Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Martinned2]

Still interesting to see the dynamics that the 5% voting threshold creates in Germany. For example, yesterday CDU-leader Merz called on voters not to vote for the FDP, because those votes would be wasted. Conservative voters should back the CDU instead.

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/bundestagswahl/merz-fdp-100.html

In most parliamentary systems you'd expect the leader of the centre-right to take it easy on the party that is his most preferred coalition partner.

[Kazinski]

Well the FDP, Left, and BSW are all below the 5% cutoff, so that's almost 13.5% of the total vote that may be stranded.

CDU is still leading in the polls but sinking, AfD is surging, and SPD and the Greens unlikely to to combine for even 30%.

They better do something.

[Martinned2]

Lest it be overlooked amid all the chaos:

The US justice department under Donald Trump is disbanding an effort started after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine to enforce sanctions and target oligarchs close to the Kremlin.

A memo from the attorney general, Pam Bondi, issued during a wave of orders on her first day in office but not previously reported, said the effort, known as Task Force KleptoCapture, will end as part of a shift in focus and funding to combating drug cartels and international gangs.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/06/trump-russia-oligarchs-task-force

[Stephen Lathrop]

Which raises a question. Why would that happen, except to ameliorate political risk that anti-oligarchical politics might be applied by government policy in the U.S.?

Of course, the ubiquitous, all purpose, reliance on anti-drug excuses deserves attention too. Looks like in MAGA world, anti-child abuse policy, and anti-drug policy, will turn out to comprise almost the entire basis of American governance. Who actually supposes either of those menaces are destined to disappear—or even be much reduced—as a result?

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

Stephen, when your daughter dies of thoise drugs (or some silmilar tragedy) you will drop that odious professorial tone of yours.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, in a world of fiscal constraints (in case you had not noticed, the US govt is reducing its fed workforce), one must prioritize.

For normies, this is easy. Which helps America more? Staunching the flow of fentanyl that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year, or, trying to confiscate the assets of some rich Russian asshole who could give two shits about America and hasn't killed anyone in America?

I know for you, it is a dilemma, and a tough choice.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A false dichotomy, and yet somehow you still come out against Ukraine.

It's weird how petty you are.

[Krayt]

Which helps America more? Staunching the flow of fentanyl that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year, or, trying to confiscate the assets of some rich Russian asshole who could give two shits about America and hasn't killed anyone in America?

Proposing this as a false either/or is in keeping with the notion, born 8 years ago, he wants to be soft on the oligarchs in Russia in exchange for...what?

Clearly not as a negotiating tactic to force withdrawal from Ukraine. Or even the slightly less bizarre notion of just letting Hitler keep the land he's conquered. This is not being presented to the US or to the world as part of this change.

Just raw abandonment, as feared and predicted. Now wonder why.

[ReaderY]

Easy. Russia gets to take Ukraine if we get to take Greenland. What’s not to like?

Why would a bully want to fight with his peers when he can simply make a deal with the other bullies and grab a slice of the little kids’ lunch money for himself? What does he gain by fighting them? It’s just not in his interest. There are so many little kids to pick on, rich little kids absolutely loaded with lunch money, who make much easier marks than the other tough guys.

[ReaderY]

That is, we’re not just planning to abandon our former allies, The Greenland business was an indication we plan to turn on them and demand tribute from them, treat them as protectorate/sphere of influence/ dependency territories in a manner similar to the way Russia regards the former Soviet territories.

I suspect he may want a new world order involving some sort of imperial sphere of influence deal in which the US, Russia, China and maybe India each get to grab something they’ve had their eyes on, and the little folks just have to pony up or else.

[David Nieporent]

Fentanyl doesn't kill people; people kill people.

[gVOR08]

In my utilitarian mind actually sanctioning Russian oligarchs who support Putin is clearly more important than more War on Drugs posturing and failure.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY — Which helps America more? Defending American constitutionalism, or inviting its replacement by oligarchy?

[Martinned2]

(And for the record: yes, the name of that taskforce is extremely cringe.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The US justice department under Donald Trump is disbanding an effort started after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine to enforce sanctions and target oligarchs close to the Kremlin."

Which are, I presume, finite -- there are only so many yachts and such, and at some point, there is an exponentially diminishing return on investment.

It's like hunting Nazis, there were task forces in the '50s & '60s, but not now, and that's because there aren't any left, not a lack of interest.

[Martinned2]

Yes, it is definitely plausible that Trump and Bondi think all the bank accounts have been seized already. /s

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's been what -- 2 years now?

Is it really a sin to presume a scintilla of competence in the Biden Admin? And with computers, how long WOULD it take to *identify* the accounts?

[Martinned2]

LOL, they couldn't even catch Trump, and he has/had much less money for lawyers than these guys, and most of his money is (probably) in the US.

[SRG2]

I'd like to see the economic case for the change in priorities.

[Krayt]

I'd like to see the economic case for the change in priorities.

Simple!

Easy platting of new skyscrapers in St. Petersburg? Miraculously zero red tape in a corrupt kleptocracy built on getting in the way and taking a cut?

[Krayt]

This "balls out", everything the other side does is wrong behavior, which I've complained about over the Democrats the past 8 years, also applies to the Republicans. I do wonder if even that's sufficient as explanation here.

Journalists, do your job.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The task force ended since the capture was complete.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I am not even remotely clear what kind of funding sanctions take. I guess it is entirely enforcement expenditure. So, there is long list of Biden prosecutions of sanctions violations related to Russia?

Moving dollars to reduce cartel activities (not just drugs but trafficking and RICO) from enforcement of sanctions against Russia seems like a good idea. I get drugs are a lost cause, but how effective have sanctions been against Russia with China, Iran. NoKo support? Can you show me where sanctions have been SOOOO effective against Russia?

[Kazinski]

Well Trump did campaign on negotiating a peace deal with Ukraine and Russia, now would not be the time to try to double down on sanctions.

I just saw on the Bloomberg headline that Russia's economy grew 4.1%, but I also see that inflation is near 10%, which indicates its mostly government spending on the war that's driving their economy (assuming the data is accurate).

An exit ramp maybe welcome.

An exit ra

[RedheadedPharoh]

I have a few questions for those types that agree with the class warfare rhetoric of the Robert Reich/ Bernie Sanders types and others.

Who is getting the benefit from our nearly $1T/year interest payments? How did they earn it? Interest is typically an indicator of risk, what risk have these people who are getting this nearly $1T/ year taken?

Not who generally, but who specifically? Some group of people is directly benefiting from these payments. To me, this seems like pure, unearned rent, much worse than the capitalist gains that the Leftists often rail about with CEOs etc.

Why is this never mentioned by these class warriors? Why are they silent on this rent-seeking ripoff?

[Commenter_XY]

Since I own a total US bond mutual fund in my 401K, I benefit, partly. The mutual fund holds US Treasuries. I receive dividends monthly.

Retirees, pensioners, investors all benefit from the 1T, indirectly.

I would like to continue receiving dividend payments, RHP.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Ok, I must confess I completely missed that. I had been reading up on central banking and thought I had a clever "gotcha" and this time, and this is a first for this board, I got egg on my face.

Mea culpa.

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

But it was evident under Kennedy that rich beneficiaries of some orginal crme (such as the Kennedy's inherited from Joe) necessitates they appear on the side of the poor. Else they would be treated the way the Left now treats any wealthy person not left.

So the ridiculous hypocrite Sen Warren : Eizabeth Warren's estimated net worth for 2018 is $7 977 513

[Michael P]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDHBFIN if you want to know how much of the total is held by non-US entities. FRED also has charts for debt held by the public (vs intragovernment debt) and total debt.

https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-own-the-most-us-debt/ has a breakdown of the biggest countries holding that debt.

[Krayt]

Look! Those other teens with a vodka bottle are careening around corners even faster!

We've been through the math. They tie borrowing to GDP so they can lavish funds to get elected, and skim off it in a thousand different ways, some legal!.

This is the motivating force, not any rational need anysis. You could double spending to $12 trillion, and immediately fill it with testimonies of need and sob stories (and even more rapidly advancing net wealth of politicians.)

An unexpectedly balanced budget, as with the Inernet boom in the 1990s, which Clinton bragged about, is quickly unbalanced as there's more that can be borrowed and lavished in pursuit of this corrupt structure.

I've even suggested that, should the unlikely happen and tariffs balance the budget*, looking less and less likely, the same process will repeat itself.

* Ironically, since Americans pay this tariff tax, it would actually be restoring a moral generational "pay for your own goodies" behavior. Back in the ye olden days, people felt borrowing from future generations for war or infrastructure was fine. Roads and so lasted decades, and so benefited them. And war, well, if you lose, small benefit there.

But all these self-consuming programs, a generation should pay as it go, and not use accounting gimmicks that would get CEOs tossed in jail.

[bernard11]

First, the tariffs are not going to balance the budget. If you want to increase taxes to balance the budget, OK, but tariffs are a destructive way to fail at doing that. Their negative effects have been much discussed here and millions of other places, so get a grip.

Of course if you swallow Trump's ludicrous story that the exporting country pays the tariff and all else goes on as before, then there's no point even discussing it with you.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Under Bill Clinton, taxes were increased, and federal spending grew at an annual rate of 1.51% after inflation.

Under George W. Bush, taxes were cut, and federal spending grew at an annual rate of 5.62% after inflation. (Annual spending growth was 4.55% during Bush's first term and 6.70% during his second term.) Conservatives were happy with this. They continued to use the rhetoric about wanting lower spending and lower deficits, but they clearly didn’t mean it.

Krayt’s analysis may be correct when applied to Republicans. For Democrats, the key point is that this is an issue where Republicans have a structural advantage. If Al Gore had in 2000, that might have given us eight years of balanced budgets, but the Republicans would have won eventually and we’d be back to budget deficits. So it doesn’t make sense for Democrats to spend political capital trying to balance the budget.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I don't understand this trope of assigning spending to a President. It's lazy thinking and incorrect.

The House appropriates monies. Republican Houses do not implement Democrat President's budgets. Democrat Houses do not implement Republican President's budgets.

