Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

A municipal court judge in upstate New York has resigned after he got out of jury duty by claiming that he couldn't be impartial — because he thought everyone brought before a court is guilty. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-york-judge-resigns-after-saying-he-can-t-be-on-a-jury-since-he-thinks-all-defendants-are-guilty/ar-AA1ypF44?cvid=9d8eeb4baa5e41ba95c644b743c4a9db&ei=7

The judge who was overseeing the jury selection reported Snyder to state officials.

I suppose we should commend the former judge for his candor in saying the quiet part out loud.

I prefer the approach of a criminal defense bar colleague who said, "I've never gone to court with a guilty client. I have, however, left some of them there."

[santamonica811]

1. It's worth noting that this particular judge hails from upstate NY, where idiots rule. It was an elected position (not a big deal) and the guy IS NOT A LAWYER (a very big deal). So, I'd be appalled at anyone who graduated from law school, but still felt that only guilty people come to criminal court, and I'm merely dismayed at this guy's attitude.
2. Can currently-incarcerated (ie, sentenced by this judge) successfully appeal? Lots of defendants say, "Just was biased against me and went in assuming I was guilty." But not many judges admit it...and admit it for each and every case they have heard.
3. I congratulate the guy on his honesty. "I'm fair to all people coming into my court. Oh, I'm under oath? Then I want to change my answer to, 'They are all fucking criminals, or they wouldn't be in court in the first place.' "
4. There's gotta be something mental or psychological going on. I mean, the poor bastard *had* to know that this would be the consequence, and he apparently said it anyway, and repeated the sentiment when questioned in follow-up by an incredulous/skeptical court.

Moral of this story: If you find yourself in that neck of the woods, and you're about to have an appendectomy; it can't hurt to ask the guy holding the scalpel, "Um, you did attend and graduate from med school, right?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've seen lawyers at that level.

[Kazinski]

It was about the only thing in my X feed tor about a say and a half.

Well that and Elon exposing USAID.

[Sarcastr0]

What the Elon expose?

As in evidence, not just asserting conspiratorial shit from some YouTube nutter.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, the "Condoms for Gaza", which the Ham-Ass used to attack Israelis, (and not using them as Water Ballons, which we used to do with the condoms the Navy bought (high quality Trojans actually, nothing but the best for Amurica's best!) maybe the Iraqi version of "Sesame Street" ("Oscar the Shi't'ite Grouch?", "Elmo goes to the Hadj and gets diddled by 70 old men?") and like with the Po-Peel Pocket Fisherman, I've got more!

Frank

[Michael P]

Find a shtick that doesn't depend on ignorance and denial.

[Sarcastr0]

You do get real mad when I ask for evidence.

As if you know that vibes and bare assertions are not enough, but it's all you have holding up your worldview.

[Michael P]

Sad.

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1886647920566636637 is one example of the kind of evidence the DOGE people have. The NYT recognized hundreds of billions in improper payments across a small part of the federal government. There's lots of evidence, but you just pretend it isn't there, denialist.

[Sarcastr0]

“ here's a teaser - this is what the network for Defending Democracy Together Institute looks like. The graph represents grants from various USAID-affliated NGOs flowing to Kristol's non-profit.”

Not evidence, and it’s not even asserting anything improper.

If a guy you dont like gets money from folks who win grants where is the waste fraud or abuse?

[Michael P]

Gaslight0, as usual, asserts that evidence he doesn't like is not evidence, and blithely ignores evidence that otherwise fits his acceptance criteria.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Do you understand the difference between a twitter dude asserting something and evidence?

2. Even taking the assertion as true, what is the wrongdoing?

[SRG2]

1. Do you understand the difference between a twitter dude asserting something and evidence?

No. He does not.

[Life of Brian]

1. Do you understand the difference between a twitter dude asserting something and evidence?

1. She's not a dude, you sexist oaf.
2. Her data visualizations are all based on publicly available information -- you can check it yourself and get back with us on how wrong it is.

2. Even taking the assertion as true, what is the wrongdoing?

1. If you bothered to look at her visualizations in any detail, you'd see a spaghetti bowl/rat's nest of obfuscatory pathways for our public tax dollars that should make professional money launderers jealous.

2. Setting aside for now the question of whether this allows the Federal government to put money to work on activities it is precluded from funding directly, the next-best Occam-approved theory for #1 is that the ultimate disposition of the money is not something we the people would agree to were it clearly laid out.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a good look, not caring about money laundering, Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice accusation, Brett.

As usual, no one seems to be on your page but that doesn't stop you from thinking everyone is, but just lying about it.

Care to go into more detail about how you see money laundering occurring here?

[Brett Bellmore]

"As usual, no one seems to be on your page"

Hallucinating isn't a good look, either. Plenty of people are on this page.

[bernard11]

Sad? You're the one who's a sad specimen. WTF is that chart supposed to show?

[Kazinski]

Elon is destroying the evidence.

[Joe_dallas]

amazing how all that conspiralial s___ turns out to be true.

[Sarcastr0]

What is the conspiratorial s___ at issue here?

[Joe_dallas]

Any true and correct fact that leftists dont like is now a conspiracy theory.

That has become your standard rant.

[David Nieporent]

2. Can currently-incarcerated (ie, sentenced by this judge) successfully appeal?

Well, there likely wouldn't be any such people, because these courts generally handle only traffic violations, though they can also handle misdemeanors. (And I'm pretty sure that all courts, even with lawyer-judges, treat people who got traffic tickets as presumptively guilty.)

4. There's gotta be something mental or psychological going on. I mean, the poor bastard *had* to know that this would be the consequence, and he apparently said it anyway, and repeated the sentiment when questioned in follow-up by an incredulous/skeptical court.

You really overestimate people. He's the judge of a town of 1,372 people (according to Wikipedia, as of the 2020 census), smaller than many high schools. He's not the crème de la crème.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not the town but the judicial district, which I suspect includes several towns.

[David Nieporent]

No, it's the town. Maybe it wasn't in your dissertation, but that's in fact how it works.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone doesn't know what the words "which I suspect" actually means.

[Armchair]

" from upstate NY, where idiots rule."

Really? Want to say something about someone's skin color or sex next?

[Sarcastr0]

Easily offended Armchair.

The statement you're so mad about boils down to: 'from this region, where the politics are bad.'

You're taking it as 'from this region, where people are bad.' Like, you need to do work to misunderstand so you can get mad.

[Armchair]

Sigh...

I know you're trolling Sarcastr0.

But the fact of the matter is that these types of off-hand comments are a sign of bias and discrimination (unconscious or not). They're used to internally justify treating a certain group of people differently. And they self-reinforce within the individual and group, unless they are recognized as the bias they are.

Recognizing this bias is key to understanding it, then fighting it.

Upstate New York is full of a diverse set of politics, both red and blue. But grouping it all as "idiots" from upstate is a form of elitist bias which should be eliminated.

[Sarcastr0]

Still committed to your strawman. That is not what santamonica811 said.

[tylertusta]

He didn't say it?

Or are you trying to say that he did say it but he didn't mean it?

[Drewski]

I encourage this new activism. Idiots should look out for each other. You get offended on the Internet for others and they make sure you don't slip on a puddle of your own drool. We get the entertainment of someone pursuing a hilarious cause. Everyone wins.

[zztop8970]

learned nothing from 'a basket of deplorables', did you? Enjoy many more years as the minority party

[Sarcastr0]

That is not what the comment said.

Though trying to take the high ground about bias and insults is wild coming from the right.

[Bwaaah]

"upstate NY, where idiots rule"

You wouldn't recognize abject bigotry unless it came from a Republican. As here, you don't.

Just like the Democratic Party, you're not about fair, respectful treatment of all people. You're about arbitrary preferencing and de-preferencing of people based on historical stories and statistical correlations to superficial characteristics, like those "idiots" who rule upstate New York (Kathy Hochul?).

You, Sarc, are an idiot. And that's not a generalization.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

“Just like the Democratic Party, you're not about fair, respectful treatment of all people.”

Do you think the Republican party has that value? Trump? lol.

[Stella Link the dog]

"You wouldn't recognize abject bigotry"

Upstate NY, where idiots rule

Washington DC where Republican insurrectionists can't get a fair trial.

NYC, where Republican felons and rapists can't get a fair trial.

Democrats are not about fair.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That is not what the comment said."

Why is your interpretation the one and only possible one?

The people, not office holders, rule in a democracy. Its right there in "demo".

[santamonica811]

Everyone should take a deep breath.
1. I'm a Republican, as I have posted about here for 25+ years.
2. What I was saying was (in my mind) humourous [yes, that's how I spell it] shorthand for, "This guy is such a joke; only dumb people would vote to elect him."
3. I agree with ZZ, Tyler, and Armchair. My comment was exactly like (or even worse than) calling upstate NYers child molesters and Nazis. I'm terribly sorry if anyone's tender feelz were hurt, and I promise to make no pejorative comments about anywhere in NY that's north of NYC.
4. My sister started her Ph.D in Urban Planning at Cornell. As part of her initial research, she spent a ton of time visiting the small towns around the Finger Lakes. Trust me; small towns (yes, upstate...but also all around this great country) have enough material that someone with the writing skills of a Dave Barry could fill a dozen books with the various stories of dumb things people do and say there.
5. Oops. I now apologize for #4, above, if anyone's feelings were hurt by the new reference to the Finger Lakes area. Or by the reference to Dave Barry. Or to the reference to books in general. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

[Life of Brian]

Trust me; small towns (yes, upstate...but also all around this great country) have enough material that someone with the writing skills of a Dave Barry could fill a dozen books with the various stories of dumb things people do and say there.

No doubt, but that's also incontestably true about groups of people that tend to congregate more in urban centers. And as we all know, there's only one of those two populations that's relatively safe to observe/poke fun at/abjectly mock.

If you're advocating to go back to no-holds-barred for everyone I'm right with you on that, and look forward to seeing your trailblazing efforts on equal-opportunity stereotypes.

[santamonica811]

Brian,
Is it your impression here at the VC that there is a paucity of (humourous and serious) insults lobbed at the larger cities, like LA, SF, NYC, Chicago, etc etc? I think that the one thing that binds us all here at this website is the understanding that there is no end to dumb things that conservatives do, liberals do, white people do, black people do, straight people do, gay people do, small-town people do, and big-city people.

On Friday's thread, if you want, I'm happy to post about 10 moronic things I have seen people do here in LA in just the past month. Hell, I'll give you 10 dumb things I've seen, limiting myself to what I've seen just on our freeways. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Life of Brian]

Maybe I need to be clearer: small-town demographics are overwhelmingly caucasian as we all know, so that's become a socially acceptable avenue for racial jokes/stereotypes that are taboo for nearly any other group.

If you're planning on crafting your "dumb LA folks" tales around comparable slices of folks of other races/cultures/nationalities, you're on. Looking forward to it!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Congratulations, LoB. Nice job of expressing seething bigotry while avoiding any advocacy of actual racism.

[Armchair]

Now, while I understand you don't think you said anything wrong...you must understand. Unconscious bias and implicit bias is real. And it pops out in things like this. And there is a real bias against rural American areas (including "upstate NY" even if much of it isn't actually rural.)
https://time.com/6980243/classism-rural-america-essay/

And when you say things like "in your mind" you meant to call them dumb people, but actually called them Upstate New Yorkers....that doesn't help. Let's put it this way. If you meant to call them dumb in your mind, but actually called them black instead...what would you say that represents?

Understanding and recognizing the implicit bias here is important. What you "said" didn't offend me...but the concepts behind it is what's troubling. Ha Ha...they're dumb rednecks. But then when it comes to getting immediate government aid during a disaster, if in the back of your head "they're dumb rednecks who don't deserve it" comes out, even unconsciously....that's a problem. Now, you can't "prove it"....but comments like these have a way of showing up in other ways.

The whole "my sister studies these communities" is about as helpful as "I have a black friend" comments are.

Think about the bias, recognize it, and work to fix it.

Or don't...

[bernard11]

And there is a real bias against rural American areas

Maybe. Is it your contention that there is not a real bias against urban areas and their inhabitants? Even leaving aside "real Americans" BS there is lots of idealization of small town life in contrast to those perverse foreigners and non-white Christians who live in the cities.

[tylertusta]

I agree with ZZ, Tyler, and Armchair. My comment was exactly like (or even worse than) calling upstate NYers child molesters and Nazis

To think that Sarcastr0 decided to die upon this hill.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, are you saying that New York City doesn't have petty bureaucrats who are essentially similar? (NB: "petty" defined in terms of authority and not character, e.g. parking ticket appeals.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Cry harder in your safe space, snowflake.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's worth noting that this particular judge hails from upstate NY, where idiots rule."

As opposed to the rest of the country, where morons rule.

"It was an elected position...and the guy IS NOT A LAWYER (a very big deal)."

That's probably why he was honest about his biases.

I could keep going, but I'll stop.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInch is lying. He is not going to stop.

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

So if that judge is brought before a court 🙂

[John F. Carr]

"I suppose we should commend the former judge for his candor in saying the quiet part out loud."

Back in 2005 a local judge in Olive, New York had enough of a speed trap and said so. He was forced out. The spice must flow.

[santamonica811]

Quote from the Grammy committee, "...Kapoor told People on Tuesday that the dress code for Grammys guests is “artistic black-tie,” adding, “But in the music industry, I guess that’s up for interpretation.”..."

For those who don't follow music news, architect and celebrity wife Censori made quite the scene with about the nudest of nude dresses. On the red carpet. In front of me, God, her mother, and the cameras. I've checked the video tapes of the scene, and can't find her black tie anywhere. So, I'm assuming she shoved it up her hoo-hah. For artistic reasons? To make a big dent [ouch!] in the media coverage?

(On the other hand; in court today, the only Grammy-related topics being discussed by lawyers were the groundbreaking Beyonce win and what was or wasn't inside Censori's vagina. So, um, mission accomplished?)

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anyone really care about these over indulged, self important idiots as they jerk each other off?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. That's why it's on TV.

[Frank Drackman]

So is the WNBA, can you even name one team?

[Stella Link the dog]

Grammy's had 15.4 million viewers. ESPN's WNBA viewership averaged 1.2 million -- not great, but not nothing. ESPN's NBA number is about 2 million.

[SRG2]

1. She has a very fine physique.
2. Something not right was going on with her.

[grb]

And she's an architect!

[santamonica811]

That's either a funny 'Seinfeld' reference, or, a funny "How I Met Your Mother" reference. Either works for me.

[grb]

Don't make things so complicated with all your cultural reference talk; it's much simpler than that. I'm just an architect oft-cursed with impure thoughts...

[santamonica811]

Oh. [embarrassed look]

Well, you should watch the HIMYM episode. It's pretty good. "Ted Mosby... sex-architect."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Something not right was going on with her."

I think her marriage already showed that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"groundbreaking Beyonce win"

"Every night she looks in the mirror and she only ages
She's been readin' about Nashville and all the records that everybody's buyin'
Says, "I'm a simple girl myself, grew up on Houston Island"
So she packs her bags to try her hand
Says this might be my last chance
She's gone country, look at them boots
She's gone country, back to her roots
She's gone country, a new kind of suit
She's gone country, here she comes"

[shawn_dude]

Lil Nas did it first, and better (IMHO.) Nothing blew the minds of more rednecks than a gay, black country singer doing a lap dance on the devil. He won a CMA in 2019 for it, too.

[Longtobefree]

Ground breaking my ass - - - -

Songwriter: Robert Lee Mcdill
Song by Alan Jackson ‧ 1994

[Bob from Ohio]

The second and third statements don't make sense. The CMA is highly sensitive to the opinions of country fans, so I suggest no minds were blown.

[Sarcastr0]

There was plenty of drama about Old Town Road at the time.
The usual whinging about authenticity which could mean anything.

Beyonce's album makes a point - it's not that black people could do country, it's that country has been steeped since it's birth in black musical traditions.

But I also agree with shawn_dude that Old Town Road is more of a banger than any particular song on Beyonce's album.
But it's interesting to pay attention to the cultural context as well as what's got a better groove.

[Bob from Ohio]

Beyonce's album makes a point - I want to refresh my fading influence and grab cash

[Satchmo_Lives]

Yep. Anything Darius Rucker has done since Hootie is far better than Beyonce. Her album Cowboy Cater is full of crap. There are a couple of good songs. Two songs do not make an "Album of the Year."

Well, it does if you are woke organization and think an artists giving the middle finger to country music is a prerequisite.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Beyonce's album makes a point - it's not that black people could do country, it's that country has been steeped since it's birth in black musical traditions.

Bullshit from a non-music based critic of music. All of western music is based on half tones*, for all intents and purposes, set by Bach in the Well Tempered Clavier. Even African spirituals were based on European scales. "Blue Grass" is a fast paced genre of folk not found in African spirituals. Western Swing is found NOWHERE in traditional African music. The idea the basic rhythm is the first and third notes of a triplet, and not straight quarter notes, is simply not found in African spirituals.

People who think rock, blues, or country, is solely based on African spirituals are ignorant. One can find blues progressions dating back hundreds of years.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, nothing you said was wrong. Though none of it was new to me, except your note about what African spirituals don't contain.

But you do seem....really committed to country music being purely white.

That's a fool's errand. Turns out a genre's development is gonna have a ton of groups contributing to it.

Check out the intro of 'Texas Hold 'Em.' Check out who is playing it and what kind of banjo they are playing.

Country also has some bluesy roots. (I rather like red dirt country which reintroduces blues elements a second time). Hard to argue that's not got a bunch of African-American contributors.

Steel guitar's got some gospel via black (and white) churches that made it's way into country as well.

[bernard11]

Interesting comment, Satchmo.

I'm not familiar with the argument that country music is based on African spirituals.

I am familiar with the (non-controversial, I think) claim that aside from country American music has distinctly Black roots,(where do you think Elvis got some of his ideas?) with a pretty strong Jewish presence (not just Broadway, though that's pretty important).

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, country excepted, American music of all types is predominantly Black and Jewish.

Talk to me about white Christian culture.

[shawn_dude]

The CMA, like other self-congratulator award associations (Grammy, Emmy, Oscar) are primarily inside ball. What fellow musicians think is going to be very different than the main body of country music fans.

[santamonica811]

Turned out the tragic plane crash in DC was absolutely a result of DEI. Which aircraft caused the accident? A Blackhawk. A Black Hawk. A BLACK hawk. You don't see any White Hawks crashing, do you? Or Asian hawks? Nope. Just a Black Hawk. If that aircraft had not been passed out of the factory on Affirmative Actions grounds, this never would have happened. Obviously*

*Too soon?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I want to know why the ATFE is involved in the Philly crash.

Engines were working because running lights lit, and while a stall may not be recoverable at that altitude, they were going 300 MPH, you'd think they'd gotten some lift.

As to the Black hawk, it was a half mile off course and 100 feet too high.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lame.

[Frank Drackman]

You're missing the even bigger reason.
"Black Hawk" wasn't a bird, he was an American Indian, and not the Poke-a-Hontas 1/1,024th kind, lets go to the Wikipedia!
Black Hawk, born Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak (Sauk: Mahkatêwe-meshi-kêhkêhkwa) (c. 1767 – October 3, 1838), was a Sauk leader and warrior who lived in what is now the Midwestern United States. Although he had inherited an important historic sacred bundle from his father, he was not a hereditary civil chief. Black Hawk earned his status as a war chief or captain by his actions: leading raiding and war parties as a young man and then a band of Sauk warriors during the Black Hawk War of 1832.

During the War of 1812, Black Hawk fought on the side of the British against the US in the hope of pushing white American settlers away from Sauk territory. Later, he led a band of Sauk and Fox warriors, known as the British Band, against white settlers in Illinois and present-day Wisconsin during the 1832 Black Hawk War. After the war, he was captured by US forces and taken to the Eastern US, where he and other war leaders were taken on a tour of several cities.

Shortly before being released from custody, Black Hawk told his story to an interpreter. Aided also by a newspaper reporter, he published Autobiography of Ma-Ka-Tai-Me-She-Kia-Kiak, or Black Hawk, Embracing the Traditions of his Nation... in 1833. The first Native American autobiography to be published in the US, his book became an immediate bestseller and has gone through several editions. Black Hawk died in 1838, at age 70 or 71, in what is now southeastern Iowa. He has been honored by an enduring legacy: his book, many eponyms, and other tributes.

[Moderation4ever]

One of my father's favorite stories for road trips was to explain to us the Battle of Wisconsin Heights. Showing us the point on the river where Blackhawk and a small band of warriors held off the militia to allow the woman and children to escape across the Wisconsin River. I heard the tale many times.

[Michael P]

Why did you feel compelled to demonstrate your mental deficiencies to everyone?

[SRG2]

Wherein Michael P is looking in a mirror.

[Magister]

Also, you forgot to blame the black boxes. There's never a white box when there's a crash, is there?

[santamonica811]

Fuck! Missed (stupid) opportunity. Nice catch.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, they're actually orange...

(Which I am now guessing a greybox also pointed out.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

They're actually ORANGE.

What I don't understand is why they don't just write it to the cloud -- if Boeing can do that for maintenance, then they could do it for this.

[santamonica811]

[deep sigh]
Yes, Ed; giving the correct colour definitely makes the joke funnier.
[deeper sigh]

[Magister]

Sounds like the black boxes took the same path as Oompa Loompas.

Editor's note: A previous version of this story stated that the bear is a brown bear. While it is a bear that is brown, it is not a brown bear; it is a black bear (that is brown). The story has been updated to reflect this.

[Rossami]

At the risk of spoiling a good joke thread with a serious answer, they can't write flight data to the cloud because the cloud is not always available. (Joke version - clear day. Real version - transpacific flight, transmitter failure, receiver failure or a hundred other reasons.)

Second and probably more importantly, data transmitted to the cloud is always lagged over real, local data. Under perfect conditions, the lag can be a few microseconds but under the real conditions of a flight through variable weather, terrain and other conditions affecting radio transmission, the lag is likely to be measured in minutes. Which means that when the disaster strikes, the cloud version won't have data from those last few minutes - and those are precisely the minutes of data that you most need in an air crash investigation.

Now, could they design a system using both? That is, keep the latest up-to-the-millisecond data in the (orange) black box and synch that data with some ground-based system as best you can? Absolutely. It would, however, be expensive and chew up huge amounts of data bandwidth. The black box captures a lot of data - far more than Boeing's carefully selected maintenance metrics. Would that be worth it? I honestly don't know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why is the USPS no longer accepting packages from Taiwan?

China could be trade related, but Taiwan?

[apedad]

Looks like USPS quickly reversed themselves.

"Effective February 5, 2025, the Postal Service will continue accepting all international inbound mail and packages from China and Hong Kong Posts. The USPS and Customs and Border Protection are working closely together to implement an efficient collection mechanism for the new China tariffs to ensure the least disruption to package delivery."

https://about.usps.com/newsroom/service-alerts/international/suspension-of-inbound-parcels-from-china-and-hong-kong.htm

I didn't find anything specific about Taiwan though.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The US doesn't consider Taiwan to be part of China.

At least, not for all purposes.

[not guilty]

"The US doesn't consider Taiwan to be part of China."

You think not? You may want to google "strategic ambiguity."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did your dot matrix printer run out of ink before it got to my second sentence?

[ThePublius]

I haven't seen anything about Taiwan, only China and Hong Kong. And they're not not longer accepting packages, they are suspending the de minimis rule.

[shawn_dude]

Gadzooks! And with Bezos having given Trump all that money while attaching himself to the administration by sitting up front in billionaire's row at the inauguration. A suspension of the de minimis rule could directly impact Amazon's primary widget supplier and thus its sales numbers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Everyone in the CIA got a buyout offer.
Wow....

[shawn_dude]

Guess the US doesn't need a foreign secret service. Maybe the Trump administration will just subcontract Putin's or Xi's.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it's a mistake to eliminate ED.

You've got to fire the people, not just transfer them to other offices.
This accomplishes nothing...

[not guilty]

"I think it's a mistake to eliminate ED."

Then don't buy stock in Pfizer or Eli Lilly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Cute...

[RedheadedPharoh]

They're reducing ED down to what was Congressionally authorized.

Somehow or another the bureaucrats decided on their own, unconstitutionally, to do create programs and departments that weren't authorized to do.

[SRG2]

How about ED 2?

[shawn_dude]

The sequel didn't rise to the occasion.

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like EV is confusing commenters with the varied start times of this mid-week open thread.

[Commenter_XY]

Note to fed bureaucritters....tomorrow is your deadline to resign, and get 8 months of pay (very generous) in exchange. Do you feel like making that morning DC commute that you recently resumed? You don't need to.

The first offer is invariably the best offer. Take it, and leave.

Offer is good for only one more day. Best of luck in your next endeavor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://www.fedweek.com/retirement-financial-planning/the-vesting-requirements-for-federal-retirement-benefits/

Most aren't eligible for Social Security.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So it's going to be adjudicated by one of those upstate NY type judges, only the DC version.

That doesn't seem appropriate.

[Krayt]

I assume that's for federal employees and not SS in general.

[shawn_dude]

Because that went so well the last time Musk offered it to his employees...

8 months of pay or just let the various federal workers unions tie it up in court for 4 years and get that pay and service credit at the same time.

[santamonica811]

Genuine question: Is that really true?

In civil litigation, it is most definitely not true. In my extremely limited civil lit experience, the best settlement offers were the ones on the proverbial courtroom steps...usually literally the last day before trial starts, or even on the first day of trial.

On the only case where I was a plaintiff (7 of us, re to mold and asbestos in an apartment building); everyone else settled at the mandatory settlement conference a month before trial, and I got at least 20x more than any of the other plaintiffs...merely because I stuck around and was willing to go to trial. Yeah, I know; one case does not a pattern make. But I do hear other attorneys talk . . . .

[Life of Brian]

There are definitely cases like that, but since only a small-single-digit number of cases actually get to trial in the first place, there's a heavy selection bias in your observation.

Settlement offers are ultimately based on uncertainty, so which direction the settlement offers swing over the course of the litigation depends on which direction that uncertainty progressively resolves.

Here, I don't see what uncertainty might break in the employees' favor that could somehow result in a more plump separation offer than that currently on the table.

This is an effort to voluntarily thin the ranks, via people who are either marginally attached and are fine moving on, and/or see the handwriting on the wall and don't want to have to work harder to justify their existence -- a win-win in either case.

If more downsizing is required, it may well be just that -- thank you for your service, and the door is that way.

[santamonica811]

If you can just fire people, then yes...I probably agree with you.
If it turns out that you can't fire people in that situation, then it seems to be...
a. "We'll give you X dollars to resign.
b. "Oh, not enough people did? Okay, now, we're offering 1.5x to resign."
c. "Almost enough, but not quite. Now, we're offering 2x to resign, but limited to the first 25,000 people only."

