’ above the altitude the route they were flying permitted, and off-course, after requesting visual separation and assuming the responsibility to not fly into the CRJ.

For once, sit down and shut up.

[Life of Brian]

You're such a rude ass.

As I noted above, the helicopter absolutely was above their prescribed altitude. But as I also noted, ATC could clearly see that, and could see that elevated altitude was going to be extra-super-uncomfortably-close at best given the altitude of the CRJ that they also could clearly see (right next to the big red flashing "CA" on their viewscreen).

Language like "assuming the responsibility" is unhelpful "not it!" blame-shifting, when the entire point of having all these purposefully redundant systems is to have many layers of safety that all have to fail simultaneously before people get dead as they tragically did here.

Having a global "eye in the sky" to help catch pilot errors, (particularly in a super-crowded airspace like this where someone thought it would be a wonderful idea to run a helicopter route right across an airport final approach) is worthless if you don't actually expect it to help catch them.

[Joe_dallas]

Not only is he very rude ass, he is extremely immature.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I treat you and your fellow liars as you deserve. You'll note that I don't treat everyone that way.

You've earned it. For all your degrees, you are surprisingly stupid.

[Bwaaah]

Got your nails done, did ya?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh no, another sexist insult from the fluffer!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"PAT 25 STOP! STOP! STOP NOW!" would have worked.

Helos can hover -- and the CRJ was going at least 90 knots, likely more, and would have been clear in a couple of seconds.

[Life of Brian]

Looks like the Black Hawk was doing 80ish knots at the time, so there's no way just to snap-stop from that speed. And the radar display/update rate is imprecise enough that ATC couldn't know exactly where they were, so a command to the Black Hawk to slow down could just as readily have created an impact that wouldn't have existed had they both maintained speed. Much safer/more predictable to order it to drop (particularly since it was too high to start with).

[Dr. Ed 2]

All I know about the Black Hawk is the advertising I saw about it 30 years ago -- about it's ability to stop & turn which, according to the advertisement, was impressive.

ATC did get a red COLLISION warning, it blinked twice and the thing with "Stop Now!" is the urgency in the voice -- a good pilot will respond to that.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Reading comments you guys write about air traffic control makes me appreciate how Nieporent, Noscitur, Not Guilty, etc. feel when you are commenting about law. You literally don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Take it from someone who worked traffic for over 30 years.

What's more, no one with even a modest amount of intelligence divvies out blame until ALL the facts are known about the accident.

As for short staffing, many ATC facilities were understaffed when I was hired in 1988. They continue to be understaffed to this day because the FAA is poorly managed and Congress hasn't made ATC hiring a priority in their budget and appropriation process. It's been a continuous issue since the 1981 strike.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why would someone like Trump allow his loyal acolytes to publish any such determination? Because truth?

[Frank Drackman]

You just know that the Controller on Duty is going to be found to be a Deaf, Dumb, and 1/2 Blind, Trans-sexual Militant Vegan who's only qualification to control aircraft was he/she/it plays a mean Pinball.

[Ska]

21st century Roger Daltry only looks like a lesbian; he doesn't identify as one.

[hobie]

Frankie 'Wounded Warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran, after blaming handicaps and minorities for being responsible for the crash, it's gonna suck when we find out the pilots of both aircraft - and the people in the control tower - are all white, heterosexual, male citizens

[Frank Drackman]

You don't have AlGores Internets in Dum-Fuck Egypt? Army's already announced the Army Captain (with less Flight Time than the Warrant Officer she outranks) was a Chick, don't know about the Hetero part, if you'd served you'd know it's "Don't Ask, Don't Smell"
I mean "Tell"

Frank

[hobie]

Oh God, please make it true that the pilot was a woman

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be co-pilot.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14346439/dc-plane-crash-victims-helicopter-pilot-latest-updates.html

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm surprised that they're not doing this over much less crowded airspace; When I lived in rural Michigan, we got training flights over our house all the time from Selfridge. I got some REALLY close looks at the undersides of military transports, I think they were doing simulated touch and goes over my backyard.

And I'm pretty sure somebody got in trouble over that KC-135 that did the barrel roll.

Well, I suppose pilots do have to work their way up to handling crowded airspace.

[Dr. Ed 2]

helo pilot female

[Satchmo_Lives]

My God!!! You don't mean to tell me a politician used a tragedy to score political points?

I mean politicians have never used hurricanes, wildfires, mass shootings, and in the case of Kahlil earthquakes, to slander the other party before now. How dare he!!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Actually I don't remember any politician doing that before Trump. Certainly not in the initial moments after the tragedy when comforting words are needed.

The closest I can recall was the day after the Rodney King riots, when George H.W. Bush blamed them on the social programs of the 1960's.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The other example was the evening of September 11, 2001, when Andy Card and other GWB advisors planned on how to use the tragedy to paint Democrats as traitors and push policy goals. Mind you, this is even before the sun had set that horrible day.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Huh??? I think I may have given you too much credit for being up on current events.

On May 24, 2022. the day of the Uvalde school shooting, the following was said:

"F--- your prayers. They haven’t worked for the last 20 mass shootings how about passing laws that will stop these killings," Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., tweeted at Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

AOC said "There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place," she wrote on Twitter. "It is an idolatry of violence. And it must end."

"Why do you spend all this time running for the United States Senate... if your answer, is as the slaughter increases, as our kids run for their lives, we do nothing?" Sen Murphy, D-Conn, asked his colleagues.

Washington Post Hours After Las Vegas Dems Jump Into Gun Control

FoxNews Democrats blaming climate change for Hurricane Ian at odds with science, experts say

CNN
Within hours, the Orlando mass shooting at a gay nightclub set off renewed political debates"

I am sure I can go further back

[Magister]

Every politician has to reset for any new mass shooting even after decades of mass shootings?

[Satchmo_Lives]

Not sure of your point. I responded with several examples of dems politicizing tragedies when told they do not.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This was a response to the usual idiotic "thoughts and prayers". You might as well offer "thoughts and prayers" to victims of polio, while opposing the vaccine. It is not in the least politicizing anything. It was not a way to get a leg up on political opponents. It was simply advocating for a position which most Americans support, and which (at least in the past) many Republicans were on board with.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It is not in the least politicizing anything. "

Of course, its (D)ifferent when your side does it.

"simply advocating for a position"

Amazing!

[Dan Schiavetta]

During the Vietnam War every time a new atrocity came to light politicians would speak out against the war. That was not politicizing a tragedy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That was not politicizing a tragedy."

Of course it was. It used a tragic event to make a political argument.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No, they just wanted the f**king war to stop. It became a bipartisan argument.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Dan, "Stop this war" is not a political statement?

No wonder you think DJT was the first to do it this week.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Satchmo, I'm curious. Do you ever remember a President blaming an aviation disaster on some aspect of the air traffic system before any investigation has happened, and when asked if he has any evidence for his statement, he just responds "Common sense?"

Do you believe controllers get certified to work traffic based on any criteria other than their ability to do the job? Do you believe the Secretary of Transportation determines staffing levels at ATC facilities on a daily basis?

[David Nieporent]

Dan, "Stop this war" is not a political statement?

No wonder you think DJT was the first to do it this week.

I think he meant it wasn't a partisan statement, rather than that it wasn't political.

[Life of Brian]

Do you believe controllers get certified to work traffic based on any criteria other than their ability to do the job?

How could anyone who's been remotely paying attention to this issue over the past decade or so reasonably believe otherwise? As one very prominent example, around 1000 applicants who showed an exceptionally high ability to do the job via the FAA's prior skills-based exam have been involved in a lawsuit against the FAA for over 9 years now because they were denied jobs in favor of people who purportedly scored higher on a replacement "biographical questionaire" full of subjective touchy-feely topics explicitly constructed to increase "diversity" of the applicant pool.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4542755/brigida-v-united-states-department-of-transportation/

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Because I've been paying very close attention for my whole career as a controller. You can bring prospective controllers to facilities based on any criteria you want. But whether that person succeeds or fails at certifying is entirely due to their ability to do the job. I trained and evaluated dozens and dozens of candidates through the years, and never, not one time, did I ever consider any criterion other than ability, nor was I ever asked to use anything else.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I have sympathy for Brigida and all the other prospective controllers in the class. My son attended a CTI program and was eventually hired. But nothing in that case reflects on what happens to a candidate (called a "developmental" in ATC) once they get to a facility for training, or on the criteria used to certify or wash out a developmental. This is an extremely serious subject for controllers, whether or not a developmental gets certified. That's why President Trump's allusions to DEI caused such outrage among them.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Stop the war" was not a political statement. We wanted LBJ to stop the war. Then we wanted Nixon to stop the war.

[Satchmo_Lives]

So in your esteemed opinion "they haven’t worked for the last 20 mass shootings how about passing laws that will stop these killings" isn't political.

I guess "they" are unicorns farting pixie dust and not republicans not doing what he wants?

[hobie]

I listened to Trump's speech on the radio and he was doing pretty good in the first five minutes. Then he abruptly turned to pimping his extraordinary accomplishments and also blaming Obama and Biden for the dead people in the water. THEN, he just started flat-out accusing people with disabilities and also DWARVES! as being incapable of traffic controlling. The only group he didn't disparage was women, but he seemed to be implying as much

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, he slammed that Pussy Pete Booty-Judge's "Line of Bullshit" pretty hard

[hobie]

Oh? Was ol' Pete running the FAA that day? Was he in charge of the military protocols and training of the helicopter? Shame on him then.

[Mr. Bumble]

Past is prologue.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Jeez, you guys can never be satisfied. Trump is bad because he tries to overhaul bureaucracies in week. He is also bad for not overhauling bureaucracies in a week.

[hobie]

Let him overhaul, then. But blaming Pete for an event he had nothing to do with or executive orders he did not create is a problem

[Satchmo_Lives]

A shortage of 3000 ATCs has nothing to do with SoT? Got it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Alfred E. Bootyplug took Sec. of Trans literally.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The ATC shortage has been a continuous problem since 1981. That's a whole lot of SoTs to blame. Including from 2017-2021. But I'm sure Trump's reality TV star he's nominating will do a great job.

[Kazinski]

NY Times has some analysis of Trumps firings of executive branch officials, some seemingly against the law.

No one seems to want to challenge the firings in court because they think there is a good chance Trump will win:

President Trump abruptly fired dozens of officials in the past few days — including inspectors general, a member of the National Labor Relations Board and career prosecutors — in ways that apparently violated federal laws, setting up the possibility of lawsuits.

But the prospect of getting dragged into court may be exactly what Mr. Trump’s lawyers are hoping for. There is a risk that judges may determine that some of the dismissals were illegal, but any rulings in the president’s favor would establish precedents that would expand presidential power to control the federal government.

Some legal experts say the purges underway appear to be custom-made opportunities for the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority to strike down the statutes any legal challenges would be based on, furthering its trend in recent years of expanding presidential authority.

“On one level, this seems designed to invite courts to push back because much of it is illegal and the overall message is a boundless view of executive power,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration. “But really, they are clearly setting up test cases.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/us/politics/trump-firings-officials-legal-test.html

As I have said a few times this past week, the law does seem to favor Trump's position.

Not that I favor an imperial presidency, the Constitution gives Congress all the authority they need to win a power struggle with the President, however there is a catch, government has gotten too big. The only way Congress can effectively curb the executive power is to downsize the executive branch and make it less powerful.

[Drewski]

"No one seems to want to challenge the firings in court because they think there is a good chance Trump will win"

Uh, what. There are so many suits over this it's too much work to keep up with them all. Nobody is holding back for fear of expanding Presidential power in the case of a loss.

[Kazinski]

Well it is early yet, but I am not aware of any of the dismissed officials filing suit yet, nor does the NY Times article mention any.

[Drewski]

As of a few days ago, we got: National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump et al; Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Donald Trump et al; American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and American Federation of State, County And Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO V. Donald Trump et al; Public Citizen Inc et al v. Donald J. Trump and Office of Management and Budget; and New York et al v. Donald J. Trump et al.

[DixieTune]

Those are random rank and file employees, not IGs, U.S. Attorneys, and so on.

[Kazinski]

I repeat myself:

"I am not aware of any of the dismissed officials filing suit yet".

[Drewski]

Let me repeat your OP: "No one seems to want to challenge the firings in court because they think there is a good chance Trump will win."

I replied to that. Are you admitting you lied by changing your story? Or is your brain too rotten to stay consistent for thirty minutes straight? Or are you just an asshole out of habit?

[Commenter_XY]

MAGA-mesis continues.

Senior FBI staff will be joining the fired bureaucrats on the unemployment line this weekend. Hopefully we will soon see a 'scorecard' of the number of dismissed DC-based bureaucrats by week. POTUS Trump must be close to 1K by now.

Decent start for just two weeks.

[Drewski]

A scorecard would be helpful. As far as I can tell, Trump has mostly been unsuccessful at firing people who aren't political appointees and has pushed roughly a dozen out the door, all at the DoJ. He's added more people than he's removed. For this, he's spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars promoting his plan - and is all set to drop millions litigating it.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Totally wrong. Unless you do something,anything the exploding employment by the feds will continue. You sound foolish "hundreds of thousands" Biden sent billions to the Ukraine by simple fiat.

[Drewski]

Good things are good and bad things are bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Test cases, and setting up Pyrrhic victories for the opposition. A lot of the more legally questionable EOs are on topics where Trump has the public in his corner, and court losses would be a good setup for nearly irresistible public pressure to change the law.

[Michael Ejercito]

Executive power over subordinate executive officials is pretty mucbh near-boundless.

[Commenter_XY]

Better get a lawyer, Tony. You'll need one.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/biden-covid-subpoena/2025/01/30/id/1197197/

[David Nieporent]

Why would he need one?

[Frank Drackman]

To help keep him from perjuring himself, his Pardon only covers his past perjury.

[Armchair]

Not sure the pardon covers civil lawsuits.

Here's a potential outcome Fauci violated clearly established laws, and that violation that led to someone's death. That could waive any qualified immunity claim. And a wrongful death suit could be financially costly.

[Zarniwoop]

Here's a potential outcome Fauci violated clearly established laws, and that violation that led to someone's death. That could waive any qualified immunity claim. And a wrongful death suit could be financially costly.

Sheesh, QI and the many problems with QI gets discussed around here often. Often enough that one would think people would learn something about the basics of QI. But nooOOoo!

I’d be quite shocked if there was a prior legal determination that clearly established the illegality of specific factual conduct like Fauci’s, in the specific factual circumstances like those Fauci faced. The very novelty, uncertainty, and fast-moving decisions of COVID - particularly the early parts - are a paradigmatic case for when QI might be entirely reasonable. And I’m not a fan of QI in the first place! But if it’s gonna exist, I’ll bet dollars to donuts Fauci can benefit from it.

[Armchair]

Well, it's really Fauci's conduct before COVID broke out that is at issue....

[David Nieporent]

Not sure the pardon covers civil lawsuits.

I am quite sure that the pardon does not cover civil lawsuits. However, the Westfall Act does.

That could waive any qualified immunity claim.

It cannot, because QI has essentially nothing to do with the federal government, which is where Fauci worked. And applies only to claims about constitutional rights in the first place.

[Armchair]

"QI has essentially nothing to do with the federal government"

Wow....that's a dumb statement. I mean, Bivens comes to mind....

[not guilty]

Qualified immunity has indeed been cut from whole judicial cloth and applied to Bivens actions.

But how does Bivens liability potentially attach to your hypothetical situation? It has become questionable in recent years whether that doctrine applies to anyone whose first name is not Webster or whose last name is not Bivens.

[David Nieporent]

Bivens is why I used the qualifier "essentially" in my comment. Yes, QI can apply to a Bivens claim, but there are essentially no Bivens claims.

[not guilty]

"Here's a potential outcome Fauci violated clearly established laws, and that violation that led to someone's death. That could waive any qualified immunity claim. And a wrongful death suit could be financially costly."

What is your theory of culpable conduct on Dr. Fauci's part, including but not limited to proximate causation? What is your theory as to how such conduct violated the decedent's constitutional rights? (HINT: negligence is not enough. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).) Has potential liability under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and its progeny been extended to such a claim as you hypothesize? SCOTUS has been quite restrictive in application of Bivens to suits against federal employees.

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which a defendant can waive, but why would Dr. Fauci do so?

[Armchair]

Seems like an investigation might be warranted. But, hypothetically speaking, if Fauci was aware of the US prohibition on doing or funding gain of function research, and deliberately conspired with EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan to do the work anyway, in violation of that prohibition.

That might go beyond mere negligence.

[not guilty]

In your hypothetical the word "if" is doing some heavy lifting.

But even so, what does that have to do with either proximate cause or violation of individual constitutional rights as to any prospective wrongful death plaintiff?

[David Nieporent]

That might go beyond mere negligence.

It might, in this hypothetical — but how would that constitute a violation of anyone's constitutional rights?

[Commenter_XY]

Keith Siegel, American hostage held in captivity by Judeocidal terrorists, to be released Sat Feb 1.

One down, six to go. Steve Witkoff, get them out.

Then the war can resume and hamas can be destroyed within gaza.

[Martinned2]

Speaking of giving Hamas incentives to take hostages and never release them...

[Frank Drackman]

Which would be better.

[Bored Lawyer]

In another thread, you insisted that Hamas and the like don't respond to "incentives." Now you insist they do.

Hamas' incentive to taking hostages is that it helps their cause, by inflicting psychological torture on Israel. They release them when they think it suits their cause.

[DixieTune]

There's no way to destroy Hamas without destroying the Palestinians. I'm not saying Israel shouldn't do that, as these people add no value to the world anyway, but let's be honest with ourselves.

[Bored Lawyer]

The way to do it is what the Allies did to Nazi Germany -- bring it to its knees, take over its government and deNazify it. Unfortunately, no one has the political will or patience to do that here.

[David Nieporent]

How'd that work in Afghanistan?

[Bored Lawyer]

You seriously think that was tried in Afghanistan?

[Mr. Bumble]

It's been a while since David has been serious.

[Sarcastr0]

All you do is bitch about commenters

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly, but a douche will always be a douche.

[David Nieporent]

You don't think we brought Afghanistan to its knees, took over its government, and deTalibanized it? And spent 20 years trying to make it stick?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't recall us doing all that. I think we did a really half assed job of everything beyond bringing them to their knees.

[David Nieporent]

So now you're in the "Real communism hasn't been tried" phase of the argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Nazis were in control of Germany for 12 years. Open advocates of genocide of one flavor or anther have controlled Palestinian areas for literally generations at this point. They are MUCH more deeply entrenched. There literally is nobody in the Gaza strip or the West bank who can remember NOT living in a society where committing genocide against Israel wasn't treated as a moral imperative.

It's going to take at least a generation or two to undo that.

[DixieTune]

That doesn't work. The Germans didn't worship the Nazis as a god. The Palestinians worship their pedophile prophet as a god.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Then the war can resume and hamas can be destroyed within gaza."

You've continually predicted Hamas was on the eve of destruction a zillion times now. Your predictions don't seem to be any closer to fruition. They seem on a par with your "solution" to the Palestinian issue of "paying" the entire population to magically leave. A lot of your thinking on this subject seems to be driven by fantasy alone.

The easiest way to eliminate Hamas would be for Israel to let the Palestinian Authority into Gaza to replace them. After all, the PA has been a dedicated security partner with Israel for decades. Hamas' standing in Gaza must be at a low point, and the PA would offer the survivors a real option.

But Netanyahu won't do that for the same reason he supported Hamas behind the scenes pre-07Oct: He wants the Palestinians divided and the Hamas boogeyman (an appellation well-earned) as an excuse to postpone peace talks. That was worth the occasional Israeli citizen murdered by Hamas before the October attack and the same logic seems to hold now.

I'd ask how you feel about that, but why bother? You'll just duck the question with more bloodthirsty fantasies of total victory that will never come true.

[Commenter_XY]

The surest way to eliminate hamas is to hunt them down and kill them. I hope America helps.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A task made much easier if you just assume all Palestinians are Hamas or "close enough".

[Commenter_XY]

The hearings for Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel and RFK Jr were predictable performative theatrics. But I came away impressed by Rob Wyden (D), with his questions and observations on FISA section 702. The country owes Senator Wyden a debt of gratitude for his consistent focus on 702 and our 4A rights.

Do they get confirmed? This is independent of whether you like them, agree with them. Does John Thune get them over the finish line?
Gabbard: Yes
Patel: Yes
RFK: Yes....but I think he might have alienated Sen Cassidy.