Spending was balanced under Clinton because of Newt Gingrich and his Contract For America. The tail end of "Bush's spending" was actually signed by Obama. Pelosi drug out funding with short term CR's until Obama took office and he signed the massive omnibus for the FY he took office. Further much of "Bush's spending" was TARP outlays, which were paid back under Obama, for which Bush ate the "spending" while Obama benefited from the revenue.

It's all ignorant bullshit these tropes and memes about spending.

[BadLib]

At the moment I've got a substantial portion of my liquid assets parked in T-Bills. In other words, I'm loaning money you and others. Of course I didn't do this three years ago when rates were under 1% rather than around 4.3% (but declining) where they are now.

My net real return on these after inflation and taxes (annual CPI-U for CY 2024 at 2.9% and about 25% federal tax) is approximately zero. Hardly "rent-seeking ripoff" IMHO.

In other words owning treasuries, esp. short term ones, is pretty much not benefiting anyone very much except, perhaps, those that speculate successfully in interest rate changes. I don't speculate in treasuries except to the extent that I use them to park money at very low risk. I don't want to be overweight on stocks right now because I am keeping my powder dry for the coming recession and stock market "correction" (or, more likely, "plunge").

[Martinned2]

Today in "You can survey just about anything, but don't be surprised if you get garbage answers": Who are the most and least popular kings and queens of England and Britain?

I'll spare you the full list, but the top 8 are:

1. Elizabeth II: +74 net score
2. Victoria: +50
3. George VI: +40
4. Elizabeth I: +36
5. George V: +30
6. Richard the Lionheart: +29
7. Charles III: +27
8. Edward VII: +14

(Henry VIII came dead last.)

https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/51496-who-are-the-most-and-least-popular-kings-and-queens-of-england-and-britain

[Frank Drackman]

None could carry Catherine de' Medici's Chastity Belt
Just consider, she's 27, Queen Consort of France, with one son who's an idiot, another who's sick, and a third who's a fool, so she's got to run France herself, she's got the Huguenots in rebellion
and here she is, an Italian girl in France and in trouble.
What does she do?
She invited all the Huguenot leaders to a banquet to talk over
their differences. A lavish sit-down. Then, just as they're
all seated, back go the drapes and in come the guys with
the swords and crossbows. Zap! Every one of the son of
bitches is wasted. Huguenot problem solved

Frank

[SRG2]

She probably got the idea from Cosimo di Medici, who did something similar.in Sinigalia, IIRC

[Jerry B.]

Or Game of Thrones.

[bernard11]

On a more pleasant note, she is sometimes credited with establishing France's culinary genius.

When she came to France she brought along her Italian cooks, and they started the move of French cooking from the dull stuff she had seen (that's why she brought the cooks in the first place) to the pinnacle it achieved.

[bernard11]

Keynes once wrote that the stock market was like a beauty contest where judges try to select not most beautiful contestant but the one most people would find the most beautiful.

So does this survey ask which monarch the responder likes best, or which the responder thinks is most popular with others?

And where is William the Conqueror on the list?

[Bob from Ohio]

9th

[Commenter_XY]

Yesterday, POTUS Trump signed an EO sanctioning the ICC. It is about time that corrupt org was sanctioned.

We car bar entry to any UN staff, or their family members, into the US. I assume that US citizens affiliated with ICC are exempt. There are financial sanctions as well.

Suppose an ICC employee owns US stocks. Could they be prohibited from selling, and moving money? What if they're Americans with the ICC?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/02/trump-sanctions-international-criminal-court-and-those-who-assist-it/

[Martinned2]

Nothing says "commitment to the rule of law" like imposing sanctions against a court.

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

martin, Beinig a court does not confer the authority. It works the opposite way esp with Jus Gentium.

[Martinned2]

You realise that the norms enforced by the ICC are among the most widely accepted in the world, right? Apart from Trump and a few Israeli politicians, very few people are outright claiming that things like genocide and ethnic cleansing are OK and should be legal.

[RedheadedPharoh]

What about the norms from the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

[Bored Lawyer]

Apart from Trump and a few Israeli politicians, very few people are outright claiming that things like genocide and ethnic cleansing are OK and should be legal.

If you want to see what a leftist liar looks like, read that sentence. Martinned2 well knows that the objection to the ICC is not that genocide and ethnic cleansing are OK, but that the ICC is a sham political court. Yet he persists in these lies.

BTW, Martinned, are you heading back to Amsterdam for this year's "Jew Hunt?" Get your Uber reservations in early.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Blood libel!

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on how many kangaroos are involved.

[Martinned2]

I can see how someone whose idea of justice is "Trump wins" might be confused by a court that enforces the law impartially.

[Frank Drackman]

Pompous Ass much? and what Court are you talking about? The "King and his Court" had more gravitas than the ICC(going back a bit for that reference, any fellow Conspirators ever get to see them? Sort of a Softball version of the Harlem Globetrotters* saw them in the Summer of 72' Offutt AFB, same summer I got to see the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds (the USAF Flight Team, not the band) when they were still flying Phantoms (my ears are still ringing)

* Saw the Globetrotters a few years later, I know one of their bits wouldn't go over today, the one where they steal the Ref's whistle, start blowing it, and when the Ref says "Hey There!" Meadowlark would respond with a lisping "Hey There Yourself!" sounding more like Joe Besser ("Not so hardd.....................!!!!!")

Frank

[VinniUSMC]

court that enforces the law impartially.

Impartiality, as judged by Nazi Martin. Fuck off Nazi piece of shit.

[Commenter_XY]

Amal Clooney, husband of George Clooney, is an advisor to the Prosecutor's office, and therefore falls under the EO sanctions. I do not believe she is an American citizen. Her assets are comingled with her husband.

In cases where a sanctioned party has comingled assets with a non-sanctioned party, how does the law address the non-sanctioned party who wants to sell a comingled asset (like a home)?

[Frank Drackman]

I'd love to comingle my assets with Amals, she needs to eat more though, she goes to Africa, the natives use her for a spear!

[Riva]

Wearing wigs doesn’t make the gaggle of left wing activist lawyers a “court.”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Any thoughts about the ICC?

[Riva]

Ah, I think I understand. The reference to wigs wasn’t meant to refer to the trans insane officials corrupting various institutions in this country and elsewhere. It was referring to the absurd practice of wearing wigs by certain legal professionals, including essentially unaccountable ICC “prosecutors.” In quotes because they’re not actually practicing law before a real court.

[Satchmo_Lives]

In theory? Sounds great!!

In practice? A Monty Python absurdist sketch (Ministry of Silly Walks comes to mind).

The ICC indicted the head of a country after responding to an act of war with over a thousand civilian deaths including women and infants. He was indicted while the aggressors were/are still holding hostages.

Any court that decides a country can't respond to aggression, except on the courts terms, is a Silly Walks endeavor.

[Bob from Ohio]

To be fair, they indicted a dead Hamas leader!

[Riva]

An essentially unaccountable international body that creates its own jurisdiction and then acts as judge, jury and prosecutor, in a system that does not recognize any basic due process protections, is in no way "great," either in theory or practice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"court."

Not one we recognize. It takes more than a few robes and a bench to make a court in any event.

One of the "judges" who approved Bibi's "warrant" is from that bastion of freedom Benin.

"ts democratic system "has eroded" since President Talon took office.[54] In 2018, his government introduced new rules for fielding candidates and raised the cost of registering. The electoral commission, packed with Talon's allies, barred all opposition parties from the parliamentary election in 2019, resulting in a parliament made up entirely of supporters of Talon. That parliament subsequently changed election laws such that presidential candidates need to have the approval of at least 10% of Benin's MPs and mayors. As parliament and most mayors' offices are controlled by Talon, he has control over who can run for president. " wikipedia

ICC is just another useless transnational playground for useless people to get fancy jobs.

[John F. Carr]

The order generally tracks the bill that didn't pass Congress, except that the visa ban is broader. People who actively try to prosecute Americans or Israelis are sanctioned. All employees of the ICC are subject to discretionary travel bans.

As of this morning, before start of business, a query for entity "International Criminal Court" on the OFAC sanctions page returns no matches. Also no match for Akane, president of the ICC.

[Martinned2]

People who actively try to prosecute Americans or Israelis are sanctioned.

Just to check, do you (and Trump) understand that the judges of the court aren't prosecuting or trying to prosecute anybody? The fact that you mentioned Judge Akane makes me wonder...

[John F. Carr]

I wanted to see if anybody was on the sanctions list yet. The president of the court seemed like a good starting point. I didn't dig deeper because I don't need any of these people sanctioned. I was curious what the United States government had done. The target of sanctions, aside from the person named in the Annex I haven't seen, is described here:

any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General:
(A) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person’s country of nationality;
(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity in subsection (a)(ii)(A) of this section or any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

[Bob from Ohio]

"do you (and Trump) understand that the judges of the court aren't prosecuting"

Its a shortcut term, the EO says "directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute" which covers "judges".

[Satchmo_Lives]

Of course. an entirely illegitimate branch of prosecutors can serve a legitimate court.

Now do Bragg and Merchan.

[Riva]

The ICC prosecutors are part of the court. They are not part of a separate, independent branch. It's all one big corrupt international pile, just with a lot of tentacles.

[hobie]

In four years we'll probably need that court, or else a Nuremberg one. So lets go easy on the legal purge, XY

[Mr. Bumble]

We have the DC Circuit.

[Frank Drackman]

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Mr Kot-tair!! can I start Dick Chaney's IV for his Lethal Injection??!?!?!?!?
Uh Oh, did I just insinuate I would participate in Dick Chaney's Execution? 1: it's a Hypothetical, 2: they still haven't executed KSM, like Dick Chaney would live long enough to be executed, even if he got a death sentence 3: Anesthesia people are good with IV's, we use lidocaine, and stick you before you even know you've been stuck (Rookie Anesthesia Error, saying "You'll feel a little Prick") the guys they use for Lethal Injections are usually Paramedics who love their 14g IV's, and don't bother with any sissy local anesthetic , so even if Dick got a death sentence, lived long enough to be executed, I wouldn't want to start his IV anyway.
Now tying a Hangman's knot?..... (it's the frustrated surgeon in me)

Frank

[ducksalad]

If the ICC is gone another option would be to "arrange" for another country to request extradition. Agree to the request and load up a couple plane loads.