Same phenomenon as we've seen on dozens of flights. When it's overbooked, they will start with lowball offers. Sometimes they get a rush to take that first offer. But very often, people don't want to accept that, and the offers only get better and better. (I have seen situations where airlines announced a threat to involuntarily kick people off, but the subsequent magic offer of 4 First Class tickets to anywhere we fly, within a year of today [plus the next flight to the current destination, of course] always pushes people's buttons and leads to a stampede of people offering up their seats. I've missed out on that all three times, alas.)

[Life of Brian]

Yes, if there's some sort of surreal job security at play that protects random federal grunts against downsizing, then 1) I agree with you, and 2) I very much want to know further details so we can fix that forthwith!

But just from a quick skim of OPM RIF guidelines, I doubt that's the case in the main. There's definitely a pecking order, but if anyone from the tallest to the smallest could just say "nuh uh" to a RIF then there would be no such thing as a RIF.

[Commenter_XY]

That is what 1K bureaucritters found out today at EPA. They didn't take the deal...and well, no deal, they're out.

[bernard11]

I think that time pressure is a big factor. The quicker you need to settle the more likely you are to take a low offer, or make a high one.

And financial resources are another. The insurer can hold out longer than you can, and has more money for lawyers than you do.

No. I'm not a lawyer, but there are negotiations in non-legal matters as well.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, it has been my personal and professional experience (both sides). The first offer is invariably the best offer.

The reason is, the RIF'ing entity learns from their generosity 'mistakes'. Happens a lot.

[not guilty]

"Note to fed bureaucritters....tomorrow is your deadline to resign, and get 8 months of pay (very generous) in exchange. Do you feel like making that morning DC commute that you recently resumed? You don't need to."

Yeah, like Donald Trump has a sterling history of paying his debts.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, 20K and counting have taken the package, if press reporting is to be believed. It would be lovely to get to 100K before the EOD. I don't think a fed dist ct judge will suddenly 'ignore' centuries of contract law, do you? Not happening.

Severance packages are common, and legally enforceable. This is not a concern. This is a very generous send-off in recognition of their service.

Far better to take a package, and not risk being reorg'ed out of a job when POTUS Trump eliminates your department (like Dept of Education). USAID DC-based bureaucrats thought they were untouchable, now they are unemployed. Many more will be in the days to come.

It really would be in a DC-based fed bureaucrats interest to run those numbers today with an eye to taking the package if humanly possible. Because, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the first offer is invariably the best offer.

[Sarcastr0]

You, as usual for you these days, don't know the the law and don't care.

The President does not get to eliminate departments all on his own.

Civil Service protections remain a thing, no matter how much you gloat and smug about.

What's happened to USAID is an illegitimate authoritarian power grab.

It's employees, from those working to fight AIDS in Africa to those working to prevent childhood diseases in the third world, are currently on leave *with* pay.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, sure it is = What's happened to USAID is an illegitimate authoritarian power grab.

Sounds like a routine re-org that happens every day in the private sector. Your hyperventilating is amusing. Do you want a paper bag, Sarcastr0, to breathe into?

They're non-essential Executive branch employees and will be re-orged out of government. They're neither wanted nor needed.

[Sarcastr0]

The government isn't the private sector, of course. It doesn't have a CEO, it has 3 branches of government.

Though this would also not be normal in the private sector either.

Your hyperventilating is amusing. Do you want a paper bag, Sarcastr0, to breathe into?
Calm detached assholery does not make you correct.

They're neither wanted nor needed.
You have done no work to understand what anyone in government does, including USAID.

You said some time ago holidays no longer make you feel anything. Ever wonder why?

[Brett Bellmore]

"The government isn't the private sector, of course. It doesn't have a CEO, it has 3 branches of government."

And private sector companies manage to have CEOs despite having BODs, too.

"You have done no work to understand what anyone in government does, including USAID."

So far, the more people learn about what USAID has been up to, the more it looks like they're less "unneeded" than positively harmful.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Brett, if you just did the work to understand how important it is to fund foreign censors of Americans, like that Jankowitz fella, warmongering neocons like Bill Kristol, and to be the largest donor of the BBC ($2B in a yr), you'd be clutching your pearls just like Sacastr0 is!

[David Nieporent]

Case in point: USAID hasn't given anything to the BBC.

[tylertusta]

I don't know where he got that figure ($2B is a lot!), but USAID is indeed giving money to a BBC affiliate:

"The BBC's international charity BBC Media Action, which is funded by external grants and voluntary contributions, receives funding from USAID. According to a 2024 report, USAID donated $3.23m (£2.6m), making it the charity's second-largest donor that financial year."

[Bob from Ohio]

DN is always hyper pedantic/technical about things said by right leaning people here.

[David Nieporent]

DN is always hyper pedantic/technical about things said by right leaning people here.

I believe the difference between truth and falsehood is important, regardless of who says it. The BBC is an arm of the British government that transmits British news around the world. What USAID gave money to — not the largest amount; that was just something the Nazi made up — was an entirely different organization named the BBC Media Action, a charitable organization that helps support independent media around the world. The sort of thing that the US government has historically done because we think it's in our national interest, that has historically pissed off people like Noam Chomsky because he hates the U.S. and doesn't want us trying to spread our values.

[RedheadedPharoh]

An entirely different organization who happens to be hosted on bbc.co.uk.
Totally different guys!

You're like Bernie screaming he didn't take any Big Pharma dollars, only from it's employees...

[David Nieporent]

You're like Bernie screaming he didn't take any Big Pharma dollars, only from it's employees...

I believe the difference between truth and falsehood is important.

[tylertusta]

If we're focusing on what is true and what is false, then we need to know if BBC employees have any kind of control the BBC's nonprofit, and no one has determined that.

[RedheadedPharoh]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding

It's literally right there on their page.

[David Nieporent]

What's "literally there"? Something that doesn't say what you said? Yes, it is.

[Stella Link the dog]

Yeah, you're only off by about 2 1/2 orders of magnitude.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a vertical power structure, not a distributed one.

The analogy between our republic and a corporation is not a good one.

Decent set of folks are intimating USAID has been up to bad stuff, but not going any farther. No details, and certainly no evidence.

I think that says a lot.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Dude. Are you living in a vacuum? There's been evidence posted all over. I posted a bunch just yesterday. And this has been going on for decades. Even Senator Erst got in on the USAID hype train and did a whole thread on it yesterday.

The fact that you haven't seen any of it says a lot.

[Michael P]

Not a vacuum. He lives in a reality distortion field powered by steadfast denialism, plus rage at people who are paying attention.

[Sarcastr0]

Between you and I, I'm the one who keeps asking for evidence and providing quotes from primary sources I link.

You're the one mad about that, and occasionally are roused to provide a twitter rando in reply.

I absolutely have my biases and blind spots. But unlike you I don't embrace them and mistake them for the real world.

[Michael P]

Between you and me, you are the one who keeps denying reality and demanding people spoon-feed you facts. And the you define goalposts after getting responses.

[Sarcastr0]

I ask that you *back up the shit you say*

You rarely respond with other than goalpost shifting, insults, or foot stamping.

You could do better by interrogating what you believe to be true. But you won't; that's not why you come here.

[Sarcastr0]

More about power structures.
The government has a distributed power structure because states have a fundamentally different job than corporations.

Corporations job is efficiency; you don't want 2 co-CEOs if that's your goal.

A state's job is the welfare of it's people. It therefore has tons more powers than corporation up to and including the power to kill both it's people and it's corporations.
Turns out efficiency is helpful, but hardly the only concern. Abuse of that power is a big concern. The Founders spend a ton of time thinking about it.
Hence, a distributed power structure.

The Founders would be pretty disappointed at how many on here have come around to arguing that actually we have a king with no checks on his power.
And that the king's madness must be appreciated by all because he was elected.

[Commenter_XY]

This is the fun part, where reality hits people like Sarcastr0 like a brick wall. There are many like him in the DC metro area. Hope they crunch some numbers today.

[bernard11]

They're non-essential Executive branch employees and will be re-orged out of government. They're neither wanted nor needed.

Your definition of non-essential, please, because I have a feeling what you mean is employees doing things that XY doesn't like.

So there's some government program you, XY, don't like. But, it was set up and funded by Congress, and its employees are going about carrying out its objectives.

WTF are you, or Elon Musk, to come along and say, "This is a waste. Eiminate it."

And WTF does "essential"mean to you, anyway? You are hiding your ignorance behind jargon.

[Commenter_XY]

The same measure (or yardstick) that decided what was essential and non-essential during the pandemic by these very same people, will be used, bernard11. The decisionmakers changed, bernard11.

We are moving into week 3, and will have separated close to 25K (20K + 5K) employees from the DC-based federal bureaucratic workforce. Might we add another 75K by EOY by eliminating WFA and duplication? Maybe.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Who did the President grab power from?

[David Nieporent]

Congress directly, and the American people ultimately.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Can you explain how he's taking power from Congress by reforming USAID?

[David Nieporent]

If Congress appropriated money for USAID, and he's not spending it on USAID — and perhaps is abolishing the whole thing — then he is stealing power from Congress.

[RedheadedPharoh]

He's not abolishing USAID.
He's also not impounding the $50B in appropriations.

So we're in the clear and you can put your pearls down.

[Riva]

For the TDS deranged, President Trump is illegitimate so when he exercises his constitutional authority over the executive branch, he is somehow making a “power grab.“

[santamonica811]

Riva,
And for pro-Trump TDS sufferers like you; all the Trump does is legal and fine...even in clearcut situations like refusing to comply with a subpoena, lying about it, trying to destroy evidence, etc..

Fortunately, when Russia programmed you; it forgot to have you occasionally criticize Trump, which would have exponentially increased your fake credibility. I assume that Riva 2.0 will be done a bit better, and I look forward to reading the posts of your future iteration.

[Riva]

You know you've struck a chord when some a-hole from the left labels you a Russian agent.

[Michael Ejercito]

Where did their Russophobia cone from?

[David Nieporent]

Where did MAGA's Russophilia come from? As recently as 2012, Obama was chiding the GOP candidate for noting that Russia was the biggest threat.

[santamonica811]

Riva-bot labels a Republican of 10+ years as liberal. (But, okay; I'll cop to the a-hole description.)

[Riva]

There are a-hole republicans who might as well caucus with the democrats. But whatever your idiotic politics are, I suspect you’ve been an a-hole most, if not all, of your adult life.

I take that back, you’re probably a natural born a-hole.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>The President does not get to eliminate departments all on his own.

Of course, which is why he's not eliminating any departments!

[Bob from Ohio]

"illegitimate authoritarian power grab"

Who is "grabbing" power from whom?

[David Nieporent]

I don't think a fed dist ct judge will suddenly 'ignore' centuries of contract law, do you?

What "contract law" do you think applies here? It is true that in a private matter, an employer saying, "Anyone who does X by date Y will get Z," tha this could constitute a binding, enforceable contract. (As Musk is finding out to his chagrin with respect to Twitter.) But a mere president has no legal authority to bind the U.S. government to random offers he whimsically makes, and therefore there would be no enforceable contract here.

[Life of Brian]

But a mere president has no legal authority to bind the U.S. government to random offers he whimsically makes

Good thing we don't have to dig down into this adjective-laden distraction, since the actual offer was made by OPM.

Speaking of OPM, they actually just issued a nice 5-page memo addressing the various wrongheaded arguments being raised about this very garden-variety straightforward deal, including the recourse employees would have if OPM were to renege on the deal and a template separation agreement it sent to individual agencies to give employees further assurances, specifically laying out dates, expectations, and bilateral commitments. Might be worth a read before randomly bloviating further.

[David Nieporent]

It's a little weird to attack me because they tweeted out a proposal and only later decided to come up with any sort of formal legal justification for it.

In any case, having now read the memo, I'm not overly impressed. This memo — issued only now — cites only one statute relevant to this matter, and that statute authorizes 'administrative leave' for only up to 10 days, so that obviously doesn't help. (It also cites a regulation previouly issued relating to that statute that says, "Oh, but it doesn't really mean that," but post Loper-Bright, well, that's not very meaningful.) It also cites some regulations relating to administrative leave, but I think this offer would clearly flunk the MQD test as applied by the Court in Biden v. Nebraska. Just as general language authorizing the government to waive or modify any provision relating to a student loan can't be used to support cancelling hundreds of millions of dollars of student loans for millions of borrowers, general language authorizing the government to grant paid administrative leave "sparingly" is unlikely to justify letting (potentially) hundreds of thousands of self-selected government employees get paid for eight months of not working.

[Life of Brian]

That's a mighty fine grab-bag of observations, but at this point I have to say it's unclear what theory you're trying to support: That after all this, OPM is going to turn around and not pay after all? That someone else is going to sue to stop them from doing so? That OPM shouldn't have offered a carrot at all, and instead should have just arbitrarily mowed down the rank and file? Or are you just in academic point-scoring mode?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That after all this, OPM is going to turn around and not pay after all?

Yes, I think that should be a significant concern.

That OPM shouldn't have offered a carrot at all, and instead should have just arbitrarily mowed down the rank and file?

If reducing the size of the federal workforce is good policy, it would be better done by removing the positions that are actually superfluous, rather than awarding an unpredictably random windfall which will mostly benefit people who were going to leave anyway.

[Life of Brian]

If OPM really had a maniacal scheme to get a bunch of people to resign in reliance on a promise to pay them until 9/30 that they didn't intend to honor, it's a curious strategy indeed to 1) double down on the promise by fleshing it out in excruciating detail to specifically address all the "what if" chatter, 2) circulate a separation agreement to agencies to use that includes a bunch of "[agency] shall" language, and 3) specifically tell the employees their voluntary resignations could be rescinded if OPM reneged. This seems like a ruthlessly simple promissory estoppel story.

Zooming back out of the legal weeds, another reason I'm really comfortable it's not going to go that way is that it would create unavoidably poor optics -- right now, not down the road. I don't know of any significant faction that truly is looking at this as a chance to "stick to the gullible rubes - ha ha!" as opposed to just stopping the longer-term fiscal bleeding.

[bernard11]

Why are we talking about OPM as if this was their decision?

[Life of Brian]

As I said in my first reply to David, because OPM was the entity that sent out and signed all the materials associated with it.

[bernard11]

Of their own volition, no doubt.

[David Nieporent]

Zooming back out of the legal weeds, another reason I'm really comfortable it's not going to go that way is that it would create unavoidably poor optics -- right now, not down the road. I don't know of any significant faction that truly is looking at this as a chance to "stick to the gullible rubes - ha ha!" as opposed to just stopping the longer-term fiscal bleeding.

Speaking of gullible rubes, the only thing less likely to address "fiscal bleeding" than firing a bunch of employees completely at random is paying lots of money to the best employees not to work, while keeping the worst employees.

If you want to save money, you cut social security benefits; you don't fire the people who admnister those benefits.

[Life of Brian]

If you want to save money, you cut social security benefits; you don't fire the people who admnister those benefits.

Speaking of gullible rubes, given that the benefits formula is calculated by computer based entirely on objective information and nearly 100% of benefit payments are made via electronic deposit, what exactly does it take a whopping 60,000 employees to "administer"?

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of gullible rubes, given that the benefits formula is calculated by computer based entirely on objective information and nearly 100% of benefit payments are made via electronic deposit, what exactly does it take a whopping 60,000 employees to "administer"?

Yeah, and why do mortgage lenders have employees? If you want a mortgage, just fill out a form on a website, and then the bank can approve or deny your application based on a computer program that processes 'objective information' and wires you funds automatically, and since most people have their monthly payments deducted from their accounts, they don't even need to process checks. And if someone has a question a chatbot on the lender's website can answer them.

I mean, you're making the point perfectly about this entire issue. You have absolutely no idea what these agencies do — you have less knowledge about the agency than someone who has read Wikipedia — and yet you are somehow confident that they're badly staffed. Do you think retirement benefits are all the SSA administers? Have you heard of SSDI? SSI? Do you think the elderly people who have issues just use an app on their phones to address them? Do you think the SSA's computers just write their own code? Who processes the initial applications for SSNs?

That's not by any means to suggest that the SSA is efficient. Maybe it could do its many jobs with fewer employees. It's to say that (a) you don't have any clue about that; (b) firing a bunch of employees haphazardly is not in fact going to achieve that goal; and (c) that will save a very small portion of the money needed to balance the federal government's books. (Pretend that you can eliminate half of those people with no degradation in service, and that they all make $100k a year in wages and benefits. Congrats: you've saved $3 billion. Out of an agency that spends roughly $1.3 trillion per year.)

[Life of Brian]

That's not by any means to suggest that the SSA is efficient. Maybe it could do its many jobs with fewer employees.

Talk about burying the lede -- you just spoiled most of the rest of your page-long rant with this quiet admission.

Congrats: you've saved $3 billion.

Dismissively saying/thinking "it's ONLY $x billion, yo" to justify each of an endless stream of $x billion expenditures is a big part how we got into this mess.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. Given the extent to which performative cruelty seems to delight the MAGA regulars on this topic, I wouldn’t dismiss the “Yoinks” thing as being the plan all along. But a change of plan over the next 8 months (for instance, when Elon Musk inevitably does something that makes Trump made at him) would be my bigger concern.

2. Anyone who would stake their career on the Trump administration wanting to avoid poor optics deserves whatever they get.

[Life of Brian]

But a change of plan over the next 8 months (for instance, when Elon Musk inevitably does something that makes Trump made at him) would be my bigger concern.

Well, of course I can't give you assurances that this particular bespoke boogeyman is not indeed going to suddenly appear under your bed after I leave the room, and even if I could, there's an endless number of other potential ones those inclined could conjure up.

I guess we'll take stock in 8 months or so -- seems to me it'll be a material data point whichever direction it goes.

2. Anyone who would stake their career on the Trump administration wanting to avoid poor optics deserves whatever they get.

When I read this I thought it must have been Nieporent that had previously characterized this scheme as "an unpredictably random windfall which will mostly benefit people who were going to leave anyway" -- but now I see it was you. I'm thus a bit puzzled by why all these supposed short-timers are suddenly now "staking their career" on it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

LoB, stopping the fiscal bleeding is the last thing Musk/Trump intend, however much they want that idea implanted in the MAGA hive-mind. What they intend is a massive multiplication of the fiscal bleeding, by a deficit-funded boost-the-rich tax cut. What's going on now is just prelude to that. Trying to clear out some fiscal space to make what's coming look slightly, but only slightly, more affordable.

I predict you will support what's coming.

[Life of Brian]

See above re boogeymen in beds. There's no set of facts under which you'll find comfort when you've already decided what is going to happen.

I, in turn, predict that, whatever actually happens, you'll find a way to cram it into your preconceived paranoid mental model.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I think that should be a significant concern.

Further, note that although the OPM memo at least now dresses things up to look vaguely official, it still doesn't actually promise anything besides that the employees who accept the offer won't have to RTO. Although it says that they generally won't be asked to work, it does not guarantee that.

[David Nieporent]

That's a bad faith response. I raised questions about what legal authority there was for such an offer and whether it was legally binding. You jumped into the conversation to offer a memo that purported to address those legal issues, and even chided me for not having read this belated ex post facto justification for the Musk offer. So I did read it, and responded to it. And rather than engaging on that, you whine about the very fact that I analyzed it leglly.

[Life of Brian]

I raised questions about what legal authority there was for such an offer and whether it was legally binding.

Oh come on -- it's right up there for all to read. You did not raise a single question, but rather made a number of pronouncements, the last of which ("a mere president has no authority") made clear you were just running your mouth without even understanding the basics of the situation. I "jumped in" to provide some actual facts and perhaps prevent you from further embarrassing yourself. You're welcome.

And rather than engaging on that, you whine about the very fact that I analyzed it leglly.

Ackshully I did engage, by inquiring about the ultimate point of your blizzard of unrelated observations rather than getting sucked down the rabbit hole you appeared to be trying to create with them. You seem rather irritated that didn't work.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think those people who took the offer are called "suckers" in the Trumpxicon, are they not?

(Or are they "losers"?)

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe they're people who were going to voluntarily retire in the next few months, and didn't mind getting a parting bonus.

[David Nieporent]

What bonus?

[Brett Bellmore]

Quitting now and getting paid for the next half year, obviously.

Yeah, yeah, I know: You figure the Trump administration is going to cheat all 40K people who took up the offer. I don't see any reason to expect that.

[David Nieporent]

Quitting now and getting paid for the next half year, obviously.

That is not what the offer, as articulated by OPM is. Again: the only thing that's guaranteed to the employees who accept the offer is that they won't have to RTO. It says they probably won't have to do any work, but it makes no binding promise to that effect.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, not quitting, 'quitting'.

[Riva]

Is that your advice NG? The hack bureaucrats should FAFO? Ok but that hasn’t worked out to well for others.

[not guilty]

I am not advising anyone here. I don't do that since retiring from practice.

If someone else wants to take Donald Trump at his word that the United States will honor its financial commitments, that's on him or her.

[Riva]

FAFO. Ask the IG holdout escorted out of her office or better yet, ask Panama, Canada, and Mexico.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Clearing out Gaza is a good idea, and then let individual Palestinians apply to emigrate there. It has lovely beaches and good beach weather.

[not guilty]

Lawsuits are being filed en masse pushing back against the Trump administration's lawless conduct. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/us/doge-lawsuits-trump-elon-musk.html

Here's hoping the federal judiciary will have the testicular fortitude to do its job and adjudicate matters fairly and justly.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and adjudicate matters fairly and justly."
Since most will be filed in DC, that hardly seems likely.

[Brett Bellmore]

Underscoring that Congress really needs to enact a law drawing DC juries from a much wider pool than just DC.

If DC were a state, that wouldn't be constitutional, but as it's not, the Constitution permits it.

It really isn't healthy for all federal government related cases to be heard in a district where the jury pool consists almost entirely of one party.

[not guilty]

Uh, most of the lawsuits being filed as to Trump administration policies seek only equitable relief, to which no constitutional right to trial by jury attaches.

[John F. Carr]

The FBI agent lawsuit includes a jury demand. I don't see how they get a jury. They asked for a jury.

[not guilty]

Rule 39(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(c) Advisory Jury; Jury Trial by Consent. In an action not triable of right by a jury, the court, on motion or on its own:

(1) may try any issue with an advisory jury; or

(2) may, with the parties’ consent, try any issue by a jury whose verdict has the same effect as if a jury trial had been a matter of right, unless the action is against the United States and a federal statute provides for a nonjury trial.

But a jury trial is not constitutionally required in matters of equity.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see how they get past a summary dismissal, unless they simply draw a judge who hates Trump's guts. Which admittedly is not hard to do in the DC circuit.

[santamonica811]

Shorter Brett: If Trump wins, that will be on the merits. If Trump loses, that will show that it was rigged against him unfairly.

It's a great rhetorical device. It's how I can argue that, after I flipped a coin 100 times; 50 times I did a great job and won, and 50 times the game was rigged and my loses were bullshit and unfair.

[David Nieporent]

The FBI agent lawsuit includes a jury demand. I don't see how they get a jury. They asked for a jury.

A lot of lawyers just automatically ask for one in any suit they file. It costs nothing, and the worst that happens is that a court rules they don't have the right to one.

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

See, you've gotten so foolish you didn't realize you said 'lawless conduct" --then you say 'adjudicate fairly', which can only mean any outcome but yours is not fair. HOW puppy's-head-in-a-bag to not see that. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kazinski]

The latest is all almost all overseas USAID employees have been ordered to return to the US so they can be put on administrative leave.

{CNN)
—
US Agency for International Development staff around the world will be placed on administrative leave Friday and ordered to return to the US, according to a directive issued Tuesday night.

As of 11:59 p.m. ET Friday, “all USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions, core leadership and specially designated programs,” said a statement posted on the USAID website, which is back online after going dark last week."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Return to US means that they can't be overseas on diplomatic passports anymore -- that if they want to return, they only can as tourists. They can be arrested.

[John F. Carr]

Aside from passports, it is U.S. policy that you have to return to the U.S. after your overseas assignment ends. This rule is to prevent people from getting a free ride to a foreign vacation.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's kind of peculiar. Where I work, if you get a foreign assignment, as has happened to me a couple of times, you have the option of requesting an early flight there, or a delayed flight back, and taking some vacation time while you're there. Naturally, you have to pay for the extra hotel time, rental car time, and you don't get any per diem. It's just an adjustment in the flight times.

It doesn't cost them anything extra to accommodate employees that way, after all.

[DrCoke]

Never try to save the government money. It will not end well.

[Commenter_XY]

That is so true.

[Riva]

Funny you should mention lawless conduct. Because now that Bondi is confirmed as AG with Kash to follow, I suspect we’ll be learning a lot more about lawless conduct. Looking forward to the stammering BS emitted from your side when the shit really hits the fan. Let’s start with the identity of the mystery non-bomber from the DNC and go from there.

[not guilty]

"Because now that Bondi is confirmed as AG with Kash to follow, I suspect we’ll be learning a lot more about lawless conduct."

Was the irony here intended, Riva? Or are you the proverbial blind hog who has found an acorn?

[grb]

Riva is a bot and a primitive one at that. Think crude wooden gears hewn with a very dull axe and you get the picture. What he's sure to do is spew out random rightie talking-points in a scattershot manner. What he's sure not to do is traffic in irony. I don't think bots are capable of that. Probably one of those Turing Test Things.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You called it.

[Riva]

Hey that’s funny. The disclosures and transparency will be even funnier. And speaking of disclosures, more to come from President Trump’s litigation against the Pulitzer board. They have to produce all of the communications among themselves relating to their reaffirmation of the 2002 prize they awarded the NY for the Russian collusion hoax reporting. That will be pretty amusing too.

[Commenter_XY]

Impending acquisition of gaza (just kidding, sort of); the potential 52nd state (ok, definitely tweaking here)?

Legally, how does a country like America legally acquire gaza. Who signs over the 'deed' for gaza to America? When we acquired AK, Philippines, how did that work, legally? Would gaza be the same?

POTUS Trump has a very hard sell to very unmotivated buyers: the physical relocation of ~2MM palestinians. It is a test of his powers of persuasion. It has the potential to be humane and non-violent, and stop the killing and death. Particularly if paired with a financial incentive for emigre' and host country.

It is also a reality test. Is POTUS Trump wrong about the development challenges to rebuild gaza?

*Specifically, his point that gaza redevelopment is so extensive, and so massive that you can't have a mass of people there while it occurs; it is destroying tunnels, razing buildings, hazmat all over the place, laying roads, plumbing, electric, etc.

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

Still a great idea. If we all had your immediate rejection of things we would still be making fires by rubbing sticks. And what did Biden accomplish. Shit all nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Naturally, given his career, Trump is going to think in those sorts of terms. I think he has to look into what happened to those greenhouses, though.