[Frank Drackman]

Senator Cassidy, you know how they say those who can, do, and those who can't, teach?
Well, same goes for Doctors, those who can, treat patients, and those who can't, do something else, like Politics (Randy Paul's an Ophthalmologist, they only work a few hours a day anyway)
and Dr. Cassidy is a "Hepatologist", or Liver Specialist, so he's an expert in treating conditions of the liver, which consist of telling patients
"Stop Drinking! Oh you don't drink? (Rolling Eyes) so you're a "Dry Drunk"! Stop Drinking anyway! Oh, and don't take Tylenol!"
The only real cure for Liver Disease is a new Liver, which is limited by the number of young men killed by Motorcycles/Suicides, and installed by the Liver Mechanics, I mean Transplant Surgeons, but you still have to get the blessing of the Hepatologist to get one, and hear him tell you not to drink with your new Liver
("What? I got this new Corvette and I'm not going to drive it?" Vroom! (HT S. Joe)")
Oh, and "Dr" Cassidy's wife is a Surgeon, who retired after a grueling 14 year career, like I said there are those who can, and those who can't, and I won't even talk about the Sexual Dynamics of a Man in an effeminate specialty like Internal Medicine marrying a Woman in a still predominantly Male specialty like Surgery, lets just say JD Vance wasn't the only Senator with a Beard

Frank

[Krayt]

Support stem cell and lab organ growth research!

[Krayt]

Pig Livers 4All!

[grb]

Commenter_XY : Gabbard: Yes, Patel: Yes, RFK: Yes

Yep. Our country is now an international laughingstock. The Founders roll furiously in their graves. I won't bother with Gabbard though she's a jokey trolling choice like the other two.

But Patel? Here's a sleazy scam artist who hawked pills that "reversed the covid vaccine" and were “Mrna detox" to gullible chumps and dupes. That kind of ugly behavior might keep you just out of jail, but it shouldn't earn the nation's premier law enforcement job. Of course Trump likes criminals. They're is kind.

And RFK Jr? Anyone who watched his incoherent babble was evaded questions on a lifetime of huckster sleaze and tin-foil-hat lunacy. What do you think, XY : Was covid "ethnically targeted" to spare Jews as he said? Is Lyme Disease a "genetically engineered bioweapon"? Is the CDC’s work like Nazi death camps? Do vaccines cause autism?

RFK Jr's actions in Samoa were a nauseating disgrace, directly contributing to the deaths of scores of children. Can you honestly support putting such a toxic wack-job loser in charge of HHS? Where's your head at, Commenter_XY? Do have any principles left unsullied by Trump's bullshit?

[bernard11]

You will get no answer except maybe his fallback BS: "Elections have consequences."

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think Covid was ethnically targeted. I don't think Lyme disease is a genetically engineered bioweapon. I don't think the CDC's work is like Nazi death camps. I don't know if vaccines cause autism...I don't know what causes autism, other than older women seem to have autistic babies at a higher rate.

I think they all get confirmed, though.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

...because, "elections have consequences".

Just like those elections in Germany in 1932-33.

[Commenter_XY]

Thought Experiment: What would happen if the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was found unconstitutional, and a POTUS does have rescission powers?

From 1789-1973, the country lived without the ICA. What would change, today?

As an aside, would you have a problem with the shoe being on the other foot? I would not, in this case.

[Brett Bellmore]

Getting rid of the impoundment act would allow Presidents to spend less than the sum appropriated for a given activity.

It would not allow them to spend more.
It would not allow them to spend money on things for which there was no appropriation.
It would not relieve them of the obligation to do things, as opposed to spending money.

So, I don't see much of a problem if the shoe is on the other foot. The government would just end up spending less money.

[Sarcastr0]

The Founders putting the power of the purse with the legislative branch was just one of those dumbass moves, I guess.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, not really. It's just that the power of the purse was the power to permit spending, not compel spending. There's quite a difference between telling the executive branch that they can't spend money Congress didn't appropriate, and telling them that they must spend every cent of it, even if they can accomplish everything Congress mandated more cheaply.

[Sarcastr0]

So not much of a power at all, then.
More of an advise and consent situation.

Except without the words advise and consent in the text.
Or in any of the drafting discussions.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You still employed?

Dang... You must be on the clock and on the taxpayer's dime to be commenting so much.

[Brett Bellmore]

My bro is actually regretting becoming a contractor last year; He wants to retire shortly, and this buyout would have been perfect for that. But contractors aren't covered! If only he'd known.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, Congress has a lot of power in this area, if the Constitution were actually being enforced fully. The "take care" duty, for instance.

It's just that, if Congress enacts a law directing that a bridge be erected over a particular river, and appropriates $50M to build it, and the executive branch finds that they can build it for $45M, they ARE obligated to build it, but they're not obligated to burn $5M and incorporate the ash into the concrete.

The reason Congress really hates impoundment is that it gets in the way of a lot of graft and corruption, if done correctly. Congress wanted the full $50M spent, because spending $50M in that district was the actual goal, not ending up with a bridge.

[Sarcastr0]

Yet again apply this standard to the border where actual discretion is authorized.

Impoundment strikes at the balance of powers between the branches,

And then you create hypothetical bribery to excuse giving this authority to Trump. As though that would keep it safe from corrupt purposes.

And I see the Founders have left your argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good God, you think Congressional graft is hypothetical?

Remember the Space Shuttle that crashed in part because NASA had to go to extra expense to manufacture the solid rocket boosters in a particular Congressman's district, instead of more cheaply and safely onsite?

[Sarcastr0]

I think your plan to safeguard corruption by giving this new power to Trump is incredibly dumb.

Of course there is graft, but your hypo lets you paper over the extent. So you can argue it’s so high even Trump would be better.

Facile nihilism.

[SykesFive]

But sometimes what Congress mandates is the amount.

I'm sympathetic to the view that if Congress says to buy 100 fighter planes for $100 billion dollars, but the cost actually comes out to $95 billion, then the President doesn't have to spend the other $5 billion. He bought the 100 fighter planes.

But if Congress says to spend $100 million on teacher training, the President can't just say, "You know what, I think our teachers are adequately trained" and not spend the money, or just spend some amount less than $100 million.

[Armchair]

I posted a fairly long review of impoundment previously. The truth is, the Founders believed that appropriations represented a ceiling...not a floor. And that impoundment was a regularly used power to be used by the executive branch to save money. Indeed, the Founders practiced impoundment in this way.

[Commenter_XY]

I read that. It was because of that post, and subsequent replies, that I pondered what might happen of ICA was found unconstitutional, would things change? And if it did, would I be comfortable with Clinton, Obama or Biden having that tool?

I ultimately concluded No, not much; and, Yes (to my surprise).

[Sarcastr0]

I posted a fairly long review of impoundment previously.

The truth is,

You're an armchair, not a lawyer. And your legal analysis always always comes up MAGA.

I'd go after your arguments, but all you have is a factual statement that impoundment was regularly used. As established in the last thread on this, that's not true.
You have Jefferson. Once.

[Armchair]

Sigh...

I repeatedly posted a link to a 6500 word article with more than 100 footnotes, with examples from every president from Hoover to Johnson using impoundment.

If you lie about my position, at least don't be so blatant about it.

[David Nieporent]

It would not allow them to spend more.
It would not allow them to spend money on things for which there was no appropriation.
It would not relieve them of the obligation to do things, as opposed to spending money.

"The president can ignore the law" means the president can ignore any law.

[Martinned2]

Congress can always refuse to appropriate money for Trump's secret service detail, to see if that makes him any less enthusiastic about impoundment.

[Frank Drackman]

After Butler he probably wouldn't complain.

[Brett Bellmore]

And he can just pay for private security, which he would probably have more confidence in.

[Martinned2]

He sure can, now that he's raking it in from all those "donations" and "investments" in Trump enterprises.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And he would be a fucking moron to think that.

Oh, right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would he be a moron to think private security was more trustworthy, after Butler? Any time he starts to think the SS are more competent, his ear will beg to differ.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm going to give you a few hours to think for yourself and see if you can answer your own question.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nope, coming up empty.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I noticed that you immediately moved your goalpost from confidence to trustworthiness, which I am not going to address because you're a lunatic who sees conspiracies everywhere.

Private security does not have access to classified intelligence briefings or any other government or military resource. All things being equal, the team with more resources and more knowledge will do a better job.

[Frank Drackman]

Might be too early, but you know how the Airlines are with deadlines and going by the rules.
Do the passengers of Flight 5342 get a refund? an Upgrade?
Or is American going to claim they did get the passengers to D.C.? "You can pick up your bags in the Potomac"
Were any of the pilots on their Cellphones?
And last I checked, Military Aircraft don't have Cockpit, umm, excuse me, very Sexist of me,
"Flightdeck" Voice Recorders,
they do have Flight Data Recorders, which tell you the Speed, Altitude, Attitude, Throttle/Flight Control Surface positions (I still don't understand how Helicopters Fly, to be honest, nobody does)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have this thing called RADAR and even military hilos have transponders and ATC has display screens that tell where a plane is and how high it is. And the hilo had a data recorder.

It also had a girl aboard, a Captain, a Warrant officer, and a Staff Sargent, one of whom was female. I presume the first two were flying it, the third crew chief.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezo-Beezo, we also have this thing called "Spell-Check", lets see, "Hilo" "Sargent", and Yogi Berra would be proud,
"A girl aboard, one of whom was female"
Because I have AlGores Interwebs, let me clarify.
1: Radar isn't that effective for low flying aircraft, which is why Military Aircraft train to fly low, to NOT show up on Radar.
2: In DC they also have these things we call "Buildings" which the Radar Waves bounce off of, and do what the Military calls "Fuck Shit up"
3: There were 2 Pilots, a Warrant Officer, who is an Officer with a "Warrant" not a "Commission" and specializes in a particular field, i.e. Aviation, they're often prior Enlisted, as was the case here. The Captain, a "Commissioned" Officer was the Chick, and although Senior in Rank, had less time than the Warrant, which is the usual case, Commissioned Officers have to do all that Commissioned Officer Bullshit, while the Warrants get to do what they're trained to do, Fly Helicopters.
4: It's "Sergeant" not "Sargent" I think you've been watching too much "Bewitched"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

You know that the Earth is round, right?
Radar works at sea level, you can even pick up the wavetops if you want to.

Flying low only works if you are over the horizon as a result.
And buildings aren't allowed at the end of runways for the reason you state

[Zarniwoop]

Tell us more about this new miracle of technology called “RADAR”, grampa. You’re really of the cutting edge here!

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Bumble bees.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does it seem to anybody else that Google made another abrupt step downward in search effectiveness in the last month or so? Lately I search for things that don't even have any particular political implications, and the results are crap, google seems to just be flat out ignoring most of my search string.

[Commenter_XY]

I can't find the Gulf of Mexico like I used to... 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Can't wait for an airliner to fly into Mt Denali, I mean McKinley,

Frank "I'm sorry Dave, my map doesn't show a Mt Denali"

[Martinned2]

I can. It's like trying to find the borders of Ukraine from within Russia - Google will always bend towards the local potentate.

[Commenter_XY]

Well that works, Google can reclassify gaza and Judea/Samaria as Israel. ????

[Martinned2]

It probably does, if you access Google Maps from one of the illegal settlements on the West Bank.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't consider Israel anymore "Illegal" (Yes, that's my Sarcastic Judge Smails voice) than the US, or May-He-Co, or England, or France, or Bra-zil, everyone had to kick someone elses Ass to get their land.

[John F. Carr]

That change isn't in yet. The update has to come from the U.S. government through a standard channel. It's not like OpenStreetMap where a contributor was able to change lower Manhattan to a name like "Jewville". (I forget the exact name. It was politically incorrect and the contributor was BANNED FOR LIFE or until he made a new identity.)

Soon if you go to the Spanish language version, or the Mexican version, you may see a large land mass named Americana Mexicana. It depends on President Sheinbaum.

I remember a document that kept referring to a large island off Southeast Asia as "Jawa". The author's excuse was the atlas used as the official source of spellings had a w instead of a v.

[santamonica811]

heh

[SRG2]

A friend who has a small real estate tech company has found that his automated Google search program no longer works. I wonder whether some general change happened.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett - concur with your comment on google - any topic with any hint of politics yields very biased search hits.

For example - there was a large migration from jordan to present day israel of jordanians during the late 1800's to the 1930's as the region became more prosperous due to the jewish migration from europe which made the region more prosperous. Around 1/3 to 1/2 of "palestinians" are descendents of jordanians. the Jordanian migration is well documented in the historical records. Yet numerous google searches turned up nothing for at least 10 pages with all the hits dealing with post 1948 events.

[Brett Bellmore]

They've tuned their algorithm to expect that you're looking for something common, and just screwed up in writing your search string, (Because that's 99% of the searches!) that it's becoming extremely hard to find something uncommon if it has any intersection at all with the mundane.

Because their user base is now drastically different from when they first got started, and all the users were savvy, and most of them knew boolean and how to spell.

So, it works great for looking up recipes, for instance, or vacation options, or the latest dirt on some celebrity. But try looking for something technical, or a news article from years ago, and it keeps trying to turn it into a search it thinks more likely.

But recently it got exponentially worse. I'm finding it almost useless for a lot of my searches now.

[grb]

The Right's snowflake victimhood whining is so very pathetic. It's not just that no self-respecting person would want to luxuriate in fake-victimhood for the "pleasure" of fake self-pity, fake anger, and fake-indignation. But the Right's addiction to such sordid thrills also corrupts their thinking and leads to conspiratorial nonsense.

Take this case, for example: I just googled "jordanian immigration to palestine 1930s" and got page after page after page of hits, with similar Google search terms like "Arab immigration to Palestine" listed at the bottom.

But - hey - reality only gets in the way when your life's ambition is to wallow in phony victimhood....

[Joe_dallas]

GRB - its a case of a search engine that impedes the search for accurate factual information. Its also partially explains why leftists are so ill informed about basic facts.

[grb]

A reply that conveniently ignores the fact your complaint above is an easily disproved lie. And throws in an insult to boot! Re that, back at ya, guy.....

[Longtobefree]

If only there was an alternative search program - - - - - - -

[SykesFive]

Yes, it's become unusable. It seems to me they are trying to steer you toward using the AI results, which are laughably wrong in some instances.

[Michael P]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/30/travel/mount-taranaki-personhood-new-zealand-intl-hnk/

This kind of law refutes its own logic. The "legal person" of the mountain is represented by people appointed by unrelated entities.

[Krayt]

Incorporation is usually a quick and dirty way to bring an entity under the law, which applies to humans, as only humans have sentience and can be held accountable. This allows corps to be guilty of stuff and be sued, as an expanded limited liability for owners.

So...if a rock rolls off Sir Mountain, can you sue it, or more accurately, the new entity charged with yabbering for it?

[Magister]

If the Maori consider it an ancestor, then they should be able to appoint representation in the same way that a family can appoint representation for a person unable to handle their own affairs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Camp Century, built in 1957 in the ice in Greenland, is now 100 feet deep == that means that the ice in Greenland is now 100 feet deeper than it was in 1957.

And THAT means that there is the water from 100 feet of ice stored there.

How can sea levels be rising if the glaciers are getting thicker?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Shh... don't question the tenets of their religion.

[John F. Carr]

Maybe the ice at the bottom of the glacier is flowing out to sea.

[Mr. Bumble]

Glaciers are always moving.

[Frank Drackman]

and at a Glacial pace, because umm, they're Glaciers

[Krayt]

Yes. Thicker ice probably does accelerate the glacier, squeezing it out like a teen pimple.

But that acceleration is due to still more stuff, which would perforce exceed the faster dumping into the sea. Net effect would be a lowering not raising. From that particular ice area.

Of course one place is not all places.

[SRG2]

Why are Americans concerned about Greenland and Arctic routes? The Chinese and Russians can't use the routes as the Arctic is frozen all year round...

You lot are like those ME types who thought 9/11 was a Zionist plot and a great victory at the same time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just in case climate change is real. Also, early warning radar and anti-missle defense.
By the way, what did you do with SRG1?

[SRG2]

Just in case climate change is real.

The GOP have flatly refused to accept that argument in all other circumstances. "We don't think climate change is happening, we're not going to take any measures in case it is...except when it comes to the defense budget and expansionism"

SRG1 got "cloned" - someone else set up a handle that looked identical. (The old Cyrillic letters trick I think).

[Brett Bellmore]

Where did you get the idea that the Arctic is frozen all year round? It's frequently open in the summer, just not really reliably enough for maritime traffic.

[David Nieporent]

that means that the ice in Greenland is now 100 feet deeper than it was in 1957.

It does not mean any such thing. The glaciers aren't getting thicker; they're moving.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland is notorious for being the world’s fastest-moving glacier. It is also one of the most active, discharging a tremendous amount of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet into Ilulissat Icefjord and adjacent Disko Bay—with implications for sea level rise. The image above, acquired on June 6, 2019, by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8, shows a natural-color view of the glacier.

Jakobshavn has spent decades in retreat—that is, until scientists observed an unexpected advance between 2016 and 2017. In addition to growing toward the ocean, the glacier was found to be slowing and thickening. New data collected in March 2019 confirm that the glacier has grown for the third year in a row, and scientists attribute the change to cool ocean waters.

“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/major-greenland-glacier-is-growing

[RedheadedPharoh]

Yeah they aren't getting thicker, they're just moving on top of each other into glacier stacks and then melding into one, but that's not getting thicker. Just moving.

[RedheadedPharoh]

The rumors swirling around the helicopter crash was that the pilot was a tranny.

Thanks Biden.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, it's been released that it was two "male" and one "female" crew members, and their names have not been released yet.

I'd like to see someone with a MD explain what tranny drugs do to one's vision and if one on them ought to be flying.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14346439/dc-plane-crash-victims-helicopter-pilot-latest-updates.html
Co- pilot was a female being evaluated per the story at link.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't know about the source, but:
"The pilot of the Black Hawk helicopter that crashed directly into a Bombardier jet carrying 64 passengers Wednesday evening, has been identified by podcaster Luke Ford as Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2) Jo Ellis, a transgender woman. Jo Ellis served in the Virginia National Guard for 15 years and transitioned while serving as a pilot. She had been making radicalized anti-Trump statements on social media."

https://www.smobserved.com/story/2025/01/30/news/a-transgender-pilot-named-jo-ellis-flew-blackhawk-helicopter-into-the-american-airlines-jet-at-reagan-national/8719.html

I've seen that there was an O-3 aboard.

[John F. Carr]

"She had been making radicalized anti-Trump statements on social media."

Today I learned that only commissioned officers are prohibited from making disrespectful statements about the President. 10 USC 888, USMJ Article 88. A Warrant Officer has a duty not to disrespect superior commissioned officers. 10 USC 889, UCMJ Article 89.

Article 88: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Article 89: "Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward that person's superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

[SykesFive]

Contrary to reason and logic, chief warrant officers (W2 and up) are commissioned by the president and are generally considered to be commissioned officers when there is a distinction drawn between commissioned officers and enlisted personnel. That said, I don't know how these sections have been interpreted.

[John F. Carr]

From LA Times, June 19 1993, author Art Pine:

In a terse, five-paragraph memorandum, the Air Force said that Maj. Gen. Harold N. Campbell had “violated (military law) by uttering disparaging remarks about the President” and would be severely reprimanded, docked almost $7,000 in pay and forced to retire July 1.
...
McPeak contended Friday that he was unable to determine precisely what Campbell had said. “The investigating officer got a variety of responses on that,” he asserted, “but it seemed to be everyone’s conclusion, unmistakably, that the remarks were disrespectful.”
Air Force authorities confirmed last week, however, that Campbell was reported to have described Clinton as “draft-dodging,” “pot-smoking,” “womanizing” and “gay-loving” during a speech on May 24 to about 250 maintenance workers at Soesterberg Air Base in Holland.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-06-19-mn-4709-story.html

The charge wasn't defamation and truth was not a defense. If a commissioned officer goes off on a rant about Trump, saying all those things millions of people say about him, the same law applies.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, Newsweek is reporting that CW2 Ellis is posting on facebook that she is alive, well, and wasn't flying the chopper involved in the crash.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hence my caveat about the unknown source.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, Newsweek posted their article an hour before you posted your comment. It was the first hit when I saw your comment and searched for her name. Just sayin'

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ellis the only tranny in the Army?

[Absaroka]

What does that have to do with the accuracy of "The pilot of the Black Hawk helicopter ...has been identified ... as Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2) Jo Ellis"?

Hint: you may not care about facts, but I do. And you aren't going to convince me of anything by posting things that are in fact false.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You are aware that you are engaging with an increasingly unstable old man, I assume?

"And you aren't going to convince me of anything by posting things that are in fact false."

Dr. Ed dispensed with facts years ago. He may be mentally ill.
No joy in that.

[bernard11]

Maybe don't rely on smobserved next time.

You'll look less like an idiot.

[Sarcastr0]

Females!

[RedheadedPharoh]

I bet your just like Jackson Bloodtongue Bonecaller and can't even define a "female".

[MoreCurious]

Dear Mr. Pharoh [sic]: Thank you for your brilliant, insightful comment. Now, please explain why it would matter if the pilot had indeed transitioned. Do you believe the pilot's gender or sexual identity had anything to do with the accident? Please explain how that could be a factor in the collision.