Some countries we still have extradition treaties with:
- Iraq
- Venezuela
- Zimbabwe

Tough choice. Venezuela is probably angrier, Zimbabwe would do it for a modest payment, Iraq has the death penalty.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I am with ya!!!

In four years Trump will have killed 6 million mexicanioes or braziliones, or panimanioes, we need a court in Nederland to punish Trump after all the atrocities.

Meanwhile, let's indict the leader of a country for responding to an attack where infants were beheaded. Bebe's response to such minor insults was illegal.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is your argument really that a victim of injustice can "do no wrong" in response?

[Satchmo_Lives]

The scope of "do no wrong" is directly proportional to the injustice.

Blowing up a person's home because their son stole a garden gnome is well outside of doing no wrong.

Bombing the homes of people who support the beheading of Jooish infants , especially if combatants and arms are hidden, may be debatable, but not unreasonable.

[tylertusta]

Let's not forget that the ICC has a disfavored status in US law.

[santamonica811]

Media are reporting (via Sen. Ted Cruz, speaking on the record) that the Blackhawk helicopter had deliberately turned off its ADS-B. The helicopter had a transponder, of course. But my limited understanding is that the ADS-B is orders of magnitude more accurate. I hope and trust that the copter's own black box will reveal how this was turned off, why it was turned off, and who gave the order and/or authorized that it be turned off.

This is all preliminary, but was news that was very unexpected to hear. I also heard a report (unconfirmed) that the air traffic controllers gave specific information to the helicopter as to which specific plane the copter should be looking at, which—if accurate—suggests that the tower did take affirmative actions to try and prevent the copter from looking at the wrong incoming plane.

Based on what I've seen, heard, and read so far; I expect that the final result will be: Yes, there were things the control tower could have done, if it could have predicted the future; but what they did was well within normal procedures. And that the helicopter did at least one very bad thing, and maybe several bad things, and this/these were the reason(s) for the crash.

Tragic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Based on what I've read, all the other mistakes wouldn't have mattered if the helicopter had simply remained under it's flight ceiling.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess they had Viper in their sites, there was no danger, and they took the shot

[RedheadedPharoh]

Frank "Maverick" Drackberg

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember the Amtrak crash in PA where the engineer thought he was past the slow part and rolled the train at 110 MPH in a curve?

Once they are beyond the runway, they can go to 300 feet.

A W2 supervising an O3 -- bad even without Affirmative Action.

[Absaroka]

"A W2 supervising an O3"

Ummmm...so, at great risk of oversimplification, the warrants are the full time pilots. Their job is to fly, fly, fly. The O's fly, in addition to the various duties of command, which means that they probably aren't the most experienced pilots.

There are times (Robin Olds, if we're talking USAF) where the commander may also be one of if not the best pilot in the unit, but that is far from a given; flying the missions and running the outfit are two different roles. There is nothing unusual in an IP giving check rides to people who outrank them outside the cockpit.

I'm sure open to correction; my source for this is the autobiographies of a dozen plus Army aviators over the years, and more USAF/USAAF/USN pilot bios.

[Frank Drackman]

Army Aviation Warrant Officers have the best job in the Army, most of them could have gone the Commission route, but surprise, they joined the Army because they wanted to fly Helicopters, not a Desk and without the Bullshit of being an ROTC Det Commander at East Southern Mississippi Tech. Marine Warrant Officers didn't fly, but they were the Experts in their particular field, and were usually prior enlisted, who could literally chew and spit out nails (Iron ones, not finger) The Commissioned Officer who nominally commanded their department succeeded or failed mostly on how good his Warrant Officer was (or wanted to be)
They do hate saluting the Commissioned Officers though

Frank

[Riva]

Amtrak is a little different than the US military. The ubiquitous drug use thing for one.

[Frank Drackman]

and like the "Wyatt Earp" in "Vacation" Amtrak Engineers often wear Jogging Shoes, at least the Engineer I used to play hoops with did, he said he usually wore Dockers and a Polo shirt (and No, he never wore a "Train Engineers Hat" like the guys on "Pettycoat Junction"), which Amtrak had tried to make the "Dress Code" but the Union wouldn't go for it, he used to joke he could show up in his underwear and flip flops and drive the Train. Would you trust the Captain of your 767 if he wasn't wearing a "Pilots Uniform"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Engineer's cap went out when trains stopped burning coal (and sending hot cinders into the cab). Heavy boots likewise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not realizing where you are on a route is similar.

[Absaroka]

"Based on what I've read, all the other mistakes wouldn't have mattered if the helicopter had simply remained under it's flight ceiling."

That's true, but as you are aware, safety protocols are frequently multilayered - you don't point muzzles at people even if the gun is unloaded and your finger is off the trigger.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, I'm just mentioning it because this was the most critical problem on display.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — No. By far the most critical problem on display was a standard for vertical separation pushed to an extreme beyond mere laxity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I also heard a report (unconfirmed) that the air traffic controllers gave specific information to the helicopter as to which specific plane the copter should be looking at"

I actually heard that audio on some "pilot investigates" UTube channel -- it's an earlier transmission that specifies that this plane is going for the other runway.

Cruz got a classified briefing -- wonder what else the FAA said.

Only thing I can think of is differed maintenance, but this unit likely would have had the best helos because of its mission.

Helo was not only 100+ feet too high but 1/2 mile too close to airport. I've been blaming the pilot for some time now...

[hobie]

I'm still unsure who was the designated pilot of the blackhawk helicopter. It appears the ranking officer was Capt. Rebecca M. Lobach. She could also be Jewish, but I don't know.

Anyway, this is aggravating because it's just going to add ammunition to idea of the ethnic purge under way. Getting rid of the genetically and physically inferior peoples from public service and so forth. Elon can probably figure out a way to economize and ship all our dwarfs & cripples as well as the Palestinians to the same ghetto in Warsaw

[Frank Drackman]

"She could also be Jewish"??
why, because she was Well Ed-jew-ma-cated? Patriotic?,
OK, I get it, the nose, it's always the Nose with you Goyim
WTF does that have to do with the price of Tea in Chy-Na?!?!? and in Aviation, rank has nothing to do with who's flying, my dad was a B52 Aircraft Commander (Ok, he is the higher ranking of the 2 pilots) as a very junior Captain, he'd often fly with Navigators/Electronic Warfare Officers who were Majors or even Lt Colonels, but as the "Aircraft Commander" he was in charge of everything, his favorite rejoinder (My Dad loves the rejoinders) when some Colonel talked about how many flight hours he had,
"Any actually Flying??"

Frank

[hobie]

The captain's first name was what made me wonder. My sisters' first names are Rachel and Susanna. So, yeah, you can pretty much figure out our heritage

[Frank Drackman]

Susanna Hoffs perhaps? Maybe the hottest 66 yr old JAP ever

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biblical names are common in the (Protestant) Bible Belt. Memory is that she was from there.

I know several Rebeccas ("Becky"), and a few Rachels, none Jewish.

But I know a Harvey & Robert (Bob) who are...

[Bob from Ohio]

"Susanna"

Never known a Jewess named "Susanna", Shoshana yes but not Susanna. Was "Oh Susanna" Jewish?

[bernard11]

Me neither, but I think Suzannes are not uncommon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, all I care about here is that planes not collide. And, like I said, you can hash out all the issues on display there, but it all came down to the helicopter being above it's flight ceiling. That was the only error that mattered.

[ThePublius]

You're just terrible.

[hobie]

It begs the comparison don't it, dude? If you are uncomfortable with the things you've begot and also become, then perhaps a little introspection is in order

[Absaroka]

It seems like military, LEO, etc aircraft can be allowed to turn it off in some circumstances. This is apparently because you can easily track them from the ground (I *think* I've seen phone apps). One can imagine, I suppose, there would be times where having the Sheriff's helicopter be trivially trackable might be bad.

That rule - and maybe a few rules for traffic near airports - may be up for a rethink. The eventual findings will be interesting.

[Life of Brian]

Apparently the primary purpose of the PAT fleet is to shuttle military brass around the region, so looking at it solely from their perspective reducing real-time trackability would make sense.

It's also understandable -- again solely from their perspective -- that they would want training flights to "look and feel" as similar as possible to actual ones, both inside and outside the cockpit.

It wouldn't surprise me if the parameters for heli operations were pretty much solely driven by their needs, with the altitude ceiling being a straightforward way to make it all barely work -- assuming a level of trust and competence in the pilots that shouldn't be assumed and isn't elsewhere.

Agree the entire scheme needs a revamp.

[David Nieporent]

It's also understandable -- again solely from their perspective -- that they would want training flights to "look and feel" as similar as possible to actual ones, both inside and outside the cockpit.

Solely from their perspective? From whose perspective would one not want training conditions to be as similar as possible to actual ones?

[Satchmo_Lives]

From whose perspective would one not want training conditions to be as similar as possible to actual ones?

When their perspective is a training session contributing to the death of 60+ people?

Issue: We need to train our pilots under real-world conditions where protocols are ignored.

Counter: Can you possibly not do that in heavily trafficked areas where mistakes will result in 60+ civilian casualties?

I get your question is about "why they wouldn't...". They don't put pilots fresh out of a trainer into combat because real-world combat is the best way train.

[Life of Brian]

From whose perspective would one not want training conditions to be as similar as possible to actual ones?

One rather glaring example that comes to mind (just coincidentally also being the subject being discussed in this subthread) is that other pilots in the area just might want to have as much situational awareness as possible for a particular aircraft bebopping around in the airspace that happens to be a training flight for a low-hours rookie, so they can take extra defensive care on their end. Same general principle as a conspicuously visible "STUDENT DRIVER" sign on a driver's ed car.

[David Nieporent]

Unlike some here, I don't pretend to expertise in areas I know nothing about, so I'll ask this as a non-rhetorical question: is 500 hours of flight time actually a "low hours rookie," akin to a student in driver's ed?

[Absaroka]

FWIW, that question came up on another forum and a few military pilots answered. tl;dr: it's not a yuuuge amount. It's not nothing for a helo pilot; helo pilots generally accrue fewer hours than fixed wing, and fighters less than heavies. If you think about, say, a tanker pilot might fly an 8 hour mission with most of it outside the takeoff and landing on autopilot. An hour at 30K feet on autopilot is less of a learning experience than an hour dodging trees at low level, where helos spend a lot of their time.