But the neighboring states know the Palestinians too well to want to accept any, even on a temporary basis. It would be much more practical to just move the Palestinians around while doing the building locally, rather than trying to do the whole Gaza at once.

[Commenter_XY]

But....how does it work, legally. I mean, is it like buying a house? You sit at a closing table and sign docs until your hand falls off? Who would be the 'seller' in an acquisition of gaza?

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, I don't know. There must be SOME process for administering occupied territory after a war.

[Frank Drackman]

Like we did with the Indians, move them to God-forsaken Oklahoma, then when we find oil, move them to even more God-forsaken North and South Dakota. You want to rebuild something? how about Pine Ridge or Rosebud? or for that matter, all of Mississippi?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, once the US troops (who's he kidding that boots on the ground won't be required?) cleanse the Gaza Strip of anyone "swarthy looking", Trump will send in a few US civilians and call a "referendum" on accession. They will all vote "yes", and he will inform the UN (assuming it still exists) to change all the maps.

Done!

[myself]

Being unable to distinguish between his different careers is not natural at all.

His dementia is getting worse.

[not guilty]

Alaska was purchased from Russia. In December 1898, the Philippine islands were ceded by Spain (the previous colonial ruler) to the United States along with Puerto Rico and Guam after the Spanish–American War.

Why in the world would the United States want to acquire Gaza?

[RedheadedPharoh]

I don't know, the same reason why we're somehow the top donor to the BBC to the tune of > $2B per year. Or why we're donors to the WEF, a place where every member flies in on private jets.

[David Nieporent]

We are not any donor to the BBC, let alone the "top one."

[RedheadedPharoh]

I literally linked it to you. And you're right about the top donor bit, we're second only to the UK Domestic Affairs office. But not by much.

[David Nieporent]

You didn't read what you linked to.

[Brett Bellmore]

Somebody thinks it's an excellent fixer upper opportunity? Which it would be, if there weren't all those Palestinians there.

But they're kind of stuck there, since nobody is stupid enough to take them.

[shawn_dude]

Trying to remember the last time in history a national leader said "this would be much better place if only we got rid of X population."

[Commenter_XY]

That was the cauliflower, when he called half of America human garbage.

[Armchair]

"Why in the world would the United States want to acquire Gaza?"

There are a lot of good reasons not to (and to be clear, I'm not in favor of it).

However...Gaza has had a number of issues lately. Putting a government in charge that was dedicated to eradicating the Jews, that decided to launch rockets at civilians indicriminately, decided to launch mass raids to massacre as many Jews as possible...

In such a situation, a US-military-type administration has seen success in the past at reducing such behavior.

[Z Crazy]

When was the last time?

[Joe_dallas]

japan and germany

[Commenter_XY]

NG...Sure could make for a beautiful naval port, agreeably close to the Suez Canal. Or an airbase.

If pressed, we could make it the 52nd state (after Greenland, LOL). 😉

More seriously, I am an agnostic on the acquisition question. Open to the idea, def want to hear more.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't want to touch Gaza with a 49 1/2' pole while wearing hazmat gear.

[Commenter_XY]

I am not sure I would want to either, but definitely want to hear more and understand the thinking.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

US interests lying tantalizingly within easy reach? Islamic terrorists would love it. Let's make their jobs easier!

[Bob from Ohio]

"naval port"

Sadly, the MAGA Strip only has a small artificial harbor, useless for warships bigger than a gunboat..

[Commenter_XY]

If we built the Panama Canal, we can build a port. 😉

A yuuuuge cruise ship terminal....Trump Terminal.

[Frank Drackman]

Just look like it like when the Yankees played the 1974 and 1975 seasons in Queens while Yankee Stadium was being renovated, or when the Raiders left Oakland for LA, except the Palestinians won't be coming back

[RedheadedPharoh]

I think POTUS misunderstood all those "Free Palestine" signs.

[David Nieporent]

See, that was actually a funny. And a plausible one, too.

[Don Nico]

A critical problem with Trump's idea is that no country wants to take that population, certainly no Arab country.
With the present population still there major reconstruction will be decades long.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, think of an arab bazaar, like the Grand Bazaar in Turkey. Anything and everything is negotiable. You need only the proper mix of incentives to get what you want.

[John F. Carr]

"You can get anything you want at Arafat's restaurant."

[Magister]

Excepting Arafat, one should add.

[Brett Bellmore]

Excepting Arafat, 'cause he's dead.

[Bwaaah]

With his Nobel Peace Prize in the grave with him.

If there's an afterlife, he and Barack Obama can argue over which one contributed more to peace in the world. I think Obama wins that one, for having made no contribution at all. (Yassir was always a river-to-sea guy.)

[Magister]

That he's dead is unlikely to be the cause, since when he was alive, Israel tried to get Arafat repeatedly without success.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Just avoid the cigars. They taste funny.

[SRG2]

Many of the posters here who support Trump's malign and stupid idea wouldn't be too unhappy if the Gazans were just pushed into the sea.

[grb]

1. Many of the commentators above see Palestinians as subhumans, unworthy of any consideration as human beings. XY in particular has been open in his ghoulish bloodthirsty trolling. The forcible mass-eviction of a whole population of millions is a Sunday walk in the park to them. Of course they haven't thought it out. MAGA doesn't do "think".

2. For instance, what happens when other countries follow the lead of the U.S.? What happens when China (for instance) decides to push a few million Uyghurs across some border. Will it be funny then? Will that also be the cartoon-fun TV-viewing entertainment MAGA voted for?

3. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is rolling their eyes. Trump just crapped in his pants again. How, they wonder, can people living here ignore the stench?

4. There was a whole thread yesterday on Trump's evolving plan to fire FBI agents for being assigned to 06Jan cases. The same MAGA whores also turned-up there to insist (insist!) that flabby buck-naked clown was actually an emperor clad in fine robes & silk. They'll be doing this day-after-day the next four years. Wading through Trump's shit-trail of lies, buffoonery, and gibberish, trying to sane-wash it all away. What a life, eh?

[Commenter_XY]

I have zero sympathy for Judeocidal terrorists, like hamas. The faster they die violently, the better. No one involved with 10/7 should die a natural death.

[SRG2]

And the rest of the Palestinians?

[Commenter_XY]

Many gazan civilians participated in the Simchat Torah pogrom, and directly aided hamas afterward.

No one involved in 10/7 should die a natural death.

As for the remainder, Allah can provide for them in a third-party country not named Israel or USA. They can (and hopefully will) live a better life elsewhere.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Ghoulish bloodthirsty trolling" --check

[Commenter_XY]

Reality of that region of the world -- check

[Joe_dallas]

SRG2 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Many of the posters here who support Trump's malign and stupid idea wouldn't be too unhappy if the Gazans were just pushed into the sea."

grb 24 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"1. Many of the commentators above see Palestinians as subhumans, unworthy of any consideration as human beings."

Conveniently ignored by both GRB & SRG - None of the other Arab countries want the palestinians either. They havent wanted them since the late 1800's /early 1900's. There was a reason jordan and egypt blocked their exit during and after the 1948 war.

[SRG2]

I'm not ignoring it - it's just not directly relevant.

[Commenter_XY]

It is completely relevant.

[Joe_dallas]

Maybe you didnt ignore the history - probably doubtful you even knew the history

[John F. Carr]

Land belongs to a country to the extent other countries recognize the claim. The United States and Iran have generally accepted borders. Kosovo and Israel do not.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It is also a reality test.

That’s one way of describing it.

[David Nieporent]

Legally, how does a country like America legally acquire gaza. Who signs over the 'deed' for gaza to America? When we acquired AK, Philippines, how did that work, legally? Would gaza be the same?

No. We acquired the other two from the government of the countries we recognized as being sovereign over those places. There is no such government/country for Gaza, so nobody to buy it from. (The closest thing would be the PA, but even if it were recognized as having the authority to do so, Israel would be more likely to sell us Jerusalem than the PA would be to sell us 40% of its population.)

[Commenter_XY]

David...So how would we actually acquire it...ain't no 'owner'.

(I don't think it will happen, b/c of arab intransigence)

[MoreCurious]

The idea of the U.S. "acquiring" Gaza is a red herring. This is not about acquiring a piece of real estate, it's about acquiring development opportunities. Look at photos of Trump's inauguration. Just three or four of those billionaires are worth close to a trillion dollars. Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Kushner, and maybe a couple of others could -- on their own and without government assistance -- spend the billions needed to clean up the mess and create Trump's new Riviera. (I wonder if it's too arid for golf courses.) And Netanyahu will be standing there waiting for his piece of the action.

[hobie]

This shouldn't be too difficult. The Jews are uniquely experienced. Just slap green crescent patches on everyone, line up the box cars and off they go

[Joe_dallas]

Hobie - Yes the jews are uniquelly qualified. That is one of the reasons there was a large palestian migration into the region from jordan starting in the very late 1800's. As the area became more prosperous due to the jewish migration, arabs and palestians migrated into the region to take advantage of the increased properity which was lacking in the arab world at the time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hoe did Russia get title to Crimea?

[David Nieporent]

If you're asking how the Russian empire got title centuries ago, Catherine the Great's Russia won it from the Ottoman Empire. If you're asking how Russia currently got title to Crimea, it didn't. Crimea is Ukrainian.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I don't know about you other Patriots, but this new term has been better than expected.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess the talk with Milei was productive. He's doing great work in Argentina, and apparently Trump decided he had the right approach to things: Shock and awe, go in so hard and fast that the opposition stays off balance.

[Commenter_XY]

Or, heaven forbid, flood the zone. LMAO. The opposition team here in the US is so flummoxed, presently, they don't even know which way is up. I have never seen anything like it in my entire life. Not even post-Nixon.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That’s because Trump is now the first President to decide that the Constitution doesn’t apply anymore and he can do whatever he wants.

You’re cheering on the destruction of our system of government.

I look forward to King Trump and his co-conspirators hanging in the street.

[Brett Bellmore]

Guess who just demonstrated that they slept through American History class in high school? Ever heard of Lincoln? FDR?

[David Nieporent]

When did either Lincoln or FDR decide that the Constitution doesn't apply anymore? You're not still lying about Lincoln knowing that he couldn't suspend habeas corpus but doing it anyway, are you?

[Brett Bellmore]

You're lying about me lying again, aren't you?

[Life of Brian]

Is this where we're supposed to politely pretend that the Supreme Court didn't repeatedly hold FDR's New Deal programs unconstitutional before he put a gun to their head and they suddenly saw the light?

[David Nieporent]

Well, that's something of a distortion — as we now know, the "switch in time" actually happened before FDR tried to threaten them. (And it wasn't really much of a threat since it was roundly rejected by Congress.) But setting that aside, "The president did something and then later SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional" does not constitute "deciding that the Constitution doesn't apply anymore."

[Life of Brian]

Oh, so some chin-strokers have now solemnly declared that sudden sea change just to be one big super-magical coincidence. Got it. Anyhoo:

But setting that aside, "The president did something and then later SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional" does not constitute "deciding that the Constitution doesn't apply anymore."

I know it isn't convenient since the citizens of TDSland really need a mechanism for declaring Trump's activities Super Illegal Right Now Today, but in the real world as it stands the Supremes are the ones that decide whether activities not explicitly contemplated by the Constitution are or are not permitted.

If you're talking about something you think is more clearcut than that, maybe specifically raising that would be easier than just shadowboxing in the abstract.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Protip:
DuckDuckGo "Lincoln" + "habeus corpus"

You're welcome.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, Maryland was never in rebellion, and the Emancipation Proclamation violated the taking clause -- that'd why the 4th paragraph of the 14th Amendment was necessary.

Roger Taney wrote in his diary that he expected Lincoln to have him arrested.

Andrew Jackson said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."

[David Nieporent]

Once again, you make a series of observations, some of which are true and some of which are not, and none of which are relevant to the discussion.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why doesn't the Trumperverse ever complete Bannon's quote?

Do they not know that he actually said, "flood the zone with shit"?

Do they not know that the purpose of their intentional enshitification of the United States is to cause its people to "give up" trying to understand what is true and what is false, and simply give in to the authority?

[Kazinski]

The NY Times says that there is no way Elon can save 1trillion dollars by eliminating fraudulent payments, because only 236 Billion of "improper" payments are made annually:

"Mr. Musk has told administration officials that he thinks they could balance the budget if they eliminate the fraudulent payments leaving the system, according to an official who discussed the matter with him. It is unclear what he is basing that statement on. The federal deficit for 2024 was $1.8 trillion. The Government Accountability Office estimated in a report that the government made $236 billion in improper payments — three-quarters of which were overpayments — across 71 federal programs during the 2023 fiscal year."

That kind of fact check really shows why we meeded DOGE so badly. Because likely if there is 236 Nillion we already know about the end total is going to be closer to a trillion than 236 billion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/03/us/politics/musk-federal-government.html

[RedheadedPharoh]

Just think if they recover that $236B, they could solve homelessness 10x!

But I think in their minds it's only the magical $20B that comes from taxing rich people that can solve homelessness or world hunger. Not from the govies actually being responsible with our money.

[Sarcastr0]

Critical reading even includes the NYT, Kaz.

The GAO report:
https://www.gao.gov/blog/federal-government-made-236-billion-improper-payments-last-fiscal-year

"The $236 billion in improper payments were reported by 14 agencies across 71 programs.

More than $175 billion (74%) of errors were overpayments—for example, payments to deceased individuals or those no longer eligible for government programs
$11.5 billion were underpayments
$44.6 billion were unknown payments—meaning it is unclear whether a payment was an error or not
$4.6 billion were cases where a recipient was entitled to a payment, but the payment failed to follow proper statutes or regulations"

"About $186 billion (79%) of such errors were concentrated in five program areas: Medicare, Medicaid, Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Paycheck Protection Program Loan forgiveness. "

"Our recommendations for federal agencies include those that would call for better monitoring of federal programs and planning that would help identify risks."

Seems more complicated than you thought!

[Commenter_XY]

Didn't see DOD in that link. I know, I know, the military doesn't waste a penny, so no need for an audit.

[Absaroka]

Just FWIW, a billion dollars works out to very roughly $3 per capita across the population at large. Lots of people pay no taxes - minors, low income, etc, so maybe $6 per taxpayer, ignoring progressive rates, so $12 per couple. $12*175 is $2100.

If $2100 of my wife and my taxes last year were improper overpayments, then I think those systems are due - past due - for a careful look with a sharp pencil. It's the same reaction I'd have to finding out the electric company or phone company overbilled us by $2100.

I really wish we had elected (a much younger 🙂 ) Warren Buffett and he was sending over Charlie Munger with the pencil, instead of Trump/Musk, but my distaste for Trump doesn't mean the sharp pencil isn't overdue.

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of people think that because I'm a liberal I must think that there's no waste for fraud in the government.

That's wrong, of course. It's just that I don't care for reductive thinking and simplistic solutions.

Things that were wrong in Kaz's excerpt (even after he conceded that Musk's number was way high):
1) the actual operable number
2) the why behind the number
3) the ways to make the number go down.

And that's all vastly more complicated than Kaz's 'big number, cut everything' nonsense.
For one, cutting the federal workforce will do the opposite to this number.

For another, the current targeting of federal agencies is about the discretionary budget, which are not the load-bearing issue here.

There seem many on here who argue you can cut the government with no real change for Americans who don't work for the government. Because of how wasteful government is.
GAO reports are a great illustration of how trivially untrue such a notion is.

[Absaroka]

I'm imagining Elizabeth Warren's reaction to the news that credit card companies have been accidentally overcharging the typical couple $2100 a year.

[Sarcastr0]

Hypothetical hypocrisy, this time by proxy.

You objection is that I’m not mad enough to want stupid shit?

Warren is a blowhard. But I would note that her solution to bad financial stuff was staffing up oversight, not ending credit card companies.

[Michael P]

Warren made her reputation with several varieties of worse hypocrisy than outlined there: fake ethnicity claims, cooking numbers on "medical" bankruptcies, and pushing for a corrupt, overreaching and yet largely ineffectual bureaucracy that you call "oversight".

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of that isn't true, but you're off topic so none of it matters.

This is my nut:

"You objection is that I’m not mad enough to want stupid shit?"

You are all working very hard to stay mad enough to want stupid shit.

[Michael P]

No, I am just observing that your entire shtick is performative outrage and denialism about people who know more and have better judgment than you.

You can't defend $2100+ of waste per family in one year, so you go off on some rant to defend dishonest politicians who put their energies into destructive government bloat rather than trying to help the public.

[RedheadedPharoh]

He's a govie. His agenda is to milk the public for all it's worth while contributing zero to the economy.

Just like the politicians he worships.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not defending it.

I'm pointing to details about what it is, and talking about what actual reforms by actual people looking for a solution might look like.

That looks like defending it to people who want to stay mad so they can continue to unthinkingly push for stupid shit.

[Michael P]

We can see your whining about things like "hypothetical hypocrisy" for what it is: an attempt to defend those dishonest pols by going on an angry attack against the people who point out the waste, fraud and abuse that you and those pols have enabled or committed.

[Bwaaah]

"[Sarc's] a govie. His agenda is to milk the public for all it's worth while contributing zero to the economy."

Well, yes. But he doesn't tell the story that way. That's just the way it works out.

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Imagine that, coming from Sarc. If that's not cause for skepticism, I don't know what is.

[Commenter_XY]

Yet, you offer no alternative other than MOTS (More Of The Same).

The country rejected that at the ballot box last November.

[Absaroka]

"You objection is that I’m not mad enough to want stupid shit?"

Take a deep, deep breath.

1)I'm not objecting to anything you said here.

2)I am saying that $2100 ain't chump change.

3)I think Ms. Warren has a habit of getting pretty spun up about corporate peccadilloes in a way she doesn't tend to do for government ones. And thinking about that gave me a chuckle.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree it's not chump change. But I also didn't say anything to make it look like I thought it was chump change.

I think the GAO is absolutely right. They usually are, especially about financial stuff.
That means 1) Musk's number is badly wrong, and 2) the solutions being chased by the administration are going to make things worse.

I think Ms. Warren is a blowhard, as I said.
I liked her back in 2016, largely in contrast to Sanders. She had plans and Sanders was just populism.
Not sure if she learned to be worse by being in electoral politics, or if she was always that bad. Or if I got older and more savvy.
But she's gone beyond populist rhetoric and advocated for bad and frankly illegal ideas enough that I'm done with her.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's perfectly fair to say that you're not going to eliminate a $1.8T deficit by cleaning up $234B give or take in waste.

It's a good first step, but to get to a balanced budget we'll need to cut spending that's actually going to what it was appropriated for, because Congress has simply and grossly appropriated more money than we have coming in.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course, you can't address already paid out waste.

And getting at the issues that caused that waste and will continue to cause waste is complex, and takes *more* people, not less.

Yelling WASTE is not a good first step.

Balancing the budget remains a political nonstarter with vastly large costs than this. You want to largely end Medicare, then drop a separate thread and stop dropping your zealotry into other conversations.

[David Nieporent]

And I see Brett is now using the number that's definitively wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I see you're ignoring the "give or take".

Pretty snotty when I'm actually agreeing that eliminating waste is barely a start on balancing the budget.

[Bwaaah]

BDS...it doesn't matter what you say, Brett. DMN and Sarc running in circles around you, because of original sin. (You fail to disavow all support of Trump.)

[shawn_dude]

"to get to a balanced budget we'll need to cut spending that's actually going to what it was appropriated for, because Congress has simply and grossly appropriated more money than we have coming in."

Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy dramatically reduced the nation's income such that it added to our annual deficit. The GOP created this problem with their tax cut and the solution is to reverse those changes and increase the money we have coming in. Maybe they did this in order to create an artificial problem they could "solve" by cutting social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare. It's been a longtime goal of theirs to dump all that Social Security cash into the stock market so large portfolio holders could extract more wealth from the middle and lower classes. I think the plan is titled "Operation: Fuck Grandma."

[Commenter_XY]

s_d....Federal receipts increased or decreased , post 2017 TCJA?

[David Nieporent]

And I see you're ignoring the "give or take".

"Give or take" can be the difference between $234 and $230. But when your number is 25% off, it's no longer "give or take."

[Bwaaah]

But when your number is 25% off, it's no longer "give or take."

Not to you. But to me, it's roughly correct. Have you seen the kind of inaccuracy that's typically bandied about? Do I expect estimates within 25%? No, but I certainly do appreciate them.

Your pedantry doesn't save you. It often diminishes you.

[Josh R]

Tax revenue as a % of GDP in 2017 (the year before the act) was 17.1%. In the next two years it dropped to 16.3%, and further to 16.1% in the COVID year before recovering to 17.6% in 2021.

[RedheadedPharoh]

% GDP is misleading as it contains federal spending in the denominator.

Revenues:
2017 $3.3T
2018 $3.3T
2019 $3.5T
2020 $3.4T
2021 $4.0T

Meanwhile, government spending in 2017 was $4.1T then in 2021 was $6.8T

Can't blame tax cuts on that.

[Commenter_XY]

Receipts went up, chief. 😉

[Josh R]

Receipts went up, chief.

They would have gone up more without the tax cut. That's why you use %GDP (tax revenue tracks with income). The argument that GDP is higher thanks to the tax cut may be true for a short time (think short-term stimulus). But, it's not enough to make up for the loss in revenue and in the mid-to-long term, the higher debt decreases GDP.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Dear Josh,

If tax revenues increase, but spending increases faster, what happens to tax revenues as a % of GDP given that spending is a component of GDP?

Does it increase, decrease, or stay the same?

[Josh R]

When government spending goes up to increase GDP (*), it does so with or without a tax cut (don't kid yourself otherwise). So, it's the same denominator with or without the tax cut.

(*) GDP goes up with government spending, but that just means there is less spending in the private sector. So, GDP is not impacted. Or perhaps for you libertarians and anti-government types, government spending is less efficient than in the private sector and GDP goes down. All of which makes no difference in evaluating a tax cut as noted above.

[Magister]

Spending isn't part of the computation, so it has no effect on tax revenue divided by GDP.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Gentle, please review this document from the BEA.

https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2020-04/GDP-Education-by-BEA.pdf

On page 2, it has the formula for GDP.

"There is a four-part formula: C + I + G + NX = GDP"

G = "Spending by federal, state and local governments to provide
goods and services, such as schools, roads or national defense."

Tax revenues (TR) as a % of GDP is thus calculated as:

TR/(C + I + G + NX)

If TR goes up, but G goes up to a greater extent then TR as a % of GDP will go down.

P.S. ". Or perhaps for you libertarians and anti-government types, government spending is less efficient than in the private sector and GDP goes down."

Meanwhile, for the govies, they believe the bureaucrats are so efficient and good and spending money, that every $1 they spend actually impacts the economy as if it were ~$1.6. They call that the "government multiplier".
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12150.pdf

[RedheadedPharoh]

If cutting government actually hurt citizens, Washington Monument Syndrome wouldn't exist.

Govies have to intentionally go out of their way to punish citizens, because otherwise we'd never know.

QED

[David Nieporent]

Things that were wrong in Kaz's excerpt (even after he conceded that Musk's number was way high):
1) the actual operable number
2) the why behind the number
3) the ways to make the number go down.

4) Treating one year's number as if it was the annual number. Look at the people here who are now saying "$2,100 per year."

[Kazinski]

Well I pointed out that I didn't think the NY Times take was completely accurate.

My point is if there are 236 billion in improper payments we already know about, then the actual total is likely higher.

Second is is we we definitely need DOGE to make government more efficient. One of the first things Elon claimed is that the Treasury disbursement office was under instructions to make even knowingly improper payments, that figure seems to bear that out.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, they didn’t find 236 billion in improper payments, and no, this figure does not "bear out" that they "knowingly" made a single improper payment.

[David Nieporent]

I really wish we had elected (a much younger ) Warren Buffett and he was sending over Charlie Munger with the pencil, instead of Trump/Musk, but my distaste for Trump doesn't mean the sharp pencil isn't overdue.

I'm perfectly happy with not sending out unauthorized payments, but you can't blue pencil your way out of relatively small issues. When you're spending $600, you can look at each individual line item and find each bit of money that shouldn't have been spent. When you're spending $600B, you can't. (Note that the bulk of the improper payments being discussed here are not — despite what people like Musk want everyone to think — big ticket items like giving $50B to a fake organization; rather, they're $10,000 here, $20,000 there, spent on individual people. This random doctor in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, is overbilling on a couple of knee surgeries he performed. That sort of thing.)

[Absaroka]

Absolutely true. But you also want to guard against the casual, 'eh, it's only $2100, that's normal' kind of thing.

I've had the good fortune to work for a couple of places that were constantly trying to get better, even if they were already good. For one familiar example, consider Honda and Toyota vs Detroit in the 1970's. Detroit's attitude to quality control was exactly 'we're doing pretty good'. My general answer to that is 'great! now let's figure out how to do better'.

And just to be clear, the numbers in the GAO report were for FY2023. About a quarter of the improper payments were for pandemic programs, and so they hopefully won't continue. But that still leave $1575. I'm not sure I'd expect the non-pandemic stuff to vary a lot. Just for yuks I picked pre-pandemic 2019 and that year the number was $175B vs 2023's $236B.

(in fact, scroll down the previously linked 2023 report. There's a chart by year since 2003. The CPI is up around 75% since 2003. The improper payments are up 500%. That is worth a very careful look to find out why.)

[David Nieporent]

Absolutely true. But you also want to guard against the casual, 'eh, it's only $2100, that's normal' kind of thing.

Sure, but you also don't want to spend $2,500 to save $2,100.

I want to emphasize one other point, which I am confident you know but I'm not confident everyone does: none of this has anything to do with any taxpayer's actual tax burden. Even if one identified and eliminated every penny of that $2,100 per person of fraudulent spending, nobody's taxes would drop by $2,100 or any lesser amount. The money would just be spent in other ways.

[Mr. Bumble]

So we should do nothing?

[David Nieporent]

"We" should not, correct. Congress should hold hearings, debate spending priorities, and then vote on what programs it wants to fund. Hopefully that figure will be far less than what we currently do. And if it isn't, hopefully people will vote for different members of Congress next time. And if it is, since I am not a Jacobin, hopefully things would be wound down in a gradual and orderly manner.

Meanwhile, if someone finds an actually fraudulent payment, then the DOJ should work to get it back and work to punish anyone who committed fraud.

But I do not think someone should run around like a bull in a china shop pointing at random expenditures from agencies he doesn't understand, rant and rave about fraud, and then slash and burn those programs. (I think I mixed a few metaphors in that.)

[Commenter_XY]

I agree with your comment. Can you let me know when the bull in the china shop turns up? 🙂

[Life of Brian]

Even if one identified and eliminated every penny of that $2,100 per person of fraudulent spending, nobody's taxes would drop by $2,100 or any lesser amount. The money would just be spent in other ways.