[Frank Drackman]

"From 1989 to 2013, the Collegiate Training Initiative program was a pipeline to a career in air traffic control. The program aimed to ensure future air traffic controllers had the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out the job," the Washington Times reported in May 2024.
"More than ten years ago, the Obama Administration scrapped 1000 qualified candidates. The administration’s justification was that the pool of applicants was not diverse enough, so they would be purged from consideration. Instead of hiring candidates with the most competency, individuals were elevated for hiring consideration based on their race.
"Despite their intent to expand the air traffic control hiring pool via DEI, the FAA has recently admitted they are woefully understaffed and that current air traffic controllers are severely overworked. One report found that only 3 of the 313 air traffic facilities around the nation met the FAA targets last year. This has forced the agency to admit safety could be jeopardized. To mitigate such danger, the agency has 'at times halted departures or otherwise slowed down air traffic.'”

[RedheadedPharoh]

Wait one second, no way this isn't President Trump's fault for eliminating DEI JUST BEFORE THE CRASH and sending out an EMAIL!

Don't you know anything about how systems work? The actions of President Trump the 3 days prior to the crash LITERALLY CAUSED the crash. Because that's how life works in the real world, exactly like in Democrat fantasies.

[David Nieporent]

If Trump ended the Ukraine war on Day 1 of his administration, like he promised he could and would, then I don't know why he can't crash planes on Day 9.

[RedheadedPharoh]

If you enjoy the salty goodness of govie tears, I'd encourage you to check a few minutes out on /r/fednews

Two parting facts before you go:
1.) The most active time on the subreddit is during working hours, naturally.
2.) These people get paid on average, in terms of total compensation, two times as much as the taxpayers they're milking.
3.) These are also the people who invented "Washington Monument Syndrome" and execute it with the sole purpose of harming as many taxpayers as possible so they can extort their unearned vig.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wowie Zowie the thread is on fire this morning.

[Frank Drackman]

the FAA's been hiring Dwarfs????
I can see it now
"Mr Rourke! Da Plane! Da Plane!!!"

[hobie]

"He falsely claimed the Federal Aviation Administration encouraged the hiring of those with “complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability and dwarfism.”"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-victory-lap-ahead-inauguration-213518860.html

"the woman President Donald Trump has nominated to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the powerful federal appeals court in Washington, distanced herself from inflammatory remarks she's made on sexual assault, LGBTQ rights and dwarf-tossing."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-judicial-pick-distances-date-rape-dwarf-tossing/story?id=60852417

Trump might have a thing about dwarfs...perhaps like sharks.

[Krayt]

Rao also raised eyebrows for her writings about a dwarf-tossing case, in which she argued that a dwarf-tossing ban denied little people legal agency and an opportunity to make money

A long time ago, some judge in Australia, I think, banned dwarf tossing, arguing it stripped dwarfs of their dignity.

I commented at the time that nothing gives free people dignity like patting them on the head and lecturing them they don't understand their own behavior.

Agency for me, but not for thee. You are now wards of the snotty state.

[Stella Link the dog]

Lots of laws deny people legal agency : prostitution laws, drug laws, laws against organ sales, laws against assisted suicide, laws against incest, and many more, I'm sure. Whether such laws are justified or not, they exist and seem to be a feature.

[Bwaaah]

"You are now wards of the snotty state."

The state isn't snotty. The people who animate the state are snotty. (just tryin' t' dab a bit o' lipstick on that pig. lol)

If it weren't for their feelings of pity, they'd have little feeling at all.

[John F. Carr]

In an otherwise boring decision about lobster fishing around endangered whales, the First Circuit answered a jurisdictional question:

28 USC 2107(b)(2) gives the government 60 days to file a notice of appeal from a decision of a District Court. 28 CFR 0.20(b) requires the Solicitor General to approve all appeals. In this suit against a government agency the government filed a notice of appeal within 60 days without having approval to appeal. Approval was granted after the 60 day period had expired. Is the court obliged to dismiss the appeal?

The appeal was allowed. The approval regulation does not affect the court's jurisdiction. The Justice Manual explicitly authorizes filing of notices of appeal while waiting for approval. If there was any doubt, the Manual explains what the Attorney General thinks the Attorney General's own regulation means.

This reminded me of the 30 day notice period for firing Inspectors General.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1480P-01A.pdf

On the merits, the lobstermen lose because Congress effectively ratified an administrative rule protecting endangered whales from being caught in lines. It's a bad century to be a fisherman off the coast of New England.

[Krayt]

Headlong rush by certain factions to shift all power to the feds bites them on the ass.

Go figure. Most pols can easily afford lobster morning, noon, and night. Don't worry!

[Noscitur a sociis]

This reminded me of the 30 day notice period for firing Inspectors General.

I’m not seeing the connection. The executive branch clearly has the authority to appeal; the CFR and DOJ policy involve its internal procedures for how to exercise that power. The IG statute is an attempt to by congress to impose an external restriction on the power of the executive branch.

[SRG2]

As expected, the good little Germans on this thread find themselves incapable of criticising Trump's comments on the crash. I don't know whether it's because you're lost all moral sense or because criticising Trump is giving a win to the libs, and that's unacceptable - which also suggests a loss of moral sense.

[ThePublius]

What do you mean by "good little Germans?"

[SRG2]

Craven authoritarian types.

I wonder, what is your graver concern, that I called people "good little Germans", or that none of them could bring themselves to criticise Trump's response?

[RedheadedPharoh]

What's more craven and authoritarian that wanting the government to control most of your life?

You people worship the government. You want it to control your healthcare, your jobs, your homes, your families, your schools. You think its a god, but it's just a bunch of overpaid, lazy midwits like Sarcastr0.

[Ed Grinberg]

Good point. Donald Trump has set up an entire department dedicated to reducing the federal government!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency

[RedheadedPharoh]

And DOGE will be the first government department/program to ever shutdown after it's completed it's mission!

[tylertusta]

Be careful. There's nothing more permanent than a temporary agency.

[SRG2]

What's more craven and authoritarian that wanting the government to control most of your life?

Well, going along with everything the leader of the government says is craven authoritarianism.

You people worship the government.

I am not "peoiple". And I don't.

BTW Trump is the head of the government. Trump worship from you and others is strong. Hence irony.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Historically speaking what's more associated with "authoritarianism", a big powerful central government, or a small weak central government?

What kind of government do you people prefer?

[Martinned2]

I suspect he meant you.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, I didn't know "German" was a pejorative. But then, I'd rather be called a German than Dutch (although I do, indeed, have Dutch blood).

The whole thing is fallacious, though. SRG2 is apparently outraged by the silence regarding Trump's remarks from Trump supporters, and goes full Godwin's Law. That goes double for us, regarding the silence, or outright denial, from you guys regarding Biden's remarks, behavior, and condition. But who cares, really?

[SRG2]

"German" is not a pejorative. "Good little German" is a richly deserved one.

SRG2 is apparently outraged by the silence regarding Trump's remarks from Trump supporters, and goes full Godwin's Law.

No - the outrage is the defence of his remarks. And I didn't mention Hitler. One must distinguish between Hitler and the people who followed him. Trump isn't Hitler. but the psychology of many of his supporters including some posters here is close enough to that of the non-party Germans who supported him in the 1930s. And does the Milgram Experiment ring a bell?

[ThePublius]

You implied Hitler. Else, "good little Germans" would make no sense, eh?

And no one here defended his remarks, that I recall, unless you interpret silence as defense.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"America's Hitler", someone once said...

[Ed Grinberg]

I guess the "logic" goes something like this:
- Trump criticizing the previous administration's DEI policies makes him Hitler.
- If you don't respond by foaming at the mouth ("How dare he!!!"), you're "good little Germans."
(FWIW, I am not sure SRG2's premises are solid...)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Trump is clearly no Hitler. Hitler served in his country's armed forces and actually saw combat.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know whether it's because you're lost all moral sense

I'm pretty sure that this presupposes facts very very very much not in evidence.

[Frank Drackman]

"Good little Germans"??
as a 1/2 German I resemble that remark, but I've got some "Good little Germans" for you
The Military Surgeons who've been performing "Sexual Reassignment Surgery" (I guess you could call cutting off a guy's Cock and Balls/Chick's Tits, Clit, and Ovaries "Reassignment") on Soliders/Sailors/Marines/Airmen/Guardians/WhateveryoucallCoastGuard for the last 4 years, violating pretty much all of the Hypocritic Oath (I know, it has no legal force)
While Veterans/Active Duty are lucky to get an Ibuprofen for their actual medical conditions, perfectly good Genitals have been getting "Reassigned"
In a Drackman Kingdom I'd sentence each of these Jackals to have their own Sexual Identity "Reassigned"
But it's not just the Surgeons, Surgeons can't Surgeon without a Scrub Tech, OR Nurse, Circulating Nurse, and oh yeah, someone to keep the Patients from coming to his/her/sie senses and running away as fast as they can,
So don't ask for whom's Genitals the Scalpel is coming for, it's coming for yours,
I mean if you've been complicit with Sexual Reassignment Surgery,
OK, we won't cut off your Genitals, just your medical license, and with it, your income, and then you can cut off your own Genitals

Frank

[ThePublius]

It has always irked me when Democrats and others who support or defend illegal immigration rationalize it by saying that we need these people to pick our crops, clean our houses, care for our children, and so forth. It reminds me of the Democratic defense of slavery in the 19th century. It's identical. Well, I guess I'm not the only one. I came by this interesting piece on PJ Media (I know, many of you will discount or dismiss it outright due to the source):
Disturbing Similarities: Dems on Slavery and Dems on Illegal Alien Labor

To those who won't click the link, here's a salient part:

"Democrats in the 1800s wanted Americans to believe that it was impossible to have a thriving economy or agriculture without slave labor. We know now that was false and that America never saw such economic growth as in the century following the abolishment of slavery. Now Democrats want us to believe that it is necessary to have illegal alien labor for prosperity. Again they are lying. Let us reject illegal migration as we once rejected slavery, and we will find not only that we continue prosperous, but that we will be freer and more prosperous than ever before."

[SRG2]

It reminds me of the Democratic defense of slavery in the 19th century. It's identical.

It isn't. Why are you so fucking stupid this morning? You're significantly more rational usually.

[ThePublius]

Gee, that's a thoughtful and compelling argument you make! /sarc

If it's not identical, how is it not? Haven't Dem pols said we need these people to pick our crops? (e.g., Nancy Pelosi.) Wasn't that what defenders of slavery said in the 19th century?

[David Nieporent]

If it's not identical, how is it not?

Banning slavery increased the labor supply; rounding up illegal immigrants decreases the labor supply. So, in other words, they're identical in many ways that don't exist, and no ways that do.

[ThePublius]

I don't understand how banning slavery could have increased the labor supply, particularly the agricultural labor supply. I've seen the argument that it increased the number of laborers, as those defined by working for wages; but that's an accounting artifact, not indicative of absolute labor, no?

[Frank Drackman]

Well you had all of those Fugitive Slave Catchers who had to find new jobs. Can you imagine if the South had won? you'd have
"Dawg, the Fugitive Slave Bounty Hunter"

[RedheadedPharoh]

Instead we get "Pharoh, the Illegal Immigrant Reporter".

lmao... I can't wait to start collecting my Patriot Bucks.

[bernard11]

Much more than an accounting artifact. It meant the former slaves could seek out employment they preferred, which would make the economy more efficient.

It also meant that some economically unprofitable enterprises ("unprofitable" in the sense that they only earned profits by virtue of access to coerced, largely uncompensated slave labor) would now fail, and be replaced by more productive activities.

I have long believed that slavery held back the South.

[not guilty]

Not only slavery, but Jim Crow held back the South as well. The plaintiffs in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), kvetched that the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exceeded the authority the Commerce Clause granted to Congress over interstate commerce. History has shown how wrong that contention was.

In twentieth century America probably the only event which had as much to do with bringing the South into this country's economic mainstream as the end of de jure segregation was the widespread availability of air conditioning.

[Frank Drackman]

Well you're even more fucking stupider, and ugly too! and your mom dresses you funny!

[Krayt]

It has always irked me when Democrats and others who support or defend illegal immigration rationalize it by saying that we need these people to pick our crops, clean our houses, care for our children, and so forth

Further evidence of flip flopping sides.

This is the conservative, pro-business argument for easy immigration. The left stood against it, as with Bernie and Cesar Chavez, of union farm workers fame, because it undercuts wages.

And now the Republicans nominally adopt the liberal stance, and the liberals the conservative one. :boggle

Of course, it's all driven by votes and demographic shifts. The one certain thing is the need to secure power per The Fundamental Theorem of Government!

[tylertusta]

we need these people to pick our crops, clean our houses, care for our children, and so forth

I think the more insidious part of how they talk about illegal immigration is that they're speaking in such terms because they think their political opponents think in those terms.

They believe their own propaganda. What fools.

[Roger S]

The better analogy is to the slave trade, which was abolished around 1800. Bringing in foreign workers today is like the slave trade of the 1700s.

[David Nieporent]

It's like that, minus the "bringing in" part. But, like any good right winger, you don't understand the concept of consent.

[Roger S]

The ethical slave traders would get informed consent from the slaves.

[Stella Link the dog]

"The ethical slave traders would get informed consent from the slaves."

Sounds like you've listening to Randy Newman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI_7AoPjyoA&ab_channel=RandyNewman

[Dan Schiavetta]

If that's the song I'm thinking of, wow what a great song.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It must be "Sail Away," right?

[BrotherMovesOn]

"The ethical slave traders would get informed consent from the slaves."

I can't tell if this is a joke or not, on its face, but coming from a poster who has heretofore displayed no sense of humor whatsoever ...

[John F. Carr]

In other First Circuit news, some COVID vaccine religious discrimination cases are still working their way through the system. Employers can follow CDC vaccination recommendations without legal risk. In one case the trial court "reasoned that the CDC's recommendations as to vaccination against COVID-19 and 'the medical and statistical information upon which they rest' were subject to judicial notice."

The employees who lost this month both claimed religious objections. Both lost because their employer would suffer "undue hardship" by having an unvaccinated person on the job. The trial judge had also ruled that one employee's religious beliefs were not sincere. That ruling was not necessary for the employee to lose.

The employees might have done better if they hired more expensive lawyers and expert witnesses. But I'm not sure of that. If the employer reasonably believes that worthless vaccines are in fact effective, is that not good enough to defeat a discrimination claim?

Presumably if Secretary Kennedy's CDC says "vaccines are junk" the legal landscape will change.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1527P-01A.pdf
https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1289P-01A.pdf

[tylertusta]

Ruy Teixeira has posted his thoughts on the Democratic Party's problems with basic governance, and I find myself agreeing with him:

Voters also see de facto open borders and uncontrolled immigration on Democrats’ watch as symptoms of public disorder and poor governance. In their view, illegal (Democrats cannot even bring themselves to use the word) immigrants are in fact breaking the law by making unauthorized entry to the United States and creating a chaotic situation at our nation’s border. And they were shocked that almost all candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination endorsed decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

And then, even more astonishingly to the typical voter, these law-breakers were rewarded for their behavior on the Democrats’ watch. Consider what happened when Biden came into office in 2021. He immediately issued executive orders dramatically loosening the rules for handling illegal immigrants. His party’s left wing and various immigration advocacy groups rapturously applauded this.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah, it's like Ilya Somin was running the federal administration for the last four years... A total disaster.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"de facto" open borders means increased border security under Biden. If they are that concerned about it, they should be upset Trump blocked a major border security bill that was crafted by a conservative senator. Striking indeed that Trump was "rewarded" for his actions by being elected.

[tylertusta]

Even without a border bill, Biden had the tools at his disposal but made the deliberate choice to not employ them until 2024. Voters recognized this; voters saw what Trump was able to do with border enforcement and contrasted that with what Biden didn't do with the same mechanisms that Trump used.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He used other methods before 2024.

Many people do not have a reasoned take on this issue including voting for the person that blocked a bill that would have provided stricter enforcement. For instance:

"About half of Americans—including 42 percent of Democrats—support mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. Yet, 56 percent of Americans—including 43 percent of Republicans—support expanding legal immigration opportunities. Almost half of Americans support expanding legal work permission for asylum seekers, and 60 percent support faster processing of asylum seekers' claims."

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trump-vs-biden-immigration-side-side-policy-comparison

Granted Republicans in the past also blocked attempts to pass immigration laws to help address this issue. So, it is par for the course though more blatant given his rhetoric/policies.

Biden > Trump on this issue though the "vibes" make it seem different including the more cruel separation policies of Trump and his overheated rhetoric.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o

Biden and Harris supported a new immigration bill crafted by a conservative senator. Trump blocked it. Biden increased deportations, which got pushback from many left-leaning people. But, on the "can't do anything right" standard, no credit is warranted.

Voters chose Trump for various reasons, the non-majority plurality on this issue seems rather confused.

[Roger S]

That bill would have let in 5000 aliens a day. It would have made the problem worse.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One misleading talking point does not erase the value of the bill.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656

[David Nieporent]

That bill would have let in 5000 aliens a day.

The bill did not "let in" anyone. It required the border to be completely closed if the 5,000 threshold was reached.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

An item from the AP: "The move announced Tuesday reverses guidance that for over a decade has restricted two key federal immigration agencies — Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection — from carrying out immigration enforcement in sensitive locations."

That would include schools and churches. An Episcopal priest wrote in opposition. Yes. She is the daughter of that Breyer.

https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/01/31/protect-religious-liberty-of-migrants/

Here is more info:

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/verify/immigration/ice-churches-schools-hospitals-immigration-enforcement-under-trump/536-cfefc119-41d5-4384-b303-31989ad61eea

[David Nieporent]

An item from the AP: "The move announced Tuesday reverses guidance that for over a decade has restricted two key federal immigration agencies — Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection — from carrying out immigration enforcement in sensitive locations.""

Remember, the cruelty is the point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember, sending people back to their own country when they're illegally present in this one isn't "cruelty", because they have no right to be in this country to be deprived of.

[Sarcastr0]

When I say you give zero weight to the humanity of illegals, this is what I mean.

[Michael Ejercito]

If I told you that Canada excludes Americans with criminal records from visiting, would you believe me?

[Sarcastr0]

That you are spouting irrelevant facts and should get that looked at.

[Michael Ejercito]

How is that irrelevant?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The constitution does grant to ALL people the right to due process regarding US government actions.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hey murderer, child molester, or other criminal Democrat constituency, go hide out in a church or school so the Democrat police won't arrest you lest they be cruel!

[grb]

As I've noted before, the social contract between Trump & MAGA is based on one thing alone : Entertainment. Even your average MAGA-type must know Trump secretly holds him in contempt. He must know Trump's only real allegiance is to the wealthy. But as long as Trump entertains them with cartoon words & theatrical actions against the people they hate, contract fulfilled. Every time Trump wipes his lard ass on another standard, ethical constraint, or civic institution, MAGA slaps their knee with glee and hoots with joy.

So performance cruelty is pretty much the only sacrosanct thing from Trump's incoherent campaign. He's already admitted a dozen or more of his campaign promises were lies and MAGA doesn't care. They just want their TV viewing pleasure.

[David Nieporent]

He must know Trump's only real allegiance is to the wealthy.

No. This is a fill-in-the-blanks attack on Republicans. Trump has no allegiance to the wealthy. His only allegiance is to himself. He cares about the wealthy — like everyone else — only to the extent they can do something for him, but with the wealthy he's also intimidated by people who are actually accomplished on their own merits.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, your invincible conviction that everyone who disagrees with you is evil and/or an idiot gets a bit tiresome after a while.

It's not performative cruelty, because it's not cruelty in the first place, to deport criminal aliens.

[David Nieporent]

Even if the anti-immigration argument from the self-proclaimed libertarian weren't inherently wrong, it would miss the point. Even if doing X is justified, there can be a cruel and non-cruel way to do X.

[Stella Link the dog]

The Oklahoma State Department of Education head, Ryan Walters, was on TV the other day describing a rule to be imposed on Oklahoma public schools requiring the tracking of the immigration status of students and of their parents, regardless of the citizenship of the children. The obvious result of such a policy would be to discourage undocumented parents from enrolling their US citizen children in school. Even for a world famous crackpot like Walters, this seemed to me to be extreme and cruel.

Reading articles today, the proposal may have been revised to only require providing documentation for prospective students, but still the result would be to discourage parents from enrolling children that are, as far as I can discern, entitled by law to public education regardless of status. Still seems extreme and cruel.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what's the problem? They can get an education in their home countries, can't they?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Brilliant observation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, try and see what happens if you live in one school district, and sneakily enroll your kid in another district, and they find out.

These are people who aren't supposed to be here, they're supposed to be someplace else. That implies that they're supposed to be getting their educations someplace else.

This all boils down to an absolute determination to treat the underlying immigration offense as meaningless, so that you can't do ANYTHING to enforce the immigration law.

[Sarcastr0]

children that are, as far as I can discern, entitled by law to public education regardless of status
This is their home country, Brett.

Fuck them American Citizen kids.

I've seen no cruelty that will move the needle for you.

[David Nieporent]

Look, try and see what happens if you live in one school district, and sneakily enroll your kid in another district, and they find out.

These are people who aren't supposed to be here, they're supposed to be someplace else. That implies that they're supposed to be getting their educations someplace else.