Generally speaking, in WWII American pilots had < 500 hours on their first combat missions, and were the lucky ones; by the end of the war their opponents had much less.

None of which is to say 500 hours is as good as 1000 hours, or perhaps more importantly here, 500 hours followed by not many hours recently isn't as good as 500 recent hours. I think, for example, that the Navy makes you requal for night carrier landing after some really short interval - maybe as short as 30 days????? - if you haven't done one in that interval.

Corrections welcome!!!!

(and we're all assuming the last words on the cockpit recorder aren't 'Bleep! A linkage broke, I've lost pitch control', or the altimeter was malfing, or ...)

[Satchmo_Lives]

I am with you. I have no idea.

What I do know is that all experience isn't equal. How much time was spent working up to a dangerous real-life situation as opposed to basic instruction?

My dad was raised on farm and was driving from the time he could see through the steering wheel and touch the pedals (11 years old). He had years of "experience." He had nowhere enough experience to drive on highways with a 75 mph posted speed limit.

[Life of Brian]

Several facets to that:

1. Every other pilot in the airspace that night had a bare minimum of 1500 total hours. That's the current FAA minimum requirement for an Airline Transport Passenger license needed to fly (even as copilot) a commercial passenger plane, and individual carriers themselves often have additional standards, both for being the actual pilot in command and for flying a given route.

2. As with most things, it depends on how recent the hours were. 450 hours over the past 3 months will generally represent a dramatically different level of proficiency than 450 hours several years back, or 250ish hours in flight school several years back and an average of only a handful of hours per year since then (the last of which appears to be akin to the situation here).

3. It depends on how many hours were in the specific type (fixed vs. rotor, single vs. multiengine, etc.) and make of aircraft you're currently flying. As you can imagine, capabilities, requirements, and muscle memory are dramatically different from one to the other. Particularly relevant here, there's a question whether the particular model of Black Hawk she was piloting that night had the same altitude-hold autopilot capability as she likely would have been used to from earlier training.

But setting all that aside, the bottom line is that she was on an annual check ride, specifically to evaluate whether she was able to safely and proficiently pilot that aircraft -- and on this particular check ride, also evaluating whether she could do so using night vision goggles. So even without splitting hairs over any of the above factors in her on-paper experience, the very nature of the exercise was to evaluate her actual current level of proficiency. I cannot comprehend any sane, valid reason to deliberately defeat safety measures during that sort of investigatory exercise that would have advertised its presence to surrounding pilots.

[Absaroka]

"I cannot comprehend any sane, valid reason to deliberately defeat safety measures during that sort of investigatory exercise that would have advertised its presence to surrounding pilots."

That's hard to argue with.

[John F. Carr]

I'm sticking with my first reaction. The helicopter crew was looking at the wrong airplane, possibly the next in line to land. The plane was identified by the controller as a CRJ on approach to runway 1, later runway 33. At night you can't tell whether you see a CRJ or a different model. It's hard to tell distance and the tower didn't report distance. The crew spotted a plane in the right direction that obviously was not about to collide.

The computer noticed a potential collision shortly before the crash. That's the "CA" alert you'll see on videos. The warning prompted a second call from the controller. The second call also did not include distance. "Traffic 10 o'clock 1/2 mile" would have been a better warning.

[John F. Carr]

I think I was wrong about the first call. The airliner was described as being near a particular bridge.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The third plane back was also a CRJ....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The controller was clearly concerned about the proximity of the two craft. What actually would have been a better call is if he had issued a traffic alert: "Traffic alert, traffic 10 o'clock, half a mile, your altitude." Something like that.

But the controller had established visual separation, and isn't required to do anything else unless the helicopter pilot reports that the plane is no longer in sight. The controller can't really tell by the radar display if the craft are at the exact same altitude, or 50 or 100 feet vertically separated.

[Voize of Reazon]

Cruz adds "this was a training mission, so there was no compelling national security reason for ADS-B to be turned off."
If the purpose of the flight was to check the proficiency of the crew to perform a continuity-of-government mission, by running a simulated mission and verifying that the crew correctly perform the procedures. It's likely that turning off ADS-B to avoid tracking is on one of those checklists, and if they didn't do it they would have failed the test.

[Ridgeway]

Unless I am missing something, I don't see how turning something off that only makes it easier for other observers to track a military aircraft makes the military crew's experience more "realistic" in a training mission. I could see it the other way around -- the military aircraft in intentionally reducing its ability to track other aircraft in order to practice other techniques, but that does not seem to tbe the case here.

[Voize of Reazon]

Flight crews have checklists galore - step by step procedures for different phases of flight, for normal and abnormal situations. It makes sense that in a DC-is-under-attack situation the procedure would include turning off something that lets your opponent easily track you and a proficiency test would include verifying that step.
It's like taking a driving test, you don't stop at a stop sign because it makes the test more realistic, you do it because if you don't you'll fail the test.

[Ridgeway]

It is more like switching off your brakelights than obeying stop signs.

I can understand having step 37 in the checklist be, "Disengage ADS-B" but step 37A should be a "Reengage ADS-B if flying training mission"

[Voize of Reazon]

No, because driving-test-you isn't being tested on switching off your brakelights.

[Absaroka]

"I can understand having step 37 in the checklist be, "Disengage ADS-B" but step 37A should be a "Reengage ADS-B if flying training mission""

I think you're right. You want training to be real, but not too real. You might want the blank firing adapters installed on the troops rifles, or blue missiles loaded on a plane, for example. I'd expect there are lots of restrictions on where you can run what type of ECM, so you're not opening random garage doors and stopping people from watching I Love Lucy.

I know a pilot doing ACM that went juuuuust a little bit supersonic on a range where booms weren't allowed, and got jacked up for it.

[FivebySixThree]

the real tragedy is everyone knew this was coming, having civilian planes on approach overlapped by a helicopter route with a 100ft to spare is ludicrous. apparently the day before another CRJ aborted their landing to chastisement of tower because of collision alerts from another helicopter.

it also does not help that her check out flight was on a very old very of the chopper that does not even support an autopilot - she was stick flying that chopper from the moment she took off.

so we lost three good military persons and a flight full of civilians all because of poor choices by the powers that be. just because we did not have a crash prior was no indication it was safe, pilots both civilian and military along with others have said it was just a matter of time

[Jason Cavanaugh]

1) Your characterization that the only safety measure was 100' of separation is false.

2) Do you think much evaluation can occur if someone is just using an autopilot? Do you think it's safe to engage at that altitude and situation?

[Life of Brian]

Do you think much evaluation can occur if someone is just using an autopilot?

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Do what it takes to safely get past the airport, then do all the evaluation you like away from the path of landing planes.

Do you think it's safe to engage at that altitude and situation?

To hold altitude below the helicopter's prescribed ceiling? Abso-frickin-lutely. That would have saved 67 lives.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see the comments are getting hammered with spam.

[santamonica811]

Brett,
What are you talking about? I don't see a single post from Dr. Ed. [Thank you; I'll be here all week.]

[RedheadedPharoh]

On a serious note, I think he was referring to martinned2 and his no-one-cares-about-3rd-world-shitholes Euro spam.

Like, for real, who gives a shit what a bunch of serfs think who their favorite monarch is? What's next? A post about Crown Lands in Canada, or which 99 year leases (b/c they can't buy some property) are best, or what's their favorite State Religion or should their King dissolve their government?

[santamonica811]

Red,
Before you got here; there were 3 or 4 Spam messages (from different fake accounts, all giving the same link to free movies...probably to something virus-infected in reality). I flagged them immediately, I reckon that others did as well; and Eugene moved at warp speed to delete them all. Great job, there, by the way, EV!!!

Alas, Brett's comment (and my Algonquin-round-table-worthy rejoinder) now make absolutely no sense. 🙂

[Michael P]

When you flag a comment, it's hidden once you reload the page but not necessarily deleted. I just flagged three of those comments myself.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was flagging those very comments myself this morning, that's what I was referring to.

[hobie]

I must admit, it was a great rejoinder

[Frank Drackman]

Why was it turned off? why do you think it was turned off? It's similar to the USMC Prowler crew who flew into the Italian Ski Lift cable erasing the flight data recorder right after they landed. 3 of the 4 ended up in Leavenworth

[Frank Drackman]

Replying to myself (but only until I need glasses) OK, from talking to my FA-18/Airline pilot oldest daughter, military aircraft turn off their ADS-B all the time, there's even an exception in the FAA rules that allows military and law enforcement flights to to that, it's why you don't see many Military Flights on "Flightaware" it's a security thing, maybe not the best thing to have Moe-hammed Ali Pajama Bag of Donuts Hussain know exactly where Air Force 1 is.
Or Marine 1, or the jets that carry Senators/Congressmen on their "Fact Finding" trips to Monaco
The Prowler crew deleted the Flight Data Recorder, unfortunately they couldn't delete the Italian Radar tapes.

Frank

[SykesFive]

Just FYI because this is an open comments threat: there's no airport in Monaco. Even high rollers with their own jets have to fly into Nice-Cote d'Azur (on the other side of Nice from Monaco, actually) and then take a helicopter or limo.

If you're a normal person you take the train.

[Life of Brian]

it's why you don't see many Military Flights on "Flightaware" it's a security thing

FlightAware may have a gentleman's agreement not to track certain military flights, but it doesn't need ADS-B -- it can track anything with an operational transponder via multilateration (triangulation or higher) of the signal (with somewhat lower accuracy of course). This view shows the paths of the CRJ and PAT -- hovering over the aircraft shows it was tracking ADS-B to track the CRJ and multilateration to track the PAT.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Specific military flights are left off flightaware by designation of the military.

[Life of Brian]

No surprise there are some like that. All I was getting at is that it's not a limitation due to lack of ADS-B -- FA currently shows 54 military birds over CONUS being tracked via transponder only.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Right, I was only verifying your "gentlemen's agreement" comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, I can think of three reasons:

1: Broken. Our military equipment is tired.

2: Incompetence -- not knowing what "this switch" does.

3: Arrogance. If it is off, ATC (including military) doesn't know things and rules can be bent,

Were it I, there would be an IMMEDIATE inspection of all the other helos to see how many of them had it turned off.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"3 of the 4 ended up in Leavenworth"

IIRC no one did any time, that's what pissed the Italians off.