That seems unduly defeatist and also incorrect. Of course it's true that taxes aren't going to go down because these savings alone won't eliminate the unsustainable deficits we're running, but that's a whole different ballgame than just coming up with new and creative ways to waste the money again.

[David Nieporent]

It doesn't matter if these 'cuts' did eliminate the deficit entirely; that still has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes and spending are essentially independent of each other.

[Life of Brian]

I agree they're currently and recklessly treated as two independent streams of money that need not bear any reasonable relationship to each other, but changing that purposefully naive mindset is a vital part of getting the feds' house back in order.

[bernard11]

none of this has anything to do with any taxpayer's actual tax burden. Even if one identified and eliminated every penny of that $2,100 per person of fraudulent spending, nobody's taxes would drop by $2,100 or any lesser amount. The money would just be spent in other ways.

True, but incomplete. The $2100 might be spent in more productive ways than paying fraudsters. Then, while taxes might not drop taxpayers might see some benefit from the crackdown regardless.

[Kazinski]

Speaking of the NY Times and Improper payments, the NY Times itself has been the recipient of about 45 million from the US government, almost all since 2021:

"The US Government gave the New York Times tens of millions of dollars over just the past 5 years despite paying relatively little money to the NYT in the years preceding 2021. For instance, in August 2024, the US government awarded $4.1 million to the NYT.

The bulk of the funds came from the US Department of Health and Human Services at $26.90m, followed by the National Science Foundation at $19.15m"

There is a handy graph showing the timing and magnitude of the payments at the link.

https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887191056074350690

[David Nieporent]

Is this any different than the dumbass argument that appeared on Twitter today that USAID was "funding" Politico, by which they actually meant that USAID had purchased subscriptions?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, it’s different.

Some of them are purchase orders for publishing forfeiture notices, not subscriptions.

[bernard11]

So the government paid the NYT for subscriptions and advertising, and somehow this is a scandal, per Kazinski..

[Kazinski]

45 million in subscriptions? 26 million from HHS alone?

That's not for forfeiture notices from HHS and NSF either.

[Kazinski]

According to this Politico Pro Subscriptions were about $12,000 for each subscriber.

Is that legit?

https://x.com/FilmLadd/status/1887148220423299319

[David Nieporent]

Yes. This is not reading articles from Chris Cilizza (Yeah, I know he's not at Politico) about the latest beltway gossip. This is a service for policy insiders. This tweet includes a screenshot giving a general overview of what Politico Pro is:

https://x.com/surlygopher/status/1887181576716345838

[Life of Brian]

Unpublished pricing gives them a ton of latitude to jack prices up for a customer they know is just going to cheerfully pony up regardless.

Total obligations (data here) were $6.5M over the Trump years, and $26M over the Biden years.

Drilling down to individual agencies, Department of Energy went up by 8x ($380k to $3.2M), HHS went up by 3x ($1.7M to $5.2M), and USDA went up by nearly 5x ($420k to $2M).

Quite a nice haul. Wonder how much they've grown to depend on that level of juice -- I highly doubt the next 4 years are going to be remotely as flush.

[David Nieporent]

Total obligations (data here) were $6.5M over the Trump years, and $26M over the Biden years.

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that the Biden administration was interested in policy and the Trump administration wasn't (and again isn't).

[Brett Bellmore]

Or maybe it just had something to do with Politico being political allies, and Democrats like giving taxpayer dollars to their friends.

[Mr. Bumble]

Always finding new ways to say nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

So many of your comments are just insulting other commenters.

[Life of Brian]

Now there's the pot calling the kettle doubleplusunwhite.

[Life of Brian]

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that the Biden administration was interested in policy and the Trump administration wasn't

I'm very comfortable that in the 5 whopping minutes that elapsed between my post and yours, you didn't bother looking at the data I provided.

If you had, you just might have noticed that the Executive Office of the President spent $900k in the Trump years and only increased to $1.2M in the Biden years.

So I'd give you about a C for effort, and a D for substance.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I heard a nasty rumor that prices increased in general during the Biden administration.

[Life of Brian]

Yup, which makes it likely that a ~30% increase over 4 years was just a price increase for the same general level of service (aggressive, but believable -- particularly when I see now that the contracts had automatic 5% annual escalators). That actually was my point.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 24 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Is this any different than the dumbass argument that appeared on Twitter today that USAID was "funding" Politico, by which they actually meant that USAID had purchased subscriptions?"

DN - you wasting a lot of effort trying to explain why the payments were structured to look legit!

[Sarcastr0]

Ipse dixit from Joe!

Is he gonna appeal to common sense next?

[Joe_dallas]

keep making your self look inane and stupid.

[David Nieporent]

Don't be silly; he's going to cite high school biology.

[Joe_dallas]

another inane response from some that cant find an intelligent explanation of why the payments were structured to look legit!

[David Nieporent]

Um, the intelligent explanation for why the payments were structured to look legit is because the payments were legit.

[Joe_dallas]

No they werent - but keep trying , just like you kept trying to claim biden was mentally fit or any of the other hoaxes perpertuated by leftists.

You are bound to keep fooling other leftists

[David Nieporent]

Yes, they were. I realize that bookkeeping is the one thing you actually might know something about, but as even you are forced to admit, they "look legit."

[Joe_dallas]

keep telling your self that they are legit - you and other leftists will believe that.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe, you keep saying they aren't legit but you offer nothing to back it up.

I presume, when pressed, you'll just say everyone knows it.

[David Nieporent]

Hmm, how can I put this: they're legit, you lying p.o.s. You have no facts to the contrary, you know nothing about the topic, and you're just sucking Elon Musk's cock here, metaphorically speaking.

And since I am not a leftist, the phrase "other leftists" makes no sense.

[Life of Brian]

I don't find this replicable, and it's hard to know exactly why because none of the screenshots include the specific entity names they included in the filter (they're normally displayed right up at the top of the page, immediately above the "Prime Grants" chart in the first screenshot -- the page appears to have been scrolled down to exclude them).

The screenshots show 197 contracts, 83 grants(!) and 1 loan(!!). My search, filtering by every entity that has "New York Times" in the name (4 total), results in 196 contracts, 0 grants, and 0 loans, and also shows southward of $400k/year in obligations for 2022-2024.

Particularly given the improbable grants and loan, I suspect there's at least one more entity included that makes up the lion's share of the spend.

[not guilty]

For the first time since 2021, the message "End Racism" will not appear in the end zones at the Super Bowl. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6112317/2025/02/04/nfl-end-racism-super-bowl-dei-trump/

What a shame!

[RedheadedPharoh]

Dang, just think one more year of it appearing and it might have worked!

[Frank Drackman]

2 Black Quarterbacks in the Super Bowl?, remember when it used to be a big deal when there was 1? Now you get 4 Black Placekickers/Punters playing and that'll really be something. The Falcons even have a Korean kicker, great at onside kicks, the ball just slants over to the side....problem is his field goal kicks do the same thing.

[David Nieporent]

I can see why Donald Trump would find such a message to be a personal attack on him.

[zztop8970]

You mean it will be the same as it was in the 55 years before 2021? How will we survive!

[Michael Ejercito]

Are you telling me the NFL did not put "End Racism" in the end zones during the height of the Civil Rights movement?

[SRG2]

Don't you know? Opposing racism means you hate Trump! And you hate America! And you hate Putin

[Z Crazy]

Why is it a shame?

[Riva]

Don’t worry Goodell is all in on DEI so plenty of racism left in the NFL.

[John F. Carr]

"6 points if you get the ball here"
"8 points if the ball is thrown by a black man"
"10 points if the ball is thrown by a woman"

[santamonica811]

I don't get it.

[John F. Carr]

The league has stopped empty signalling of the sort modern progressives like. I proposed alternative end zone text to support the intersectional people.

[Bwaaah]

"For the first time since 2021, the message "End Racism" will not appear in the end zones at the Super Bowl."

Could it be the end of our desire to be rid of racism, or just the elimination of one more vacuous attempt at virtue signaling?

Looks like less virtue signaling, and a chance for more serious voices to be heard amid the noise. (2020 is calling. It wants "systemic racism" back.)

[Kazinski]

Meaningless platitudes are counter productive, especially at a game played mostly by Black millionaires being cheered by a diverse audience.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know if it's that much of a shame.

What about poverty? Global warming? Not worth ending?

Did the NFL only care about racism? In a legally protected cartel overwhelmingly staffed by non-white millionaires... Lol.

Perhaps they should replace that message with something relevant, such as, "End Personal Fouls".

[Frank Drackman]

Listened to Matt Gaetz on Bill Maher's "Club Random" podcast, sounds like a pretty cool guy, he'll have much more fun as a US Senator.

[Commenter_XY]

Gaetz can have much more fun in the private sector. And be more effective.

[shawn_dude]

The last thing we need is an "effective" sexual predator.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, but when you're a celebrity they let you do it.

[SRG2]

I'm sure Gaetz is a fun party guy - particularly if you're into drugs and underage girls.

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t forget the drugged underage girls

[Ska]

I prefer half-drunk 31 year old women. Maybe I really am a conservative posing as a libertarian.

[hobie]

You're just too old fashioned, Ska. Gentle behavior is so 90's

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

If anyting will make you anti-Libertarian it's this wonderful short ciip of the former Kenya President on Trump's revocation of Aid to Africa.
Keep complaining about tariffs, it is a losing battle to argue with you

https://www.tiktok.com/@businessinsiderssa/video/7465628266091580677

[Krayt]

This link just takes me to a wall of random short videos?

[Frank Drackman]

John Fetterman's growing on me, like a Fungus, could he be the next Repubiclown Senator from PA, or at least an "Independent"?? Only DemoKKKrat with the Stones to vote for that controversial Pam Bondo. I think the last Senator to change parties was one of my favorites, Colorado's Ben "Night Horse" Campbell (he should have worn that full Battle Headdress all the time) hard to believe its been 20 years since he left the Senate for better hunting grounds, now Colorado's got a Turd-Burglar Governor and 2 of the lightest-in-the-loafer Senators you'll ever see. (Dr) Hunter S Thompson would be turning over in his grave if he hadn't had his ashes shot out of a Cannon

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

There is precisely zero chance John Fetterman ever switches parties. Don't believe me? Ask Giselle. Not happening.

He can be 'iconoclastic', like The Bern. 😉

[shawn_dude]

Looks to me like he's eyeing the Sinema/Manchin spoiler position. If he can operate there effectively, he'll get additional leverage for his constituents. PA did go for Trump this election cycle, which probably gives him a bit of room to move to the right. However, it alienates those left-of-center folks who are now unlikely to vote for him in the future.

[Michael P]

What kind of obliviousness and groupthink led to David Hogg being chosen as a vice chair of the DNC?

[Sarcastr0]

You are mad about inside baseball in a group you hate before there's been any actual upshot. Well, not so much mad as told to be mad by some nonsense you read.

Party leadership aren't the politicians. This is not a strategic or comms position.

Maybe it will be now, who knows. Maybe he'll do a bad job, maybe he'll be great at fundraising and writing bylaws.

[Michael P]

Thanks for answering my question with a demonstration.

[Sarcastr0]

You confuse counselling you have less certainty for me having certainty myself.

[Bob from Ohio]

"mad"

Nothing in his comment says Michael is "mad" about it.

Your comment has much more heat.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc routinely characterizes laughter and incredulity as anger and crying. (SimonP and Jason Cavanaugh do that routinely as well.) He thinks his thin, mainly deflective remarks hit paydirt.

Needless to say, I have been in tears over this.

[Riva]

I applaud the choice and encourage the Democrats to continue their descent into insanity and irrelevance.

[shawn_dude]

This seemed like it was out of right field but the name sounded familiar... Oh, a Parkland mass shooting survivor who went on to fight for gun safety laws. Of course the right wing media is going to manufacture outrage and we're going to see it parroted here.

[Super Scary]

Pointing and laughing at dumb decisions isn't "outrage" but keep on doing you boss man.

[Michael Ejercito]

Gun safety laws aka victimless crime laws.

See also https://www.newsweek.com/you-can-have-gun-control-you-can-defang-police-you-cant-do-both-opinion-1794484

[Brett Bellmore]

"Oh, a Parkland mass shooting survivor who went on to fight for gun safety laws."

Basically right once you realize that "gun safety" is a euphemism for trampling all over the Second amendment.

Here's what he has to say about the 2nd amendment:

"You have no right to a gun. You are not a militia. When you’re talking about your second amendment rights you’re talking about a states right to have what is today the national guard. The modern interpretation of 2A is a ridiculous fraud pushed for decades by the gun lobby."

He completely denies that the right exists, even though it's explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Given the absurd atextualism of this position, the fact that it contradicts Supreme court precedent, explicit statements about the 2nd amendment dating from the founding, why would anybody insist on taking this stance?

The only reason is that they want to do things that any right to own guns AT ALL, no matter how restricted, would get in the way of. Otherwise, there would be no harm in admitting the truth. Even most gun controllers will admit there's a right here, and just deny intending to violate it!

It really looks like the Democrats response to losing both chambers of Congress AND the Presidency has been to double down on extremism on every topic. Hogg's selection indicates that they mean to treble down on gun control. And that's going to take some doing considering how extreme their 2024 platform was on the topic.

[shawn_dude]

You and he appear to disagree on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. His take considers the full language, yours focus on the second half. The USSC voted in your favor but reasonable people can disagree regardless. (your conspiracy theories notwithstanding.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"His take considers the full language..."

How does a take that considers the 2A to be a state's right consider the language "the right of the people"?

[Michael P]

Oh, Hogg has a lot of piggishly stupid ideas, not just that one. Legalizing all drugs, 100% wealth tax above some threshold, abolish ICE, defund police, the brat summer was going to win the election for Harris because elections come down to just vibes, and so on.

He also had some messages that the DNC should have heeded: "any politician doing anything with me is in effect committing political suicide" and "I’m one of the most politically toxic people in the country and I’m too radical for American politics."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is he old enough to vote, yet?

[Brett Bellmore]

He's what, 25 now? So, yes.

But they won't be able to nominate him for President until 2036.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm kind of curious where you found them. My brief search was unable to find anything about his views on anything besides gun control.

The DNC's current problem is that if you drew a Venn diagram, the circle representing "politics acceptable to the DNC" and "politics unpopular enough with the general public to amount to political suicide" are about a 90% overlap. The Democratic party is pretty dependent on most media outlets keeping mum about how radical their current leadership are.

[John F. Carr]

Illinois lawmakers have been trying to work out a law that limits police presence in schools. They hope anti-Trump branding will finally get a bill passed.

A lot of rules affecting students are local ordinances. School administrators call local police to write an ordinance violation as a way of evading rules prohibiting schools from directly fining students.

Illinois is unable to track civil rights issues in its schools except by getting data from the dear departed Department of Education.

https://www.propublica.org/article/illinois-student-civil-rights-police-ticketing-bill

[Z Crazy]

So they don't want to deal with school shootings and gang violence?

[John F. Carr]

They want to distinguish small crimes like vaping from big crimes like stabbing. The line is hard to draw. The local government made vaping a crime. The local government made drunk driving a crime. (I think Illinois is one of the states where cities duplicate state driving laws so they can try cases in kangaroo courts and keep the fine revenue.) Can either or neither be enforced against a student on school property?

[David Nieporent]

Is there an epidemic of students driving drunk on school property?

[Bwaaah]

Did somebody suggest there was, or are you just channeling Dr. Ed2 today? That's a pretty spastic response there, David.

[David Nieporent]

Did somebody suggest there was,

I mean, kind of, yeah. John F. Carr asked if local laws against drunk driving could be "enforced against a student on school property." I thought a natural reaction was, "Is this actually an issue?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Vehicle operation is different because it is licensed.
As to everything else:

1: It very likely would violate FAPE, where "F" stands for "free."

2: What do the state ED laws & regs say?

3: On a practical sense, if the student is under 18, how are you going to collect the fine?

That's just for starters, I can see a LOT of problems with this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a legitimate need for both the ED and the FBI as data depositories and statistic generators.

ED conducts the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a.k.a. "the nation's report card", which is quite valuable. While it also is a vast wasteland, there is a lot of valuable stuff compiled by the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC).

[Z Crazy]

Its beyond debate.

Male and female has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a cock, tits, or pussy.

This means separation on the basis of male and female doesn't make sense!

Denying this is like denying Fermat's Lost Theorem.

The question is why humanity was deluded into thinking that male or female had anything to do with a cock, tits, or pussy.

[apedad]

Facing feds over fence, Colorado ‘Free Land Holders’ ask for ambassador, offer to pay court in silver

The U.S. sued Patrick Pipkin, Bryan Hammon and other, unknown members of the Free Land Holder Committee on Nov. 26, 2024, claiming the group improperly erected a mileslong fence around the Hallar Deed Area of the San Juan National Forest.

In court Tuesday, Pipkin eschewed the name written on the complaint, instructing the judge to call him, “the man Patrick,” due to his belief his birth certificate had been forged.

“We are not an enemy combatant to the United States, myself and the Free Land Holders, I am here to request that the United States send a diplomat or an ambassador for communications of peace and sacred honor,” the man Patrick told the court.

https://www.courthousenews.com/facing-feds-over-fence-colorado-free-land-holders-ask-for-ambassador-offer-to-pay-court-in-silver/

Who's more whacked that a MAGite?

These guys.

At least MAGA/Trump have a political goal and are (somewhat) using the political process.

These guys are just living in a different world.

[John F. Carr]

This sort of person existed long before MAGA and probably before Trump was famous.

[Michael P]

The quoted bit reads a lot like sovereign citizen baloney, which goes back to the early 1970s (per Wikipedia), when Trump was quite young and I think not famous.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There really isn't much difference between it and the Indians.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There are Indian-themed varieties of sovereign citizen kookiness, just as there are black, Hispanic, neo-Nazi varieties.

They do not, however, have anything in common with actual Indian law.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And there are British varieties--probably elsewhere, too.

I blame the Internet.

One of my secret pleasures as a law clerk was reading the (voluminous) court filings of so-called "sovereign citizen" litigants. This was back when there were just a few dedicated SovCit BBSs operating, as well as the usual fringe print publications.

I never guessed that their amazing ability to elevate fantasy over reality would later be adopted by an entire "mainstream" political party.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Should give a shout out here to Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice Rooke, author of a 2012 decision in a case called Meads v. Meads, in which he coined the term "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA) litigants. In his 736-paragraph decision, he purposely provided a "field guide to recognize these people, document and explain the strange ways OPCA litigants operate, their curious misuse of legal language and concepts, and to open a window into the communities and personalities that drove this phenomenon".
(2012 ABQB 571)

[Longtobefree]

So fences DO work?

[hobie]

"I am a natural man" is Sov Cit talk. All they gotta do is pull him over after a court hearing and ask for DL. He won't have any and off to jail he goes

[Dr. Ed 2]

Probable cause?

[hobie]

Apart from the traffic infraction? Driving without a license

[Stella Link the dog]

Observed improper lane change. Failure to drive in the center of the lane -- touching white line on either side. Failure to use turn signal when changing lanes. Failure to turn on turn signal sufficiently early or turning it on too early. Too much dirt on the license plate. But then, sov cits think they don't need registrations so there is probably not a proper registration plate in the first place.

In summary, establishing "probable cause" for a traffic stop is trivial. If none is actually observed, it probably doesn't matter.

[bernard11]

Just wondering what makes someone feel like a natural man.

[Commenter_XY]

So today is Pam Bondi's first day on the job. What are her top three priorities as AG? Who is her team?

[DixieTune]

Just saw her say that she would investigate the NY prosecutors who brought the criminal and civil cases. I'm thrilled to see Republicans finally playing dirty and weaponizing the DOJ themselves, instead of letting the Democrats do so with impunity.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Sen. Kennedy (the good one from LA) was recently saying in an interview how sad DC is. He said something along the lines of "There are many people in Washington who would unplug your life support system to charge their cell phones."

That's Sarcastr0. That's USAID. That's Washington DC in a nutshell.

They don't give a fuck about the average Joe citizen.

[Ed Grinberg]

They are offended that you resent them taking $ out of your pocket (to do things you either don't care about or actively oppose). "The nerve of these peasants!," they think (and say to each other).

[SimonP]

I seem to recall Republicans admitting that some old people would have to die from COVID, so that we could keep the economy open...

Anyway, you haven't a clue what USAID does. You're just a puppet bopping on a string.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Do you also recall Democrat governors sending COVID patients into elderly nursing homes?

Or just what some rando Republican said on Twitter?

[Michael Ejercito]

Closing down the economy was a bad idea.

[SRG2]

Last night I went to the opera at "Jazz at Lincoln Center" (not at Lincoln Center but Columbus Circle) - "relevance", I hear you cry?

The opera, "Blind Injustice" was about wrongful convictions, considering 6 real-life cases, based on a book by Mark Godsey.

The stories are powerfully told and while it wasn't a fun evening it was a good one, The music was fairly jazzy as modern classical goes, by a chap called Scott Davenport Richards, and the smart libretto was written by a friend of mine, David Cote.

This was one of the cases the opera mentioned: https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2022/02/lorain-county-judge-throws-out-conviction-of-ohio-innocence-project-client-nancy-smith.html

[grb]

SRG2 : (not at Lincoln Center but Columbus Circle)

How's the venue? I saw pictures when it opened (in the architectural press) but have never been. On the other hand, one of my ritualistic destinations every NYC visit is Bargemusic in Brooklyn. It's a small performance space for classical chamber music in a floating retro-fitted garbage scow. As with the Columbus Circle space, the performers play before a window with an epic city view. It's a much less grand window, but the view is across the water to Manhattan. (Plus, I always walk across the Brooklyn Bridge after every concert).

[Ska]

If it's the Rose Theater it's a nice round, about 1,000 seats I'd guess. I saw John McLaughlin there a while ago and it was pretty spectacular. No scenic views or anything, just a nice amphitheater in wood veneer.

[grb]

I was thinking of another jazz performance space in Columbus Circle that overlooks Central Park, the the 500-seat Appel Room:

https://www.avnetwork.com/features/av-behind-the-scenes-jazz-at-lincoln-center

And the chamber music space I described:

https://www.bargemusic.org/

[SRG2]

It was indeed the Rose Theater.

[Bwaaah]

Entertainment and social justice in one shot, all from the comfort of a padded seat. Your appreciation of art evidences your astute vision of humanity. Not since "The Death of Klinghoffer" has humanity seen such an energetic reach for justice.

And so appropriate that it wasn't a fun evening for you. You're obviously a good person.

[SRG2]

I'd tell you to fuck off, but then you might burst into tears.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to know why people keep saying you're MAGA?

This huuuge chip on your shoulder is pretty much the MAGA-required level of utterly unneeded resentment.

[Commenter_XY]

Blue State Blues...Our dopey governor, Phailing Phil Murphy, waves the illegal alien virtue flag, and promptly un-waved it when Tom Homan responded. We have truly atrocious leadership in the People's Republic.

But suppose he actually harbored an illegal alien, and ICE busted him. Does he go to jail?

[ThePublius]

I hope so! the way he openly taunted Homan, and having seen Homan in action so far, I don't doubt that he has boots on the ground sniffing around Murphy's place as we speak. Homan will make an example of him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is that grounds for a search warrant?

Seriously, is publicly bragging grounds for any search warrant?

[Noscitur a sociis]

If the thing you brag about establishes probable cause that there will be evidence of a crime in the place being searched, sure.

Do you think that’s the case here?

[Stella Link the dog]

"someone in our broader universe whose immigration status is not yet at the point they are trying to get it to,"

Is it reasonable to infer that that is a description of someone in the US illegally? I sure don't know.

[Commenter_XY]

Nas...Suppose POTUS Trump, in response (because well, The Donald is who he is and doesn't like being dissed), makes denying all fed aid to selected NJ cities because of their self-declared 'Sanctuary City' status a policy priority. Now the state (NJ) is hurt, they're out the aid; Phailing Phil could care less, he is term limited and out of here EOY.

Can a POTUS do that, via the DOJ, legally? Meaning, deny all federal aid to a city based on their self declared Sanctuary City status.

[David Nieporent]

Prof. Somin (and maybe also Adler?) has addressed this on numerous occasions. Congress can put strings on federal funds. (Up to a point.) The president cannot unilaterally do so.

[Josh R]

Likely no.

[Commenter_XY]

This was helpful. It is an uphill battle.

[hobie]

The courts told Alabama legislature to redraw the maps. They refused. Happens in all states, XY

[Frank Drackman]

While I like "47"'s proposal to "temporarily" move the Terrorists out while Gaza gets "renovated", I wouldn't put any Amurican Troops there, you think they had Burn Pits in Ear-Rock and Off-Gone-E-Stan? You can probably get a Glioma just looking at the rubble on TV, These Senators/Congressmen like their "Fact Finding" Boondoggles so much, how about Senators Pencil Neck, Poke-a-Hontas, Chucky S, and Georgia's own Warlock, and from the Congress, Uncle Remus, Jasmine Crocket, and Slow-Hand Mullah Omar, tour "The Strip" in person, take a deep breath everyone!
I'd leave AOC out, I'm beginning to like her (did anyone notice she called it "Hail Hitler" and not "Heil Hitler"???) I'd let her go to Git-mo (has Beaches also, Seal Beach is right on the border) preferably in a Bikini
Seriously, Chernobel's probably got fewer Carcinogens in the air (and water, where do you think 2 million Palestinians piss/shit?)

Frank

[ThePublius]

There's a phenomenon that I haven't seen described anywhere, and that is how thresholds that are somehow related creep out of proportion over time. For example, the Gun Control Act of 1968 defines a federally prohibited person as one, who among other criteria, has been convicted of a crime that could result in a prison sentence of one year or more. When it was enacted many crimes, including most DUI offenses, had penalties of less than one year. Over time the penalties increased, but the GCA'68 threshold has not.

Is there a term for this phenomenon?

Likewise with currency, which is what I want to bring up. The $500, $1000, $5,000, and $10,000 dollar bills were discontinued in 1969, supposedly due to lack of use (they were last printed in 1945). With inflation since then it can be inconvenient to transact in cash when the largest available bill is $100. I think it's time to reissue the $500 and $1,000 bills, at least. What say you?

[John F. Carr]

It is time to reissue larger bills. The government wants cash to be inconvenient so people use easier to track payment methods. The $10,000 threshold for suspicious activity reports has also come down due to inflation.

[ThePublius]

Agreed. We live in an increasingly surveillance state. And the SARs are onerous; I have read of small business owners who do most of their business in cash having had assets seized for repeated deposits exceeding $10,000, and even being harassed for supposedly attempting to skirt the threshold with $9k and something deposits; places like sub shops and liquor stores. It's terrible.