Your first and second paragraphs are not the same thing. It's true that you can get in trouble if you enroll in district a while living in district b (while lying about it, I mean.) But there is no "supposed to be" element there. What matters is where you actually do live.

[David Nieporent]

So, what's the problem? They can get an education in their home countries, can't they?

This is their home country.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Even if doing X is justified, there can be a cruel and non-cruel way to do X."

Sure, and if they were slapping razor edged shackles on the deportees, or forcing them to crouch for hours at a time, or feeding them cockroaches in detention, you'd have a point. But they're not.

They're treating them like ordinary criminals.

[Sarcastr0]

First, as discussed you they are not felons or anything like that.

Second, are they treating them like, though? Treating them like normal criminals? Because there seems some dispute on where the police make arrests and where they don't.

And third, I see I've found the threshold for what cruelty is, and it's torture.

Dehumanization, Brett. You may not feel you're doing it but the only explanation for what you want to happen to these people and their American citizen children is that these people are not human to you.

[Michael Ejercito]

How are they being dehumanized?

[bernard11]

Of course it's cruelty. Being legal doesn't change that.

And how quickly and eagerly you refer to "criminal aliens." To read your comments one would think immigrating illegally was a heinous crime, and the perps are lucky not to be hanged. Meanwhile. Trump's crimes are as nothing in your eyes.

[Commenter_XY]

They are criminals, bernard11. They broke our immigration laws. That makes them criminals.

If you want to pick and choose the laws you enforce, can I pick too?

[Josh R]

As I said to you before, unlawful presence is not a crime. Thus, those in the country illegally who overstayed their visas have committed no crime. And those whose only crime is the misdemeanor of illegal entry do not compare to those who have committed violent felonies.

[Kazinski]

So should local police also announce fugitives are safe from apprehension at churches and schools too?

What's the actual difference?

Especially since this administration is not doing random immigration sweeps anyway, they are doing targeted arrests of criminals and aliens that already have deportation orders.

[David Nieporent]

Absent exigent circumstances, I do not think police should be arresting people who are going to church or picking up their kids from school, no. One thing that makes the immigration pickups worse, though, is that if police arrest someone they take him to the local jail where the family can either visit or bail him out; when immigration grabs someone, the person can effectively disappear. He may end up out of the country before the family even knows.

[Commenter_XY]

Please define exigent.

Example: ICE comes to arrest some dirtbag illegal alien rapist at a speakeasy next to a Shinto Temple, and poor innocent illegal alien 'not a rapist' Wong Kim just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, like at that Shinto Temple or something. Is it Ok for ICE to arrest him? You say no?

[Michael Ejercito]

Yes

[bernard11]

Kazinski,

They are picking people up off the streets and putting. them in jail.

Now Trump wants to send them to Guantanamo, a handy way to deprive them of some rights.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Now Trump wants to send them to Guantanamo"

30,000 of them. The largest US prison is Angola (Louisiana State Penitentiary ) with capacity for 6300.

About the people being sent to Guantanamo Trump said, "Some of them are so bad we don't even trust the countries to hold them because we don't want them coming back. So we're going to send them out to Guantanamo,"

[Kazinski]

I don't know if it will get anywhere near that high, its probably only for people who's native countries refuse to accept them back.

The refuge population at Guantanamo topped out at 12,500 in the 90's under the Clinton administration.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They are picking people up off the streets and putting. them in jail."

That's actually a normal thing to do with criminals, though if you've been living for a while in a Democratic city you might have forgotten that.

[bernard11]

It's a normal thing when you have good reason to suspect the person is a criminal. Not normal otherwise.

Once again, the degree of criminality you assign illegal immigration is mind-boggling. Yet not only is being illegally present not a crime at all, no matter how much you wish it were, crossing the border illegally is usually a misdemeanor.

Yet you act like it's a major felony. I note you don't apply the same principles to the J6 insurrectionists.

[Kazinski]

According to CBS news 660,000 of the illegal aliens at the top of the list are criminals, either convicted or with outstanding criminal warrants.

And then there are another 1.4 million with existing deportation orders.

So I don't think you have to worry about non criminal illegal aliens just rounded up, unless they happen to be encountered in the company of the high priority targets.

[Brett Bellmore]

As Kazinski said.

I am absolutely in awe of the determination lefty posters here are displaying to ignore that the people being deported right now are CRIMINALS.

Not just criminals because they're here illegally, criminals who happen to be here illegally. They're the high priority deportations that Biden was blowing off.

And yet, you insist on repeatedly pretending that Trump was currently deporting Mother Teresa.

[bernard11]

Yet Trump has made no such distinctions (in practice, not rhetoric).

Still, it's nice to hear at least suggest that maybe some of these people shouldn't be arrested and deported. Of course, your previous many comments on the subject don't support that idea, so you've either rethought, or are lying.

I hope it's the former. Better for your soul.

[Bob from Ohio]

We don't recognize hiding in churches as sanctuary from criminal arrest, this is no different. Quasimoda is out of luck if he is an illegal alien here.

[David Nieporent]

We do not have a formal sanctuary doctrine where we recognize churches as outside the jurisdiction of civil law, but I think you'll find that in fact police do not generally barge into churches to make arrests outside of exigent circumstances. (Nor, contrary to Law & Order, do they typically grab doctors in the operating rooms, professors as they're in the middle of lectures, or corporate executives in the middle of board meetings.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"barge into churches"

The ICE policy barred waiting outside, or arresting at school drop offs.

ICE will not barge into churches because they need a warrant or consent.

[David Nieporent]

ICE will not barge into churches because they need a warrant or consent.

A warrant is not necessary to enter an area open to the public.

[Frank Drackman]

Army's sure taking their time naming the Captain in the Blackhawk, almost like there's something embarrassing about it.

[Roger S]

Maybe the DEI problem was in the helicopter, not the air traffic control.

[grb]

"The crew chief of the helicopter was identified as 29-year-old Ryan O'Hara, CBS News learned Thursday. O'Hara was a husband and father to a 1-year-old son, his local Reserve Officers' Training Corps program said in a social media post about his death."

And racist masturbatory fantasies aside, the poor man has a very white face (may he rest in peace).

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/ryan-ohara-black-hawk-crew-chief-dc-midair-crash-was-georgia-high-school-grad

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Grb, I'll cut you some slack, since the closest you've been to an Army is blowing your "Anatomically Correct" GI Joe (with the "Kung Fu Grip!")
but while the Crew Chief is a vital member of the Crew, responsible for ensuring that every part and system is "Good to Go"
His very white face wasn't the one who flew the Blackhawk into the path of the CRJ.
And it wasn't the CW2
It was the Female Captain, doing her Evaluation Flight, (Please don't tell me she passed)
who the Army still hasn't Identified.

Frank

[grb]

Fucking 6yr veteran in the Army National Guard, you buffoon...

[Frank Drackman]

Like I said.....

[Frank Drackman]

So thats like what, 72 weekends and 12 weeks during the summer? 6 more years and you'll almost have a years worth of service!

[John 4]

Could you please learn how to use capitalization properly?

[Kazinski]

I was assured that in order to fix the border, and illegal immigration that legislation was needed, and some went further to say Trump blocked the legislation because he wanted chaos the border, and Joe Biden couldn't fix the border without the legislation.

10 days into his presidency Trump has made incredible strides fixing the border, and now starting with the 660,000 who have committed crimes here, and the 1.4 million who already had their asylum or visa applications denied and have existing deportation orders, he is reversing the flow.

[Roger S]

Trump would have a much more difficult time, if that stupid law had passed.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible strides
…
Now starting.

Come on man.

Have patience or be less of a tool.

[Kazinski]

I would say illegal border encounters down 93% would qualify as "incredible strides" in less than 10 days. But you are right, we need to make sure it continues.

"The graph also shows that border encounters have remained low while Trump has been in office, peaking at 331 on January 27. That gives Trump a 7-day average of 148 encounters, compared to Biden's average during his final 19 days in office of 2,087, according to the graph."

https://www.newsweek.com/border-encounters-january-trump-immigration-2022931

Now these figures are from the Whitehouse, but CBP will release their January figures in a week to 10 days.

[David Nieporent]

"The graph also shows that border encounters have remained low while Trump has been in office, peaking at 331 on January 27. That gives Trump a 7-day average of 148 encounters, compared to Biden's average during his final 19 days in office of 2,087, according to the graph."

So, just to be clear, Biden was arresting 10x as many illegal immigrants as Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, and letting them the fuck go to fucking rape and fucking murder fucking American Fucking Nursing fucking students like fucking Laken (not "Lincoln" as Demented Joe called her in his State of the Onion less than a year ago) Riley.
Do I have to draw you a Diaphragm? Yeah, Sleepy Joe, and his "Fresh, Clean, Storybook (Man!)" Barry Hussein did the same, they "Arrested" "Sign here and make sure you show up for your court hearing in 7 years!" and then released them

Seriously, you should change your handle from "Never Potent" to "Never Coherent"

Frank

[Kazinski]

Where was he putting them after the "arrests"?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Getting their free plane tickets, debit cards, and rents paid by taxpayers that they would then go on to rape and steal from.

Just like the Democrats want.

[Sarcastr0]

So to establish these amazing strides, you need to use some hardcore speculation to ignore Biden's actions on the border.

If Trump's gonna do so well, you can wait till he actually does well to get out your pom-poms.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I know right? The whole country was just speculating and having a mass delusion over an insecure border that's the most secure it's ever been in like forever human history of all time.

The entire country, except for elite "in-the-know" Democrat govies like you who never lie with their statistics!

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I guess the strides are not so amazing after all.

He is just going after the low hanging fruit. From the Whitehouse press briefing today:

"97% of the deportations that this administration has made thus far are of individuals who had a removal order from the previous administration but were never removed from the interior of our country.”

[Sarcastr0]

You provide no baseline, just imply Biden wasn’t moving on deportation of criminals.

Is the number higher or lower or you don’t know?

[Kazinski]

Well if the number isn't going up, then what is everyone complaining about?

Are you saying the media and the Trump administration are engaged in a psyop and lying to us?

And those jam packed military flights of deportees are a hoax?
https://apnews.com/article/immigration-deportation-military-trump-texas-33dca51d9fe709bfa6f2c69e065d8e65

[Sarcastr0]

People aren't complaining about the number, but about the cruelty.

You already got wrecked by DMN about the number.

And now you point to performative flights over numbers, because you've got nothing.

This is really early days yet; I'm not saying anything about how it'll look later.

But right now? You absolutely jumped the gun. With a really cultish OP citing incredible strides that do not yet exist.

[Kazinski]

Funny, I don't feel wrecked.

He didn't answer what jail Biden was putting those 10x the number of "arrest[ees]" in.

You aren't arresting them if you are just letting them go.

[Commenter_XY]

Like election denialism, the progs like Sarcastr0 are having a hard time accepting reality; POTUS Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do.

And he can talk about it directly to the press, a nice change.

[Krayt]

Something's not right about the collision. The helicopter was supposed to stay below 200' until well south of the airport. This is to have worst case scenario of 200' vertical difference between landing planes on approach and helicopers.

It seems to have gone up well oved 100' in the last moments, maybe 200. It seems like a heck of a mistake, piled on top of other mistakes. You can see the rise on the grainy zoom in.

Hmmm...

[Kazinski]

So you are speculating that it was an intentional suicide attack?

I'm not a helicopter pilot but I'm going to speculate it would be hard for a helicopter pilot to intentionally hit an airliner coming in for a landing, and there are a lot more stationary targets available.

And I don't think a bunch of figure skaters are a high profile enough to target deliberately.

People do stupid things, or lose concentration and let stupid things happen to them all the time, sometimes even helicopter pilots.

[David Nieporent]

It seems like a heck of a mistake, piled on top of other mistakes.

I mean, a plane and a helicopter collided. Unless there was equipment failure, that there were multiple colossal mistakes is pretty much a given.

[Krayt]

Just one theory. We shall see. My heart isn't set on it.

During 9/11, even after the second plane hit, I was trying to conjure into existence a reason for some systemic problem that would guide two planes into the towers. Later I vowed to never to work that hard to disregard evidence to the contrary.

Heli appeared to be playing games with 3 previous planes, including erratic turns on 3rd.

Heli suddenly flies higher and "veers off course", according to CNN a few minutes ago.

These could have mundane explanations. But maybe not.

Also, (probably) unrelated, all fed web sites were supposed to "go dark" a few minutes ago. Weird day.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The CRJ pilots are likely not at fault whatsoever. They were in a left-hand turn lining up for Runway 33, and thus seeing traffic coming from their lower-right side would have been exceedingly difficult.

The helicopter, PAT 25, was higher than they were supposed to be, father out towards the water than they were supposed to be, and seemingly were visual on the wrong aircraft. Of those three things, the last one is easily explained because it is very difficult to keep track of a plane in the dark, among urban lights, that is on a collision course, because the LOS rate is basically zero.

Why was PAT 25 too high (according to the radar track, their altitude was actually fluctuating wildly)? Why wasn't it following the right course? Why did neither the PIC or co-pilot evidently notice this or address it, or if so, what did they do to try and correct it? Those questions are more difficult to explain away other than the easy answers of inattention, loss of situational awareness, or confidence that they were in fact looking at the right aircraft and had nothing to worry about.

Nothing from the ATC audio sounds out of place, or like any of the pilots or ATC were behind the aircraft. The controller did not sound stressed or rushed and their instructions were clear and proper.

The crew of PAT 25 is likely to bear the brunt of the blame for this tragedy. Hopefully lessons are learned from this and the aviation safety-net can cinch down a bit tighter to help prevent similar accidents in the future.

[SykesFive]

The chopper was under a "see and avoid" regime so everybody was relying on the chopper crew to spot the airliner and not hit it. ATC was not micromanaging the chopper. Under those circumstances, the chopper moving around isn't necessarily a big deal: maybe they are seeing and avoiding. So this wouldn't had led ATC (let alone the airliner crew) to do anything different.

What an independent commission would probably conclude overall is that (i) the chopper crew screwed up in some way (particulars will be determined); (ii) relying on the chopper crew to be perfect in this situation was unrealistic (aka "we've been lucky for years"); (iii) having military choppers do training flights in that particular airspace where airliners are landing invites disaster; and (iv) prudence says you either close DCA (which Congress would hate) or have the military guys train elsewhere (kind of hard since flying that particular airspace is what they're training to do).

[Absaroka]

Some rando posted that the helo crew was practicing a 'Continuity of Government' mission, which I gathered was 'the missiles are inbound, swoop down to the SecDef's house at 0200 and take him to the doomsday plane' thing. In which case I dunno if training in Nevada would meet the need; maybe being familiar with the local area is essential.

To be clear, training elsewhere might meet the need, or they need to close the airspace for 8 hours once a month, I dunno, way outside my lane. Everything I know about this comes from Clancy novels :-). But perhaps it wasn't just a routine 'we need to fly three hours under goggles once a month, doesn't matter where' thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More Mount Weather -- but do it at 3AM when there are fewer flights and then close that runway. And maybe night vision goggles aren't the best option there.

[Absaroka]

"And maybe night vision goggles aren't the best option there."

In your experience, is it best to practice missions that will be flown with night vision using night vision, or reserve that for when/if it's showtime?

Or perhaps your experience indicates that mission (if that is what it was) is best flown in the dark without night vision?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Other aircraft don't use them, and I don't believe that MedFlight hilos use them.

[Absaroka]

"Other aircraft don't use them,"

You are asserting that military pilots in many types of aircraft don't fly using night vision? You, ahem, might want to research that a bit.

If you are saying that civilian pilots don't generally use them, I expect that's true.

Just FWIW, because you keep saying it, I think 'helo' is the normal vernacular for helicopter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Other, i.e. non-military, aircraft.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c28QYGb0XIQ

[Absaroka]

Well, that's a pretty authoritative source!

(Dunno how much Clancy you read, but heading for the plane is rather more common. And ... they are fiction.)

[BrotherMovesOn]

Again, Dr. Ed may be suffering from delusions and experiencing other mental health challenges.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There were two CRJs in the flight path.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you ever driven a little, umm, maybe 10% faster than you should have? than you thought you were driving? Swerved a little bit into the other lane? had to slam the brakes on at the last minute when you weren't paying attention? Military Aviation isn't any different.

[Krayt]

Yeah...but this was some kind of training refresher mission. How often do you do that with the driving instructor in the car?

[Krayt]

The downside is one would have expected it to come out fairly quickly. I withdraw the suggestion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The old Central Artery in Boston (removed 2004) had a place posted as "truck extreme rollover hazard" by Haymarket Square when you were going south. It was posted at 35 MPH, it was scary at 25 MPH -- you could feel the vehicle shifting and look out the passenger window straight down to the ground below.

I've done lots of things I shouldn't have done -- I assure you, but I didn't do them there!

She knew she was crossing the ends of active runways -- a place where particular caution was required...

[grb]

I saw The Brutalist last night. As cinephile, I was deeply impressed. There is fresh vibrant creativity in scene after scene. I was continually seeing things done in a way I’ve never seen before, such as how to mix sound with video or focus on details peripheral to the main action. Yet despite being blisteringly fresh & new, none of this felt showy or ostentatious.

As an architect, not so much. This wasn’t unexpected. I’m a devoted mystery reader & once heard of one set in a conclave of architects. After buying it with joy, I abandoned the book by Chapter Two. What the general reader might find unique in its setup, I found unbearably cliched. But The Brutalist went beyond that. It’s not just that the movie is based on one of the worse architectural styles of the 20th Century and exaggerates that style to make it worse still. Or that the main character is contemptuous to client, contractor, and workers in a way we wouldn’t (even if we could get away with it). But there are two definitions of the character’s architecture in the movie, with the first one cribbed (archaic def) and the second grotesquely bizarre. I don’t think the director/screenwriter likes us very much.

On the other hand, there was one scene where he’s drawing by hand while standing, using a drafting machine. Those were the good old days! And another shot in the Carrara marble quarries filled me with awestruck joy. All in all, I’m not entirely convinced the movie is more than the sum of its (spectacular) parts. A second viewing is needed.

[myself]

I'm surprised there's not more talk of Trump proposing to violate the USMCA with his 25% tariffs. Even if you could make the security argument again Mexico claiming it's a security concern with Canada is laughable.

I don't see why people are so numb to the idea that Trump is about to blatantly violate his own trade agreement.

[ducksalad]

At this point no one, domestic or foreign, should make any plans or investments based on US "agreements", unless the deal fully pays off before the next inauguration.

Reneging on US agreements - complete with open scoffing at the suckers who bought in - is now considered an essential for any POTUS to prove that's he a strong winner and his predecessors were weak. Even if the predecessor was himself.

The only thing that's worth relying on a little bit is a treaty approved by 2/3 of the Senate. Although I expect any day to see WH lawyers make a claim that it's unconstitutional for treaties to bind the president.

[Commenter_XY]

You sure it is reneging?

[myself]

What other description would you use? We have a free trade agreement, HIS free trade agreement, and he's literally putting tariffs on us because of a trade deficit.

[Frank Drackman]

and May-He-Co's violating whatever agreement it is when they let every Tomas, Ricardo, and Harilos scramble over the border like a bunch of Mexican Jumping Beans, I'll make a deal, you can keep your Fent-a-Nol (given up trying to get you Idiots to pronounce it correctly) on your side, and we'll keep our "Dinero" on our side.
I don't get it, I've been to Tiajuana, And there was this guy there and he was all, "Hey, you gotta come and check out one of these shows." And, you know, it's a woman fuckin' a horse. And you get there and you're thinking "Oh, a woman fuckin' a horse." And you get there, and it is not as a great as you thought it would be. It's kinda gross. I mean, it was really givin' it to her. To be honest, we all just felt bad for her. Kinda felt bad for the horse.

Frank

[questioner7]

Prof. Volokh: There's talk of CBS settling Trump's lawsuit alleging skewed pro-Harris reporting. Isn't such liability precluded by the First Amendment? What's alleged doesn't seem to fit the recognized free speech exceptions like defamation, obscenity or speech integral to (some separate) criminal conduct. Thanks!

[ducksalad]

EV already had a post on it:

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/11/01/trump-v-cbs-broadcasting-inc-likely-going-nowhere/

As others have pointed out, it's irrelevant whether the lawsuit has any merit or what the First Amendment says. What matters is that Trump's discretionary approval is needed for a merger that is important to CBS, and that (unrelatedly, of course!) he happens to be asking for money from them.

Over the centuries a huge number of schemes to launder bribes have been invented. This appears to be new one: payee files a pretext lawsuit, payer pretends to settle. A judge even signs off on it for legitimacy.

It's not impossible that CBS and Trump planned the lawsuit together. But more likely Trump figured CBS would understand their part without anything explicit being said.

[John F. Carr]

Trump might have done it for the publicity and been pleasantly surprised when he won.

[Kazinski]

Deepseek a Chinese AI entrant caused a sharp sell off in AI stocks a few days ago claiming they had spent only 6 million dollars on their processors, and developing and training their model.

Now there is an investigation as to whether Deepseek got access to advanced NVIDIA chips illegally through Singapore.