[John F. Carr]

The UK government demands access to all iCloud storage worldwide, the Washington Post reports citing unnamed sources who could go to jail for leaking the secret demand. Disabling encryption in the UK has been suggestion. That would not be sufficient to comply with the order.

On the scale of Apple the UK isn't that important a market. Apple should simply shut down all business in the country and walk away from the rule. And executives should avoid travel to the UK for a few decades. See Pavel Durov.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/02/07/apple-encryption-backdoor-uk/

[RedheadedPharoh]

Let's be real here. They are part of Five-Eyes, so if they have it, the US IC has it. And we've seen in the past, they surely can't be trusted with it.

[Martinned2]

I'm sure your iCloud data is much safer in the US than in the UK...

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

[Michael P]

Are we posting arbitrary links based on nationality now?

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

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not an arbitrary link, though. Thanks to the "Five Eyes" cooperation program, laws against domestic spying have been circumvented by outsourcing it to allies, for whom it isn't "domestic". Then they just share back to us the info our own agencies are legally prohibited from collecting.

The intelligence services here really need to be reined in, and I'd assume so in other countries, too. You know, Hoover used to maintain blackmail files on various politicians, up to and including Presidents. Anybody want to bet the various intelligence services don't do the same?

[Martinned2]

If they did, presumably they would have used them to stop Trump from returning to the White House, so that, say, the CIA doesn't have to send the White House a list of all its new hires in a regular email:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/05/politics/cia-sends-white-house-unclassified-email-names/index.html

[Michael P]

Yes, but that undercuts what Martinned actually wrote, which questioned the safety of data within the US. If all of Apple's iCloud data stays within the US, US citizens don't have to worry about Five Eyes partner sharing of it.

[Martinned2]

No, US citizens sould worry about the country with the least amount of data privacy protection hacking their private information.

[SRG2]

The US should outsource its surveillance to Musk - then you lot would strongly approve.

[Kazinski]

We kind of already are, here is the publicly available launch schedule from Vandenberg Space Force Base.

I assume a good chunk of what's lifting off from there is spy satellites, he's got two more launches scheduled for this month.

[Martinned2]

No, we are pointing out that the British would never demand anything that the US government doesn't already have.

[Michael P]

You often try to "point out" things that are false.

[John F. Carr]

Governments hate Apple because the data intercepted by three letter agencies is already encrypted. They have to resort to cracking phones one at a time. As far as we know.

[SRG2]

Alternatively...

A few years back I read that Apple had had a long-term policy of making no campaign contributions and when lobbyists approached them they said, we don't need anything from the government, so there's no need. A lobbyist said, yeah, but evcntually Congress will start passing laws targeting you if you don't start making contributions.

[Brett Bellmore]

You may be thinking of Microsoft; They'd had such a policy, until exactly that started happening.

[SRG2]

It's quite possible that I misremembered. It's also quite possible that both companies had that policy.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm out of the loop:

Why are all the leftwing media in a rage about "Big Balls"? Did they find my personal videos?

[santamonica811]

The qualifications of some or many or most of Elon Musk's worker bees enacting Project 2025 are, well, rather appalling. This is worthy of note. If Obama or Hillary or Harris or Biden had given massive access to the financial records of all American; each and every one of Fox News hosts' heads would have already exploded.

It's one thing to destroy/dismantle our government with highly-qualified and ethical people. It's an additional level of awful to do it with people who are genuinely bad. If someone wants to brag about himself that, "I was a [white supremacist/fascist/communist/whatever] before it was cool" . . . well, then I don't want that lowlife working in any capacity for any local, state, or federal government that has any of my personal data.

We can do better. It's hard to imagine doing worse, in fact.

[Michael P]

If Gaslight0 had any integrity, he would jump in here to say that you are just posting an angry, evidence-free rant about something that somebody else told you to be angry about.

[Sarcastr0]

I mostly see opinions, not unsupported factual assertions.

Unsurprising you don't see the difference.

[hobie]

Perhaps Sarcastr0 is merely engaging in alternate facts

[TwelveInchPianist]

He would also pointed out something about counterfactual hypocrisy being the best hypocrisy.

[Sarcastr0]

I concur with that ding.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't want that lowlife working in any capacity for any local, state, or federal government that has any of my personal data

Suppose 'Big Balls' worked for Experian, or TransUnion. Still the same?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that some of the most competent people have feet of clay, and we don't want to sacrifice competence.

[Michael P]

Some people would prefer that our government be run by inoffensive midwits who only know how to color inside the lines.

Which is fine if, for some reason, you want to be governed by mediocrities.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I go further -- what if Charlie the Child Molester is also a true genius at brain surgery? If you're in your 50s and dying of brain cancer, and I knew two people who did, do you care if this man shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of children?

Say that Ned the Nazi is a genius at grid operation, can reduce CO2 output by 20% while having more electricity available because less is lost. Do the worshipers of the Goddess Carbon really care about how he decorates his office?

Or take Bill Clinton who had an ongoing track record of treating women quite badly, but was getting the feminist agenda enacted, e.g. VAWA act, etc. That's a real case and the feminists were quite silent -- likewise about Barney Frank and Gary Studds, both D-MA.

Studds was a good example, he represented the (quite homophobic) Portuguese fishermen of New Bedford (MA) and did such a good job that they ignored his open homosexuality and something involving an underaged male page.

So too here -- competence matters!

[SRG2]

competence matters!

Or what if the surgeon was not competent, but he regularly appeared on Fox News to talk about how the Democrats don't understand the medical system, and he had been active in getting abortion prohibited in his state, and was a prominent church-goer? Hell, Magas with brain cancer (as plausible as a man with ovarian cancer?) would be queuing up.

[Armchair]

I'm a little confused here.

We're talking about Edward Coristine, who went by the name "Big Balls" when online.

Now, that's perhaps not the most politically astute name. But "lowlife?" "Evil?" I think the worst they found is that he created a company called "Tesla.Sexy LLC." I find it hard to call that "evil". Or perhaps you want to hate on him because he briefly worked for a company that was known to hire ex-cons? That's pretty harsh, don't you think? I mean, we're about rehabilitation here, right? Mr. Coristine isn't an ex-con, and has never been convicted of anything to my knowledge. But if we're discriminating against anyone who ever even associated with an ex-con in a legal employment context, well....

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/117985729.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, this guy:

"Marko Elez, a 25-year-old software engineer, was working inside the Treasury Department to cut costs and root out fraud, as part of Musk's DOGE effort. Elez, who formerly worked at Musk companies X and SpaceX, was one of two temporary appointees at Treasury connected to DOGE who have been granted access to a highly sensitive Treasury system that processes trillions of dollars in payments every year.

The Wall Street Journal reported on a number of 2024 posts from an account connected to Elez on Musk's X platform and noted that White House officials confirmed his resignation after the paper pointed out Elez's activity on the social media site.

"You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity," the account wrote in September. "Normalize Indian hate," a separate post from that month read.

In July of last year, the account posted: "Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool.""

[Estragon]

I will say, the icing on this particularly sorry cake is JD Vance coming out today in support of this idiot’s reinstatement!

Yes, the person who said this: “normalize Indian hate”

Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the dinner table with Mrs. Vance nee Chilukuri.

I expect to see young Marko back roaming the halls forthwith. You people really do get the heroes you deserve

[Bob from Ohio]

"fly on the wall at the dinner table with Mrs. Vance nee Chilukuri."

Maybe she doesn't think with her skin color like you think she should? Its possible she agrees [unlike me] that "cancel culture" is bad.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed, maybe she doesn't recognize herself as the kind of "Indian" against whom Marko wanted to normalize hate. That hate was certainly just for "bad" Indians.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It would be irresponsible not to speculate!

[Estragon]

You know who really thinks with skin color? Your main man Marko! “I was racist before it was cool!”

[Bob from Ohio]

He's not my "main man", I never heard of him before today and do not care if he gets re-hired or not.

You apparently want Mrs. Vance to think like he does though. Maybe he's your main man?

[Estragon]

“do not care if he gets re-hired or not”

Oh no? Impressively above-it-all.

JD seems to care!

[Estragon]

Annnnnd… he’s back!! These are your fellow travelers, Bob.

“You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity”

I wonder what he thinks about JD?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Criticizing the DOGEbags is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Life of Brian]

In July of last year, the account posted: "Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool.""

A really scandalous bit of self-awareness. Maybe after he wraps up at DOGE he can get into theater, where heresy like that gets you 15+ years of critical acclaim.

Everyone's a little bit racist -- it's true
But everyone is just about as racist -- as you!
If we all could just admit
That we are racist a little bit
And everyone stopped being so P.C.,
Maybe
We could
Live in -- harmony!

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, this guy really commits to the bit!!

"I just want a eugenic immigration policy, is that too much to ask."

"You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity."

"Normalize Indian hate."

I dunno, maybe this guy isn't doing an Avenue Q...Maybe he's an unironic bigot.

[Life of Brian]

The problem of course is that you have no idea which way that "maybe" cuts, since the WSJ was kind enough to present only those three isolated snippets from its account-wide review -- and those divorced from the context in which they appeared. Usually that's not a good sign for candor.

But don't let inconvenient questions like that make you lose your grip on that pitchfork -- with the way things are headed, I'm sure you need to scrape up all the outcome-driven faux indignation you can get!

[David Nieporent]

This is desperation. What's the "context" that would make them okay? And if there is such a thing, why didn't he present it?

I mean, sure, OJ killed two people, but that's an isolated snippet of one night of his life, and taken totally out of the context in which it happened.

[Life of Brian]

Nothing for me to be "desperate" about -- he's coming back despite everyone's pearl-clutching, doxxing-adjacent best efforts.

What is desperate, though, is the depth to which Le Opposition is sinking to try to hype up enough discrete bits and pieces of outrage to hopefully amount to something. Which I imagine was fairly apparent from my opening post in the thread you just parachuted into.

[Sarcastr0]

Is there anything he could have said that could have lost your support?

[Life of Brian]

Of course. Had he sincerely said, for example, that the whole "software engineer" bit was a big ruse and he just feeds all his coding projects into ChatGPT when people aren't looking, or that he intentionally injects backdoors/easter eggs into code so he could sell access on the dark web, that clearly would be disqualifying.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What about the people time when he got fired for leaking proprietary information?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-07/musk-s-doge-teen-was-fired-by-cybersecurity-firm-for-leaking-company-secrets

[Armchair]

That sounds bad, sure. But you need to read what was actually stated.