Being somewhat cynical, I suspect the feds will create their own traceable cyber currency before they reissue larger bills.

[Commenter_XY]

Wells Fargo reports nearly all transactions over 2K to the IRS.

The Feds do not want people to have cash money.

[David Nieporent]

skirt the threshold with $9k and something deposits; places like sub shops and liquor stores

What made it particularly Kafkaesqe was that these retailers' insurance companies required them to do what they were doing; they wouldn't insure more than $10k in cash, so the stores had to take the money to the bank once their cash on hand reached that level.

[David Nieporent]

While we're at it, SARs should be renamed UARs — unusual activity reports — because the "suspicious" label insinuates the existence of a crime of some sort, when in fact banks are required to file them regardless of any evidence of any criminal conduct.

(Just in case it isn't clear from what you wrote, the $10,000 threshold is only one trigger for the requirement to file an SAR.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, and as Publius mentioned above, it is also a crime to purposely avoid the $10,000 threshold--it's called "structuring" (as opposed to "compliance", which is another way of looking at the same behavior...)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I had to be very careful about that when I was executor for my sister's estate.

[David Nieporent]

Only sticks-in-the-mud call it "structuring." It's called smurfing.

And yes, I always did love how (metaphorically) purposely driving 64 MPH in a 65 MPH zone to avoid a ticket was made into a crime. (Actually, that analogy is imperfect, because (unlike driving 66 MPH) depositing $10k in cash isn't even a crime. So you can be punished for making it harder for the government to detect that you're doing something that you're perfectly entitled to do.)

[Brett Bellmore]

You think that's bad, see what happens if you get pulled over and the cop sees an unlabeled bag of powered sugar on your seat.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed, David, I had forgotten the correct term.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nixon discontinued the large bills to fight the drug trade.

[Bored Lawyer]

There used to be something called bracket creep. The progressive income tax increases the percentage taxed when your income goes up. They set the tax brackets, but then inflation pushed people into higher brackets. I believe the tax brackets are now indexed to inflation.
So that's something similar.

[ThePublius]

Ah, yes, thank you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Initially, the Income Tax was only for the rich.

And then WWII inflation and war work pushed the middle class into tax brackets. There was no witholding, and people neither had the money to pay nor were inclined to, kinda like student loans today. So they forgot about 1942 and instituted withholding for 1943.

But -- as I understand it -- the Alternative Minimum Tax, introduced in the 1970s (?) has NOT been indexed for inflation.

[Krayt]

The AMT bracket creep came up during Hillary's run, when they were going to fix this, and all of a sudden she held up the shining Congressional rule that all changes had to be paid for with decreases elsewhere.

Increase spending or cut taxes, you had to reduce spending elsewhere to be revenue neutral. "Where is it for fixing AMT bracket creep?"

Someone pointed out AMT bracket creep wasn't a legimate tax increase (much less paid for in that same manner as an "increase") so removing the creep wasn't a cut.

"Right, Hillary?"

"Right, Hillary?"

"Yes, yes. Fine."

(As an aside, this noble principle rears its ugly head whenever there's "emergency spending" bill. Where's the decrease elsewhere?

YOU DON'T WAIT WITH EMERGENCY SPENDING!

So you'll get back to it with cuts elsewhere later?

NOPE!!!

Ahh, so you've been doing your due diligence and have long since prepared a list of low-ranked programs or areas that can be chopped for "important" increases we can instantly use to cover it?

NOPE!!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is someone taking bets that this is not an especially accurate characterization of why AMT bracket creep has not been addressed?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't forget the $600.00 threshold for 1099s.

[ThePublius]

I'm not familiar with that.

[ThePublius]

BTW, according to one inflation calculator, $100 in 1969 was worth $830.25 in 2023. So, $1,000 would be pretty close to parity today.

[DixieTune]

Anyone who opposes tariffs is either stupid or a liar.

[SRG2]

Come on, you can troll better than that.,

[Moderation4ever]

Guess who sleep through their Econ 101 class?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trumps-nominee-for-pentagon-chief-suggested-new-temple-could-be-built-on-temple-mount/

If nothing else, it is a good barganing chip to make the Muslims behave themselves -- another act of terrorism on the US Homeland and we will level that Mosque and encourage Israel to build the 3rd Temple there.

And then we do it.

We will have to kill a large number of Islamic radicals, but then they will be dead and no longer a threat to anyone. As Trump put it, "Gaza is a hell hole right now, it was before the bombing."

[shawn_dude]

Recommends tearing down a monument of deep importance to a massive, world-wide religious group. Defines anyone that tries to protect their religion and it's important sites as "radical" and offers killing them as a reasonable, matter-of-fact solution.

Trolls gonna troll.

[bernard11]

It's one of the worst ideas imaginable.

WTF is wrong with these people?

[ThePublius]

FYI, Eugene Kontorovich opinion piece on the Panama Canal in the WSJ yesterday:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-u-s-has-rights-over-the-panama-canal-treaty-neutrality-history-dc2cdee6?mod=hp_opin_pos_6#cxrecs_s

[Krayt]

I've been wondering about kind of thing this since the China issues with it first came up. Wasn't there some part of the agreement to give it to Panama where they couldn't block or rip off the US?

China management does seem risky.

Also, there's the Monroe Doctrine, where the US declared the New World sealed against any more expansion by the Old. This was in terms of military conquest (and was sidestepped in the Falklands War by suggesting Britain owned it already.) It was targeted at Europe, but Asian countries simply weren't viable threats back in the day.

Isn't there some societal/financial/control expansion ban? More importantly, should there be?

[Krayt]

No, I am not suggesting the "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine. Eh, let's see if any talking heads bite.

[M L]

Trump says U.S. will "take over Gaza"

One of the dumbest things he's said yet, if taken literally rather than as some posturing talk.

[Krayt]

Strange for a guy who doesn't want wars fighting motivated evil (Russia, various terrorist-burdened or pwned countries).

Let's leap right into another.

[M L]

"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."

Patrick Henry

[RedheadedPharoh]

There's a picture floating around of his CoS glaring at him, allegedly as he is announcing this.

I wish we could get a President or a governing class that wasn't so subservient to Israel. Did you see that report of how Netanyahu and his wife brings suitcases full of dirty laundry to the WH so they can get their laundry done? It seems so ridiculous on its face but it definitely aligns with the cultural stereotype.

[ThePublius]

That laundry thing is a four year old story, a smear, in WaPo and elsewhere, from 'unnamed sources.'

[RedheadedPharoh]

Thank you for letting me know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

On a more serious note, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is some diplomatic protocol where a hosting country makes arrangements for laundry, prescription drugs and other incidentals with the understanding that it would be done in exchange as well.

At least amongst countries that have friendly relations.

[David Nieporent]

I would be incredibly shocked if that were the case, given that we have, you know, embassies in other countries (and vice versa), and it would be a potential security risk to outsource services like that.

[Moderation4ever]

I strongly oppose any idea of putting Americans between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Last time we tried that it cost 220 American Marines their lives. October 23, 1983.

Those who forget history, or never learned any, are doomed to repeat it.

[M L]

Right. Just in general, we should avoid foreign interventionism, entangling alliances, playing world police, and so on. Of course some will say it's too late, but we should still aim for that. I'm not too keen on the expansionism, either. I mean, if Greenland actually wants to become a U.S. territory, I guess. But Gaza? No.

[SRG2]

Don't you know? He's playing 4-dimensional go-chess.

[Hugh]

When a person becomes a naturalized US citizen, he or she takes an oath to defend the Constitution. Elon Musk took that oath when he became a US citizen. His actions show that he has broken that oath.

A naturalized citizen can be "denaturalized" and deported if they obtained their citizenship through fraud. Elon Musk committed fraud when he took an oath to defend the Constitution, for which the evidence from his recent actions is clear.

Therefore, Elon Musk should be denaturalized, which strips his US citizenship, and he should be deported to South Africa, where he is a citizen by birth.

[Longtobefree]

When did saving tax dollars become unconstitutional?

[ThePublius]

Whacko fantasy of the day.

[Commenter_XY]

Almost as good as Kamala will win the election = whacko fantasy

[Krayt]

Wouldn't "the government asked me to do this" be a defense?

It seems silly someone would pursue that, but we just lived through 8 years of motivated prosecution on crazy or monstrously and facetiously exaggerated theories to get a political opponent.

Well, at least government arm wrenching to silence their political opposition as harrassing words is off the table.

For now.

[ducksalad]

Wouldn't "the government asked me to do this" be a defense?

Since Nieporent seems to be taking a break, I'll just point that the oath is to the constitution and laws, not to the president.

A few examples of people your suggested defense did not work for:
1. G. Gordon Liddy, H.R. Haldeman
2. Thomas Clines
3. A bunch of guys in Nuremberg
4. A bunch of guys in Tokyo

[Frank Drackman]

In his defense, G Gordon never admitted to anything in Court, and waited until the Statue of Limitations ran out (Screaming) to publish his Autoerotic Biography “Will” that I still read occasionally (yes I really do read(occasionally)

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

According to Wikipedia, Elon Musk was naturalized in 2002, when he was about 31 years old. Unless there was an argument that he was already planning to subvert the constitution 23 years later at the time, I’m not sure how it’s even arguable that he procured naturalization through fraud. Ironically, it’s an even weaker argument than the argument that Musk is acting unlawfully!

[Kazinski]

Well if coming up with fantasies like this help you cope then by all means indulge yourself.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Thanks, Hugh, but in the future please leave the mindless revenge fantasies to the experts.

[SRG2]

In the days when Rod Dreher was still rational, he coined the phrase, "Merited Impossibility" - the attitude of (he claimed) the left, that something their enemies were afraid of couldn't happen but they'll deserve it when it does.

I think "merited impossibility" or something similar will emerge with the FBI - it won't be politicised and Trump's/Patel's enemies will deserve it when it is. I don't think any Trump oposter here does not want the FBI to be politicised (in a favourable direction) .

[Ed Grinberg]

So, do you admit that it is politicized now?
(If not, I don't see the point of participating in this (any?) discussion with you.)

[shawn_dude]

If "now" means "today" then yes. But only because investigators assigned to look into the January 6 attack on the capitol and Trump's hording of classified documents in his bathroom are being fired for political reasons.

[Bob from Ohio]

If you strike at a king, you must kill him.

[Mr. Bumble]

They tried. Figuratively and literally.

[Sarcastr0]

The king, eh?

[SRG2]

Yes, and it always was - because at the highest level there will often be a political dimension to a decision. And "politicisation" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. When Ashcroft decided in the famous memo to focus on obscenity and totally ignore the risk of terrorism - that was political.

There is always the political layer at the top. But what Trump is doing is firing career FBI agents who did their job by following instructions from their bosses, even though they were not themselves political, and clearly intends to replace them with apparatchiks.

The Trump/Musk policy wrt civil service in general is Stalinesque - loyalists to the Leader at all levels of the organisation. God forbid you're the first person to stop applauding.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But what Trump is doing is firing career FBI agents who did their job by following instructions from their bosses, even though they were not themselves political, and clearly intends to replace them with apparatchiks."

Yet again, a reminder: The only people who got fired as part of this so far were probationary employees with zero job security.

The rest got told to supply certain information concerning their past duties, and that action would be taken on the basis of it. Here is what the agents were told:

"I write with additional information regarding the memo that I sent to the FBI’s acting director on January 31, 2025.

Multiple times during the week of January 27, 2025, I asked the FBI’s acting leadership to identify the core team in Washington, D.C. responsible for the investigation relating to events on January 6, 2021. The purpose of the requests was to permit the Justice Department to conduct a review of those particular agents’ conduct pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order concerning weaponization in the prior administration. FBI acting leadership refused to comply. That insubordination necessitated, among other things, the directive in my January 31, 2025 memo to identify all agents assigned to investigations relating to January 6, 2021. In light of acting leadership’s refusal to comply with the narrower request, the written directive was intended to obtain a complete data set that the Justice Department can reliably pare down to the core team that will be the focus of the weaponization review pursuant to the Executive Order. The memo stated unambiguously, and I stand by these words, that the information requested was intended to “commence a review process” that will be used to “determine whether any additional personnel actions are necessary.”

Let me be clear: No FBI employee who simply followed orders and carried out their duties in an ethical manner with respect to January 6 investigations is at risk of termination or other penalties. The only individuals who should be concerned about the process initiated by my January 31, 2025 memo are those who acted with corrupt or partisan intent, who blatantly defied orders from Department leadership, or who exercised discretion in weaponizing the FBI. There is no honor in the ongoing efforts to distort that simple truth or protect culpable actors from scrutiny on these issues, which have politicized the Bureau, harmed its credibility, and distracted the public from the excellent work being done every day. If you have witnessed such behavior, I encourage you to report it through appropriate channels.

In closing, I am extremely grateful for the service and sacrifices of those in the FBI’s ranks who have done the right thing for the right reasons. You will be empowered to do justice as we work together to make America safe again. I very much look forward to continuing that work with you.

Thanks,

Emil"

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you think of any reasons why someone might not be fully reassured by that letter even if they didn’t do anything wrong?

[Kazinski]

Sure, there is always anxiety when you get a new boss.

But Emil Bove is was probably more of a disrupter than Pam Bondi, and Patel will be. I'm sure some turnover will continue, but I think Bove was intended to be the hatchet man, before his picks were confirmed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure: Because they're worried that their idea of doing something wrong is different from the boss's idea of doing something wrong.

But the fact remains that simply refusing to comply with the order to supply that information would, by itself, constitute a basis for firing you for cause.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Chilling.

[grb]

SRG2 : "In the days when Rod Dreher was still rational...."

You can remember back that far ?!?

[SRG2]

Yup. I actually had a couple of decent private exchanges with him, though I forget about what.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The basics are that Congress passes laws, the executive carries them out, and the courts interpret them.

Law and social studies education is not satisfied by a bumper sticker. Still, some basic principles do fit on them.

Trump doesn't get to do whatever he wants. Well, legally and constitutionally. The executive carries out policies passed by others. Namely, our representatives in Congress.

He doesn't get to override the laws if he decides (let's say) the Education Department is stupid.

Trump has some discretion. There are lots of laws and some room for prosecutorial discretion. Sometimes, a law might directly interfere with Art. II power such as authority as commander-in-chief or recognizing foreign ambassadors.

Nonetheless, the basics hold -- the executive executes the law.

[DixieTune]

Yeah only Biden got to override laws. Trump gets held to a different standard from judges from Slick Willie, the Kenyan, and Pedo Joe.

[santamonica811]

Your trolling has been especially weak this thread. It's actually noticeable.

[Bwaaah]

Despite his name, he's probably from upstate New York. You know.

[santamonica811]

Okay, I did laugh at that

[Bwaaah]

Sorry to be a party pooper, but there's nothing about your wholesale smear of a population of people that strikes me as funny. Maybe you don't see it as such? I could understand it under a corollary that says "everyone everywhere is an idiot." Otherwise, do you not get the wrongfulness of that type of fallacy?

[grb]

On behalf of all other commentators here, let me apologize for santamonica811's hurtful & meanie remarks that sullied the sanctuary of this Safe Space for you. We're all sure YOU would never make an indiscriminate insult against a large group of people. And though you're a 24/7 nonstop snowflake permanent-victimhood whiner (like all Righties these days), we know your complaint isn't just superficial posturing. We just know it!

Once again, everyone's really, really sorry.....

[Bwaaah]

You mistake me for being hurt. And you rationalize like a typical bigot.

[DixieTune]

Actually from the Midwest. The DixieTune is a reference to the song.

[Bwaaah]

Upstate New York *is* the Midwest, no?

lol

[SRG2]

You need to draw a methocline - which shows regions with equal consumption of crystal meth.

[Longtobefree]

"He doesn't get to override the laws if he decides (let's say) the Education Department is stupid."

But he does have to stop any department from violating the law.
And he can stop any department from doing stuff not specified in the law, and not expressly funded by congress.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You know he doesn't expect you to believe his lies, right?

What he really wants is for you to disbelieve them, but at the same time know that you are powerless to oppose him.

(Or was that Putler? Same difference...)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Other federal departments, such as the Energy Department, were also ordered to cease public communications unless they had explicit approval of the acting secretary, according to memos shared with me. Some agencies have been blocked from sharing data even within the government. Others have canceled previously approved data access or other exchanges with outside researchers.

Censor in Chief.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/01/30/trump-free-speech-censorship-musk/

[SRG2]

Data are produced by elites so must be suppressed.

[shawn_dude]

You cannot fact check if you don't have access to the facts.

[Ed Grinberg]

LOL. The only "freedom of speech" statists recognize is ... federal bureaucrats' freedom to use their position to make whatever official pronouncements they want, regardless of what the voters (and their elected representatives) think about it. Of course!

[shawn_dude]

LOL. The only "freedom of speech" MAGAts recognize is speech they agree with.

Woohoo?!

[hobie]

So this means the departments don't have to cooperate with Elon?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I don't know about "Rebuilding" and don't want any Amurican Military there, but let me get this straight....
The alternative, to let 2 million peoples who 16 months ago murdered/raped/mutilated thousands of your men/women/children, to just go back to (what's left of) their homes, to rebuild and do the same thing some time in the future??

[Stephen Lathrop]

Question about the extent of Trump's special immunity, with regard to punishing FBI agents. Seems like all the agents have been targeted for actions which occurred while the agents acted under government authority, and while Trump was not president. Why would Trump enjoy any immunity for that?

[SRG2]

Because the firings are not criminal and even if they were, staffing the FBI will categorically be deemed a core Executive function.(and probably are in reality as well.)

[ducksalad]

Serious question:

Article II: "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices"

On the one side, this seems to put to rest any question about asking for the names of FBI agents who worked on 1/6 cases.

But on the other side, if the president has implied plenary authority to hire, fire, create departments, abolish departments....why the hell did the authors need to enumerate a power to ask questions of subordinates. That particular power seems WAY more implied than the other stuff that people claim.

I think it suggests that the authors' ideas about the presidency and its powers were more limited than what modern presidents claim.

[RedheadedPharoh]

If Congress created a department he doesn't have the abolish it.

But many President's before him have created departments. That digital services one that morphed into DOGE was created by Obama.

[David Nieporent]

That wasn't a department; it was just an office within the white house.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Tomato, Tomahto.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Can you think of any federal criminal statute which would have applied formerly, to a federal elected official who conducted mass retaliatory firings of law enforcement personnel who had done nothing more blameworthy than their properly construed duty?

If so, how can Trump be construed now to be, "staffing the FBI," while in the process of a mass firing of agents who offended him personally, while he had no proper part in their supervision? If you think that is a good way to read the law, then does it have any limit at all?

Can a criminal who holds no public office commit heinous felonies—rape, murder, treason—and then get elected to office and lawfully fire any law enforcement personnel who ever investigated him for any of it? While also forbidding any future investigation by prosecutors? And do it all for a reason which has nothing to do with supervisory authority, because at the time he was investigated he held no such authority?

Can you reconcile that interpretation with the notion of, "A republic, if you can keep it."

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you think of any federal criminal statute which would have applied formerly, to a federal elected official who conducted mass retaliatory firings of law enforcement personnel who had done nothing more blameworthy than their properly construed duty?

No, I can’t.

What statute do you think is implicated?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Can a criminal who holds no public office commit heinous felonies—rape, murder, treason—and then get elected to office and lawfully fire any law enforcement personnel who ever investigated him for any of it?"

Perhaps, but it sounds like a risky strategy.

But in a democracy, why shouldn't a private citizen who believes he was mistreated by law enforcement be allowed to make his case to the people, run for office, and, if successful, fire the people who the believes acted inappropriately?

[Stephen Lathrop]

But in a democracy, why shouldn't a private citizen who believes he was mistreated by law enforcement be allowed to make his case to the people, run for office, and, if successful, fire the people who the believes acted inappropriately?

Four good reasons:

1. The premise was not controversy about the right way to run government, a subject rightly governed by politics. The premise was guilt of criminal offenses, a question which the American system separates from politics.

2. Election was never intended to license unconstrained power. There is no way to show even the plurality who supported Trump expected action to dismiss FBI agents who had committed no offenses. Almost certainly a large majority of Americans oppose that action.

3. To act to do it might be against a law, or against multiple laws.

4. It is unconstitutional.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. Manifestly untrue, as evidenced by the fact that we elect the people who run the criminal justice system.

2. Straw Man.

3. Citation needed.

4. Citation needed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

1. It was my hypothetical. You can fight it if you want to, but do not deceive yourself into thinking you have engaged.

2. Your "Straw Man," is the only real straw man in sight. Do you assert that in American constitutionalism elections are intended to license unconstrained power? Do you assert that a majority of Americans did expect mass dismissals of rank-and-file FBI agents who had done nothing wrong?

3. Yes, hence the question for the lawyers here.

4. No. No citation is needed to prove American constitutionalism was not structured, paradoxically. Nor can anyone show basis for an executive power to allow the President, acting without explicit congressional authorization, to negate laws passed by Congress to create and operate cabinet departments and agencies of the government.

[Michael Ejercito]

Can a criminal who holds no public office commit heinous felonies—rape, murder, treason—and then get elected to office and lawfully fire any law enforcement personnel who ever investigated him for any of it?
That depends on the authority of the office in question.

[SRG2]

Further to last week's discussion on Shakespear (other spellings are available), herewith an excellent Etsy item: https://www.etsy.com/listing/1713751317/shakespeare-exit-sign-glow-in-the-dark

[ducksalad]

I needed the explanation, and I suspect about 7 out of my 8 English teachers and professors would too.

[grb]

Not to brag ( OK - to brag ), not me!

In fact, a few years back one of the kids in the office had a trivia day calendar, and made a ritual of asking everyone the question. With a smirk & a sneer, he confidently said no one would get this one, and then asked, "What Shakespeare play had the stage direction, "Exit, pursued by a bear"?

I didn't hesitate. It's one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. Hell, I might even buy the damn sign (though for what purpose, I haven't the slightest).

[grb]

(Bought : The 6in green on glow-green version. Worst case, I can pin it up at my desk)

[Mr. Bumble]

Use it to read by when the windmill fails.

[grb]

What a sad character you are! Though I did use phosphorescent exit signs in a black-box broadcast performance space for a public television station. This was sans bear, of course, but they worked quite well.

[santamonica811]

Oh, come on. Bumble's response was pretty funny.

(I'm also gonna buy the larger version of the sign. I was genuinely impressed with the creativity of this. I'm even thinking of buying a few of them, and giving them as Christmas gifts to my nerdier theater friends.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's an OSHA and fire code violation.

You don't want false exit signs in the smoke of a fire.

Now in your house, whatever....

[bernard11]

Foolish me.

I would have thought any educated individual would have no trouble with that question.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It seemed unfair that Antigonus would meet such a grisly (or grizzly) fate. He didn't really do anything wrong and there are worse people that should have been attacked (particularly Leontes).

[grb]

Antigonus was like one of those teenagers in a slasher flick who are expendable in the first reel. He seemed a good husband to Paulina, granting her worth while acknowledging she can be a bit much. We can only hope the good Camillo makes her happy. Neither her or him had much say in the match as Act V scurried to wind down.

[Dan Schiavetta]

https://goodticklebrain.com/winters-tale

If you scroll down you see how she envisions other Shakespearean characters handling that scene.

[grb]

Well that nails it!

(a bit reductionist tho)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Of course.

You should check out her stick figure versions of entire plays. They're hilarious but faithful retellings. Here, for example:

https://goodticklebrain.com/home/2020/1/23/a-stick-figure-hamlet-act-3-scene-1

[shawn_dude]

On Monday's open thread, there were a number of posters asking us to "think of the whales" in regard to marine wind turbines. I know this has come up in one of Trump's bouts of bloviation but hadn't looked it up to see if it held any water.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/26/trump-whale-wind-turbine-renewable-energy-misinformation

Nope. Isn't a thing. Just more of his fishy nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm more of a "Think of the EROEI after adding enough over-build and storage to match conventional sources' reliability!" sort of guy, actually. Solar is bad enough, but at least the sun rises every day, even if overcast days are darker than most people realize. WInd is just a joke if you want your power to be reliable.

If wind and solar were actually reliable and had good EROEI after accounting for everything, I'd be enthusiastic about them. But they're not, they suck big time if your objective is to power a modern civilization.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "WInd is just a joke if you want your power to be reliable"

Geez Brett, this is scrapping rock bottom even for you. You have to know this is "reasoning" at the level of a child. Wind power is reliable if it efficiently and economically produces power. It does, so it is. Since all of this is only common sense, I grabbed a well-phrased comment from the first source I saw:

Wind farms are very reliable. The wind speed can be predicted with accuracy up to three days in advance, and can be predicted with reasonable accuracy up to ten days in advance. This allows for the utilities to plan according to resource availability. It isn’t necessary for a producer to be online 24/7, 365 days per year, as long as the predictability is reliable. It is."

Wind energy provides a quarter of the electricity produced in eight states and that percentage was growing before now. Why do you have to befoul yourself defending every imbecility Trump says?

[Mr. Bumble]

Stop blowing smoke up our ass. Electricity needs to be reliably available and constantly adjusted according to demand 24/7, 365.
Neither wind nor solar can do this so base load power is necessary (from fossil fuels, hydro or nuclear power plants).

[Brett Bellmore]

"It isn’t necessary for a producer to be online 24/7,"

Sure, if you don't mind blackouts. I've noticed that 'renewable' energy advocates generally factor in an expectation of frequent blackouts into their adoption plans.

"Wind energy provides a quarter of the electricity produced in eight states "

Sure, if you pick the most windy month of the year. But as I've been at some pains to point out, the issue isn't the amount of energy, it's when it arrives.

Here's a graph of energy production by source during that big Texas blackout.

Notice that nuclear and coal basically just ticked along undisturbed, while solar dropped out every night, and wind cratered? If Texas had been relying on nuclear, or even coal, there would have been no blackout.

Just to pound on it harder, Here's a graph of Texas wind production in March of 2014. Sure, there's more of it today, but it still varies in the same manner, randomly swinging between full name plate and zilch, not even on a predictable schedule like solar!

Does that freaking look like a reliable power source to you???

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's another graph from February '21.

The only reason Texas isn't having blackouts on a daily basis is that they have a lot of natural gas turbines ready to go at a moment's notice any time the wind dies down or a cloud covers the Sun. But do 'renewable' advocates factor into the cost of their precious windmills and panels the fact that every kw they produce at peak has to be backed up by a kw of conventional power sources that end up sitting idle much of the time?

No, they do not. They price their systems as though they don't have to be reliable, because they're relying on the power sources they hate to provide that reliability for free.

I repeat: If you want reliable power, wind is a bad joke.