And an AI industry analyst says their actual spending on developing and running their model is at least a half a billion dollars.

https://semianalysis.com/2025/01/31/deepseek-debates/

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea what's correct here, but I admit I was wondering when the announcement was made the other day why people weren't more skeptical of its accuracy.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Karoline Leavitt ain't playin' around with you fools:

“When you are flying on an airplane with your loved ones, do you pray that your plane lands safely? Or do you pray your pilot has a certain skin color?
I think we know the answer to that question.”

Powerful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And might she perhaps know the race of the unnamed female Army Captain?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hakeem Jeffries is out there calling on Democrats to fight people in the streets.

How disgusting are Democrats?

[hobie]

'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'

[grb]

"Forget it, Jake, it's just the Nazi Child" (back with a new name)

[Stella Link the dog]

“We are gonna fight it legislatively. We are gonna fight it in the courts. And we’re gonna fight it in the streets,” Jeffries said.
I don't think he was advocating insurrection or violence, but he should have chosen his words with more discretion.

[tylertusta]

I think his words are fine. I think they're fine even if he said they would fight like Senator Sanders does.

[Riva]

"And we’re gonna fight it in the streets” is actually quite easily and plainly construed as a call to violence. Now, by comparison, something like, "Go peacefully and patriotically," is quite clearly not.

[Frank Drackman]

In the World of Knee-Grows, there are Field Knee-Grows who work in the Fields and House Knee-Grows who work in Massa's House,
Hakeem Jefferson is literally a "House" Knee-Grow (of the "Motisa" Tribe, they go around saying,
"Motisa? Motisa?")

Frank

[Riva]

And now I'm muting you. Go play somewhere else.

[Michael Ejercito]

What was wrong with that quote?

[MoreCurious]

Your question: How disgusting are Democrats? The answer: Nowhere near as disgusting as bigots like you. Earlier today you implied that it would matter if a transgender woman had been piloting the helicopter in the collision over the Potomac River. But you were too much of a coward to explain your comment. So I'll ask again: Even if the pilot had in fact transitioned, why would it matter? Do you believe the pilot's gender or sexual identity had anything to do with the accident? Please explain how that could be a factor in the collision.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Because if it was a tranny, then a mentally ill lunatic who spends 4 hours a day dilating a wound between their legs was piloting a helicopter and, statistically speaking, probably a committed suicide.

I didn't think I needed to explain the obvious implications.

[MoreCurious]

Your non-answer serves to confirm that you are a bigot. And, by the way, you have no proof of anything you wrote in your comment. If you're worried about other VC followers judging you, it's too late. Every comment you submit is just more evidence of the hate you carry in your heart.

[RedheadedPharoh]

My "non-answer" directly answers your query.

And believe me, I care more about the smell of a gnats fart than what vile, subhuman Democrats like you or alien democracy interferers like Martinned2 think of me.

[MoreCurious]

That's a lot of hate and anger you're carrying around. It's pretty pathetic that you can't contribute anything to the VC except for the inarticulate ravings of a sad, unaccomplished loser.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey! I'm the inarticulate raving unaccomplished loser on this "Conspiracy"!!!!
and "Redheaded Pharoh" is at least historically accurate, there were Redheaded Pharohs, Cleopatra was a Greek blonde (dye job from what I've heard) with a Jimmy Durante Schnoz, wasn't till Moe-hammed sent his Peace-Loving Missionaries west that Egypt became the African Shit-hole it is now, I don't blame the Palestinians for not wanting to go there (or Jordan, or Lebanon, or Syria)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sex hormones mess with vision. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8949880/

Someone taking tranny drugs should not be flying. She's medically unqualified the same way that a diabetic is unqualified, and for the very same reason -- she needs to see where she is going.

[Absaroka]

Could you point out in the paper you cited where it talks about it mattering whether the hormones in question are natural or supplemental?

Because that distinction seems fundamental to your thesis.

[MoreCurious]

Why do you continue to suggest that the pilot was a woman when -- as far as I can tell -- the pilot has not yet been identified?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Because there have been reports online that it was a tranny.
Rachel Maddow or the other cows on the View aren't giving you all the news.

[MoreCurious]

Thanks for the expected, inarticulate comment. More evidence that you need a serious intervention. Have you no family or friends who can help you dig out of the hole you've dug for yourself?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Yeah, I need an intervention because I have a broader universe of news sources than you do.

You're an ignorant boob.

[Absaroka]

One of the pilots was female.

If it turns out that the helo crew made an error, which seems likely with the partial info we have, and if the error was made by the female pilot (which we may or may not discover, maybe there is a black box that knows which seat was flying), then Ed can assert the crash was a DEI thing. Which is possible, but unfounded at this point, but Ed is impatient.

After all, male pilots don't make mistakes,

(if you follow links from there, the pilot is referred to as 'he')

[Sarcastr0]

Even at that point, Ed'd not be asserting with a lot of support.

It is still assuming a lot to jump from woman to DEI to worse at her job.

[Dr. Ed 2]

From Absaroka's cited story:
"The withholding of a name in instances like this is a highly unusual move. The identity of the third crew member has already drawn intense scrutiny online."[emphasis added]

"Highly unusual move" -- what is being hidden?

[Absaroka]

Perhaps the family likes its privacy - people can be funny about that. Perhaps she is trans. Perhaps she is the best pilot since Chuck Yeager. Perhaps she was incompetent but was passed out of flight school because her Daddy was a general. Perhaps the other pilot was on the controls while she worked the radio or was troubleshooting a hydraulic problem.

If it turns out, for example, that she - or the male pilot - was incompetent but was passed because of nepotism, I'll be right there with you with a pitchfork. But not until then.

Latching onto one possible set of possibilities from a large universe of possibilities because they reinforce your political priors is a bad habit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Army initially stated two males., one female -- if the two males are identified, who's left?

[Frank Drackman]

My Uncle was a Dekalb County Cop in the 80's at the peak of the Gang/Crack Error,
Some of the Gangs were the "BBB"s(Bad Black Boys) "SSN"s (Southside N-words) and various Flavors of Bloods and Crips. One of my Cousins asked him if he was scared working in such a dangerous area, and he said, No, I'm with the "WPWG*". He finally retired early when the outgoing Sherriff had the Sherriff-Elect murdered, That's Atlanta for you, we might be "Too Busy to Hate" but don't catch us on a slow night

*White People With Guns

Frank

[Kazinski]

The outgoing DNC Chairman is saying both that the party should have stuck with Joe Biden as the nominee in 2024, and that Kamala Harris can win as their 2028 candidate:

"The outgoing chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) said in a wide-ranging interview published Friday that the party should have stuck with President Biden as its nominee during the 2024 election."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5118524-dnc-chair-jaime-harrison-joe-biden-2024/

https://x.com/theblaze/status/1885371579216826472?t=YZAXXKaf4s4wUHlFXU2oJg&s=19

With that kind of clear thinking, I wonder why they are replacing him.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I wonder why they are replacing him."

I wonder why they hired him. His claim to political knowledge was raising a bunch of money on a hopeless senate race and losing by ten points

GOP would have won senate seats in Michigan, Nevada , Wisconsin if Biden was on the ticket.

[Commenter_XY]

I am sorry to see him go. 😉

[Kazinski]

Well raising money especially for hopeless races is a valuable skill, especially among the political class.

Even spending a billion and a half dollars on a losing race isn't a total waste, the money just found new homes.

[David Nieporent]

I wonder why they hired him. His claim to political knowledge was raising a bunch of money on a hopeless senate race and losing by ten points

Well, since it's a fundraising position, having a history of raising a bunch of money is a normal thing to look at.

[SRG2]

Resistance to Texas's new Christian education curriculum:

A coalition of legal organizations on Thursday called on Texas school district leaders to reject the adoption of a recently approved state curriculum heavily infused with references to Christianity and biblical teachings.

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/30/texas-aclu-bible-bluebonnet-curriculum/

a spokesperson for the Texas Education Agency said “public schools may not provide religious instruction, and there is no religious instruction in Bluebonnet Learning.”

This would appear to be untrue.
https://forward.com/opinion/677608/bluebonnet-curriculum-jewish-houston-texas-bible/

In another example of biblical illiteracy, the curriculum introduces the biblical Queen Esther to second graders in a unit on “fighting for a cause.” Again, this story is presented as historical, though there is little in the story and nothing outside the Bible to indicate its historicity. More egregiously, the curriculum writes God and faith into a biblical book that famously mentions neither. Esther’s fast is given religious motives, while the text says nothing of the sort. Esther is characterized as fighting for the right of the Jews to practice their own religion, with the curriculum drawing a parallel between this story and historical tales of people seeking religious freedom in the United States.

Again, religious belief is not mentioned in Esther. What is at stake is the survival of the Jews as a people. This is nothing less than a Christian colonization of the story of Esther to make it look more like Protestant narratives of freedom of worship.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This would appear to be untrue."

Maybe, you are citing an opinion piece. One that uses "Christian colonization" unironically.

Nothing wrong with using even a mythical person as a good example.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One group that works against such a curriculum is the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

https://bjconline.org/texas-oklahoma-louisiana-public-school-classrooms-112624/

[Dr. Ed 2]

The story of Esther is in the Christian Bible, and Esther was a common Protestant girl's name in the late 19th Century.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And?

[SRG2]

And it's a story - an actual intentional work of fiction.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Texas law also requires that all K-12 reading literature be about Texas.

[Absaroka]

That's interesting. Here is the required reading list for the Alamo Heights High School in San Antonio.

I see 'Lord of the Flies', 'The Great Gatsby', 'Hamlet', etc. Could you sketch out how you feel those are 'about Texas'?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Normally, I’d do the research and post it, but I’m feeling lazy.

If you can show authority that Texas law says “all K-12 reading literature be about Texas.“, I will pay you $100 and never post on this site again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's in my dissertation.

[Absaroka]

Does your dissertation perhaps footnote its sources? If so, and if you have access to a copy, perhaps you could share that footnote?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Post your $100 as a bond with EV first.

I really don't feel like bothering to look up the cite for someone who's not going to believe me anyway.

[Absaroka]

I will absolutely believe a cite from texas.gov that says "all K-12 reading literature be about Texas".

Is it your opinion that 'Hamlet' and 'Lord of the Flies' are about Texas, or is that school district violating the law?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I will pay you $100 right now for a copy of your dissertation.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Share it here, I'll pitch in $50.

[David Nieporent]

That's like an anti-citation!

"Do you have any proof of X?" "There's an article in the Onion."

[M L]

Pharmahontas on the Warpath at the RFK Jr. Hearings
https://spectator.org/pharmahontas-on-the-warpath-at-the-rfk-jr-hearings/
Speaking of shills, Senator Warren raked in over $5.2 million from Big Pharma and the medical industrial complex.

[RedheadedPharoh]

$1B of retard got cancelled. $5,999B left to go... + 1 Sacastr0

>Through 1/29/2025, 85 DEIA related contracts totaling ~$1B have been terminated within the Dept. of Ed, GSA, OPM, EPA, DoL, Treasury, DoD, USDA, Commerce, DHS, VA, HHS, State, NSF, NRC, NLRB, PBGC, USAID, RRB, SSA, SBA, BLM, CFPB, NPS, and NOAA.

https://x.com/DOGE/status/1884762497850146857

[John F. Carr]

It's on. Louisiana has an arrest warrant for a New York doctor who prescribed abortion pills to a girl in Louisiana. Governor Hochul has vowed not to accept an extradition demand. Federal courts have jurisdiction to order obedience. Could she end up as Weinstein's cellmate in Rikers? Could Trump order New York reduced to rubble in an attempt to ensure compliance? Will courts invent a public policy exception to the extradition clause? Stay tuned.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-indictment-lousiana-new-york-doctor-63ff4d9da8a9b592a7ca4ec7ba538cd3

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are three things LA can do(beyond having an outstanding warrant and the MD had better hope not to be on a flight that diverts there.

1: Fine her, and then report the unpaid fine to a collection agency.

2: Revoke her medical license(?) and report that to NY. And then when NY refuses to do so, refuse to recognize ANY NY professional license, including engineering.

3: Revoke her driver's license for the unpaid fine and then demand that NY suspend her driver's license under reciprocity. And when NY doesn't, refuse to recognize NY driver's licenses and vehicle registrations. Arrest anyone driving on one and go with civil forfeiture for the vehicles. Let SCOTUS sort it out as this is also "full faith & credit."

Lawfare goes both ways...

[Absaroka]

"Revoke her medical license"

Could you flesh out the approximate procedure for LA to revoke a NY medical license?

"Revoke her driver's license..."

Similarly, how does LA go about revoking an NY driver's license?

Thirdly, are these the same procedures CA should use to revoke your license if CA gins up some law that you break from MA?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You can revoke a license never issued -- it's technically a charge of not having one. I knew someone who never got a driver's license but still had a few OUIs. Now dead from Heroin.

And if driver's licenses are revoked for unpaid child support, why not unpaid fines?

[Absaroka]

Like a lot of people, I only have a driver's license in one state. Your view is that the other 49 states can charge me with not having a license even if I never visit their state? And then use that 'revocation' to have my home state revoke my license?

Like...wow.

[John F. Carr]

Most states belong to a compact that gives out of state suspensions effect in the driver's home state. If you drive to another state and earn a license suspension it follows you home. If Louisiana reports to New York that Doctor Evil's right to operate has been suspended New York is supposed to suspend Doctor Evil's license.

Supposed to. Governor Hochul would direct New York DMV to disobey the law. Surely Louisiana meant a different Doctor Evil DOB 1975-03-21. The DMV must have the ability to override the computer even if that power is never used for ordinary victims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact

[Absaroka]

"If you drive to another state"

Is the allegation here that the NY doctor drove to LA and committed a revocation-worthy traffic offense in LA? If so, I'm not surprised that NY would revoke the license.

But my sense was that Ms. NYDoctor never drove to LA. Hence the "even if I never visit their state".

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts there are at least four categories adults can fall into.

1. Valid license.
2. No license.
3. License or right to operate suspended.
4. License or right to operate suspended for OUI.

Certain debts prevent license renewal. When your license expires you have no more license. I forget whether child support causes suspension or nonrenewal. Parking tickets cause nonrenewal.

When your license is suspended for OUI you can't drive on private property either. Otherwise you don't need a license until you go onto a public street.

[David Nieporent]

One of the legal reforms that liberals have tried to implement over the last decade is to stop suspending licenses for non-driving-related offenses, particularly the failure to pay fines. It distorts the purpose of drivers licenses — to verify whether the person is competent to drive — and also traps people in cycles of poverty, as it is hard to support oneself (and pay the fines) if one can't drive to work.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I actually agree with you on this, and it is not just Leftists who want to do this.

[Voize of Reazon]

When your license is suspended for OUI you can't drive on private property either.

A quick look at the statute suggests this would hold no matter what the grounds for suspension. Is it limited to DUI?

[John F. Carr]

My memory says the court decision construed a law about operating after suspension for OUI and not the more general law. I don't know if there is precedent one way or the other for non-alcohol suspensions. I thought the decision was wrong and the law should have been limited to places where a license is required to drive.

[David Nieporent]

You can revoke a license never issued

You literally can't. It's right there in the word.

Revoke Definition & Meaning
Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › revoke
1. : to annul by recalling or taking back : rescind. revoke a will. 2. : to bring or call back.

it's technically a charge of not having one.

So, then… not revoking it. Now can you explain what jurisdiction, let alone statutory authority, Louisiana would have to charge someone living in NY for "not having" a Louisiana driver's license?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Dr. Ed is at least groping in the general direction of reality, in that it is fairly common for some penalty provisions (especially DUI laws) to revoke “the privilege to obtain a license” or something similar, so that unlicensed drivers aren’t immune.

Now, he does of course lose the thread pretty quickly: these penalties are governed by actual laws and can’t just be arbitrarily imposed on someone who’s never been to the state. And New York also has a pretty narrow reciprocity revocation regime, so even if Louisiana did that somehow, it would have no effect in New York.

[David Nieporent]

Why on earth would a doctor living and working in NY have either a Texas medical license or a Texas driver's license?

[David Nieporent]

Obviously, I meant Louisiana, not Texas. Or would have meant that if I were paying attention when I typed.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Not to worry. I don't think paying attention while one types is a requirement for posting on this blog.

[Frank Drackman]

Texas has no State Income Tax, you figure it out

[Dr. Ed 2]

Much as how Trump was considered to have been in Georgia in a phone call from DC, the MD is considered to have practiced medicine in LA by proscribing for the girl in LA.

[John F. Carr]

A criminal fine requires the doctor's presence in Louisiana or the doctor's consent to be tried in absentia. Any other fine merely requires notice and opportunity to be heard. I don't know what non-criminal fines are applicable to this situation or what those fines could do to a non-resident's right to operate in Louisiana.

Driver's licenses are special in American law. There is widespread reciprocity in recognizing both offenses and action against license or right to operate. Compacts notwithstanding, Governor Hochul could pull strings to have New York refuse to recognize any license action by Louisiana.

If the noncriminal fine is $1,000 for every time a girl has a bad reaction and has to go to the hospital, it's a cost of doing business. Over 90% of the time the pills just work.

Louisiana has more to lose by ending driver's license reciprocity than New York does.

[David Nieporent]

Just to elaborate: reciprocity is not required by any federal law or constitutional provision. It is a matter of local law only. NY can choose to suspend a license it issues if another state suspends a similar license that it has issued, but that's up to NY.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/these-are-the-5-state-drivers-licenses-no-longer-valid-in-florida-under-new-immigration-law/3066073/

[Noscitur a sociis]

That certainly is a link.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Checked medical costs recently? $1000 won't even cover the ER.

[John F. Carr]

A claim for medical costs would be covered by malpractice insurance.

[F.D. Wolf]

What the AP omits, because it is a dishonest, left-wing hack organization, is that (allegedly) the doctor conspired with the young woman's mother who forced her daughter to take the abortion pill, which landed her daughter in the hospital. The pregnant girl never asked for the pill, never communicated with this doctor, and was, reportedly, happy about being pregnant, even planning a gender reveal party.

[John F. Carr]

Even deep blue Massachusetts prosecutes under circumstances like you describe. A man is facing felony charges after tricking his girlfriend into taking an abortion pill.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Overall, we rate the Associated Press as left-centered biased due to left-leaning editorializing of news stories and frequently conducting fact checks on conservatives. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a reasonable fact-check record."

For reference, the AP is considered less "left-center" than Reason is "right-center".

[Dan Schiavetta]

"left-centered" yet high on factuality. . . hmmm . . .

"Facts have a well-known liberal bias."

[Brett Bellmore]

All that means is that they don't bother reporting facts that have right-wing implications.

[Sarcastr0]

1. It's a joke.

2. That you don't get the joke says a lot about how much what you see is at dissonance with what you want to believe.

[ThePublius]

No, it's not a joke! Leftist, liberal progs, and their media outlets have been saying for years that "the truth" has a liberal bias, including PBS and the NYTimes. Paul Krugman wrote a column on it in 2017 [1]. Ira Flatow went on about it during a fundraiser several years ago. As a matter of fact, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias" is the exact title of Krugman's opinion piece.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/opinion/facts-have-a-well-known-liberal-bias.html

[Dan Schiavetta]

The quote is from Stephen Colbert, back in his alter-ego days, from a Bush Administration event. He was invited because they didn't realize that his act was actually a sendup of mindless conservatism.

And Flatow and Krugman were correct. It's hardly necessary to list how many untrue things conservatives believe nowadays.

[David Nieporent]

1) Minor quibble: the Colbert quote was "reality" has a liberal bias, not "truth."

2) Major correction: no, the Bush administration did not invite him to an event not realizing his act was a parody of conservatism. It was the White House Correspondents Dinner, and the White House Correspondents Association invited him, and everyone knew his act was a parody.

[Dan Schiavetta]

O.K. My memory was off. I trust you enough not to look it up, I believe you.

I do remember Bush Admin. people being present and not being very amused.

Also conservatives citing Onion articles thinking they were fact.

[David Nieporent]

I do remember Bush Admin. people being present and not being very amused.

You are correct on that point; there were some (though I'm not sure it was actual Bush Admin people, as opposed to the right wing ecosystem like Fox News) who whined that Colbert was too mean and should have said only bland nonpartisan stuff. The reaction was roughly similar to the RW reaction to the sermon given by Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde last week: how dare she actually say religious stuff instead of just issuing generic bland pablum.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Nothing is more unnatural than Donald Trump in a church.

[Voize of Reazon]

He would have to believe in some entity greater than himself, so no.

[Dan Schiavetta]

LOL

[Sarcastr0]

Your position is it can’t be a joke if a lot of people say it?

You are not getting the joke to levels heretofore thought impossible.

[ThePublius]

No, not at all! It's not a joke because those people saying didn't intend it to be humorous, they intended it to be taken seriously. And now you're trying to dismiss it as a joke because it's so obviously stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's why I think it's a joke, because it's dumb and I'm trying to cover up that so many people believe it.

You got me, TP. Keep telling everyone how it's not a joke, it's a serious liberal thesis.