"was terminated after the conclusion of an internal investigation into the leaking of proprietary company information that coincided with his tenure."

Note...it doesn't actually say he leaked proprietary company information. The wording is such that it actually avoids that. There was no legal recourse made by the company.

When you see this sort of work-around wording...makes me think that the short hand isn't quite right.

[Sarcastr0]

"was terminated after the conclusion of an internal investigation" and you argue the investigation maybe didn't find he did anything wrong but he got fired for funsies?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who knows. Maybe the investigation failed to exonerate him. It's employment at will after all.

[Bob from Ohio]

"rather appalling"

In what way? They seem to be plenty smart and very knowledgeable about computer systems.

[bernard11]

And what does that have to do with anything?

[Bob from Ohio]

"And what does that have to do with anything?"

Being "smart and very knowledgeable" are usually considered to be "qualifications".

I guess not for government work so you might be right!

[Kazinski]

Since when is the government supposed to take personal political opinions into account when hiring?

Didn't we just see a post about the FBI agents association suing claiming Trump was trying to impose political litmus tests on the agents.

If someone has a criminal record then of course it would be relevant, but shitposting is protected speech.

[Kazinski]

Big Balls is being rehired.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1887957783783391423?t=GapKUjnf-Cn_EiX9l75p4g&s=19

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Being a sheet-wearing racist fuck is not a 'political opinion' unless you're acknowledging that MAGA are indeed a cesspool of organ donors with no other value to society?

[Satchmo_Lives]

It appears your, and the media's, definition of a bad person is having the moniker "Big Balls." As opposed to having admirals being mentally unstable (Rachel Levine), or nuclear material disposal bigwigs being not only mentally unstable, but kleptos.

You make your value judgements of people based on names. I will continue to make mine on what they actually do.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Would you like a cookie for being such a good boy?

[Satchmo_Lives]

Sure. But you can also give me one for being logical, reasoned, temperate and not having a fit because I think squiggly lines on a computer screen are meaningless and inconsequential.

Ooh, I deserve sprinkles!!!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'd be willing to give you a cookie, and even one with sprinkles, if you would stop strawmanning and actually respond to what a commenter actually said.

[Longtobefree]

"Why are all the leftwing media in a rage about "Big Balls"? "

Because they have none, and therefore don't know what it means?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Says the brave, anonymous internet troll.

[Satchmo_Lives]

OK, you want a dick pic for proof. Will that satisfy your gay curiosity?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The fact that santamonica811’s description can be understood to reference multiple people kind of says it all.

[Michael P]

Yes, it says that vague name-calling with no falsifiable details is a bad way to argue. We get too much of that, and it's almost always from the left.

On the other hand, you can count the number of people "given massive access to the financial records of all American[s]" on zero fingers, so it also says that sm811 continues to have an uneven relationship with truth.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

A ball pic maybe. He didn't say anything about not having any dicks.

[Sarcastr0]

We aren't letting USAID-funded clinical trials remove temporary experimental medical devices left inside of participants.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/health/usaid-clinical-trials-funding-trump.html

[Michael P]

That's just Washington Monument syndrome in action. A stop-work order just means the contractor cannot charge against that job.

And it's a factual low point even for you to claim your source says "We aren't letting USAID-funded clinical trials remove temporary experimental medical devices left inside of participants" when the lead example is about removing such a device on short notice.

Pay attention to the facts, and don't post angry fiction-based rants just because somebody told you to be mad. And especially don't project your actions onto others.

[Sarcastr0]

I take it you didn't read the rest of the article?

[Michael P]

If you want people to read more than the part that says you lied, don't link to paywalled, partisan propaganda.

[Sarcastr0]

https://archive.is/ytVMC#selection-4915.8-4919.361

'You lied by quoting stuff in the article I didn't read.'

[Michael P]

Nope, you made a blanket statement that was refuted in the first paragraphs of your source.

And then you claimed a random highlight of text would back you up, but what you highlighted says nothing to back up your accusation. It's an accusation that suggests you don't have any idea how hospitals and health care provision work.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to take issue with the NYT, then bring an argument or evidence about that - they do get things wrong.

But you're just rolling with stupid agro bullshit.

From the piece: "Ms. Zondi’s trial is one of dozens that have been abruptly frozen, leaving people around the world with experimental drugs and medical products in their bodies, cut off from the researchers who were monitoring them, and generating waves of suspicion and fear."

[Michael P]

I take issue with the NYT, but primarily I take issue with YOU because YOU are posting lies here.

[SRG2]

You categorically deny that such trials are being halted then, right?

[Michael P]

No. As suggested by my first comment in this thread, I deny that a stop-work order has the effect that Gaslight0 claimed. But I now deny that you can understand written English.

[SRG2]

I didn't restrict my question to a single trial, nor did I say that the government is forcing trials to stop, only that they're being halted.

[David Nieporent]

I deny that a stop-work order has the effect that Gaslight0 claimed.

What effect do you think that cutting off funding and immediately recalling all employees would have, and was intended to have?

The reference to "Washington Monument syndrome" is particularly mindless. That refers to the notion that when agencies are faced with budget cuts they apply those cuts to the most popular, visible programs first so that the public will see/feel the effects in ways that they might not if only behind-the-scenes administrative stuff was shut down. But here, the entire agency was illegally cut off; USAID had no choice about what to keep funding.

[Michael P]

SRG2, you cane in with a fundamentally different and extremely ambiguous claim, and tried to put it in my mouth. That's an asshole move. Don't be upset that you got called out for trying to pull it.

[Michael P]

Nieporent, the recalled employees were not the ones conducting these studies. Please try to learn a little bit about the topic at hand before you run off your keyboard. Not even Gaslight0 pushed so blatant a fiction.

[SRG2]

It was only ambiguous if you were determined to disagree with me.

[Sarcastr0]

Please try to learn a little bit about the topic at hand before you run off your keyboard

Oh, Michael...

[Sarcastr0]

NIH diversity grants could have been moved to the general pool to compete.
They were removed entirely. No leave for resubmission.

In case anyone thought this was about fairness, versus minorities getting formally shut out of the system.

[Michael P]

DEI work is disproportionately done by, and DEI money disproportionately goes to, white women. They're not a minority that needs special privileges or quotas for their identitarian paper mills.

(And of course lots of minority academics do real research, not DEI.)

[Sarcastr0]

1. Any evidence that DEI moneys mostly go to women? Any evidence it applies to NIH diversity grants?

2. Women in STEM absolutely are a minority, and absolutely face headwinds that men do not; are you saying they don't?

3. I'm fine with no quota. I'm actually even fine with ending set-aside programs like these. But this isn't doing either of those - this is an unnecessary, targeted screwing-over of minorities.
I don't see any EO requiring this - this appears to be NIH being dicks.

4. "identitarian paper mills" are a problem! But it's an issue with government contracting, not research grants.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto clearly knows nothing about academia post 1970.

[Michael P]

No, he just wants other people to do more work than he does. He's a govvie, after all. He's not the one who is supposed to provide evidence, he is entitled to adjudicate Truth.

[Michael P]

https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-people-dei-positions-workplace/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelleking/2023/05/16/who-benefits-from-diversity-and-inclusion-efforts/

Now let's see your evidence for "no leave for resubmission" to see what kind of rule you were actually talking about, and why your second paragraph earlier cannot hold up.

[RedheadedPharoh]

He only sealions others and rarely, if ever, actually provides any support for his claims.

Expect him next to attack the source and you, or just engage in denialism.

HTH

[Michael P]

You must be new here.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm literally talking to people on NIH diversity grants.

But there's sources if you cared to look:
https://www.reddit.com/r/labrats/comments/1iirahd/nih_f31diversity_apps_pulled_from_review_cycle/

[Sarcastr0]

"Diversity applications will NOT be automatically moved to non-diversity and will not be reviewed."

[Michael P]

And immediately before that, the person wrote: "My PO called me using their personal phone off the record (a true hero and just shows how bad things at NIH are) and advised me to withdraw and resubmit to a non diversity mechanism."

Proving the resolution below.

[Sarcastr0]

If they resubmit, it would be for a different budget cycle.
A delay of at least a year. More if it's big money.

I mean what's a year of unemployment, eh?

[Michael P]

Huh. So "diversity" grants are being withdrawn. Nothing there about "no leave for resubmission", much less your derivative bullshit about "versus minorities getting formally shut out of the system".

Resolved: Gaslight0 should stick to not trying to back up his crazy assertions, because he steps on a rake every damn time he tries.

[Sarcastr0]

Current applications may not be resubmitted to other current programs.

So if you submitted under a diversity grant, you just don't get an NIH grant this year, regardless of your merit.

[RedheadedPharoh]

If it had merit, it wouldn't be a DEI grant to begin with.

Frankly. The whole point of DEI is to circumvent merit in favor of superficial attributes.

[Michael P]

No new goalposts. Especially when they're still refuted by your own sources.

[Sarcastr0]

It takes some real logistical blinders to think I could possibly mean forbidding people to submit an unreviewed proposal the next cycle.

[Michael P]

Spock forbid that my "logistical" blinders lead me to think that when you wrote that this proves that Trump's actions were about "minorities getting formally shut out of the system", you meant that rather than "DEI applicants need to withdraw applications filed against DEI grants and use any of the other available grants instead".

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, fine!

If what I wrote was unclear, allow me to revise and clarify what I meant by resubmit - I meant resubmit in this grants cycle.

Please address your arguments to this now clarified issue.

DEI applicants need to withdraw applications filed against DEI grants and use any of the other available grants instead
This is largely incorrect, since currently open solicitations are going to require time to reformat and resubmit, assuming they haven't missed a white paper deadline.

I'm sure there are some just opened opportunities - if the NIH is anything like my agency, they stagger their solicitations so the review burden is well distributed - but for the vast majority of grants this cycle that ship has sailed.

[Michael P]

What you originally wrote was a hot take full of hot air, and it withered when exposed to even slight examination. It was not "unclear". It was clear, and thoroughly wrong.

This is very common for your posts here.