If you want to get your reliable power from solar, on the other hand, THAT you could do. "All" you have to do is over-build your nameplate capacity by a factor of 7 or so to account for not producing any power at night, and only producing a fraction of rated output on cloudy days, and then add enough storage to get through the nights.

And once you've accounted for THAT, solar is bloody expensive, and has a lousy "energy return on energy invested", which is why they always use deceptive accounting like you're doing.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I repeat: If you want reliable power, wind is a bad joke"

Well, somebody's a joke. You might seek a mirror to determine who. In Texas, wind power generated about 25% of the state's total electricity in 2024. Why should it make the slightest difference that power has to be supplemented by other means? If wind power produces a quarter of the state's power - and it does - and it produces it cheaper than other sources - and it does - then what the hell are you ranting about ?!?

Answer : Nothing. Your complaints make zero sense. You really need to stop digging. There's no need to throw yourself in front of a speeding train every time Trump acts the imbecile. Take the day off, Brett. Trump says something moronic every day. You can pick up your Cult duties tomorrow

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

[Absaroka]

I think you're not looking at the big picture, Brett. There isn't anything inherently wrong with using peaker plants (or hydro) as the backup battery for wind or solar.

I agree there are simpletons out there who are all 'let's go 100% wind/solar yesterday', but 'solar/wind are never an economical part of the mix' is pretty simplistic as well.

On a small scale people know this ... off gridders will have solar[1] with a mid size battery bank, and a generator for the long storms. The combination makes a lot more sense than being a purist about one method or another.

[1]and sometimes wind, although that doesn't scale down as well as solar.

[Brett Bellmore]

Grb's complaint is that I AM looking at the big picture.

There isn't anything wrong with using peaker plants as the backup battery for wind or solar as long as you do it honestly, attributing the cost of the idled plants to the wind or solar. But 'renewable' advocates never do this.

Now, it IS possible that, as ducksalad suggests, these intermittent power sources could become so cheap that they are cheaper than the fuel to run the fossil plants, and it would make economic sense to idle those plants every time the wind blows or you have a sunny day. I don't believe they're remotely that cheap right now, and even then you'd have to financially account for the idled plants in calculating the cost of the 'renewable' power.

Texas was a particularly pathological case, because they instituted a really warped form of electricity market, where the utilities were obligated to buy whatever power was cheapest at any given instant, without regard to whether they could count on it to still be there the next instant. So reliable baseline plants were dumping power every time the sun came out from behind a cloud.

Nobody could afford to build more baseline plants, because the fact that they could be counted on wasn't legally permitted to matter. So you were headed towards a market where there was nothing but peaker plants and wind and solar, and the peaker plants didn't even get compensated for playing 'battery' half the time.

And that's not even getting into the subsidies for building the windmills and solar farms...

[Absaroka]

Do you happen to have sources for your assertions about the costs never working out? ISTR running into some fairly gimlet eyed engineers in the business who disagree.

[Brett Bellmore]

My analysis of the Texas electric market isn't exactly idiosyncratic.

Why the Texas Power Market Failed

"Fundamentally, the difference between the Texas market and other energy markets across the U.S. is that it’s an electricity-only market. There is no capacity market paying generators to ensure there will be enough power to meet peak demand. The generators only make money when they’re delivering electrons into the grid.

An electricity-only market is the same as the New York Yankees only paying the players who take the field. If the guys on the bench aren’t paid unless they play, they’ll eventually be bidding to play for less and less just to be able to feed themselves.

That’s what we have in the Texas energy market. Over the last 10 years, the revenues collected by the generators were less than the cost of providing the electricity. That is not going to produce a reliable system.

With this model, the generators don’t add investment because they can’t get paid for it. In fact, if they added generation units, all they would be doing is ensuring that the price would stay low. There’s been no incentive to add generation, even though demand in the state has continued to grow through inbound population and inbound industry.

Given an electricity-only market with an average wholesale price less than the average total cost to produce the power, a lack of reinvestment, and the fact that nobody winterized their plants because they expect temperate winters in Texas, this disaster was inevitable."

The electricity producers in Texas got not one thin dime for being reliable. If you weren't the cheapest source at any given moment, somebody else got to sell the electricity, and never mind if they'd stop producing it the moment the wind calmed or the sun went behind a cloud.

[Sarcastr0]

This seems a policy issue.

[ducksalad]

Come on, Brett.

Do you really imagine that you're first person to notice that the sun goes down and some days are windier than others? Do you think that's a genius mechanical engineering insight that all the people running the power grid missed? Do you think the accountants don't know if they're making money?

OK, with less snark: you know perfectly well it's more complex than you (and grb for that matter) are making it out to be.

You build enough nameplate capacity of dispatchable conventional sources to cover some very high fraction of peak load. You use wind power, at whatever nameplate capacity you can afford, to enable you to save money on fuel by shutting down conventional plants when possible. And yeah, when using the wind you have expensive fossil fuel plants sitting idle, and double yeah, the accountants took that into account and decided it was still worth it.

You also know very well that reliability isn't a binary. There are tradeoffs between cost and reliability. Would consumers rather pay $X per month extra to have Y less hours of outage per year? Unfortunately, they don't give a consistent answer. It depends whether you ask them the day they're paying the bill or the day the power is out.

Leaving all that aside: Many of the reddest counties in the entire United States are covered by wind farms. It's not sandal wearing hippies who made that happen. The landowners weren't forced to do it by Elizabeth Warren. It wasn't wishful thinking. It was a cold hard financial calculation.

I hope you haven't taken the part of the MAGA Oath that requires dismissing book learning and math.

[David Nieporent]

Leaving all that aside: Many of the reddest counties in the entire United States are covered by wind farms. It's not sandal wearing hippies who made that happen. The landowners weren't forced to do it by Elizabeth Warren. It wasn't wishful thinking. It was a cold hard financial calculation.

Indeed, IIRC Texas is the single biggest producer of wind energy in the U.S. Obviously that has a lot to do with its size, but as you said, the decisions leading to that weren't made by leftists.

[shawn_dude]

Peaker plants are the most expensive form of energy and they're currently used--especially by areas without much solar--to cover daily peak times. Once installed, the cost to fuel them will vary over time and the plants are more complicated and will require more maintenance. They compete with batteries today and have roughly the same LCOE with today's lithium technologies. Batteries don't have issues with moving parts and are low maintenance. The source of their energy could be anything, including coal plants, but are generally used to time-shift things like wind and solar.

Engineers that design power grid systems and MBA's that determine ROI for various options all include renewables into their mix because they make sense. The wind and sun are predictable and reliable. Without these technologies, using the "one big plant" model we use with coal and nuclear, natural gas peaker plants were running all day long during the hot summer days to account for variation in load above baseline. (Remember: nuclear and coal plants cannot be cranked up or down quickly.) Solar plants produce reliable energy during the day in place of all those expensive NG peakers. So much so that we're running peaker plants in the evenings now, between 4 and 9 pm (give or take) in the warmer western and southern states.

The joke here is that you're tilting at windmills.

[Brett Bellmore]

Older generation nuke plants couldn't be ramped up and down rapidly. Newer ones can.

And I will gladly admit that a bit of solar, well under 10%, can take the top off daily usage peaks without having any negative effects on grid stability. Something you can't say of wind.

Look again at my complaint: It's that the cost of idled peaker plants isn't included in calculating the cost of 'renewable' energy. If it was done properly, and the subsidies were all dropped, I'd be glad to let the market decide things, because the market WOULD be deciding things.

[shawn_dude]

You know what else went out during the freeze? Natural gas. Because it's mostly water. The coal plants also had issues with the cold, as would any plant that uses water in some form in the process and doesn't winterize the equipment.

Wind turbines work reliably in in cold weather all over the world. They are rated down to -30C. They work great in Michigan, which is a lot colder than Texas.
https://empoweringmichigan.com/how-do-wind-turbines-work-in-cold-weather/

[Brett Bellmore]

I literally linked to a graph above that showed that the coal plants were enormously more reliable during that outage than the wind and solar.

Natural gas is not "mostly water", and the problem the NG peaker plants had was that the cold causes a spike in NG demand for heating, and the NG lines didn't have enough capacity to keep people from freezing AND keep the lights on at the same time.

[Absaroka]

The story I heard is more in line with this. To wit, it wasn't undersized pipes but various natgas infrastructure that wasn't designed to work in those temps, and a vicious cycle of power getting cut to natgas equipment that required electricity (pumps, for example), leading to less gas flowing, leading to less power getting produced, ...

Extra direct burning didn't help, of course.

"It is possible to “winterize” natural gas power plants, natural gas production and wind turbines, experts said, which prevents such major interruptions in other states with more regular extreme winter weather. But even after upgrades were made after the 2011 winter storm, many Texas power generators have still not made all the investments necessary to prevent these sorts of disruptions happening to the equipment, experts said."

[Brett Bellmore]

That's because of the screwed up Texas energy market, which rewards you for having the lowest cost at any moment. Producing a race to the bottom.

Sure, they can tell you to harden your infrastructure, but if you do, your electricity becomes a bit more expensive, and somebody else gets to supply the electricity, so your investment in reliability becomes a dead loss.

Texas needs a "capacity" market, where you bid to provide power in advance, and get penalized severely if you don't deliver it when they demand it.

Capacity markets, of course, are pure poison for intermittent 'renewable' sources.

[Dr. Ed 2]

shawn, there isn't supposed to be water in Natural Gas -- you are thinking of Manufactured Gas.

[grb]

From a PA campaign rally :

Turning his attention to turbines, Trump said: “I flew over some of those beautiful windmills, they're falling down by the way. They're all over the place. That gorgeous, beautiful Pennsylvania countryside they got these big ugly suckers hanging down. They're rusting and rotting, half of them weren’t spinning and the ones that were, were going so slow… it’s not too windy but you know they're going like slow the other ones were just dead.”

He continued to describe them as “rusting and disgusting looking”, going on to make a well-worn false claim that wind power is the “most expensive form of energy.”

“The wind, the wind it sounds so wonderful,” he said. “The wind is bullshit.”

Well, something's bullshit, to be sure. It's kind of embarrassing when the president of your country is mentally ill.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he's right, wind power IS bullshit. No sane person would rely on it for dependable power, and even the insane only go for it because it's heavily subsidized.

[shawn_dude]

On one hand, you have the sanity of Brett and on the other the sanity of deep Red states like Texas that get a significant amount of power from wind. The truth is right there, in probably every state in the union, for anyone to see.

[Sarcastr0]

You appear to be angrily conflating 'have wind in your power generation mix' and 'only use wind.'

It's...not going well for you in this thread.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am angrily pointing out that if your 'renewable' source is relying on conventional power generation to back it up, you need to attribute the cost of having that conventional capacity sitting idle to the 'renewable' source!

The only apples to apples comparison is the cost of supplying reliable power. Which conventional sources have had going for them for generations now.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think that's at all the right analysis. There's nothing physical requiring other energy in the mix to be from any particular source - you're overdetermining things so you can dismiss wind entierly.

Which, as people from all over the political spectrum have pointed out, is an extreme take that you can't actually back up.

The only apples to apples comparison is the cost of supplying reliable power. Which conventional sources have had going for them for generations now.
It's almost as though reliability isn't the only element in the cost-benefit everyone who isn't you is doing...

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me explain this one more time.

People don't want power showing up whenever it feels like it. If you use 10kwh a day, you'll be highly irate if the utility decided deliver it all in a 10 second window at 1:23AM. What would you do with it? What would you do for power the rest of the 28h, 59m, and 50s? You're not paying them for a specified amount of energy, you're paying them for the energy to arrive when you need it.

Conventional sources and nukes are all good for providing power on a consistent and reliable basis, 24/7, 365 days a year.

'Renewable' sources like wind and solar are only available maybe half the time, with a large random component. Even solar, while it shows up every day, varies drastically depending on the amount of cloud cover. Wind is basically a crapshoot.

They are not the same sort of product. Renewables are like buying a bunch of lottery tickets, conventional like buying an annuity. Even if they average out to the same flow, you can't rely on the one, you can on the other.

So, if you're going to honestly compare them, you have to include on the 'renewable' side of the ledger all the costs of MAKING them reliable.

That means that, if you're using NG peakers to back up your windmills and photovoltaics, you have to charge the cost of the peakers sitting idle when the 'renewable' energy shows up as part of the cost of the 'renewable' energy system, NOT the conventional system. Or else you're not doing an apples to apples comparison.

Now, a lot of advocates of 'renewable' energy don't WANT to do an honest apples to apples comparison, because renewable energy looks terrible on that basis. GRB above is a great example of that:

"In Texas, wind power generated about 25% of the state's total electricity in 2024. Why should it make the slightest difference that power has to be supplemented by other means? If wind power produces a quarter of the state's power - and it does - and it produces it cheaper than other sources - and it does - then what the hell are you ranting about ?!?"

What I'm ranting about, obviously, is the fact that unless you do the accounting honestly, you make stupid mistakes like thinking that wind is actually the cheapest source of power in Texas...

[David Nieporent]

And, once again: do you actually believe that even a single person involved in the energy industry hasn't already considered all of that?

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe a lot of people in the energy industry have considered that, I linked to one of them above. But their complaints to the politicians calling the shots were largely futile until the blackouts began, because Texas' system DID deliver low energy prices, even as it set the stage for massive blackouts.

It's always cheaper to eat your seed grain, than to plant it, if you don't count the famine the next year.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mostly generalizations and hardly authoritative and missing from the comments on Monday was any mention of slicing and dicing of seabirds by off-shore wind turbines. This has also been a problem for onshore birds as well and of course there was the great Mojave air fryer which is finally shutting down because it doesn't do what was promised.
As far as marine life harms the question may be moot because notwithstanding any comments by Trump they are being cancelled.

[Sarcastr0]

slicing and dicing of seabirds by off-shore wind turbines

Well, so long as you brough the numbers, seems like a...oh.

Maybe try again?

[Mr. Bumble]

When you're a Douche you're a douche all the way, from your first stupid post to the end of the day.
Wind energy producers and green weenies who think OWFs are the be all and end all to "green energy" don't do any studies of the effect their turbines do.
It's difficult to find current information but the linked article, slightly more than a decade old, has several studies and projections based on an increase in the number of turbines.
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/

[Sarcastr0]

So you trolled the Internet till you found an advocacy group.

Looks like you just wrote something with no idea and found whatever you could to shore up your post.

Lets see what you found, eh?

But just how many birds are killed by wind turbines?

A Google search can turn up a wide array of answers to this question, with a nearly fivefold difference between the smallest and largest estimates.
SCIENCE!

"As noted above, our projections leave little doubt that the annual toll in birds lost to U.S. wind turbines is at least more than half a million, and a similarly conservative estimate would put that number at nearly 700,000 birds. There is a case to be made that the number could exceed 1 million. And for multiple reasons stated above, these are all likely to be under-estimates."

The cool thing about estimates is you can make it any number from half a million to a million and then say it's still higher than that!

"When the facts above are considered, it becomes clear that existing estimates of the toll of wind energy development on birds are narrowly considered and do not account for the industry's full impact."
Clearly.

I would also note that it doesn't say lets stop having windmills, just place them better.
So the problem, even assuming they are correct, is easily correctible.

Doesn't seem like you did your diligence in even reading the link. This is why you usually stick to simpleton insults, I guess.

[Estragon]

This exchange illustrates perfectly why I will never mute bumble. What is more hysterical? The feigned conservationalist concern for wild birds? Or the completely transparently post-facto desperate and sweaty googling to find something—anything— to validate the obviously disingenuous concern trolling? Or, finally, the realization that even after all that, he didn’t even read through the bogus decade-old material completely?

It’s a goldmine of hilarity, and completely reminiscent of how magically on these very boards for about a week and a half we all of a sudden had multiple experts on historical Haitian culinary and cultural practices!

I mean, surely in your most self-reflective moments you must realize how ridiculous this is… right???

Anyways— I look forward with gleeful anticipation to your future attempts at substantive contribution! Well worth the price to wade through the numerous one-liners and (dare I say?) vacuous insults you seem so fond of sharing; please feel free to post one below in response:

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is the troll?
You haven't the slightest idea on my feelings about conservation yet feel free to claim they are "feigned". Wildlife deaths are a constant when it comes to interactions with humans and should be minimized.
"Or the completely transparently post-facto desperate and sweaty googling to find something—anything— to validate the obviously disingenuous concern trolling?"
No sweaty or desperate "googling" involved but a response to Il Douche's comment saying my initial comment had no numbers.
The linked piece was the third hit in a Duck Duck go search.
So let me conclude by saying fuck you very much you self important dickwad.

[Estragon]

“slightest idea on my feelings about conservation”

Uhh after years of daily posting by you— literally tens of thousands of posts and countless hours of your one life on this planet— I think we all have a general sense of who we’re dealing with here.

And, of course— if this were a personal hobbyhorse of yours, then you wouldn’t have to scurry off to find…

“Third hit on Duck Duck Go”

LOL. Res Ipsa Loquitur, as they say in the biz.

I’d also like to point out the larger irony (there’s that word again) of a Trumpist motioning towards data on bird takes in a ham-handed attempt to engage in a data driven policy argument (as opposed to sanewashing whatever stupid thing El Caudillo just came up with— see again our resident Haitian chefs) when Elon and his steampunk teen fanboys are running amok destroying the ability of various agencies to keep track of such things.

“fuck you very much you self important dickwad.”

Never change Bumble! And bless your heart!

[Estragon]

I mean seriously— why not just say “Trump hates wind power, and so do I!” Isn’t that much easier? No Duck Duck Go or additional brainpower needed!

[David Nieporent]

I’d also like to point out the larger irony (there’s that word again) of a Trumpist motioning towards data on bird takes in a ham-handed attempt to engage in a data driven policy argument

Just to add to this, if one were actually concerned about bird welfare, one would need to compare the number of birds killed by wind turbines to the number of birds killed by the extraction and use of fossil fuels — not just google "windmills kill birds."

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the Guardian leaned any further left, it would fall over.

[ReaderY]

Does the Trump Administration have the physical ability to lock disloyal members of Congress or the Supreme Court out of their offices, deny them access to databases and email, etc.?

[grb]

Do you really have masturbatory fantasies of him doing so? I hope you realize that's pathetic & disgusting at once.

[ReaderY]

Out of curiosity, did you have masturbatory fantasies about his inciting a crowd to attack the capitol building to prevent Congress from proceding with counting electoral votes favoring his opponent?

What I’m suggesting is a lot less pathetic and disgusting than that. It’s a much cleaner way to achieve the same objective, with less risk of people getting hurt. I credit him for learning a thing or two about how best to achieve his goals.

[Brett Bellmore]

Physically, you mean? Or in terms of authority?

He absolutely is not legally entitled to lock members of the other branches out of their own facilities, or deny them access to their own IT. While the executive branch would have the physical resources to do it, the order would be grossly illegal, and would predictably result in him being impeached AND convicted.

Now, if you ask, can the administration deny members of the other branches access to Executive branch facilities and IT? I expect so, unless there's a specific statute prohibiting it.

[ReaderY]

Assume what he’s legally entitled to do has no relevance to my question.

[Brett Bellmore]

No.

[ducksalad]

Is that

"no, he would not have the physical capability, because his order would get disobeyed"

or

"no, I refuse to admit that history is filled with leaders who decided to ignore the law"

[Michael Ejercito]

To do as you mentioned would not just ctoss a line; it would cross a chasm.

[apedad]

I think the power of the purse would force the Executive to provide Congressional access to anything e.g., facilities, records, networks, etc., except for some very narrow limitations involving the President personally, e.g., conversations, counsel, etc.

[shawn_dude]

Sorry... could you elaborate on that whole "impeached AND convicted" thing?!

There is no way in hell Trump will get impeached and convicted by a congress with at least one GOP-controlled chamber. Bragging about sexually assaulting women and staging a coup attempt couldn't do it, even after he had Lindsey Graham saying (for a few days at least) that he was done with Trump.

Seriously. You don't believe in wind power but you believe the GOP would impeach Trump over something like that?! Thanks for the chuckle.

[ReaderY]

Can he simply remove their protection details and let “nature” take its course?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Congress and the Supreme Court both have their own police forces which are not part of the executive branch, although the U.S. Marshals service (part of DOJ) is responsible for security for lower-court judges, and I believed assists with the Supreme Court.

[ducksalad]

Two long questions to answer your question.

1. Trump himself is an elderly overweight man with no experience in IT, locksmithing, or standing guard duty. Will the people who have that actual ability follow his orders, or the orders of the other two branches of government?

2. If and when the MAGA side decides to just suspend the rule of law, MAGA opponents no longer need to ask what the president can legally do or not do, because there is no law. They just have to ask themselves: Do we have the physical ability to prevent the president and cabinet from exercising their power?

----
I think when you asked your question you were well aware of what just happened in South Korea when the sitting president tried what you suggest.

[DixieTune]

Anyone who supports birthright citizenship for children born to anyone other than permanent residents or citizens is a traitor, plain and simple.

[not guilty]

"Anyone who supports birthright citizenship for children born to anyone other than permanent residents or citizens is a traitor, plain and simple."

Is that as true as everything else you have said?

[DixieTune]

Yes.

[not guilty]

I'm not surprised.

[ducksalad]

He didn't say traitor to what.

[Riva]

Traitor is a bit harsh. They're basically just ignorant, some obstinately so.

[ReaderY]

Quite right. Can’t trust anybody capable of reading the constitution. Proof of ignorance right there. Ought to be a literacy test to weed them out.

[not guilty]

I am glad that we no longer condition voting upon literacy tests. If I were tasked with composing such a test, however, one of the questions would be "How old is the planet Earth?" Any answer less than four billion years would be disqualifying.

[Riva]

I'm glad Democrats are no longer in a position to condition voting on skin color.

[DixieTune]

Yeah, you Dems are all about science until it comes to gender identity and the bell curve.

[Riva]

That's not quite accurate. In addition to ignorance of the Constitution, you are also ignorant of the meaning of controlling precedent. Oh and there's also your general ignorance of history and just overall lack of common sense.

[ducksalad]

I'm thinking at least 7 SC justices will be "traitors" when this issue gets to their level. They'll uphold lower court orders.

If past behavior patterns hold, and I think they will, Trump will then back down and become, for you, a "traitor".

If past behavior patterns hold, the overwhelming majority of Trump supporters here will instantly change position when Trump does, and also become "traitors".

It'll be like I am Legend. You'll be the lone patriot in a world of traitors. Start boarding up those windows.

[not guilty]

Two different groups of FBI personnel have sued the Department of Justice to prevent adverse employment actions resulting from their participation in investigating and/or prosecuting the January 6 rioters or the Mar-a-Lago defendants. Both suits have now been assigned to District Judge Jia Cobb in the District of Columbia.

She has scheduled a hearing tomorrow morning regarding the plaintiffs' applications for temporary restraining orders and to hear any objections to consolidating the cases. The minute order also states, "If the government intends to take any action related to the claims in this case in advance of tomorrow's hearing, the government shall alert the Court immediately and the Court will set an earlier hearing time and compressed briefing schedule." https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69609079/does-1-9-v-department-of-justice/

It's good to see that the Court is moving quickly.

[John F. Carr]

Plaintiffs request the following order:

1. That the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is hereby ORDERED to cease and desist its efforts to gather and aggregate information about the activities of FBI agents with respect to the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and/or the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents by former President Donald Trump.
2. That the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are hereby enjoined and prohibited from sharing any such information with persons in the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, and any other persons who are not directly assigned to and employed by the FBI or the DOJ.
3. That the FBI, DOJ and the entire administration of Donald Trump is hereby prohibited and enjoined from publishing, releasing, leaking, sharing or disseminating any information about FBI agents that is held in a “system of records” as that term is defined in the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C §552a.

The plaintiffs are allowed to proceed under pseudonyms pending a final order by Judge Cobb.

[apedad]

1 and 2 are non-starters and they'll probably lose those - especially since the FBI (and therefore Trump), already has all that data.

The FBI has a Case Management system or database and it shows everything about a case like who the lead agent on a case is, who conducted activities, e.g., leads, interviews, searches, testimony, etc.

What the agents and other support personnel are really worried about is being fired for doing their legal job - getting search warrants, interrogations WITH MIRANDA, testifying in court, etc.

3. is already a law so they just saying enforce the law - which Trump will either do or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

As the memo I cited above points out, nobody is going to get fired for just having done their job. And the only reason they had to make this widespread data request was that people higher up had committed outright insubordination by refusing to provide Trump's people with exactly that information.

[grb]

I recall being repeatedly reassured Trump would never pardon 06 malefactors who beat police or sprayed chemicals in their eyes.

I forget, Brett, were you one of the people who found that assurance compelling and convincing? And here's a bonus question : If your precious memo proves useless, can we expect the Cult drudge (being you) to loudly condemn the actions of his Master?

Not wait until a windy night and whisper the mildest reproach into the empty midnight darkness, but actually show self-respect and backbone. Because taking over Gaza is batshit crazy. Ending wind power is batshit crazy. Threatening the FBI agents who investigated 06 is batshit crazy. Yet you jump about yelping like Trump's pet poodle, uselessly trying to defend it all.

You need to pace yourself, dude. You have four years of frantic whoring ahead, continually defending the indefensible. You'll burn out if you aren't careful.

[David Nieporent]

The memo does not "point out" that; it merely asserts it. And since we know it's false — they've already fired people for just having done their job — why would you cite it?

[not guilty]

Groucho Marx had panache enough to ask, "Who are you going to believe, me or your eyes?"

Brett Bellmore channeling Emil Bove does not.

[Frank Drackman]

What won “45” the 2016 Erection? Not Comey, Not Hilary’s Emails,
“Honey I’d like to watch Television, is the wind blowing?”

Hey, he’s a funny guy, although I wouldn’t tell him that

Frank

[RedheadedPharoh]

Apparently the price turn some supposed neutral "Democracy Dies in Darkness" journalists 4th Estate into State Bootlickers is less than $9M a year.

https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/fa0cefae-7cfb-881d-29c3-1bd39cc6a49e-C/latest

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I already pre-butted this retarded lie above. They subscribed to a publication. Buying things from a vendor is not a gift, grant, or subsidy.

[RedheadedPharoh]

How many millions do you think they also spent on subscriptions to OANN or RBN?

>Buying things from a vendor is not a gift, grant, or subsidy
P.S.
I did CTRL+F "gift", "grant", "subsidy" on my comment and couldn't find it. Weird.

[David Nieporent]

How many millions do you think they also spent on subscriptions to OANN or RBN?

Probably the same amount they spent on the Onion or the Weekly World News. What does your question have to do with a legitimate vendor, though?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Buying things from a vendor is not a gift, grant, or subsidy."

Congratulations! You've finally figured out why the Trump 'emolument' hysteria was complete nonsense.