Explain how fundraisers are not where people put jokes, and neither are the titles of opinion pieces.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Eugene Volokh has said he voted for the Libertarian candidate for president though he repeatedly cited conservative-leaning election commentary that is more anti-Democratic than critical of Trump.

His lack of much comment about the opening gambits of the Trump Administration is somewhat let's say interesting. Instead we get "business as usual" updates about random legal cases.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not everyone hates Trump...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I've always assumed that Eugene is why Volokh has so much Josh. But what he writes about is usually narrowly focused on his (narrow) interests. (And doesn't explain Ilya, but hey I'm new here...)

[SimonP]

With the amount of stuff happening that's free speech-relevant in the past couple of weeks, it's been clearer than usual that Eugene is choosing not to comment critically about Trump, Abbott, DeSantis, etc.'s various efforts.

He's never explained this strange blind spot, a further silence that I can only surmise has been intentional. He either supports these moves, is advising behind the scenes on them, or is trying to keep his record clean in case a Ninth Circuit vacancy comes up during the next few years.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe he doesn't care what you think.
Get your own blog.

[SimonP]

Maybe go fuck yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's been negative and free speech related out of the second Trump administration? His EO shutting down government efforts to censor social media?

[SimonP]

There's no point in trying to educate a self-appointed mouthpiece for the idiot-in-chief, Goobs.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I see there is a continual discussion of impoundment.

There were citations of presidents other than Jefferson who impounded funds. I linked up to a discussion of the matter in the comments of the relevant post the other day.

The details of each case are important & I think the term was used confusingly since many of the instances were defended by the president claiming some discretion in spending the funds.

Jefferson "impounded" funds in a specific case because he argued that the situation on the ground changed. He later spent the funds when the situation in his view factually called for it.

Jefferson did not think Congress compelled him to use the funds. That is a central matter at hand, including in a 1970s Supreme Court case that held Nixon wrongly held up funds.

Trump's broad holding of the funds in a range of places to resist Marxism and wokeism or whatever is not quite the same thing.

[David Nieporent]

The details of each case are important

Yes. Sometimes Congress does grant discretion to the president. Nobody is saying that every appropriation says, "You must spend exactly $X." If Congress actually tells the president to spend up to $X, then they are authorizing him to spend less.

[Mr. Bumble]

Has anyone done a wellness check on Joe Biden or Selena Gomez?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, give Selena a break, she's had a Kidney Transplant, now she just needs a Brain.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Black History Month.

Carter Godwin Woodson (1875-1950), a son of former slaves, is known as the “father of Black History.” Woodson was the founder of the Association for the Study of Negro Life. He promoted the importance of the study and teaching of black history.

He originally proposed a history week. Woodson selected the second week of February. He was taking advantage of the fact that two celebrated figures in black history were born then.

Abraham Lincoln’s birthday was on February 12th. Frederick Douglas (former slave, civil rights leader, ambassador to Haiti) was born on February 14th. It later was extended to a month.

President Ford declared a Black History Month to honor our bicentennial (1976). Congress made it official in 1986, passing a Joint resolution to provide for the designation of February 1986 as “National Black (Afro-American) History Month.”

The Trump White House issued a proclamation recognizing February as Black History Month. So, don't worry! "Appropriate" celebration is acceptable!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/uncategorized/2025/01/national-black-history-month-2025/

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice."

[Frank Drackman]

He did and he is, so what's your point? (besides the one on your head)

[Absaroka]

Appropriate celebration seems better than inappropriate celebration. I wouldn't think that jello wrestling would really be appropriate as a celebration, for example.

FWIW, Biden's 2022 proclamation has exactly the same language: "I call upon public officials, educators, librarians, and all the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities."

Obama's 2016 declaration uses the same text, and Bush in 2003, and Clinton in 1996, at which point I got tired of googling. It's almost like they aren't above reusing the old text 🙂

[Dan Schiavetta]

Joe's point is that somehow the language survives Trump's purge of wokeness and DEI. Probably nobody in the White House was paying attention when this automated response went out.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-intelligence-arm-dia-pausing-dei-mlk-holocaust-remembrance-and-other-observations/

[Absaroka]

That seems pretty tacky to me.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good God.

I meant that as a little dig, but the truth is worse than I implied.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's almost like you've never heard of malicious compliance.

[Sarcastr0]

1. What in the fuck does that have to do with this?
2. No evidence that's occurring
3. You explain everything you don't like due to secret liberals somewhere discarding their professionalism after years of hiding.

[SimonP]

You've got a conspiracy theory for everything, Goobs. I spotted this dodge from a mile away.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts state law require the governor to issue many annual proclamations for causes that the legislature thought politically appropriate at some time. In theory the governor has no discretion to refuse.

[Mr. Bumble]

How can the legislative branch compel the executive branch to make a proclamation in their (the legislative branch) name?

[David Nieporent]

How can the legislative branch compel the executive branch to make a proclamation in their (the legislative branch) name?

By passing a law requiring it. What is it with the development of this weird idea that the executive branch exists to pursue its own agenda and that laws are just suggestions? The legislature tells the executive branch what to do; the executive branch carries it out.
​
​
(Depending on what the applicable state constitution says, obviously.)

[Mr. Bumble]

My bad in overlooking John F. Carr's initial statement that "In Massachusetts state law ....".
I don't think that a law by one branch of the government compelling
speech by another should be constitutional. The legislature is free to proclaim what it wants and say so in their own voice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Massachusetts is a Commonwealth, the Governor has to proclaim for them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What in the world does the first clause have to do with the second, in your view?

[David Nieporent]

I don't think that a law by one branch of the government compelling speech by another should be constitutional.

Because why, exactly? If a legislature passes a law requiring the governor to hop on one foot during business hours, then the governor has to hop on one foot during business hours. And if the legislature passes a law requiring the governor to proclaim March 4 as Cauliflower Day, then the governor has to issue a proclamation on March 4 honoring Cauliflower Day. (There's no 1A issue, since it's government speech.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever hear of the 13th Amendment?

[David Nieporent]

No. What is it?

[Frank Drackman]

Thirteenth Amendment
Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[RedheadedPharoh]

"The @DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups.
They literally never denied a payment in their entire career.
Not even once."

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1885582076247712229

Thanks Sarcastr0!

[SimonP]

No reason whatsoever to believe a word out of that shithead's mouth.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why are you such an angry cocksucker?

[David Nieporent]

Why are you such a bigot? And he's right: there is zero reason to believe anything Musk says — let alone a tweet. Note that Musk does not provide a copy of or link to any such "instruction," or even cite a person. He doesn't identify any payments to "known fraudulent or terrorist groups," doesn't identify a time period for his claim, and it seems exceedingly unlikely that in 11½ days they could've reviewed every payment ever authorized.

Note further that he may be deliberately or ignorantly misrepresenting the process. Was it this particular office's job to screen payments? (I remember during the Kraken litigation over the 2020 election, one of Trump's idiot lawyers triumphantly waved around an affidavit from a counter saying, "There were all these ballots brought in that we were told to count without verifying them." I think this was in Michigan. And the response was, "Yeah, you dumbass, because they're verified before they're brought to the counting center.")

[RedheadedPharoh]

All this bootlicking and excuse-making from a self-professed "State Skeptic".

lmao

[Life of Brian]

and it seems exceedingly unlikely that in 11½ days they could've reviewed every payment ever authorized.

You may ever-so-hazily recall that the purpose of this exercise is to increase efficiency in government. Why in the world would they performatively wade through every single payment ever authorized when they could choose the (apparently infinitely) shorter task of reviewing every payment ever denied?

[David Nieporent]

How would reviewing denied payments tell him whether they ever approved a payment to "known fraudulent or terrorist groups"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Talk to a forensic accountant sometime.

[David Nieporent]

Um, as a lawyer I talk to forensic accountants all the time. What do you think your comment added to this discussion?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Beyond indicating your incompetence?

[David Nieporent]

Tell us more about your "dissertation" claiming that all books read in Texas schools had to be about Texas.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As best I can tell -- remember I am not an attorney -- that particular statute was repealed in 2021. So Texas HAD a law...

[Absaroka]

"that particular statute was repealed in 2021"

Since you just looked it up, can you share which statue was repealed?

[Life of Brian]

How would reviewing denied payments tell him whether they ever approved a payment to "known fraudulent or terrorist groups"?

Reviewing (an apparently null set of) denied payments would by definition show that nobody ever denied payments. The rest follows in turn.

(If you're implicitly trying to suggest that there have never ever ever been any discoveries of fraudulent or terrorist groups that have received Federal dollars, you're going to need a big big tub of red-face reducer before you can appear in public again. Yes, even you.)

[SimonP]

Because the control of the U.S. government is now in the hands of idiots like yourself. Is that hard to grasp, fuckwit?

[Mr. Bumble]

Like I said, angry.
It's going to be a long 12 years for you.

[SimonP]

I'd rather be angry about policies that don't directly impact me, than forcing myself to be happy about policies that fuck me in the ass.

The next four, or eight, or twelve years are going to be a lot easier for me than they will be for double-thinkers like yourself.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're the one who has been bitching, not me.

[Sarcastr0]

You main thing is bitching about commenters her.

[Mr. Bumble]

Learn to spell or type, Il Douche.

[SimonP]

Yes, I am saying you will spend the next however many years telling everyone that you love Trump and think everything he's doing is great, even when you aren't seeing any kind of real benefit in your life, and in fact just find yourself continuing to lose.

Was that not fucking clear, you imbecile?

[Mr. Bumble]

Crystal clear but wrong you cocksucker.

[John F. Carr]

An illustration of how the law is needlessly complicated.

A West Springfield, Massachusetts police officer got caught taking cash from the evidence room. When he got caught he returned some money. He claimed and the prosecution accepted that he was only borrowing the money. Instead of larceny the crime was gaining an "unwarranted privilege" not available to members of the general public, with fraudulent intent. The case was close enough that the Supreme Judicial Court took the case to address his claims that the law is unconstitutionally vague and he did not have fraudulent intent.

Guilty, one year probation.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/01/31/s13615.pdf

There is a lesson to defense attorneys. Check the serial numbers of currency used as evidence in the case against your client. Captain Spaulding was convicted in part because the bags of evidence contained bills that were not yet in circulation when they were allegedly seized by police. Somebody was clearly up to no good. Other evidence showed it was him.

I remember a lawyer claiming he once had a drug test performed on evidence against his (guilty-as-sin) client that showed the powder was not cocaine (anymore). Not guilty.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the big issue here was not forwarding the money to the DA in a timely manner -- or not depositing it in an escrow account in the interim.

If his defense was that he had secured tampered evidence, then I don't see the "born on" dates hurting him. The cash deposits to his checking account, yes -- which is why you buy money orders as every welfare recipient knows -- that really is what they had on him.

[John F. Carr]

The theory is, $100 bill serial number A123456J is either evidence or contraband. It is not equivalent to any other $100 bill. It is not equivalent to $100 in a bank account.

Once a case gets to the asset forfeiture stage the federal government says it is entitled to the cash value of the contraband. The fiction that the object is tainted by its history or use disappears.

[John F. Carr]

Also hot off the presses in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld a clause in the standard car insurance contract that excludes responsibility for "diminished value" claims. Say you crash into a $100,000 car and it's your fault. Your insurance pays to fix the other car. Your insurance pays for a rental while it's in the shop. Now the owner finds the repaired car is only worth $90,000 because buyers are scared. You are personally liable for that $10,000 difference.

The official responsible for approving car insurance contracts allowed the exclusion. In another case a few years ago the courts upheld a waiver of liability for gross negligence in a utility contract. Ordinarily such waivers are against public policy. This one had been approved by appropriate regulatory officials.

The legal lesson here is, it pays to have good lobbyists and big companies have better lobbyists than you.

Another lesson here is, you can win the battle and lose the war. The court had earlier ruled that insurance had to pay diminished value claims. So the insurance industry changed the contract to exclude them.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/01/30/o13563.pdf

After explaining why the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring this suit the court decided the question anyway.

[Bwaaah]

Interesting.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (decided February 1, 1803): Marshall rules that the Court has no original jurisdiction to enforce a judicial appointment which Marshall (as Secretary of State) had failed to get delivered. Marshall was also already Chief Justice at the time. He should have, of course, recused himself. This case is often cited as the precedent for judicial review, but that part of the opinion is dicta, as Marshall later pointed out (Cohens v. Virginia, 1821). Among the Founding Fathers judicial review already went without saying, as can be seen in the Washington Administration’s 1793 consultation to the Court, raised as they all were in the British tradition (see “The British Origin of Judicial Review of Legislation”, 93 Univ. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (1944)).

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (decided February 1, 1793): citizen of another state can sue a state in federal court under original jurisdiction (Georgia had bought supplies from South Carolina citizen but never paid him); this holding was a straightforward reading of Article III (it was a suit between a State and a citizen of another State; also of the Court’s original jurisdiction, because a State was a party) but, as my Con Law professor put it, “the whole country went nuts” when they realized how far federal court power extended and it was quickly abrogated by the Eleventh Amendment

Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (decided February 1, 1804): Danish-flagged vessel owned by French citizen en route to Danish island should not have been seized under the Non-Intercourse Act of 1800 (this was the “Quasi-War” with France) (it also was not a war vessel, having only one musket, a few balls, and a few ounces of powder) (this case is the source of the doctrine that “an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains”)

Scott v. London, 7 U.S. 324 (decided February 1, 1806): slave (named in the caption as “Negro London”) not entitled to freedom even though brought into state (Virginia) by one falsely claiming to be his owner and who allowed the 60-day in-state certification period to expire, and it wasn’t until 11 months later his real owner (from Maryland) came to get him

Rose v. Himely, 8 U.S. 241 (decided February 1, 1808): Court had jurisdiction to rule that French privateer could not seize American vessel outside foreign sovereign’s territorial waters (more than three leagues off Santo Domingo, at the time in rebellion against Napoleon)

Waters-Price Oil Co. v. Deselms, 212 U.S. 159 (decided February 1, 1909): Court affirms Territory of Oklahoma court verdict in favor of father whose children were killed in coal oil explosion; oil contained gasoline in violation of Territory statute; possible Equal Protection violation because statute punishes different people differently but that can be severed from the rest of the statute

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Supreme Court was heavy on the judicial review with the 11A as noted by Breyer (granting precedent) in Lapides v. Board of Regents:

The Eleventh Amendment provides that the "Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit ... commenced or prosecuted against one of the ... States" by citizens of another State, U. S. Const., Arndt. 11, and (as interpreted) by its own citizens. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890).

Scott v. London is but one of the cases pre-Dred Scott where a black person was a party in a Supreme Court case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Frank Drackman]

Still strange that the Army is withholding the name of the Captain flying the Helicopter, I know it's the Army and they're not known for their higher level reasoning, but don't they realize by doing this, even I'm starting to believe she (he? sie? they?) was/were
a Militant Vegan Moose-lum Non-Binary Sith
Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Me too -- they are hiding SOMETHING...

Also, there is no way she had EXACTLY 500 hours, it's not going to be a round number unless it is fabricated. 504 I'd believe, but not exactly 500.

[David Nieporent]

Did anyone say "exactly 500"?

[Bwaaah]

You heard it here first.

It's like witnessing the birth of a fact.

I never imagined it could happen so spontaneously.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"500" means "500" where I am from.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but you are from idiotville.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I guess in Geniusburg where you live "500" must mean any number depending upon your axioms.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The US Army knows EXACTLY how many hours she had, and is capable of releasing the actual figure, unless it is less than 500...

[Absaroka]

When someone asks you how old you are, do you say '47', or '47 years, 4 months, 6 days, 11 hours, and 42.94847 seconds'? Do you say you weight 175 pounds, or the more accurate 79.274 pounds? If someone asks how many miles on your car, do you say '90 thousand' or '89732.6'?

We have a pilot relative, and I have heard his buds say things like 'I have 1200 hours in F-18's', and I bet it isn't 1800.00000.
Even for you this is silly.

In any event, the Army has released the name of the second pilot and I regret to inform you she is a normal XX type woman.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It appears that she didn't have 500 hours...

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/who-was-rebecca-m-lobach-pilot-of-black-hawk-involved-in-crash-that-killed-67-101738457450911.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it is reported that she was a Biden aide, and a sexual abuse advocate -- how much flying had she done in the past year?

And not all female college basketball players are lesbians...

[Frank Drackman]

She flew for just about 5 years and had 500 hours, take out probably 150 hours for initial training and the 2 years she was in in White House job and you get about 150 hrs/year, which is not bad for an Officer. Of course she'd still need 750 more to even get a look from an Airline, and last I checked no major Airlines fly Blackhawks. And in my book being a Lesbo's a "Feature, not a Bug" if you were a good looking chick, wouldn't you rather hang around other chicks, than having to deal with some Schlub's nasty Schlong? Been getting after my daughters to take that "Track" for years.
Oh, and if it makes you "Conspirators" feel any better, the military's shortening Flight Training and relying more on Simulators.

[Mr. Bumble]

It appears that the reason the family of Capt. Lobach requested the delay in the release of her name was to allow them time to scrub all of her and her family's social media accounts.
Why?

[Noscitur a sociis]

We’re seeing a very-easily-understandable illustration of exactly why.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two years with NO flying and then start with a high risk flight as opposed to something a wee bit less intense?!?

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Nas:
Just what is understandable?
The Army knew almost immediately the identity of the flight crew.
Withholding names until the families were notified would seem to be SOP but would the family of Capt. Lobach seek and have a right to have her name withheld. That action only fed curiosity as to her identity and why on her name was withheld.
Scrubbing all social media (hers and her family's) just added fuel.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Replying to Nas:
Just what is understandable?

The family anticipated that soulless morons would posthumously stalk her in an attempt to use her as political fodder. Which is exactly what happened.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed is a sexual abuse advocate. She, if anything, was an anti-sexual absue advocate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David Nieporent is a child molester.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If he starts wantonly killing people too, maybe he can earn your respect!

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, this wasn't random lashing out by me: Dr. Ed has cheered on sex workers being raped and murdered, arguing that they deserved what they got.

[David Nieporent]

Because they didn't want evil people — MAGA — combing through her personal life to attack her.

[Absaroka]

And so? The accident happened because she had 483.72 hours instead of 504.96? I honestly don't get why you are obsessing over this.

WWII pilots were considered combat ready in less than 500 hours:

"The time taken to qualify as a pilot could vary. At the start of the war it could be as little as six months (150 flying hours). On average it took between 18 months to two years (200-320 flying hours)."

We don't know what happened yet. Why is it so hard to wait for the investigation to happen before jumping to conclusions?

Even if the investigation concludes that A)she was flying and B)made a fatal mistake ... what's the solution? The only way to get 1000 hours of experience is to, you know, fly 1000 hours. Which means you have 500 hour pilots flying.

The investigation may well decide to not fly that route, or not fly it until both pilots have 2000 hours, or whatever. What on earth makes you think you have all the answers at present?

In 1994 LTC Arthur Holland, an XY person with 5000 hours effed up badly and stalled a B-52 into the ground killing all aboard. It's not like women pilots, or young pilots, or trans pilots are the only ones who eff up. LTC Holland had red flags waving in all directions, and the USAF deserves criticism for not grounding him. In time, we will know whether the Army deserves criticism for this tragedy. Until we have those facts, though, you're just grinding a partisan axe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Her hard ceiling was 200 feet, she shot up to at least 380 feet.

What more is there to say?

Oh yes -- less stuff to hit in North Dakota...

[John F. Carr]

The unit's mission includes flying in an urban environment. They have to have some training in an urban environment.

[Absaroka]

But...but...but... I was assured it was the tranny drugs...

(and just to be clear, I'm not arguing it was or wasn't pilot error, or if pilot error which pilot made the error, or is or isn't equipment failure. I'm arguing that your confidence in your assertions is unwarranted. Which ought to be obvious even to you ... a couple days ago it was a specific anti-Trump trans pilot. When she turned up alive you were sure it was estrogen given to some other trans pilot (backed up by a link that said e.g. elderly women have higher rates of macular degeneration, but absolutely didn't say women had worse vision in general). Now you are confident which pilot was flying, that equipment failure wasn't an issue, and that high-hour male pilots don't make mistakes.

Again, it may be she was the pilot and made an error. That's likely, even - but your certainty at this point is unwarranted. Can you even remember two days ago?)

[Frank Drackman]

His friends called him "Bud" and in typical Air Farce fashion they put the most dangerous B52 Pilot in the Wing as Wing Safety Officer, his Co-pilot in the mishap flight was a Squadron Commander because no junior pilots would fly with the guy, same for the rest of the crew. There was also the A-10 Pilot in the 90's who flew his jet into a Mountain when his Gay lover threatened to "Out" him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Women have better detail vision, i.e. shades of colors, but worse tactical vision. Hunter versus gatherer.

I said that taking vast quantities of sex hormones, if on was, ought to medically disqualify one from flying. i still say that.

This woman was one of Obama's Children, serving in the Army that Obama created by purging all of the none-woke General Officers. She was one of Biden's functionaries, she was a sexual abuse advocate, etc. Qualified to fly not being important in the DEI Army.