[Sarcastr0]

To be charitable to you, I may have assumed some insider knowledge of grants processes that others don't have.

But even assuming that, you're coming in way hot.

[Satchmo_Lives]

2. Women in STEM absolutely are a minority, and absolutely face headwinds that men do not; are you saying they don't?

Yes, women are a minority of STEM students. However, they are a substantial majority of bachelor graduates. Is it sexism that they don't choose STEM fields? The growth of BA degrees in sociology, gender studies, African-American Studies, LGBTQ studies etc. are a direct result of the 40+ years of preferred students based on gender.

Your suggestion that women are discriminated against in STEM fields is laughable using a single metric--number of participants. I guess you think BA fields discriminate against men because fewer men go the sociology route. Not to mention the absurd thinking "we need more of _____ in STEM areas." Why?

It is clear we need more hard science people in the US. I am not clear on why there needs to be a higher proportion of women, or minorities.

You give vast more scholarships to women and minorities than white men. When they choose BA fields you complain they aren't going the STEM route.

[Sarcastr0]

However, they are a substantial majority of bachelor graduates. Is it sexism that they don't choose STEM fields?
Yes.
1. Talk to women in STEM.
2. Look at the studies about sexual harassment in STEM
3. STEM young researcher hours and pay doesn't let you have a family. If 2 are married and a kid comes along...guess which one stays home?

The growth of BA degrees in sociology, gender studies, African-American Studies, LGBTQ studies etc. are a direct result of the 40+ years of preferred students based on gender.
I don't buy your causal assumption.

I guess you think BA fields discriminate against men because fewer men go the sociology route.
Insufficient proof, but could be.
Same Q but Womens' Studies. Do you think there could be any issues for men in the field?

Not to mention the absurd thinking "we need more of _____ in STEM areas
Because we're leaving talent on the table.

It is clear we need more hard science people in the US. I am not clear on why there needs to be a higher proportion of women, or minorities.
Because they are the low-hanging fruit, unless you want to go with ~immigrants~.
And because there is pretty strong support that teams with demographic diversity (including national or state of origin, etc) have a higher change to have an innovative solution to a problem.

You give vast more scholarships to women and minorities than white men. When they choose BA fields you complain they aren't going the STEM route.
Holy shit am I powerful!

[Satchmo_Lives]

1. Talk to women in STEM.

I'll talk the millions of women who chose BA's instead. Seems more appropriate. "Why did you choose gender studies?"

2. Look at the studies about sexual harassment in STEM

You mean studies by the PhDs in Gender Studies? I will get right on that.

Q: How you ever felt uncomfortable around a man while attending a science class?

A: Ya know I have. I wore really low cut t-shirt with no bra to class and guys kept staring at my chest. I felt so objectified

3. STEM young researcher hours and pay doesn't let you have a family. If 2 are married and a kid comes along...guess which one stays home?

Yeah all those 25 year-old masters-holding women getting married and having children. 82% of women with advanced degrees don't start a family until late 20s. 54% don't start until after 30.

Some 28% became moms in their late 20s, and 18% had children earlier in their lives. Among mothers with a bachelor’s degree, fully 40% were past their 20s when they had their first child, and 14% were at least 35.

I don't buy your causal assumption.

You need to redefine "assumption" for me. I do not think more women going to college than men, a majority of those women choosing BAs, a higher percentage of women choosing a BA over a BS than men, and colleges offering more courses to supply the demand is an assumption.

Same Q but Womens' Studies. Do you think there could be any issues for men in the field?

That would entirely depend on the positions held by the guy, would it not? I am sure a gay man who identified as a male feminist would get along fine. I am not sure any opinion challenging radical feminist orthodoxy from a man would be as accepted. But it is not gender based.

Because we're leaving talent on the table.

Proof needed that more "_____" who prefer a BA over a BS is better than "_____" who prefer a BS over a BA. Well, studies by PhDs in Sociology aside.

There is a lot of talent out there that could be channeled to hard sciences. Why people like you think programs should be tailored to entice specific box checkers, instead of best available, is beyond me.

You give vast more scholarships to women and minorities than white men.

Holy shit am I powerful!

Well, touché. I will admit, if you were a person waving a magic wand, I believe you would do better

[Sarcastr0]

"I'll talk the millions of women who chose BA's instead" is deflection

"You mean studies by the PhDs in Gender Studies?" is both wrong and ad hominem

" 82% of women with advanced degrees don't start a family until late 20s. 54% don't start until after 30."
This is elementary sample bias.

"I am sure a gay man who identified as a male feminist would get along fine"
I'm not. Gay man != woman.
But the point is you realize that being a minority can be tough. You just won't apply it to women.

The rest of what you're writing gets hard to parse. You seem like you think there is something biological in women that make them not choose STEM fields? And that a BS means you're in STEM?

"people like you think programs should be tailored to entice specific box checkers"
Strawman. Not what I said.

Do you think women's brains just tend not to like the mathy stuff? Is that where you're coming from?

[Satchmo_Lives]

"... is deflection."

No, Gender Studies women proclaiming they didn't go into STEM because they felt discriminated against tells me there are women being driven out of STEM fields. Only asking female students in STEM doesn't tell me shit about who isn't in there. You disparaged statistical sampling from Pew, and now you want to go even further by trying to extrapolate the motivations of one group (non-STEM students) by statistically sampling a different group (STEM students)? What the hell sacro? The purpose is to find out why women are not in STEM--not what women in STEM feel. Sure, there may be a correlation, even causation, but I won't know by I won't know what group B thinks by asking group A. Deflection? Really?

"You mean studies by the PhDs in Gender Studies?" is both wrong and ad hominem.

A survey by people who chose to study gender could not possibly suffer from statistical biases--unlike those hacks at Pew.

I'm not. Gay man != woman.
But the point is you realize that being a minority can be tough. You just won't apply it to women.

No. I mean that a gay man choosing to study feminism will probably have a much different attitude than the guy forced to take gender studies as a first year prerequisite. And I absolutely do not think if his opinions differ from the radical orthodoxy he will be treated the same (much like conservatives); gender studies produces best fit opinions and not falsifiable science.

"people like you think programs should be tailored to entice specific box checkers"
Strawman. Not what I said.

Fair enough. You absolutely didn't say it, or even imply it. In the back of mind I guess I had educators who think math and English proficiency are racist and should be adjusted so certain minorities can succeed.

Do you think women's brains just tend not to like the mathy stuff? Is that where you're coming from?

Did you say something about strawman? I sad women choose BAs. I didn't say they were incapable of anything else. You couldn't possibly argue they don't choose BAs by a vast majority. This conversation is, in part, about why they do not.

A white male seems slightly more qualified for an advanced degree in mathematics than a woman.

The woman seems slightly more qualified for an advanced degree in mathematics than a black man.

The black man seems slightly more qualified for an advanced degree in mathematics than a black woman.

One spot open. Who do YOU choose? I agree, diversity of thought (not skin color or gender) is a must for an advertising firm. Not so much when it comes to hard science. Diversity of thought could be useful in theoretical fields. Otherwise we might not get a Neil degrasse Tyson.

I had the clip saved on YouTube and it is now not found. I did a general search on Google and couldn't find anything except The Federalist article. My recollection was he was trying to mock journalists for not knowing math because the journalists said "over half the schools were below average." No, it wasn't an off-the-cuff remark he got wrong. It was prepared with video. The horrifying part is the teachers were laughing because the didn't now the difference between mean and median either. Funny how it can't be found.

[bernard11]

Not to mention the absurd thinking "we need more of _____ in STEM areas." Why?

Because we are missing out on talented individuals? Let's say, just for starters, that men and women are, on the whole, equally talented at some STEM field - say, electrical engineering, just for concreteness.

Now we find that only 30% (hypothetical number - I don't know the actual figures) of EE's are women.

Would it be unreasonable to ask why relatively few women choose EE as their field of study? Or to wonder whether we are losing talent because of some extraneous factors?

Now, maybe you can argue that talented women are more likely to go into flower arrangement or something, but I'm not convinced, and even those decisions may well be influenced by a perception that women are unwelcome as EE's, or software engineers, or physicists.

The phrasing is awkward, I admit, but it might get at an underlying truth. Not "we need more women in electrical engineering," but rather, "we need to do more to encourage talented women to pursue EE careers."

[Absaroka]

Let's add some specificity: a college EE program deletes names, pictures, and sex from the application, so the people deciding who gets in have no clue whether they are accepting men or women. They find out the mix is 60% men, 40% women, or 40% men, 60% women. Is this a problematic ratio?

Alternative, from my freshman calculus class. It's day 1 and the prof is giving the usual 15 minute blah blah. Someone raises their hand and asks about grading - curve, or what. The prof goes 'Oh, yeah, thanks for asking', consults his notes, and says 'this quarter I am going to flunk 53% of you'. The college only had so many upper div engineering (stats, ...) slots. They let any entering freshman pursue engineering (stats, ...) etc, and used calculus to thin the herd. The grading wasn't subjective at all; you got the right answer or you didn't. Is there a reason to care about the demographics of who passed?

I get that kids who went to big city schools that taught calc in HS had an advantage. I didn't; I went to a rural school that didn't offer calc and, TBH, the algebra and trig teachers were in over their head. But you could overcome that disadvantage by working harder. What's the problem for selecting for hard workers?

[Satchmo_Lives]

If there was some negative pressure for women entering STEM, it would be something to look at. But it seems fairly obvious to me that as govt and higher education made access easier for women, and those women chose BAs with a majority much higher than men, the problem is what women are choosing.

Sure, it would great if some really talented women chose STEM. They are not. Period. If you strip out women who go to medical school and nursing, the gap is tremendous.

I still contend there really are substantial differences between men and women. Not in ability, capability, intelligence, or work ethic, but in what might be an evolutionary disposition*. Women choose BAs with a vast majority. A majority of women entering STEM choose healthcare. Is it possible they choose fields that directly help people because that is want they want to do? Rather than not choosing a field where they sit in lab running tests because they felt discriminated against.

I also don't believe the current crop of academics are remotely sexist. Do you mean to tell me that 90%+ of professors who vote for dems secretly wish women will not succeed in STEM fields?