[Sarcastr0]

It appears that you're equating 2 things:

A government acquisition that included all the usual internal controls - done according to Federal Acquisition regulations to include competitive processes and generally at least 3 alternatives.

A bunch of private acquisitions with no internal controls evident done openly to curry favor with the President. Many at wildly inflated prices.

[Riva]

Will you represent Politico when they file for bankruptcy without their subsidy?

[Sarcastr0]

Get your programmers to upgrade your vocab unit - you seem to think subsidy and payment are the same thing.

[Riva]

You seem to be well programmed to parrot asinine insults but you don't seem so well able to understand that the taxpayer dollars flowing to left wing favorites operate as a subsidy. No one is actually actually choosing to buying their services in the marketplace. Politico understand this, even if you don't.

[Sarcastr0]

Doubling down and re-asserting that all money buying something you don't like is a 'subsidy.'

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : Congratulations!

Hearty congratulations to Brett. Because the hive mind of MAGA was absolutely sure (convinced!) they'd uncovered some secret back-channel payoff to the media. Being forever chumps, dupes, and childishly easy to con, they spent much of the day in full-victimhood mode, ranting over the injustice of their latest empty fantasy.

But apparently there's a least one lame conspiracy Brett rejected out of hand. Could this start a trend?

[Riva]

Somebody should explain to the economically illiterate trolls that the problem is using taxpayer dollars to subsidize subscriptions for these failing left wing propaganda institutions.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody is "subsidizing" anything, any more than the government buying paper clips from Staples is subsidizing them.

[Riva]

And the $8 million dollar subsidy to Politico ends today too. A bit more than the cost of a few paper clips. Without the subsidized revenue, they'll last as long as a non-subsidized scam renewable energy project.

[Sarcastr0]

Oops
https://www.foxnews.com/media/politico-editor-in-chief-calls-trump-greatest-american-figure-his-era-due-his-influence

Friendly fire! Bot's gone rampant!

[Riva]

Interesting the way you trolls all mimic each other. Like one f'ing big fetid troll. So, it's time I muted you. Go play with yourself...or whatever you do.

[David Nieporent]

"Every single person who interacts with me comes to the same conclusion about me! They must just be mimicking each other!"

[Joe_dallas]

Mimicking each other is a common feature of leftists especially when you cant or wont address the substance of his comments.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit is Riva another sock of yours?

[Joe_dallas]

no relation
but you still cant address the substance of his comment
typical of a leftist

[Sarcastr0]

What, you also don't know the meaning of the word subsidy? We talked about that above.

[Joe_dallas]

bribe, subsidy, funding for product or services not received or rendered - Whatever term you want to use, its a basically the same. The government using taxpayer money to promote leftist propaganda.

You and DN wanting to keep the facade up that the payments were legit and spent for legit purposes.

[David Nieporent]

So bookkeeper_joe has gone beyond faking expertise and now is just outright lying.

[John F. Carr]

Justice Breyer has emerged from hibernation to author an opinion of the First Circuit. Developer claims city's zoning and historic district rules constitute a taking, as applied. Breyer says Pullman abstention is appropriate. If ongoing state proceedings end in the city's favor, the zoning rule is legitimate, there is no taking, and the District Court can enter judgment for the city. If state proceedings end in the owner's favor, the owner will probably receive all that is owed and the District Court can enter judgment for the city.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1518P-01A.pdf

[shawn_dude]

IANAL but I have some small experience with these things from living in a historic district at one point in my life. I skimmed the document you provided. Most likely, in my humble experience, this situation arises when a developer doesn't understand historic district zoning requirements and mistakenly moves ahead with good intentions without getting approval first. Historic architectural review boards are going to be put off by this kind of approach and developers are going to get very angry and combative. (No one wants to get a stop-work order and send work crews home.) Things often break down, get ugly, and then the financial implications bring the developer back and the process moves forward in a normal manner. I've seen a few of these lawsuits (Florida) but they've never gone well for the developer.

[apedad]

Trump Foreign Aid Freeze Halts DOJ Overseas Enforcement

President Donald Trump’s foreign aid freeze has suspended Justice Department overseas investigators from pursuing the same targets his administration says it prioritizes as top threats.

Hundreds of DOJ prosecutors, agents, contractors, and local staff targeting migrant smugglers, tracing the money flows of cartels and fentanyl traffickers, and identifying emerging terrorist threats have been ordered to stand down as a result of Trump’s 90-day global spending pause, said 10 current and former department employees.

This less-visible fallout from Trump’s executive order played out as newly installed senior Justice Department leader, Emil Bove, identified fentanyl, cartels, and other transnational crime as among the “most serious threats” DOJ must “eradicate” to fulfill policies Americans “elected President Trump to implement” in a letter to the DOJ workforce.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-foreign-aid-freeze-halts-doj-overseas-enforcement

Commence Trump backtracking in 5 - 4 - 3 - . . . .

[grb]

apedad : "Commence Trump backtracking in 5 - 4 - 3 - . . . ."

Lord knows he pulled the Mexico/Canada tariffs as quickly as a small child who discovers stoves are hot.

[shawn_dude]

Have you read this New Republic article on the subject?

https://newrepublic.com/article/191091/trumps-tariff-reversal-child-psychology

[Stella Link the dog]

"halted the most predictable stock market drop in human history "

That from TNR is beautiful.

[ThePublius]

He didn't "pull," he paused, and he did so because both Mexico and Canada caved. Mission accomplished.

[David Nieporent]

Neither one caved, and the "mission accomplished" is thus an appropriate allusion even though you didn't mean it as such.

[Currentsitguy]

Anyone in the East or Midwest getting hit with the ice storm overnight or tomorrow? If so have you made any special preparations? I'm on a well that runs on 220v deep cycle so even my generator cannot help so I've filled five 5 gallon jugs and may fill the tub just in case. I also brought some extra firewood to the porch for heat in case I lose the power for the furnace. Charged the phones and most importantly our book readers, since power or not I suspect no one is going anywhere tomorrow.

I've got a little 8 inch TV that has a battery and several battery powered radios so we can keep in touch.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good to see you are self-reliant and not depending on FEMA or your governor.

[shawn_dude]

Hope you get through okay.

It's probably too late, but having had a hurricane kit in my home for years, I recommend a hand-cranked flashlight and radio for emergencies. Your water heater probably has 20-30 gallons? Don't forget that. Also, put 1 gallon water jugs into your freezer so that you can stuff a couple in the fridge tomorrow. Then tie the fridge handles shut with a towel to dissuade people from opening it without thinking. Natural gas can freeze if your pipes aren't winterized sufficiently. Maybe maximize the wood you have available just in case.

Good luck.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Then tie the fridge handles shut with a towel to dissuade people from opening it without thinking.

That's a great tip.

[ThePublius]

I haven't done anything except buy some wood, and more gin and tonic. 🙂

I'm in the same electrical grid as the nearby hospital, which has the region's only trauma center, so if power goes down it's restoration is at highest priority. The only big risk for me is the wire coming off the pole to my house, I guess.

I have some cool battery lanterns, and not enough candles, and I don't know where the lamp oil is. Maybe I should look for it.

Hot water requires no electrical power, but heat does.

Oh, well, whatever happens, it won't persist for long. It's relatively warmer here by the South Coast of MA, little snow accumulation, etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Cashes Ledge Bouy is still out so we don't have that data, and it is nearly 50 years later, forecasting has improved, but this was the initial forecast for the Blizzard of '78.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AM radio will work when TV doesn't, you can pick up more distant stations. FIOS won't work without power from your house (or a battery in your house), cable (including cable internet) won't work without power to your street, cell won't without power to the tower (or after the batteries there die).

Watch for low voltages.

Most substations will twice attempt to reset automatically before locking out and calling the human for help. Line fuses explode and sound like a rifle, and hang down when blown. Each phase has a fuse, so if you have three primary wires and don't hear three gunshots, some of the wires are still hot. 8,700 volts to ground (13,600 between all three) is fairly common, and (unlike DC) ground is not a return path, it's only a reference between the three phases, which are sine curves 120 degrees out of phase with the other two (remember 360 degrees in a circle. So it's a good idea to throw the main breaker in your house when the power is out.

And if you have a generator, make sure it is not backfeeding to the utility because your 240 will go backwards through the transformer to become 8,700 volts (at a much lower amperage, bit it only takes 1/10 amp to kill someone.

If wires come down on your car, DO NOT get out as you will ground the car and no longer be the bird on the wire.

[hobie]

Stack the judiciary
Attack the press
Dismantle law enforcement
Threaten to invade peaceful countries
Remove entire ethnic populations from their homes

Like I said last week, my dad had to fight people like that in Normandy. Looks like the peace he helped secure is now on me. I'll do my best, dad.

[RedheadedPharoh]

What are you going to do about it?

Other than cry salty e-tears?

[Stella Link the dog]

" I'll do my best, dad."

I was out in my garage this morning loading up a bunch of 124 grain 9mm and 230 grain 45 acp. Whether it's rampaging zombies or Mr Ed's rebels, I'm prepared.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yep.

[RedheadedPharoh]

This is sadder and more pathetic than Pantifa Tranny Terrorists on reddit.

lmao

[Stella Link the dog]

Hey, it's a bite. Appears to be a bloated carp. I have no use for such a thing but the Haitian refugees next door might.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm not a pet cat or a pet dog.

Try again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

YOU are the insurrectionist now.

[ThePublius]

Stack the judiciary? How's that? How is it any different than what any other president has done?

Attack the press - about time.

Dismantle law enforcement - you mean the corrupt FBI and CIA?

Threaten to invade peaceful countries - like Greenland, which he has talked about purchasing? Or Panama, who have violated the terms of the treaty handing control of the canal to them (proxying for the CPP)?

Remove entire ethnic populations from their homes - you mean Gaza, and not allowing Hamas terrorists to regain control and continue to try to wipe Israel off the map?

Gotcha.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Your facts are uncoordinated.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Your dad fought for FDR.

Just sayin....

[Dan Schiavetta]

Families of about 300,000 sons, brothers and fathers would disagree. Shame on you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Really?

FDR wasn't CIC?

[hobie]

Chris Wright confirmed as Energy Secretary. I approve, as he's one of us. Big Oil and Big Fracking. Be like having Cheney back in charge. Not sure what he can do though. Like I said, unless gas goes up to $4.00/Gal no one is going to do any new extraction & production. Now then, a nice Dick Cheney move could be for a little DC-engineered conflict in the Middle East. Something really obnoxious. You boys let me know if you get wind of anything

[Michael Ejercito]

Cars do not run on plutonium, you know.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Natural gas can be transformed into diesel and kerosene. But China is replacing diesel with LNG. America is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. EVs are essentially natural gas vehicles.

[Kazinski]

Interesting take: gas is so plentiful nobody is producing it anymore.

But actually there is a lot the administration can do towards reducing the cost of production, permitting and compliance.

Not to mention the cost of natural gas is $3.02 per mbtu in the US, and over $13 in Europe. I sense some opportunities there.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Energy isn’t an issue anymore. The 2008 Global Financial Crisis was caused by an energy crisis. You know what solved the energy crisis by 2010?? The solution to high commodity prices is….high commodity prices.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We had an energy crisis under Bush/Cheney…that’s why the economy imploded in 2008. We invaded Iraq in order to flood the global market with cheap Iraqi oil because they understood expensive energy would undermine the economy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do know that the majority of the DoE's business involves responsibility for our nuke weapons, don't you?

[RedheadedPharoh]

I guess we finally found the answer to the question:

"Whose watching the watchmen?"

It's Pam Bondi. That's who.

Get fucked Eragon, Merchan, Bragg, Letitia, Smith, and that corrupt bimbo down in ATL. Your filthy Marxist corrupt gooses are cooked if you did anything wrong. (Which we can just assume they did because they're vile sick twisted Democrats).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Horrible, inhuman, juvenile. Muted.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Thank you for sharing. While I always hate to lose a fan, please stay subscribed to my substack for updates and analysis on current events.

And just for your troubles, I'll upgrade your patreon subscription for one month. That gets you "backstage" access to all things RedheadedPharoh.

For curious others, here's a free preview on my next big article:
"Why you should rotate your usernames often in the era of Big Data, AGI, and the Surveillance Economy".

If you subscribe today, you'll get exclusive access to my groundbreaking video "How to use Deepseek R1 to Troll Idiot Libtards like CaptCrisis".

[grb]

Dan Schiavetta : "Horrible, inhuman, juvenile. Muted."

Yep; that's the Nazi Child. He's hiding behind a new name but it's the same old bigoted troll.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Didn’t know that. He didn’t sound familiar. Then again it’s not something that prompts close examination of nuances.

[SRG2]

It's hard to know whether you're bitter because of losing the Civil War, WW2, or the ribwich

[ThePublius]

On X:
DataRepublican (small r)
@DataRepublican
NEW TOOL: PRINCIPAL OFFICER SEARCH & USAID TRACKING
FOLLOW THE LEADERS. TRACE THE MONEY.
I’ve built a powerful tool to help you track nonprofit leadership and follow USAID grant flows with ease.

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1887191624750670294?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1887191624750670294%7Ctwgr%5E4a314851d4aa2e1e5abe80f73517c51b6d1c0364%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit
.com%2F700641%2F

[Commenter_XY]

More sunlight! 🙂

[Kazinski]

New Jerseys climate lawsuit against Exxon Mobile, BP, Chevron, et al, has been dismissed for failure to state a claim.

https://x.com/ThomasCatenacci/status/1887176791397167201?t=LDUGNlPW593mDbb7BRSEug&s=19

From Bloomberg law:

"Judge Douglas H. Hurd of New Jersey Superior Court tossed the case, which was filed in October 2022 by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin (D). Hurd wrote that, despite plaintiff efforts to define the case as a deception suit, it actually concerns trans-boundary emissions that state courts can’t assign liability for."

[Mr. Bumble]

...dismissed with prejudice!

[Kazinski]

That means they can not amend the complaint and refile it, the judge has pre-judged it, and he's not going to do any post-judging.

[SRG2]

Who is responsible for assessing whether Musk has a conflict of interest? Why, Musk of course!

White House Says Musk Will Police His Own Conflicts of Interest

“The president was already asked to answer this question this week,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt at a briefing Wednesday. “And he said, if Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that DOGE is overseeing, that Elon will excuse himself from those contracts, and he has again abided by all applicable laws.”

Musk, as the “special government employee” leading a federal team known as the Department of Government Efficiency, is subject to conflict of interest rules, but those are largely enforced by White House officials.

[santamonica811]

In 2025, there seems to be zero difference between reality and satire. When real news articles are identical to ones in "The Onion," will satire even be a thing anymore?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Miss Universe 2025 is Joe Schmoe!! His talent is watching football and eating chicken wings! Go Birds!!

[grb]

Well, that went over well:

1. Saudi Arabia says no Israel normalization without Palestinian state.
2. Jordan’s king urged efforts ‘to stop settlement activities’.
3. UAE ‘stressed categorical rejection of any infringement of Palestians’ rights’.
4. France warns against any displacement of Palestinians.
5. UK says Palestinians should ‘must be allowed home’.
6. Germany says Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem belong to Palestinians.
7. Turkish foreign minister says Trump’s Gaza comments are ‘unacceptable’.
8. China says it opposes the forced relocation of people in Gaza.

The Gaza business was Trump at his Tourettes-grade worst. Of course, DJT's gross stupidity, lack of self-discipline, and child-level impulse control issues is explanation enough; the actual disease not being required. Pretty much everything from his mouth is huckster babble, good for nothing more than an afternoon's headline or casual attempt to hustle his dupe followers. Maybe he thought they'd be impressed by his Gaza gibberish; Lord knows all his Cult bootlickers turned here out to defend this day's latest absurdity.

As they'll need to do day after day without end - even worse than the first term because of Trump's obvious mental deterioration.

[SimonP]

Nothing a few tariffs couldn't fix!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Remember: somehow Kamala Harris was supposed to be worse than this guy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

She was worse at convincing people she should be president.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

How many millions of people uprooted their lives in Central America to move to America?? Trump is correct—now is the time to move these people from that hellhole!

[Dan Schiavetta]

She did what she could. Unlike Trump, she was disciplined, prepared, and didn’t say or do anything stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean aside from saying she wouldn't do anything different from what Biden did, for instance, when what Biden did was extremely unpopular?

You seem to have this invincible conviction that Trump is stupid, and the fact that he keep succeeding doesn't change that conviction. That's irrational.

I mean, it's one of Trump's greatest assets that his foes are like that, but it's still irrational.

[David Nieporent]

And you seem to have this bizarre idea that Trump "keeps succeeding." He has failed at most of what he has tried in his life, other than picking the right father. He was a moderately successful game show host, and that's about it. He has become a better con man in recent years, if one wants to consider that an accomplishment.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's a billionaire who has twice been elected President, anybody who views that a a lifetime of failure is an idiot.

You're the guy in the stands at the Olympics, pointing at somebody on the podium receiving a medal, and yelling, "You out of shape loser!" And you somehow don't even realize it.

[Martinned2]

I think the phrase you're looking for is "failing up".

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that if you 'fail up' enough times, rational people conclude that you're not failing, you're actually succeeding.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They don't mean Trump is "stupid" in the sense that his IQ is below 70. They mean he is a fool.

To be fair, Trump says things which could be uttered by either a fool or a moron--using pretty much the same quality of vocabulary.

Do you recall Trump's views on whether magnets work underwater? Or whether it might be possible to inject disinfectant into the body to destroy the Covid virus, "almost a cleaning"? And whether it might be possible to "bring the light inside the body" for the same purpose?

No, Trump is not stable, and not a genius, but he is a remarkably gifted huckster. Growing up rich probably helped. And being a pathological narcissist probably also helps.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I remember that. I also remember reading research that regular nasal rinses using relatively low concentrations of chlorine bleach, not enough to cause damage, were actually proving remarkably effective at preventing Covid. And lungs for transplant have been cleansed of viral infections by exposure to deep blue (But not ultraviolet!) light.

Presidents should probably not blue-sky in public, but a lot of what he was saying was not nearly as crazy as it was being made out to be.

Oh, the magnet thing was stupid, but there's a difference between BEING stupid, and vaguely thinking some stupid things about topics one knows nothing about.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh. There are things Trump knows more than nothing about?

[Brett Bellmore]

He knows nothing about almost everything, but knows a significant amount about subjects he actually deals with. You know, like everybody else?

As I said, Presidents should not blue sky in public, but the complaints critics leveled against Trump in this area often demonstrated their own ignorance of cutting edge research, rather than his.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Apart from grifting, what does Trump know "a significant amount" about? Golf? Bankruptcy?

[Dr. Ed 2]

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

Sorry folks,but you are the fembots whose heads are exploding.

[Michael P]

"What she could" do turned out to be obviously inadequate, and inferior to what Trump can do (in the eyes of voters), even in the rare occasions where she seemed to be sober. And she sure did say and do some stupid things. Fortunately, we are now unburdened by that has-been.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's past time for Uncle Sucker to stop caring about what corrupt countries think.

[Martinned2]

Wait, you think no one should care what the US thinks?

[Commenter_XY]

I'd say give it time. The physical reality (gaza is a wasteland, with tunnels, hazmat, collapsed buildings, ordinance, etc) will eventually change outlook. There is no way to do physical reconstruction with people living there. That is a massive undertaking, one that US is uniquely capable of doing. No one else in the region can do it.

The ceasefire will be broken by hamas (already has been). And then the war will resume. And the rubble will be bounced. That isn't much of a future for those people. I want them to live a better life, but they have chosen hamas and must live with that.

We'll see how serious arabs are regarding helping their gazan brothers and sisters actually live a better life in a place free of war, with electricity and running water. They will eventually have to choose. B/C the war will resume soon, a whole lot of people will get killed, the tunnels will be flooded, and reality won't change (gaza now becoming an unihabitable wasteland).

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, you could just move the people around in Gaza.

[Commenter_XY]

Not for a job that size, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

The job is literally so big that you couldn't do the whole Gaza strip at once even if it were empty. Just divide it up into zones, and do one zone at a time.

[Commenter_XY]

150mi2, a roughly 25mi x 6mi rectangle. Moving ~2MM people regularly for reconstruction for a decade or so is no way to live ones life.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying it's a great solution, just that it's no worse than other, diplomatically more difficult ones.

It looks like Trump is currently taking the rather amusing position that countries like Ireland which are attacking Israel's conduct of the war have legally obligated themselves to accept as refugees any Palestinians who show up claiming asylum, and he'd be glad to arrange for them to show up.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This sounds...expensive.

[santamonica811]

[deleted. mis-posted in wrong thread]

[not guilty]

Judge Deborah Boardman has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of President Trump's executive order which purports to deny birthright citizenship to the U. S. born offspring of foreign nationals, ruling that the executive order contradicts the plain language of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.66.0_1.pdf This interlocutory order is appealable as of right to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

The reasoning of the District Court's memorandum opinion is solid. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.65.0.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

It is time for a nationwide injunction against nationwide injunctions.

[Mr. Bumble]

Won't argue the merits of either the president's action or the judge's but am curious as to how you feel about a single district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction?

[not guilty]

IMO, a nationwide injunction may or may not be appropriate, depending on the particulars of the case. Here I am satisfied with Judge Boardman's reasoning at pp. 31-32 of the memorandum opinion.

[Mr. Bumble]

So if you like it it's OK and if you don't it's not?
Why should a single judge have power over the whole country?

[John F. Carr]

I think the judges have ordered more relief than they ought to have.

In a case involving a pregnant alien my preference would be a declaratory judgment certified as a separate and final order allowing immediate appeal. "A child of Juanita Doe, born in the United States, is entitled to have his or her applications for social security number and passport processed on the same terms as the child of a citizen when such child is born in the United States." And attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act once such an award is procedurally proper.

[Commenter_XY]

It will be appealed. NG, I tend to agree with the 'categorical' articulation by Judge Boardman on p32.

Does that categorical aspect make the appeals go faster on a national injunction?

Not sold on plainly conflicting with WKA, though. There has not been a case directly on point.

[not guilty]

"Does that categorical aspect make the appeals go faster on a national injunction?"

I don't think so. This appeal will likely move quickly because the applicable controlling authorities are all one sided.

"Not sold on plainly conflicting with WKA, though. There has not been a case directly on point."

Are you perhaps overlooking the numerous authorities cited by Judge Broadman at pages 35 through 27 wherein SCOTUS acknowledged the American citizenship of offspring born in the U. S. to foreign nationals?

Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72, 73 (1957) (Petitioners, husband and wife, entered the United States in 1951 as alien seamen, and remained unlawfully after expiration of their limited lawful stay. In November 1951 a child was born to them — an American citizen by birth).

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214 (1966) (Both petitioners entered the United States by making fraudulent misrepresentations to immigration officials, and after entry, each had a child in the United States. Even though the children’s parents had procured entry into the country by fraud, the Court did not question that the children were American citizens by virtue of their birth in the United States. "A child was born to [Errico and his non-citizen wife] in 1960 and acquired United States citizenship at birth." Id. at 215. Petitioner Scott "contracted a marriage with a United States citizen by proxy solely for the purpose of obtaining nonquota status for entry into the country. She has never lived with her husband and never intended to do so. After entering the United States in 1958, she gave birth to an illegitimate child, who became an American citizen at birth." Id. at 216).

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 509 (2004) (plurality). An amicus brief urged the Court to find that the enemy combatant captured in Afghanistan was not a citizen because his parents were in the United States on temporary visas when he was born. Despite this urging, the Court recognized that the person detained was an American citizen because he was born in the United States. Id., at 509–10.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985) (noting that the undocumented respondent—who had entered the country without permission—“had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country”).

Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 255 (1980) (“Appellee, Laurence J. Terrazas, was born in this country, the son of a Mexican citizen. He thus acquired at birth both United States and Mexican citizenship”).

Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 131 (1958) (“Petitioner was born in Artesia, California, in 1916. By reason of that fact, he was a citizen of the United States, and because of the citizenship of his parents, he was also considered by Japan to be a citizen of that country.”)

Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 720 (1952) (affirming conviction of treason and noting that petitioner was born in the United States to Japanese citizen parents and “was thus a citizen of the United States by birth (Amendment XIV, § 1) and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan”).

Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 96 (1943) (confirming that people of Japanese descent were citizens because they were “born in the United States”).

Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 85 (1934) (“A person of Japanese race is a citizen of the United States if he was born within the United States”).

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 670 (1927) (discussing Wong Kim Ark and noting that a child born in the United States “was nevertheless, under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the amendment”).

XY, tell yourself to your heart's content that "There has not been a case directly on point" regarding birthright citizenship. But please remember the maxim spoken by John Adams: facts are stubborn things.

[Commenter_XY]

I'll be happy with a decision on point. Then there is no more argument about it.

FWIW, when I went to school, I was taught you were a citizen if born here. It was all about geography (as you have pointed out in the past).

[not guilty]

In Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957), it could not be any plainer that the alien parents were not domiciled in the United States at the time their son was born:

Petitioners are husband and wife, both aliens. Prior to 1951 both worked as seamen on foreign vessels. In July 1951 the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November 1951 their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth. In January 1952 petitioners voluntarily disclosed their illegal presence to the Immigration Service and applied for suspension of deportation under § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917 . . .

Id., at 73 (footnote omitted; emphasis added).

Any more argument?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, that case had nothing to do with determining the citizenship of the US-born child.

[David Nieporent]

That's not exactly true. Yes, they weren't litigating whether the kid was a citizen, but that's only because it was understood by everyone that the kid was. The kid's citizenship was directly relevant to the case, because they had applied for suspension of deportation under a provision of the law that allowed for such if doing so would be a hardship for a citizen relative. Neither the government nor any justice even so much as hinted that there was any question about the kid's status, despite being born to two people temporarily, and illegally, here.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, I know. But "understood by everyone" is about as far from making a legal argument as you can get. I expected better from NG.

Moreover, the kid's US citizenship was insultingly irrelevant, considering the fact that it did not prevent him from being deported along with his parents (presumably, they were deported after losing this case).

I wonder what happened to him? Being deported to impoverished Greece in 1957 was still better than being assassinated by a Reaper drone along with his terrorist parents, I suppose...

[not guilty]

I haven't said "understood by everyone," thank you very much.

In Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957), the infant's American citizenship was a sine qua non of the relief that the parents were seeking. The petitioners had applied for suspension of deportation under § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which provided, in relevant part:

"In the case of any alien . . . who is deportable under any law of the United States and who has proved good moral character for the preceding five years, the Attorney General may . . . suspend deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization . . . if he finds (a) that such deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or legally resident alien who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable alien . . . ."

Id., at 73-74 (emphasis added).

The parents were deportable aliens. The child's American citizenship was an essential element of their request for suspension of deportation.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(Er, I was quoting David, not you.)