[Absaroka]

"Women have better detail vision, i.e. shades of colors, but worse tactical vision. Hunter versus gatherer."

Not sure what 'tactical vision' is, but I presume you have a citation for your claim?

"I said that taking vast quantities of sex hormones, if on was, ought to medically disqualify one from flying. i still say that."

And your expertise here stems from...?

"This woman was one of Obama's Children, serving in the Army that Obama created by purging all of the none-woke General Officers. She was one of Biden's functionaries, she was a sexual abuse advocate, etc. Qualified to fly not being important in the DEI Army."

She actually enlisted when Trump was president. The other pilot enlisted in the Navy during the Bush presidency, and switched to the Army during the Trump admin. Whatever happened to 'The Buck Stops Here'?

[David Nieporent]

Not sure what 'tactical vision' is, but I presume you have a citation for your claim?

It's from his dissertation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, David, a social justice seminar I was forced to sit through.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Stil waiting on that Texas law, Dr. Ed!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"In 1994 LTC Arthur Holland"

That was Reagan's USAF

[Absaroka]

Your point being, I suppose, that Reagan was a bad president because the AF missed the red flags before a 5000 hour male pilot flew a B-52 into the ground on his watch?

[hobie]

Per our new hiring practices, as long as anyone involved - both on the ground or in the air - wasn't a cripple, woman, dwarf, nigga, crippled nigga, dwarf nigga, paranoid schizophrenic nigga, Jewish nigga, or trans nigga. Wait, scratch all that... just nigga

[Mr. Bumble]

...and another one bites the dust.

"The director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been fired by the Trump administration hours after an FBI purge saw agents who investigated the President 'escorted out.' "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14349599/Trump-makes-surprising-firing-hours-FBI-agents-investigated-escorted-out.html

[Commenter_XY]

It would be nice to have a scoreboard of the bureaucrats POTUS Trump has fired, and the aggregate annual savings from the salary+benefits reduction.

100K avg sal+ben * 1K RIFs = 100MM
100K avg sal+ben * 10K RIFs = 1B

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money. 😉

There are far too many non-essential DC-based bureaucrats. There will be far fewer in 4 years time. Reagan never got that done.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree: it would be interesting to look at what changes are being made, whether they’re good or bad, and what benefits they bring.

What a shame that you have no interest in doing that.

[Commenter_XY]

You are right, I have NO interest in doing that, Nas. I could care less. More importantly, neither does POTUS Trump. The Fed gov is being right-sized, and that means many non-essential bureaucrats will find alternative employment. Adios amigos.

They're gone, Nas. There will be many, many more. That includes K street and R street, and all those useless NGOs, and contractors. They all suck at the govt teat. No more. We will just have to limp along never knowing what (negative) value-add these bureaucrats ever had.

We'll survive Nas.

You know, a million RIFs would be close to 100B annually. Not too shabby.

[Sarcastr0]

Your knee-jerk brainless cheerleading just doesn't make any sense.

People are not interchangeable. Simple number-go-down treats them like they are. That's lazy and wrong.

That's why even your fellow conservatives keep calling you to task.

Though at this point it's hard to call you conservative.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Sarcastr0 is actually giving you more credit than you deserve. You’re not blindly cheering the number going down: you don’t even know if the number is going down.

Most of the people Trump has fired will be replaced. That’s true for the CFPB guy that started this discussion (it even says so in the story); it’s true for the IGs, it’s apparently true for the January 6th prosecutors; it’s almost certainly true for the FBI agents and analysts. So that doesn’t reduce the size of the workforce or save a penny. And of course a lot of the people were removed from their positions weren’t fired at all: they were reassigned or put on paid leave, so the taxpayers are actually being charged a premium for this.

It’s one thing to admit to being too dumb and lazy to think about whether the proposals you’re cheering on are good or bad. But I have to admit that being too dumb and lazy to even want to know if they’re actually happening or not (and being proud of that!) is a new one.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump campaigned on bringing down grocery prices on "Day 1."

Day 13, he raised them.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5121102-trump-tariffs-china-canada-mexico/

Wonderful job you fucking morons.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You buy Chinese groceries?

[SimonP]

If you like what Trump's tariffs will do for the import of Mexican produce, you'll love what his nonsensical orders in California will do for citrus prices later this year!

Trumpflation ho!

[RedheadedPharoh]

So you buy Chinese groceries?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is this about him ordering the US Corps of Army Engineers to open the water "valves" in Northern California, to inundate Central California with water at a time they don't need or want it? So when they do want it, later in the growing season, there may not be enough water...

(Needless to say, none of that water will flow to the California Aqueduct and thus ever make it to Southern California.)

He's very special, our Donald.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You eat Mexican produce?!?

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Napolitan Institute found that just 45% of Federal Government Managers would follow a legal order from President Trump if they thought the order was bad policy and instead would do what they thought was right. Among managers who voted for Kamala Harris that figure jumps to nearly three-quarters (69%.)

Trump is right to clean house. Fuck movies.

https://realclearwire.com/articles/2025/01/29/trumps_overhaul_of_the_federal_bureaucracy_backed_by_recent_survey_research_1088078.html

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect we'll be hearing something about this soon at the Conspiracy:

TETER V. LOPEZ

This explains what's been going on here: The 9th Circuit has developed a automatic process, essentially, for mooting every ruling in the circuit in favor of the 2nd amendment:

Judge Calls Out Game Ninth Circuit Plays That Enable States to Continue to Violate Citizens’ Gun Rights

[SRG2]

Judges play judicial games, area man hospitalised for RSI after clutching pearls too tightly for too long.

Let's reframe, shall we?

Plaintiff says law won't allow him to do X. He sues.
Courts delay so that the law is changed.
Plaintiff is now allowed to do X.
Whiny judge complains that the courts didn't address whether plaintiff can do Y.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Courts delay so that the law is changed.

You find nothing wrong with that, until the laws being delayed aren't ones you support, naturally.

P.S. That's the step in your master plan that's under scrutiny, genius.

[SRG2]

What is wrong with changing the law to make it constitutional?

[Brett Bellmore]

The "mooting the case where the original law is found unconstitutional, thus eliminating any obstacle to reenacting the original law" part, obviously.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd say wait until they actually reenact the original law before you posit a whole plot.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I asked this the last time this case came up: do you have a single example of a jurisdiction actually doing that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Take it up with judge VanDyke.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Judge VanDyke doesn’t comment here (as far as I know), which is why I’m asking you instead. I do note that he didn’t cite any examples either.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Courts delay so that the law is changed.

That's the step in your master plan that's under scrutiny, genius.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bomb Ottawa....

[BrotherMovesOn]

What do janitors have against Ottawa?
Lots of nice things there.
How about Waldoboro instead?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trudeau's not in Waldoboro.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/venezuela-frees-six-detained-americans-immediately-after-trump-envoy-visit

Thank you POTUS Trump, for bringing our American hostages home.

[Sarcastr0]

The latest divided argument features newly minted Stanford Prof Orin Kerr!

Among other things he talks about how the Court has lost interest in 4A cases and why.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Quick question for the Democrat economic geniuses:

If the US adding tariffs to Canadian goods harms US consumers by raising prices, why is Canada & Mexico's reaction to also harm's it's own consumers by putting tariffs on US goods?

Was this some 4D-chess Jedi mind trick to get Canada and Mexico to harm their own populations with higher prices at their grocery stores?

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume because the harm to one's own citizens is only the initial effect, and they're trying to stave off the "becomes more self-sufficient and so exports from Canada and Mexico permanently decline after a while" part that comes later.

[SimonP]

You are so fucking predictable, Goober. There is no space at all between you and the MAGA talking point memo. You might as well be reading directly from it.

[SRG2]

Because it also harms US exporters and their people hence putting pressure on Trump, and the citizens of Canada and Mexico are smart enough to understand that it's a necessary tactic in a trade war that Trump unnecessarily started.

Why do you think a trade war is a good idea?

Trump's tariiffs are a cripplingly stupid idea and anyone who thinks they're not is either too far gone up Trump's arse or too ignorant even to discuss it with, just as I wouldn't discuss science with someone who thinks that the earth is flat or that pi equals three.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, Trump's previous tariffs were so crippling that Joe Sockpuppet kept them in place.

[SRG2]

They were not remotely as widespread and Biden was wrong to keep them in place.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I see. So Trump tariffs are "crippling stupid" but Canada and Mexico tariffs aren't.

You people have quite the ability to hold contradictory thoughts in your head.

I guess it's easy when your worldview is defined as "Trump * -1". This is you:
Biden tariffs - good
Canada tariffs - smart
Mexico tariffs - smart
EU tariffs - good
China tariffs - good
Trump tariffs - "crippling stupid"

[SRG2]

Anyone who thinks they're not is either too far gone up Trump's arse or too ignorant even to discuss it with.

You don't understand trade or trade wars.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Because it also harms US exporters and their people hence putting pressure on Trump

The logical inference is that US tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods also harms Canadian and Mexican exporters and their people, hence putting pressure on Canada and Mexico.

And what is Trump putting pressure on Canada and Mexico to do?

Canada and Mexico's tariffs are to pressure the US to remove the tariffs. The US's tariffs are to pressure Canada and Mexico to ______________?

[SRG2]

Fuckwit: you would argue that every time a country is attacked they should surrender because if they fight, their own people would get injured or killed.

And what is Trump putting pressure on Canada and Mexico to do?

You think that vast quantities of fentanyl are coming across the Canadian border? And do you think that resorting to economic force should be your first resort with an ally?

Sheesh, what a maroon.

But you can't help yourself.

[ThePublius]

Well, both Canada and Mexico had an alternative to retaliatory tariffs, and that is to concede that there's a problem with fentanyl flowing across the border from their countries and propose a plan and allocate a budget to do something about it. I bet the Trump administration would welcome this, work with them, and end the tariffs. After all, that is the expressed reason for the tariffs. This could have been ended expeditiously and equitably.

[Sarcastr0]

Canadian fentanyl is a problem invented by Trump. Namechecked to give him a patina of legitimacy.

But his rhetoric is not really about the drugs, is it? He name checks it, but it's thrust is economically illiterate nonsense.

The “Tariff Lobby,” headed by the Globalist, and always wrong, Wall Street Journal, is working hard to justify Countries like Canada, Mexico, China, and too many others to name, continue the decades long RIPOFF OF AMERICA, both with regard to TRADE, CRIME, AND POISONOUS DRUGS that are allowed to so freely flow into AMERICA. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER! The USA has major deficits with Canada, Mexico, and China (and almost all countries!), owes 36 Trillion Dollars, and we’re not going to be the “Stupid Country” any longer. MAKE YOUR PRODUCT IN THE USA AND THERE ARE NO TARIFFS! Why should the United States lose TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SUBSIDIZING OTHER COUNTRIES, and why should these other countries pay a small fraction of the cost of what USA citizens pay for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, as an example? THIS WILL BE THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA! WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!). BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID. WE ARE A COUNTRY THAT IS NOW BEING RUN WITH COMMON SENSE — AND THE RESULTS WILL BE SPECTACULAR!!!

This is Trump. This is all Trump. Blaming Canada is not going to fly with anyone not as Trump-brained as you.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You act like he's not making good points.

Why should we subsidize other first world countries?
Why should we do nothing while drugs and illegals flow across the borders, aided and abetted by these foreign governments.
Why should we bear the brunt of the pharmaceutical costs for other countries?

It's like you think we should be the world's sucker. But that makes sense, you're a leech riding the backs of the American consumer just like they are.

You're no different, in principle, then all these foreign countries ripping off the hard working Americans who have to pay the bills.

No wonder you take Canada's side over the USA. I bet you boo the national anthem too.

[SRG2]

You don't understand trade or trade wars.

[David Nieporent]

You act like he's not making good points.

That's because he is not making good points. Trade is not subsidies. It is not zero sum. A bilaterial trade deficit is not a bad thing; it does not constitute losing to the other country, let alone being "ripped off." It has nothing whatsoever to do with a budget deficit — something we already know Trump doesn't care about.

We should not be making everything in the U.S.; autarky is an incredibly stupid idea.

The Canadian government is not sending fentanyl to the U.S.

There is no "Canada's side." There's only the sides of humanity or Trump. And you're on the second of those.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Canada provided refuge to the Klu Klux Klan who were mailing firebombs to Black churches, would you feel differently?

[David Nieporent]

Remember, Dr. Ed, when your teachers told you that there was no such thing as a stupid question, they were lying to you to spare your fragile ego.

[ThePublius]

I would rather be Trump brained than Biden brained.

[SRG2]

I would rather have a brain, period. Evidently you prefer not to.

[ThePublius]

I know you are but what am I? Duh! 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Biden was cognitively deficient. And people like you excused it, SRG2. Why shouldn't we have absolute contempt for you, and people who think like you? And for those who were in government at the time and lying to the American people about Biden's cognitive deficiencies, prosecute and imprison them?

You put us all at risk. You knew he was cognitively deficient and made up ridiculous lies to deny it.

[David Nieporent]

Trump has been mentally ill for years, and people like you not only excused it, but continue to excuse it. You pretend that he's making decisions for the country rather than just ranting and raving about whoever offended him that day.

[SRG2]

There is not a post here where I ever defended Biden's cognition.

And nobody else thinks like me.

So you're O for 2.

By all means attack me on the basis of actual facts, But this? Whining garbage.

What should be done to the people who lied about Biden's cognition? I don't know. I am unaware of any specific crime - bur under Trump's regime (as he has made quite clear even before he became president again) no crime may be needed in order to send people to prison. Do you deny he said that? And clearly you agree.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Right. At least Trump is looking out for Americans. Unlike the Democrats with their "global citizen" nonsense.

[David Nieporent]

He is not. He is deliberately harming Americans.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you mean fired, non-essential, DC-based government bureaucrats? Because their departure is a net plus.

They are neither needed nor wanted.

[Sarcastr0]

The number of people living with HIV supported by pepfar meds is about 20 million.

[David Nieporent]

They are neither needed nor wanted.

Sure, we don't need air traffic controllers, right? What could go wrong without them?

[SRG2]

Ah, but Trump has said, it will make America great again, and Trump is an honest man, etc. etc.

They are so fucking stupid. Trump has provided them with nothing other than a promise that tariffs will magically work but they defend him with a zeal more typical of the first row of impi at Rorke's Drift, and with similar long-term results.

[Sarcastr0]

You would rather deflect than defend your guy.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes Sarcastr0, we totally hallucinated the 105K opioid deaths in 2023, and the role of unchecked Canadian fentanyl smuggling in those deaths. There is no fentanyl problem, amirite?

Keep thinking that way. Please.

[Sarcastr0]

the role of unchecked Canadian fentanyl

You seem to be conflating fentanyl with Canadian fentanyl.

That is indeed a hallucination.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Hey dumb fuck:

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics

In 2024, 43 total pounds of fentanyl were seized at the northern border.

Note: The southern border seized more than 21,000lbs in the same year.

Fuck off and die.

[Dr. Ed 2]

43 pounds is enough to kill Ten Million people -- that's roughly the population of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

And if Canada does something about this, we don't have to impose tariffs.

[David Nieporent]

There is no fentanyl problem, amirite?

There certainly is no fentanyl problem caused by the Canadian government.

[Voize of Reazon]

why is Canada & Mexico's reaction to also harm's it's own consumers by putting tariffs on US goods

I don't know that they are doing it, but both Canada and Mexico can reduce that harm by drastically lowering tariffs on Chinese imports. The US doesn't have that option.

[JasonT20]

RedheadedPharoh is asking a really stupid rhetorical question. (Rhetorical questions can be an exception to the rule that there are no stupid questions.) Let's just break down what he is saying.

He said, "If the US adding tariffs to Canadian goods harms US consumers by raising prices, why is Canada & Mexico's reaction to also harm's it's own consumers by putting tariffs on US goods?"

Uh, maybe first answer why the US would add tariffs to Canadian goods if it harms US consumers? What is Trump's goal here? He claims it is to force Canada to do "more" to stop illegal border crossings, fentanyl smuggling, etc., right? From Canada's perspective, they might be saying, WTF? Why don't you tell us specifically what you think we should be doing differently that would help you, and, since we are allies, we will consider your request and work with you in a way that benefits us both. So, maybe Canada is retaliating because they think that Trump is a stupid fucking moron that doesn't know what he is talking about, and responding with retaliatory tariffs is the only thing he might understand.

[Voize of Reazon]

I think they realize this is primarily theater, just like the last time, so reasoning with Trump won't work.
Their probable strategy will be to let him strut around, then to eventually make some promises that let him claim victory but minimizing the actual damage. Meanwhile they retaliate to get members of Congress and state politicians to apply whatever influence they have, and to be seen by their own citizens as not sitting on their hands.
Again, just like last time.

[David Nieporent]

Right. What they need to do — as I'm sure they realize — is put up a brief fuss, and then make some meaningless, empty promise that will allow Trump to fool his idiot cult members into thinking he won, at which point he will reverse the tariffs and beat his chest.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You don't think they don't know what to do and they need us to give them a specific plan?

Are you for real? You genuinely believe these countries are totally in the dark about what's going on and President Trump's request caught them off guard?

That's mindblowingly stupid.

[David Nieporent]

I think that if we want them to do something (we don't — Trump just hates trade because he's too stupid to understand it), we need to tell them specifically what we want them to do, yes. Yes, these countries are totally in the dark about what's going on, and Trump's request caught them off guard.

That's mindblowingly stupid.

Indeed it is. Which is the MAGA motto.

[David Nieporent]

If the US adding tariffs to Canadian goods harms US consumers by raising prices, why is Canada & Mexico's reaction to also harm's it's own consumers by putting tariffs on US goods?

Because politicians aren't economists. The economist Joan Robinson pointed out years ago that tariffs in response to tariffs is the equivalent of saying, "If your country has rocky coasts that make trade difficult, then we're going to throw rocks into our own harbor in retaliation."

That having been said, while the economic effects of Canada and Mexico doing that are bad for Canada and Mexico, it also harms U.S. exporters, and the idea is to create another voice against the tariffs.

[ThePublius]

That's funny. The "economists" have been wrong about just about everything, economically, for decades. See Paul Krugman, et.al. No smart person listens to them.

[David Nieporent]

Let me guess: you "did your own research," just like you conducted your own experiments about vaccines.

[Absaroka]

I'm totally blanking on the title, and can't find a copy - maybe it was a library book, of maybe it's at the cabin, but a few years ago I read a book that assessed the accuracy of predictions in several fields. Weather forecasting had actually become fairly accurate in the short term as the large computer models came online. But for several other fields: finance, as in what will the stock market do, and macroeconomics, as in will we have a recession, and a few others, prediction didn't work. It didn't matter if you were a Nobel winning economist, your predictions weren't any better than random chance.

Whew...took another lap thru the shelves: 'The Fortune Sellers' by William Sherden. Really fascinating book.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree that economics is not super predictable for big composite variables like GDP growth the real complex macroeconomic world.

But there are some baseline things we do know about economics, at this point.

1. Markets are efficient and innovative. Nothing beats them for efficiency and innovation.
2. Government stimulus works.
3. Ricardo's model of national specialization holds for international trade.

[Absaroka]

And 'printing too much money will cause inflation' 🙂

But that's like saying 'orographic precipitation happens'. That's different from 'it will rain tomorrow afternoon'.

The predictions of whether a recession will happen next year are ... not really accurate. When you hear a prominent economist make such a prediction, take a few minutes to search for the similar predictions they made a decade ago, and see if those were accurate.

Erlich's 'The Population Bomb' is another classic example.

Analog computers were a big thing in WWII (fire control, etc). I have a friend who has a textbook for EE's on analog computing from the year the transistor was invented. The preface reads something like 'today's EE can expect to spend much of his career working with analog computers'.

"Making accurate predictions is hard, especially about the future"

[Sarcastr0]

'Too much' us undefined, making that as useless in the real world as the Laffer Curve.

Inflation has a lot of elements to it, and government spending is only one. Sure, if it goes way up it can dominate. But at what point that happens is nigh impossible to figure at our current level of understanding.

I agree we're awful at the GDP writ large, which includes when there will be a recession. I don't listen to such predictions.

Malthusianism is another bad take. So is Marxis' predictions about capitalism.
But as I said, there are also pretty good takes, if one looks for more modest macroeconomic principles.

My wife's an economist, actually. Though not that kind of economist (still, she did ask for us to elope. <3).
Apparently one of the big current projects is to gradually take the received wisdom of economics from the 1800s till today and reduce it to mathematical rigor.

To analogize, we're more in alchemy-land than chemistry-land, and chemical engineering is way down the line.

It's fun to see what the latest Nobel Prizes in economics are. (I know i know, not really Nobel prizes) to get a sense of what we do know, how situational it is, and where we're currently looking.

[Absaroka]

"But at what point that happens is nigh impossible to figure at our current level of understanding."

Exactly. Whereas the meteorologists today can tell you whether it will rain the day after tomorrow with accuracy that is well above random chance.