Sorry, but the kid's citizenship was simply assumed, not determined, by the Court in this case. In fact, the case was about whether the Board of Immigration Appeals had committed an error in exercising its administrative discretion.

Even the dissent (by Douglas and Black) simply recites what was then "understood by everyone": "The citizen is a five-year-old boy who was born here and who, therefore, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities which the Fourteenth Amendment bestows on every citizen." Note the complete lack of discussion concerning the parents' immigration status or anyone being or not being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Does the Court having simply assumed what was then "understood by everyone" qualify as being "acknowledged" by the Court? Perhaps, but that's also not what "on point" means...

[not guilty]

Not so glib now, XY?

[David Nieporent]

WKA is directly on point.

[Commenter_XY]

Not quite, both parents of WKA were legal resident aliens. I know, I know...no need to relitigate. My attitude is get the answer, then address any actual problem.

[Martinned2]

My general rule is that Americans should knock it off with those creative statute names, but this one is so petty that I can't help but admire it:

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) on Wednesday rolled out the Eliminate Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy (ELON MUSK) Act, which would ban "special" government employees like Musk from having federal contracts.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/democrats-elon-musk-act-00202567

https://pocan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/pocan-introduce-elon-musk-act-ban-federal-government-contracts-special

[Brett Bellmore]

I wonder if he's considered the consequences for national security of the US government not being able to us SpaceX for launches, or Starlink for communications?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think it's a bad policy, generally?

Because unless you do, the fault would lie with Musk if he refuses to choose.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think it's a bad policy, generally, because it would do exactly what it's clearly intended to do here: Prevent you from hiring 'special employees' with critical skills and expertise, if they're so good at what they do that they're already getting government contracts to do it.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha.

Brett: every institution is full of leftists with no professionalism or integrity who will do whatever corrupt thing to push leftism.

Also Brett: conflict of interest? Nah, lets the very rich.
They aren't known for breaking some rules to make extra money!

[David Nieporent]

The graveyards are full of indispensable men. In a country of 330 million people, there is no person with such "critical skills and expertise" that there aren't numerous others who couldn't do the job equally well.

(And if you come up with some absurd hypothetical in which that's the case, well, that's the ticking-time-bomb-justifies-torture argument. If you really are faced with a nuclear bomb in an American city set to go off within the hour and only torture can prevent it, then go ahead and torture, and deal with the fallout (pun intended) once the crisis is over.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, right, that's why there are five different companies successfully competing with SpaceX for the launch market.

Sometimes you get a Tesla or Einstein, and their existence actually makes a big difference.

[David Nieporent]

Um, the issue is not whether SpaceX is indispensible; the issue is whether Musk's "services" to Trump are. If SpaceX is that important, then find someone other than Musk to go around trying to smash the federal government.

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, they're too busy emoting, Brett. The legislation will go nowhere, and is irrelevant to what is happening.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Raping hippies and beheading babies would otherwise be frowned on by International law, as would be kidnapping civilians.

Hamas has been permitted to win, and they are the real nazis.

[Sarcastr0]

DEI is black people having jobs.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/federal-health-workers-terrified-dei-website-publishes-list-targets-rcna190711

"It’s unclear when the website, which lists mostly Black employees who work in agencies primarily within the Department of Health and Human Services, first appeared."

"On Tuesday evening, the site listed photos of employees and linked to further information about them under the headline “Targets.” Later Tuesday night, the headline on each page had been changed to “Dossiers.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, obviously somebody wants people thinking that DEI is black people having jobs. And you swallowed the bait so deep the hook is lodged in large colon.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, it's a False Flag.

For fuck's sake, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's apparently somebody outside the government waving their own flag, and hoping the administration will follow it.

[Sarcastr0]

The very fact that this racist hogwash is something people are emboldened to put out is telling.

Of course they hope the administration will follow! It aligns with the Administration's position regarding the fires and recent plane crash!

[Brett Bellmore]

So, I noticed that the report didn't link to this 'watchlist'. I tracked it down anyway.

Remembering that cropped magazine cover, and some events I'd been at myself where the media dishonestly reported that they were racist, I wanted to see the list for myself.

Well, it does casually appear that the people listed are disproportionately black. OTOH, when you're talking about DEI departments, whose whole purpose is to introduce racial bias, I can't see how it's shocking that the people involved would be racially skewed. Are the people listed disproportionately black relative to people involved in DEI? No idea, since I don't know the demographics of people involved in DEI.

Do you?

[Sarcastr0]

"The site lists workers’ salaries along with what it describes as “DEI offenses,” including political donations, screenshots of social media posts, snippets from websites describing their work, or being a part of a DEI initiative that has been scrubbed from a federal website. "

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, yeah, it is kind of lame, and short on detail about what these particular people are supposed to have done wrong. But I'm still missing the "racist hogwash" component you're complaining about.

From my perspective, the only racist hogwash around right now IS DEI.

[Sarcastr0]

It's targeting a bunch of people, mostly black, only some of whom work in DEI.

The administration has also done this twice for any one not a white straight dude they see near a bad thing that happened.

You're doing you willful blindness 'I can't make inferences' thing again aren't you?

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's targeting a bunch of people"

Check, but so what?

"Mostly black"

Like I said, I don't know the demographics of people involved in DEI, do you? So I don't know if the proportion of blacks is out of line with the relevant population.

"only some of whom work in DEI"

Only some of whom nominally worked in DEI. Let's see, "Phaedra Bibbs Moore"; CDC-Deputy HR Director. Her title doesn't say she did DEI, but as the site notes, her profile said she did before she recently scrubbed all references to DEI from it.

Did you have a particular "didn't work in DEI" in mind, as an example? So that we could examine the entry? Because my casual review of randomly selected entries didn't find any.

[not guilty]

Slate reports that Attorney General Pam Bondi has issued a memo which claims that it will target private sector Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility initiatives for potential “criminal investigation.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/02/pam-bondi-trump-doj-memo-prosecute-dei-companies.html

I haven't yet seen the memo in question, but Slate reports:

The memo, headed with the subject line “ENDING ILLEGAL DEI AND DEIA DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES,” instructs the Civil Rights Division, historically charged with protecting the rights of vulnerable minorities, and the Office of Legal Policy, to take a number of steps to attack any private companies that prioritize diverse workforces through DEIA programs. Bondi has given those departments a March 1 deadline to submit a report with their “recommendations” “to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including policies relating to DEI and DEIA.”

The memo then asks for a list of business “sectors of concern within the Department of Justice” and the “most egregious and discriminatory DEI and DEIA practitioners in each sector of concern.” It also asks for “litigation activities” and “other strategies” to target these private sector companies, evidently envisioning a coordinated, agency-wide onslaught that would divert many attorneys’ attention away from their normal areas of practice. Bondi says the DOJ will also be working with the Department of Education to make sure that universities are in compliance with the administration’s new anti-DEIA mandate.

Finally, and perhaps most shockingly, the memo implies that some private companies may face criminal penalties for DEIA initiatives. Specifically, Bondi requests that the plan from the Civil Rights Division and Office of Legal Policy include “specific steps or measures to deter the use of DEI and DEIA programs or principles,” as well as “proposals for criminal investigations and up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” of these companies within the “sectors of concern.” The memo specifically cites the section of Trump’s DEIA executive order targeting “publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.”

The prospect of criminal investigation and potential prosecution here is highly problematic, raising significant First Amendment and Equal Protection concerns for its subject matter discrimination. See, Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980); Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).

In Honeyfund.com v. Governor, Florida, 94 F.4th 1272 (11th Cir. 2024), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an injunction against enforcement of a Florida law which provided that employers cannot subject "any individual, as a condition of employment," to "training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels" a certain set of beliefs, all of which relate to race, color, sex, or national origin.Id., at 1275. The law prohibited discussion endorsing eight specific ideas; it did not, however, prohibit discussion rejecting such ideas. Id., at 1275-1276. Employers who required their employees to hear these disfavored ideas could face serious financial penalties—back pay, compensatory damages, and up to $100,000 in punitive damages, plus attorney's fees—on top of injunctive relief. Id., at 1276.

The Eleventh Circuit pulled no punches in invalidating the Florida as an impermissible content-based and viewpoint-based regulation of speech prohibited by the First Amendment:

No matter how hard Florida tries to get around it, viewpoint discrimination is inherent in the design and structure of this Act. . . . Given our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, the answer is clear: Florida's law exceeds the bounds of the First Amendment. . . . No matter how controversial the ideas, allowing the government to set the terms of the debate is poison, not antidote.

Id., at 1283 (citations, internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).

[Commenter_XY]

NG...Why is investigation and a formal request to report back recommendations by March 1 problematic, by the AG?

[not guilty]

For at least a couple of reasons, the reference to criminal investigation is highly problematic. First of all, no federal criminal statute prohibits the targeted activity. Second, if there were such a content-based and viewpoint-based criminal statute, enforcement thereof would offend First Amendment and Equal Protection guaranties.

As Justice Robert Jackson opined in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943):

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

[Brett Bellmore]

The memo.

The referenced executive order.

"First of all, no federal criminal statute prohibits the targeted activity."

Exactly how confident are you, that no federal criminal statute applies to private companies engaging in racial discrimination?

"Second, if there were such a content-based and viewpoint-based criminal statute, enforcement thereof would offend First Amendment and Equal Protection guaranties."

In that case, enforcement of discrimination law against people discriminating against blacks would offend equally. And yet we know that such laws do get enforced.

Maybe you're in denial about DEI programs engaging in actual racial discrimination?

[not guilty]

Thank you for the links.

"Exactly how confident are you, that no federal criminal statute applies to private companies engaging in racial discrimination?"

Getting past your question begging to assume arguendo that a private company's Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility initiatives can include "engaging in racial discrimination," I am quite confident that that is a civil matter rather than a federal criminal matter.

A private employer's embrace of DEI and DEIA programs or principles is core protected expression under the First Amendment. Viewpoint discrimination is the most grievous of First Amendment violations. The Honeyfund.com Court called it "the most pernicious of dividing lines under the First Amendment." 94 F.4th at 1275. Federal criminal prosecution based on the defendant's exercise of constitutional rights offends Fifth Amendment Due Process/Equal Protection guaranties. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985).

[Brett Bellmore]

If you can question beg about DEI offices just being involved in activities that would be 1st amendment protected, I can question beg about DEI offices just engaging in activities that are 14th amendment/Civil Rights Act barred.

"A private employer's embrace of DEI and DEIA programs or principles is core protected expression under the First Amendment."

To the exact same extent that a private employer's embrace of anti-DEI and DEIA programs or principles is core protected expression under the 1st amendment. Which is to say, to the extent it actually IS 1st amendment activities, rather than just gross violations of the Civil Rights Act.

I would say, based on all the accounts I've read, that explicit and unashamed racial discrimination is what's really at the core of DEI. And both the memo and the EO are quite clear that what is being targeted is illegal racial discrimination.

Even if the people practicing it choose to call it "Diverity, Equity, and Inclusion".

[John F. Carr]

DEI is vague. I'm thinking of the three blind men and the elephant.

I worked for a company that had race and sex goals in hiring. Like, a year from now we aim to have 40% women and 20% minority employees. Was that a DEI plan?

To the extent any particular DEI program is indoctrination rather than formal discrimination, see Eugene Volokh's recent posts on Title VI vs. the First Amendment.

[Magister]

Is this the memo?
https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388501/dl

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[ThePublius]

This is why conservatives and moderates hate the so-called mainstream media. In the NY Times today, David Leonhardt says in his column "The first part of this week was dominated by Trump’s threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but he postponed them in exchange for the countries’ promise to do things they were largely already doing. "

What? That's a total lie. Mexico was not already sending 10,000 troops to the border!

The tariff threats were a major success, not a backing off by Trump.

The tragedy here is that libs and progs consume this B.S. and believe it.

[ThePublius]

"Mexico on Tuesday deployed 10,000 troops to its northern border with the U.S. – appearing to make good on a vow President Claudia Sheinbaum made a day earlier to President Trump to bolster border security in exchange for Trump pausing a 25% tariff on Mexican goods.

The deployment, titled "Operativo Frontera Norte," has Mexican soldiers going to the border towns of Juárez and Chihuahua."

https://justthenews.com/world/mexico/mexico-deploys-10000-military-troops-southern-border

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I was discussing just this with my 16 year old son yesterday, who is of course being indoctrinated at school. He says, "But all Trump got was things Canada and Mexico had already agreed to do!"

And I replied, "And now they're going to have to actually DO them, rather than just agree to do them."

[ThePublius]

That's telling, as that's the line the NY Times is using, but it's not true; Canada and Mexico had not already agreed to do these things, as far as i know. The threat of tariffs spurred them into action. Mission accomplished.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And as everyone is already quite aware, you're a lying sack of shit-for-brains.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/12/government-of-canada-announces-its-plan-to-strengthen-border-security-and-our-immigration-system.html

"The tragedy here is that libs and progs consume this B.S. and believe it."

The tragedy here is that Crooks missed.

[ducksalad]

JC, we have very similar opinions about Trump and I agree Publius's bullshit is deeply annoying.

But you need to stop with the assassination stuff. Not just because it's morally wrong but because it's counterproductive.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I disagree.

Our new King has clearly decided that laws will not stop him from doing whatever he wants to do and ignoring the Constitution wherever it pleases him to do so. We're well-past the point where it became morally acceptable and heading towards the point where it will be too late.

[ThePublius]

A plan to do something it not doing something.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As repeatedly demonstrated, including here, you are a lying sack of shit.

They "agreed" to do what Trump wanted, which consisted of things they'd already "agreed" to do in December. The situation didn't change, unless you factor in Trump attacking our neighbors and damaging the national and global economy, and diminishing our standing in the world by doing so.

You consider that 'winning' because you're a moron.

[ducksalad]

"as far as i know"

[Martinned2]

"And now they're going to have to actually DO them, rather than just agree to do them."

Do they? Why? Because the detail-oriented Trump people are going to check?

[ducksalad]

Even if they did check, the factors that made Trump chicken out this time will still be there.

[ThePublius]

He didn't chicken out, at all. Let me ask you, by way of analogy: if you confront someone who's broken into your house with a knife in hand and you produce a gun and tell them to drop the knife and get down while you call the police - is not shooting them chickening out?

[ducksalad]

Laughably bad analogy. Allow me to correct it:

You stupidly decide to break into someone's house with a knife. The housewife says "put down that knife or I'll have to get angry. Now here, have this cookie and go home". Then back out on the sidewalk tell your friends you're a badass winner and look at this cookie I got.

That is what happened.

[ThePublius]

You just don't get it, that's why you think it's stupid.

[ducksalad]

Yes, we all remember the campaign rallies where the MAGA crowds were chanting "We want Mexican troops!" and "Trudeau must issue a directive!".

Yeah, those were your goals all along. That is what you longed to see, and now you can bask in Mission Accomplished.

Actually, that's a great idea. Declare Mission Accomplished and let DJT relax for 202 weeks while his Chief of Staff runs things. From the look on her face when he made the Gaza announcement I believe she is not totally irredeemable.

[Sarcastr0]

Your idea of foreign policy is psychotic.

Except it looks less like you think that than a rationalization of why Trump actually got everything he wanted and didn't back down at all.

Keep fucking that chicken.

[ThePublius]

Because Trump will reinstitute the tariffs if they don't. Not complicated, is it?

[M L]

Pro Tip: Do not allow your kids to be indoctrinated at school.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, try to find a school that won't do that, if you have limited means, and both parents work. I had to settle for a school that would deliver a good education along the way, and doing some deprogramming at home.

[David Nieporent]

"Indoctrinating" is a dysphemism for "educating." When people like the ideas the schools are teaching, they're perfectly happy with the process. Inculcating good values and habits and imparting knowledge.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see no reason why my son's school, which is by the way doing an excellent job of teaching him math, english, music theory, and so forth, should be teaching him any views at all about contemporary politics, when he's not taking a course in contemporary politics.

[Sarcastr0]

No history or civics or English or art.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you for real?

[Absaroka]

Kind of trivia, but indoctrination isn't always used as a pejorative. The Ranges have a 'Ranger Indoc', and the SEALs used to have a SEAL Indoc (it has since been renamed), Marine Recon used to have RIP (Recon Indoctrination Program), etc. They are/were unabashedly about changing who you are as a person, for the better.

[David Nieporent]

What? That's a total lie. Mexico was not already sending 10,000 troops to the border!

Do you actually think that there weren't already Mexican troops near its border?

More importantly, why is this supposed to be a win for the U.S. anyway? What do you cultists think this is going to accomplish?

[John F. Carr]

Today the federal government sued Illinois, Chicago, and others to invalidate an Illinois law known as the TRUST Act along with a Chicago sanctuary ordinance. Informally, the Trump administration claims sanctuary laws cross the line between passive noncooperation and active interference with federal law.

The case has been assigned to judge Lindsay C. Jenkins.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69616357/united-states-v-state-of-illinois/

I first though the state should win because Illinois is not obliged to help with immigration enforcement. But a federal judge invalidated a Missouri law prohibiting cooperation with federal gun law enforcement. Based on that precedent the government might have a case after all.

[Brett Bellmore]

TRUST Act

I don't see anything that obviously goes beyond aggressive non-cooperation, but let's see what their argument is.

[ThePublius]

"District Court Judge Rules Ban on Machinegun Ownership Unconstitutional Under Bruen"

Wow.

https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/crime-and-punishment/district-court-judge-rules-ban-on-machinegun-ownership-unconstitutional-under-bruen/

[Brett Bellmore]

It's widely suspected to be bait for the Rahimi majority to walk back Bruen; The judge is notably hostile to the 2nd amendment.

[not guilty]

Perhaps someone should have cautioned Clarence Thomas while he was writing the opinion of the Court in Bruen, "Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true."

[ThePublius]

How can they walk back Bruen?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, in Rahimi, they did it by warping their contemporary analogous laws rule; On the one hand you had laws that actually disarmed people, but only after conviction, and then you had laws that required people to post a bond to take their guns out of their home, as a result of a civil action.

So the Court majority mashed them together, and allowed actually disarming somebody as a result of a civil action...

I really don't know what sophistry they'd come up with to preserve the federal ban on machine guns, but I have faith Mr. Penaltax can come up with SOMETHING.

[David Nieporent]

Well, in Rahimi, they did it by warping their contemporary analogous laws rule;

Remember, Brett knows better than the justices what they themselves meant when they wrote Bruen.

[Brett Bellmore]

How dare I agree with the guy who wrote it, and actually apply my reading and reasoning skills. The nerve of me.

[David Nieporent]

It takes five votes for a majority opinion. (Bruen got six). The "giuy who wrote it" has no more claim on its meaning than the others who turned it from a solo opinion to the majority opinion. Five of the six who voted for that position voted for the Rahimi opinion.

And your "reasoning skills," as noted many times, is just Area Manning. (Not to be confused with Peyton Manning.)

[not guilty]

Rahimi was not a felon-in-possession case. The defendant's guilty plea was to possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Roberts refers to multiple prior felony arrests, but does not recite that Mr. Rahimi had criminal convictions which would have disqualified him under §§ 922(g)(1) or 922(g)(9).

[Brett Bellmore]

I know it wasn't a felon in possession case. If it had been, actually applying Bruen analysis would have been rather less to Rahimi's liking. The problem for the Court's majority was that in as much as Rahimi was merely accused of crimes, and hadn't been convicted of any, (I don't think he was even under indictment at the time, though I'm not certain of that.) applying Bruen's reasoning led to the conclusion that he was still fully in possession of his rights, and constitutional rights can not be so cavalierly disposed of in civil proceedings.

Unless they're 2nd amendment rights, I guess.

[not guilty]

Brett, like other constitutional rights, Secomd Amendment rights are waivable. Zacky Rahimi had every opportunity to litigate the restraining order -- he had notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Instead, he did not contest the applicant's testimony and consented to entry of the order, which included findings that Rahimi had committed “family violence,” that such violence was “likely to occur again” and that Rahimi posed “a credible threat” to the “physical safety” of the mother of his child and that of the child. The order also suspended Rahimi’s gun license for two years.

By consenting to entry of the subject restraining order, Rahimi waived or forfeited any firearm rights which he may otherwise have had while the order remained in force.

[tylertusta]

That'd be in keeping with the district court ruling in Miller.

[not guilty]

Here is the order and opinion dismissing the indictment: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mssd.123238/gov.uscourts.mssd.123238.28.0.pdf

It is quite the reductio ad absurdum of a batshit crazy SCOTUS decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with reductio ad absurdum is that it is entirely reliant on the person you're arguing with finding the conclusion absurd.

As the court in this case noted, after Bruen, "Under the new standard, the government must prove that its desired firearm restriction—which here, means the statute criminalizing simple machinegun possession—is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”"

The federal government had not banned civilian ownership of any firearm whatsoever for about two centuries. Even the NFA just taxed them.

The machine gun was invented in 1884, and it was 102 years later that the federal government presumed to tell Americans that they couldn't freely own them.

Prior to the NFA jacking up the price, machine guns were not that uncommonly owned in America, and even after that, before the 1986 FOPA, they used to sell them in magazine ads, mail order!

Today's gun control miasma is blessedly recent, it has no historical grounding.

Remember, you've got a rather absolute "shall not be infringed", and what Bruen established was a rule for how you found exceptions to that absolute: By finding an example of a similar law in the founding era, to prove that the conduct you propose to outlaw wasn't regarded as part of the right.

The outcome in this case was absolutely unavoidable if you follow Bruen.

You might find that absurd, but that's only because you reject the right that Bruen upheld.

[ThePublius]

Well said.

[not guilty]

"The outcome in this case was absolutely unavoidable if you follow Bruen."

Uh, Brett, that was my point exactly. It seems to be Judge Reeves's point, too.

Where you and I differ is that you apparently regard that as a good thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I regard constitutional government as a good thing, and that means giving every jot and tittle of the Constitution full and honest effect.

If you look at the purpose of the 2nd amendment, ensuring that American citizens would be entitled to be armed in the same manner as soldiers, (Every terrible implement...) so that a militarily effective militia could be raised in an emergency even if the government didn't WANT it to be possible, the 2nd amendment mandating that machine guns be legal makes perfect sense.

Some people think that's a terrible idea, and quite a few of them are judges. But a judge's opinion that part of the Constitution was a bad idea has precisely no legal relevance at all; If he really thinks that, and can not bring himself to uphold it anyway, he should resign his position and lobby for an amendment to repeal it.

[not guilty]

The litigation regarding firearms is about what does or does not constitute "infringe[ment]" of the right to keep and bear arms. Begging that question doesn't feed the bulldog.

[ThePublius]

Well, fortunately, a likely majority of Americans don't think it was "batshit crazy," at all, rather, a correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem, of course, is that you've got three justices on the Supreme court who are a guaranteed vote to uphold basically any gun control law whatsoever. (Maybe they'd take exception to the death penalty for finger guns.) So all it takes is two members of the Bruen majority to get the heebie jeebies and a gun control law gets upheld.

Well, maybe Trump will get an opportunity to improve the Court a bit over the next four years.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's how the law is supposed to be interpreted, i.e., not how the judge just wishes it was.

I think the 2nd Amendment will eventually have to be "dealt with", but until then, it is the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's still the case that, in living memory, gun control was essentially not a thing outside of Jim Crow statutes which were only enforced against minorities. And people of my generation can still remember that guns being sold mail order, legal machine guns, and so forth, did not get in the way of having a peaceful civil society.

If that's no longer the case because today's Americans are much more violent and untrustworthy, perhaps that's what should be dealt with, not constitutional rights.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

In Texas gun control measures such as strict handgun regulations were enforced on everyone prior to the 1990s. George W Bush won the governorship on the repealing gun control measures and he never portrayed the law as racist against blacks. The conceal carry movement in TX was championed by a survivor of a mass shooting to prevent mass shootings in the future…so it didn’t actually accomplish the mission of the movement as mass shooting have gotten worse since then.

[ThePublius]

So, your point? And "prior to the 1990s" meaning, when did it begin?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bellmore is doing the revisionist history that racism in America wasn’t really a big deal except with respect to gun ownership in which it was the worst thing in the world and prevented American Blacks from realizing the American dream. Of course he conveniently ignores Governor Reagan banning open carry in California when scary Black dudes started exercising their 2nd Amendment rights…because Reagan was a Republican from California and not Bull Connor in Alabama.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The amendment process is there for a reason: the Constitution can be changed when it no longer suits the people. The 2nd Amendment is obviously a relic of another era. No modern constitution would include anything remotely like it, based on nothing other than the graphic recent experience of the United States.

I understand why many people in the USA would not want to repeal or modify it, but I also understand why many people in the USA do.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment was not considered "a problem" for hundreds of years, but it definitely is now. The only question is whether it will be repealed, amended or the country fractured instead.

[ThePublius]

More winning:

NCAA Bars Men from Competing in Women’s Sports

Charlie Baker (or Charlie Parker, as Biden called him) caves.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ncaa-bars-men-from-competing-in-womens-sports/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=38508372

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Biden got most things right and the problem was progressives trying to take advantage of the situation that harmed Biden. So why was there a man playing volleyball after Lia Thomas was banned from competing in college swimming?? Progressives should have realized what they were advocating for was deeply unpopular and focused on protecting junior high LGBTQ students from getting picked on. Lia Thomas didn’t need anyone protecting her , she could kick most men’s asses.

[ThePublius]

In fact, Lia Thomas couldn't kick most men's asses, he was a scrub as a male swimmer, and even just tied for 5th with Riley Gaines in a woman's swimming event. He is just an irritant, and thankfully helped bring this nonsense to an end.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Lia Thomas is jacked. She tanked most races because she could see the backlash she was causing. What’s hilarious is Republicans believe they get to decide who is male and female based on their opinions…the #fakenews Olympics boxing controversy helped Trump win the presidency as it helped stop Kamala’s momentum in August. Republicans are better at politics than Democrats…governing not so much as 10 soldiers have died so far while Trump has been president.

[ThePublius]

AOC is smarter than Elon Musk. Who knew?

“This dude is not smart, and the danger in the lack of intelligence and the lack of expertise that Elon has, I mean, this guy is one of the most morally vacant, but also just least knowledgeable about these systems that we know of,” the 35-year-old said in reference to his efforts to reform government spending."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Musk had some dumb takes on Ukraine. He’s clearly lacking in liberal arts intelligence like Obama and Clinton. Bill Clinton is the perfect example of a politics savant that is always thinking about politics and most people think he’s pretty boring if they spend any time around him. Obama is more well rounded than Clinton so people can relate to him more easily, Obama seems ultra competitive like Bush and that he got a lot of good luck that propelled him. James K Polk and Putin are like Clinton in that they are 100% politics 24/7…super boring.

[ThePublius]

What on earth does that have to do with what I posted?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Musk doesn’t have liberal arts intelligence.