That wasn't always the case. Take, for instance, the very consequential forecast for weather in the channel on the 6-9 June 1944. The forecast turned out to be right, but that was probably luck.

[Sarcastr0]

lol from what I’ve read that’s about right.

[David Nieporent]

The predictions of whether a recession will happen next year are ... not really accurate. When you hear a prominent economist make such a prediction, take a few minutes to search for the similar predictions they made a decade ago, and see if those were accurate.

Erlich's 'The Population Bomb' is another classic example.

Of what? Erlich wasn't — isn't, since he's still alive — an economist in the first place.

[Absaroka]

Erlich is an example of an expert making confident predictions that weren't even close.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I guess he was an expert, and I guess he was making predictions, but he wasn't making predictions about the area in which he was an expert.

[ThePublius]

Thanks, added it to my list on Amazon.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Yes David, "doing your own research" is harmful to society and public health, we should only listen to authority figures and trust them unskeptically.

Says the self-professed "State Skeptic". Just like we shouldn't trust our lived experiences re: grocery prices and trust what the government agencies are telling us about the economy!

I have a serious question for you David. Is there a single Fed butthole you haven't tried to lick?

[David Nieporent]

Expertise is an actual thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

When it come to licking buttholes?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Have there been any experiments involving experts and blindfolded monkeys?

[ThePublius]

My favorite Krugman quote, from 1998:
“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.”

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are a dumb, partisan fuck who has no business being permitted to even use the word "smart" in a sentence.

He is violating his own trade agreement. He is punishing our allies and alienating the US from ever having any more (why the fuck would you want to be our 'ally' the way he treats people?), harming our economy by increasing the cost of goods and decreasing the volume of exports because of retaliatory tariffs, which will result in fewer jobs and less discretionary income.

Trump and America cannot co-exist. You are the enemy.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, now do something about it, dingleberry = Trump and America cannot co-exist. You are the enemy.

[Sarcastr0]

I believe his concern is Trump is doing something about it right now. Including alienating and indeed attacking our 2 allies right next to us.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Allies would control their borders.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Trump and America cannot co-exist. You are the enemy.

What are you going to do about it?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Turns out the reason why the "transparent" Pentagon was hiding the name of the pilot was because it WAS a DEI hire.

Some unqualified lesbian whose most recent gig was, now get this, Joe Biden's social aide.

dIveRsiTY iS oUR StrEngTh!@!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Commissioned after only attending ROTC for 2 years instead of all four. And a college basketball player.

[Frank Drackman]

What experience did you have to get your Commission?

[JasonT20]

Where is this coming from? The families of the crew didn't want their names released because they are in mourning and speculation by assholes on the internet that just want to grind their political axes is the opposite of what a person with real human empathy would be doing right now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Their little girl killed 66 other people. A school bus driver wouldn't be given such empathy.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or a truck driver who "drank his lunch".

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think you’ll find that it is in fact quite common to briefly withhold the identity of drivers involved in fatal collisions, particularly when (as here, your idiocy notwithstanding) fault hasn’t been determined.

Still waiting on that Texas law cite, by the way. And I’ll be happy to send you the dissertation money by whatever means you want.

[JasonT20]

heir little girl killed 66 other people. A school bus driver wouldn't be given such empathy.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I am sick of this Trump worshiping bullshit that drives you to take something Trump spews out of complete ignorance and narcissism and turn it into a reason to trash someone that died just days ago. You don't know shit about who she was, what caused the crash, or even whether she was at the controls rather than the more experienced pilot also there. Why not trash him as a DEI hire, since if it is the case that he was there as the senior pilot in a training flight, then the ultimate responsibility would be his. But that wouldn't fit the fucking narrative that Trump was carelessly throwing out there, and that you all now need to dig and dig to find a reason why Trump was right and brilliant to have made that observation.

You have no fucking empathy. I don't believe you would give any to that hypothetical bus driver you bring up, if your orange Jesus hinted that the driver was a DEI hire without actually having any reason to think that other than because it would guarantee that he'd get the attention he craves by saying it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Fuck you and the horse you rode in on."

How about we fuck the guys who focus on hiring based on marginalized identities instead of qualifications?

[Sarcastr0]

Zero proof of that, of course.

You realize that DEI program +nonwhite male employee does not mean that nonwhite male is necessarily worse at their job, right?

Way to live up to the white male stereotype.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not necessarily, but these programs deliberately cultivate the impression that they are focused on racial and social justice and advancing people with marginalized identities.

When organizations that have these programs face challenges with their core missions, people will naturally ask why they're not focusing on that instead.

If organizations appeared to be focused on finding the best people for the job, and figured out that casting a wider net led to better candidates, people would be raising fewer questions.

[Sarcastr0]

No, bigots will naturally do that,

Normal people don’t leap to that assumption and then say DEI made them do it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Reduced to name calling, as usual.

[JasonT20]

Not necessarily, but these programs deliberately cultivate the impression that they are focused on racial and social justice and advancing people with marginalized identities.

No. What they "deliberately cultivate" is the impression that they work to make sure that qualified individuals of marginalized identities aren't left out of the candidate pools or overlooked or discriminated against because of their marginalized identity. It is the opponents of these programs that "deliberately cultivate" the impression that they are implementing some kind of racial quota system and putting unqualified or less qualified people in positions over white males.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Way to live up to the white male stereotype."

You're saying I'm a perfectionist, pay attention to detail, am punctual, objective, etc? Thanks!

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't know shit about who she was, what caused the crash, or even whether she was at the controls rather than the more experienced pilot also there.

Actually, we DO.

First, see: https://www.the-sun.com/news/13434244/soldier-plane-dc-crash-rebecca-lobach/
She was getting $74,901.60 a year as an aide to Biden. She played college basketball, do the math...

Second the crash occurred when the bottom of the passenger plane was at 350 feet. She wasn't allowed to be above 200 feet. Do the math.

Third, the US Army has said she was flying.

"then the ultimate responsibility would be his."

He was a W-2, she a O-3 -- she considerably outranked him.

But that wouldn't fit the fucking narrative that Trump was carelessly throwing out there

Did it ever occur to you that Trump may know things that aren't public yet? He *is* the POTUS, you know....

[Noscitur a sociis]

She was getting $74,901.60 a year as an aide to Biden. She played college basketball, do the math...

I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to imply.

Did it ever occur to you that Trump may know things that aren't public yet? He *is* the POTUS, you know....

None of Trump’s comments offer any suggestion that he has non-public information. If so he should either explain what it is. If he can’t share it, he shouldn’t be hinting at it.

[Absaroka]

"He was a W-2, she a O-3 -- she considerably outranked him."

I get the sense you don't understand the relationship between an IP and a pilot getting a check ride.

That she was flying and goofed is certainly an option at this point. But prudent people are going to want to consider other possibilities. Equipment failure won't be ruled out for some time, for example.

"She was getting $74,901.60 a year as an aide to Biden. She played college basketball, do the math..."

I'll bite. She was a captain getting paid a captain's salary, check. She played basketball, OK. Where exactly does the math take us from there? Good pilots get paid less than other people their rank? Basketball players aren't coordinated enough to fly?

[JasonT20]

I was figuring that woman that played college basketball = lesbian in his mind. Am I wrong about that Ed?

[Absaroka]

Maybe so, but so what? The theory that a lesbian with the hand/eye coordination and reflexes to play basketball will be a worse pilot than a klutzy straight seems ... like a queer notion :-).

If, in the fullness of time, we get evidence that she was on the verge of flunking flight school but they were told to keep her because she was gay/was General Ripper's niece/whatever, then get out the pitchforks. Until then ...

(not directed at you, Jason)

[JasonT20]

(not directed at you, Jason)

I understood, that. Thanks for clarifying just in case.

If, in the fullness of time, we get evidence that she was on the verge of flunking flight school but they were told to keep her because she was gay/was General Ripper's niece/whatever, then get out the pitchforks. Until then ...

And this was largely my point. People breaking out the pitchforks before having all of the facts were just looking for an excuse to break out the pitchforks against targets they don't like.

[JasonT20]

Okay, I'll gladly admit that I was wrong. You did know some actual facts about her and the circumstances of the crash. I still think you lack any empathy here, though the reasoning is slightly different.

The reaction of a normal person to a tragedy is to express sympathy for the people that died and to their loved ones. Wanting to know what happened and why it happened would be to achieve the goals of: a) helping the people affected to understand so that they can better process their grief and b) hopefully learn something that can make future tragedies less likely.

Both of those things require finding all of the relevant facts before drawing any conclusions. Jumping to a conclusion in that kind of case, and being wrong, will add to the pain of those grieving a huge loss and make finding and implementing fixes more difficult. People that care enough to want to help are going to make sure that they don't jump to conclusions because they know it could do much more harm than good.

Trump immediately started in on the DEI line, and when asked to justify it, said that he just had "common sense". (This press conference was Thursday morning, when the crash happened at ~9pm Wednesday night.) Everything people on the right are doing to look for information about the Black Hawk pilot is aimed at smearing her and justifying Trump's original DEI line of attack, even though he was aiming at air traffic control then, not the pilot.

That is why I am so pissed off at Ed and his fellow Trumpist cult members. They are defending their guy, not looking for answers, and they don't act like they give a shit about the families of the people killed.

[SRG2]

A dangeorus moron speaks:
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cqjvg82lg4yt

We can now bring you the latest comments from US President Donald Trump who has posted on social media network, Truth Social.

He says several countries, including Canada, Mexico and China, "continue the decades long ripoff of America, both with regard to trade, crime and poisonous drugs that are allowed to so freely flow into America."

"Those days are over," he writes.

He says products should be made in the US, and that his country shouldn't be losing "trillions of dollars in subsidizing other countries."

"Will there be some pain? Yes, maybe, and maybe not! It will all be worth the price that must be paid," he says.

In a separate post, he attacks Canada, and says they should "become our Cherished 51st State. Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada — AND NO TARIFFS!"

"We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use. Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. "

[David Nieporent]

My god, the man is literally retarded. He would be a homeless guy on ranting on street corners if he hadn't inherited hundreds of millions of dollars. He really is evil; we can see why Satan spared him and killed a firefighter in Pennsylvania instead.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to us when you are worth a billion or two and have been elected President twice.

[David Nieporent]

I admit I was not as foresighted as I should have been in choosing the right daddy to be rich, the way Trump did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Mitt Romney's daddy was richer, and Willard LOST to B. Hussain...

[David Nieporent]

I don't know where you're getting your financial info, I don't know what "B. Hussain" is, and I don't know what your point is. Winning elections isn't a sign of intelligence.

[Mr. Bumble]

" Winning elections isn't a sign of intelligence."
As shown by FJB (do you know who that is?) "winning" election .

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Winning elections isn't a sign of intelligence."

That would explain a lot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is Trump worth more now than his father ever was?

[JasonT20]

And how much of Trump's current net worth is his stake in Trump Media? You know, the one with the market cap of $6.9 billion despite not even having 1/100th of that in revenue over the last year.

Trump is "successful" in business entirely because he relentlessly cultivates the image of being successful. Suckers buy into it. And plenty in the entertainment industry and news media* have profited off of it as well. The true cult of Trump is a belief that he is actually smart enough, talented enough, and hard working enough to have gotten rich on his own merit.

[Mr. Bumble]

The question addressed to David Notimportant was; Is Trump worth more now than his father ever was?
Your comment was not responsive as Il Douche and Capt. Dan would say.

[JasonT20]

And your rhetorical question to David was not responsive to what he was saying about Trump. David never said that Trump wasn't worth billions of dollars.* Your reply was to turn the attention to David, personally, dismissing his argument out of hand as not important, because David isn't a billionaire. Put simply, you didn't do a single thing to counter his argument. You just acted as though he is wrong entirely because he isn't rich like Trump is.

*David could have made a more detailed case for why Donald Trump being the son of Fred Trump is why he is rich now, rather than his own genius and talent, instead of resting that case only on his inheritance. Plenty of journalists and others have looked at what information is public about the history of Trump's wealth and businesses to see how he has done compared to the overall investment market. (Such as the S&P 500 index) And the best that seems to come out of this is that Trump has done no better than about the same as he would have had he taken what wealth he had managed to gain by the early 80s and simply become a passive investor in an index fund at that point, adding in the direct inheritance he got from his father as well. And that doesn't even speak to the advantage Trump had by going into the exact same business as his father, starting in the same city and taking advantage of his father's connections and influence (and his father even co-signing on some of his early projects, from what I've read) or the time Fred was caught buying millions of chips at Trump's troubled Atlantic City casino and not doing anything with them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Quebec is Canada's New York/Massachusetts and Ontario is it's California. Quebec threatened to secede in the 1970s and the problem is that these two Provinces are in the geographic middle of the country. Western Canada is like Texas and Eastern Canada like New Hampshire or North Carolina.

East and West Canada would like to be part of the US and be rid of bilingualism and the rest. But what Trump is really saying is vote out Trudeau! -- vote for someone like me.

[RedheadedPharoh]

@jdvance

Memo to the press:

When a president is elected by the People and then does what he promised to do, that’s democracy.

When a president is thwarted by unelected bureaucrats, that’s oligarchy.

President Trump refuses to bend the knee to that oligarchy. Buckle up!

Irrefutable. Powerful. This is going in the history books as the turning point that ushered in the second Great American Century.

[JasonT20]

Oligarchy, as derived from the ancient Greek, means "government by the few". That is distinguished from monarchy, government by the one, and democracy, government by the many.

Which term applies to the U.S. government, as structured under the Constitution? Well, like every other modern state in the West that holds free elections, it is a mix of all of those if you look at it pragmatically rather than what it ideally should be. Ideally, the U.S. should be a government by the many, with the people themselves exercising their power.* But it doesn't work out like that ideal vision, in practice, and never has and never will.

Once you get a few people in power, elected or not, they are the ones that will be making decisions, and they will make decisions that the wider public doesn't know much about, and they will make some decisions that few people in the public ever hear about. Even with that, representative democracy can still be mostly a government by the people as long as the people have confidence that the few are implementing the policies that they voted for. But most importantly, they need to have confidence that their preferred policies are getting implemented because they wanted those polices.

The study is over 10 years old now, and I'm sure it had plenty of rebuttals to its results, methods, and conclusions. But it should not be a surprising finding that these researchers found that the "average voter" had little to no independent influence on changes to existing policy, whereas special interest groups and the "economic elite" could make or break a proposed change. (By "independent influence" they meant whether the preferences of the average voter got implemented when the other groups didn't want that or wanted the opposite. That is what they found no evidence for it occurring regularly.)

If the "unelected bureaucrats" are making decisions rather than the elected President, then we need to wonder why. And who benefits from their decisions, and what we can do about it. But it is also essential to remember that the President isn't the only elected leader. Congress makes the law, so even if the President is elected, so is Congress. (And both have to follow the Constitution, which was ratified by elected state legislatures in the past.) A bureaucrat that followed the law rather than an order from the President that violates the law...Would that bureaucrat be an oligarch, or would would they be serving the people that elected the ones that wrote and passed the law?

Government is a complex institution. Thinking about it in simple terms is fine as a first approximation to start analyzing it. But it has to just be a starting point for asking deeper questions. When someone tells us that a complex problem has a simple solution or that a complex set of facts has a simple explanation, that should set off our alarm bells to be wary and skeptical.

*"Pure democracy" simply can't work beyond the scale of a very small town where every adult citizen can fit within the town hall to vote on every law or policy that gets proposed. It is a red herring to even bring it up as a reason to not like "democracy" though, since I've never seen anyone advocate for it at any scale that we talk about around here.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I posted this yesterday JasonT20:

>Napolitan Institute found that just 45% of Federal Government Managers would follow a legal order from President Trump if they thought the order was bad policy and instead would do what they thought was right. Among managers who voted for Kamala Harris that figure jumps to nearly three-quarters (69%.)

https://realclearwire.com/articles/2025/01/29/trumps_overhaul_of_the_federal_bureaucracy_backed_by_recent_survey_research_1088078.html

[JasonT20]

I don't know how seriously to take that survey. 18% of Republicans that answered said they would do what they thought was the right policy instead of what the President ordered.

Instead, I'll look to the specific things that were actually proposed and what actually got implemented, which is what that research that I linked was based on, rather than people answering a survey with a vague hypothetical.

So, you can continue to worry about hypothetical "deep state" bureaucrats and their "resistance" while other people work on how to stop the billionaire oligarchs from buying even more of the government than they already own.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jason,

Mitt Romney, Charlie Baker, and Bill Weld are all "Republicans."

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and?

[RedheadedPharoh]

When did these billionaire oligarchs purchase the government?

[David Nieporent]

Did you not notice either time you posted it that the author doesn't know how to write, since the way he wrote it more Harris voters would follow Trump's orders (69%) than non-Harris voters (45%) would?

[JasonT20]

President Trump refuses to bend the knee to that oligarchy. Buckle up!

Okay, but is he going to be implementing the policies that the voters wanted when they elected him, or is going to be implementing the preferred policies of the super-wealthy elite that funded his SuperPACs and inauguration parties? And if so, which voters preferences is he going to implement? Thinking that everyone that voted for Trump wanted the same policies is foolishly simplistic. No one gets elected by a unified majority. It just doesn't happen in the real world. People that pay the slightest bit of attention and put the slightest amount of thought into their votes are all going to have a lot of different reasons for their votes. The only unified voting blocs are the ones where the voters in those blocs are purely reacting to their emotions.

Also, are you going to pay attention to how this turns out? Will you look for evidence that Trump is serving the people and not special interests, and that he is trying to serve all of the people, and not just this or that subset of his base, or worse, himself?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, the DNC has chosen a new chair:

Ken Martin wins election as the next chair of the Democratic National Committee Four years ago he was demanding that Trump be put on trial for treason.

They have also chosen a new vice-chair:

Parkland shooting survivor and gun-control activist David Hogg becomes DNC vice chair

It does not sound like they've decided to move towards the center.

[Sarcastr0]

You have no idea what the center look like, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

It certainly doesn't look like the above.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say that, with Trump getting half the vote, the center, unavoidably, includes about 50% Trump supporters. So picking someone like Martin, who didn't just want to beat Trump, but instead to throw him in prison if not execute him, means rejecting the center.

And Hogg is an utter fanatic whose obsessive focus is an issue that's been costing the Dems elections for years: Abolishing an explicit and popular constitutional right.

He's also a Nazi according to the Democrats' own rules.

[David Nieporent]

The thing about stupid people repeating stupid talking points is that those people are stupid and therefore the talking points are stupid.

1) You're whatabouting.
2) You're doing it very very badly.
​2a) A still picture and a video show different things.
2b) The Nazi salute had an open palm, not a closed fist.

[Commenter_XY]

re 2b....so he was JDL with the closed fist? 🙂

Kahane would laugh.

[David Nieporent]

I would say that, with Trump getting half the vote, the center, unavoidably, includes about 50% Trump supporters.

That is bad logic. That the average of two data sets is X does not mean that the center contains any of the members of those two sets.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the one of subsets is half the total set it does.

[David Nieporent]

Imagine that half the people in the country make $50k, and half make $150k. $100k is the center. There are no people making $50k or $150k in the center.

[Absaroka]

That's really disappointing. I really, really, really don't want Vance in 4 years.

[David Nieporent]

I really don't think the identify of the party chair has the slightest thing to do with the outcome of a presidential election. Party chair is a fundraising position.

[Absaroka]

I was referring to Hogg. Dunno your opinion of him, but he will be a big turnoff for a lot of swing voters, IMHO. It doesn't matter if he has zero policy input; he's a symbol.

[Mr. Bumble]

This is the DNC vice-chairman:
"Like me? I’m never planning on having kids. I would much rather own a Porsche and have a Portuguese water dog and golden doodle. Long term it’s cheaper, better for The environment and will never tell you that it hates you or ask you to pay for college."
https://x.com/davidhogg111/status/1571668492708888576

That's the center?

[Michael Ejercito]

Imagine a girl or woman dropping her panties for him!

[David Nieporent]

he will be a big turnoff for a lot of swing voters, IMHO.

He will be a big turnoff for all 4 people who know about him. Assuming you yourself are not a party official, can you name even one other vice chair of any party in the last 40 years?

N.B. I'm not asking, "If you looked at the list of vice chairs, have you heard of any of them?" I'm asking whether you can name any of them off the top of your head. (Can you even name a single one of the other 3 the DNC selected this year? (Hogg is one of four.))

[Absaroka]

If I were the R's, I'd make sure his name got mentioned a lot.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're going to have to get used to the idea; The Democrats just decided to double down.

[Commenter_XY]

When your enemy is making themselves irrelevant, do nothing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David Hogg?!?

WTF......

[RedheadedPharoh]

Two Canadian food companies, Mid-day Squares and Flourish Pancakes, have announced they will be expanding their operations in the US to make food in the US.

Thank you President Trump for putting American's first.

Historic.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Following his (SoS Rubio) meeting with the Panamanians, the country’s president announced that it will not be renewing its deal with China’s Belt and Road

https://x.com/MatthewFoldi/status/1886171812838400018

America First. Democrats and China Last.

It feels awesome to have a government finally working for it's citizens.