*I get the argument that women being "nurturing" may be a social construct and not evolution. I don't buy it. Across almost all species, who care for their progeny with one individual, it is the female who takes the role. Maybe it is changing. It has been several millennia since men needed to chase wild game while the mother nursed her infant back at camp (at least in advanced societies). One doesn't need to be bigger, faster, and stronger to go to the local Piggly Wiggly. We can store breast milk. I don't think it has changed several hundred million years of evolution, yet--see preferences for women in higher education.

[Sarcastr0]

evolutionary disposition

Ah. This is why you keep deflecting. You didn't reason your way into this position, so no one is gonna reason you out of it.
You discard any actual studies as wokester nonsense, embrace the just so science of EvoPsyche, and really seem to be pretty unhappy with women in education generally.

Treat people like individuals.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Seriously? Show where I said women don't belong? I held up evolutionary predisposition as a possible reason for THE SPECIFIC FIELDS women choose. I don't give a flying fuck who goes to college for what degrees. I give a fuck our education system is a disaster and people like you think the problem is sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia/xenophobia that needs to be fixed by saying advanced calculus needs more blacks/women/trans because they bring a different perspective.

Me: women may choose certain degrees because they are women. You: women choose BA because men in 90% dem academia won't let them join STEM.

Which is dumber? I have several hundreds of millions of years of evolution where the female gender rears the young. You have 60 years of academic study in which each generation of academia has to come up with an increasingly absurd thesis to move ahead. Media then takes Gender Study dissertation as fact and feed to dumb electorate. An actual thesis I saw on LexisNexis while in school: women are discriminated against in eating contests because they were taught table manners.

You think China gives a shit about Tibet or Uyghur representation? Japan? How about India making sure all castes are getting their rep?

You think you scored a gotcha moment by taking me out of context. The only gotcha was you showing you don't comprehend English or enjoy willfully making stuff up.

And what I am deflecting? You said I deflected when I believe it is better to ask women who choose a non-STEM route why they didn't choose science rather than ask women who chose a STEM field what they feel about it. Just dumb, bro. Just dumb.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Let's not forget the studies that show that the more egalitarian the culture, the fewer women that choose to go into STEM.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No leave for resubmission. "

Good, the projects weren't good enough for regular consideration so they were submitted in the kiddie section.

Should be a punishment for unfairly gaming the system.

[Sarcastr0]

If they legit weren't good enough, then resubmission wouldn't change anything.

punishment for unfairly gaming the system.
It's punishment for using the system as intended. But being a minority while doing it.

As I said, I'm fine with ending set-asides like this. I'm not fine with stopping them in a way designed to fuck-over minorities in particular.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not barred from submitting again. They're barred from submitting again under the canceled DEI programs. And what would be the point of their resubmitting under programs that are being canceled?

[Sarcastr0]

Resubmitting isn't like a simple ctrl-c ctrl-v.

This will delay their grants for at least a year.
Grants in these fields are vital to a researcher's support.

Your last sentence evinces a lack of reading on your part.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, maybe they shouldn't have tried to get in by the side door to begin with. If their submission was meritorious, they should have just submitted it as a regular submission, not a diversity submission.

[Sarcastr0]

They used the system as intended, and you want to screw them because you don't like the old system.

If their submission was meritorious, they should have just submitted it as a regular submission, not a diversity submission.
Should have ignored the system and gone with your moral take.

The did nothing wrong by any rational metric.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't want to screw them, I just want the government to STOP DISCRIMINATING.

That may be hard on people who made plans counting on the government discriminating, but being hard on them is not the objective, ending the discrimination is.

[Sarcastr0]

Bullshit. You want to screw them:

"they should have" isn't you taking about the government, it's you talking about them.

Your comments make it clear you are against shutting down their proposals in a way that gives them a review, because you think they should be punished for using a system you don't like.

[Michael P]

Bullshit. You just want the Trump administration to give research money out based on identitarian discrimination like the Biden administration. You are upset here because your rice bowl is at risk from grant applicants having to compete on merit rather than skin color or gender identity or whatever.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's language indicates animus against the students, as I laid out.

But you aren't here for that exchange, just to insult me.

I've literally said the opposite of "give research money out based on identitarian discrimination." Multiple times in this thread.

I also don't work for NIH. My much smaller agency doesn't do diversity grants.

You spent a lot of yesterday being dumb on purpose.

[Michael P]

And your language indicated straight up racism (on your part). Get a real argument.

You are still denying what you very specifically wrote yesterday. You still haven't admitted that you were totally fully of baloney about the medical studies thing that you posted just before the context-free hot take that started this thread, where you later tried to cover yourself by providing largely irrelevant details about what you supposedly really meant.

[Sarcastr0]

You had 2 people beyond myself calling you out for your idiocy as to the medical devices thing.

I've explained what I meant multiple times. Other people have engaged on that front. You? You just want to call me a liar.

Good luck with that. Drop a separate thread below if you want to really call me out as a liar whose clarification was made in bad faith.

Keep fucking that chicken and maybe you can become a Dr. Ed level joke if you try hard enough.

[bernard11]

Why? If the system in place gave preference to those whose last name begins with "B," and you were submitting an application, would you refuse to take advantage of that preference? Maybe you're a saint, and wouldn't, but I doubt it, especially if getting the grant would make a significant difference in your career.

[Absaroka]

I agree, but why not just delete names from the application? Then Brett and Bernard are on an equal footing with Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

The whole point is that there are structural and cultural issues making the playing field not level.
A blind snapshot ignores future upsides and past neglected development.

Doesn’t mean you fix some quota percentage, but blind evaluations aren’t solving much of the actual issue.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fuck-over minorities in particular"

Its common [illegally] in government set asides for a non-minority to form a company with a minority front. Bet you its done here too.

[Sarcastr0]

Bet you!

These are grants to individuals, not companies.

[Bob from Ohio]

Individuals can be fronts too.

[Sarcastr0]

Or they could be space aliens!

[Satchmo_Lives]

If a single solitary grant was given to a minority, even if it was $10.50, that wouldn't have gone to a white male* based on merit, I am happy with a redo.

*White male being the group whose scale doesn't have a thumb on it.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue is there isn't a redo - they aren't slotting them into existing base processes, they are cancelling the proposals.

This means they're out of funding for a year.

That is funding people *count on*.

[Bob from Ohio]

"people *count on*."

Not very smart to "count on" discretionary grants.

[Sarcastr0]

We encourage it in America.

It's called soft money jobs.

You're an ignorant ass.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I am sorry if I don't get as upset as you over cancelling grants that would not have been approved based solely on merit. I truly am. Yeah, well...

You look it as it they didn't get something they were owed. I look at it as they already got more than they deserved.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Me: redo means a redo and I don't care if a redo is required.

You: it is not a redo because they have to start at the beginning and aren't given special considerations.

I am beginning to think you enjoy saying stupid shit. If i didn't respond, you would be enjoying the thought "he is so stupid he doesn't even know when I am being absurdly stupid."

Also you: I say stupid shit and claim I know more about govt because I work for the govt. When caught you claim you were talking over our heads and apologize for our misunderstanding.

If that doesn't perfectly describe a govt worker is, I honestly don't know what does.

[Kazinski]

What benefit to the taxpayers are diversity grants?

[Satchmo_Lives]

They get to feel good about themselves and virtue signal?

[Sarcastr0]

First, the issue isn't the existence of these grants, it's that this is going to make a lot of minorities lose their jobs for no good reason.

Second, there are research outcomes to these grants. Grants selection is not an optimization problem - for any well-subscribed program, the ability to predict the impact of an award within the top 10% of proposals is basically an arbitrary call.
Set-asides are not misaligned pure boondogles. I've seen them get bangers. But yeah, not at the rate of the core funding.

Which brings us to the third thing...the talent pool growth.
They are not my personally favorite way to do outreach and capacity building, but the logic is that the give experience in doing research to people that wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to get that kind of early career experience due to some demographic headwind.

Could be race, gender, state of domicile, first time grad, child of veterans...all of them have evidence of issues.

But once they have some experience under their belt, both scientific and navigating grants institutionally, they are then competitive for larger more senior grants.

So it's an investment that expands the talent pool available to work on these grants. A broader talent pool means your ceiling raises, and the odds of funding something transformative goes up.
--
I think the reality is more complicated than that, but you asked and that's the answer.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're arguing that bias in awarding grants is a good idea, or at least not particularly a bad one.

But we just elected an administration that disagrees with you about that, and this was one of Trump's more solidly popular positions.

And that's the reality: The public has wanted the government out of the business of racial discrimination for some time now, and we have finally elected an administration determined to do the public's will on this topic.

[Sarcastr0]

How off topic of you.

1. I'm presenting the argument. I said a number of times it's not my argument. Still wanna fight with me.

2. Your response utterly ignores the actual utility argument I made in response to Kazinski's explicitly utility question.

3. Your response is a fallacy. Ad popularum doesn't support whether something is good or bad.
You keep acting like Trump gets moral authority. Which is a marked contrast to you in the previous administration.

4. You also ignore the entire issue of this thread - which is is with *how* this was done. Needlessly fucking with the livelihood of minorities, even if their proposal would be competitive.

Not a good show.

[Absaroka]

"So it's an investment that expands the talent pool available to work on these grants. A broader talent pool means your ceiling raises, and the odds of funding something transformative goes up."

Maybe. But with a fixed pool, giving me a grant because I am an Army brat (that I wouldn't have gotten strictly on the merits) necessarily means that some not-an-Army-brat Alice doesn't get the grant. And is henceforth a little less likely to produce something transformative as a result of that grant. That's great for me, bad for Alice, and maybe not great for society if Alice actually had a better proposal than I did.

[Sarcastr0]

You get more value by finding people who would otherwise be left behind but are highly talented.
The idea is that underrepresented groups have more of those people than the other way around, due to demographic headwinds that are pretty well established.
--------------------
To lay my cards on the table, I'm playing devil's advocate. I personally think 40 years of history has shown that's not moving the needle. At least as a solo proposition, set-asides haven't expanded the talent pool in a measurable way.

I think the real answer is stuff like proposer's guides, outreach events, support for grantwriting, dedicated support for having students in the lab, equipment grants for underserved institutions.
Level the playing field so richy rich's advantages don't hit as hard.
My most radical idea is to do a lottery once a threshold of technical merit is reached; I'd anticipate no measurable impact on research outcomes there either.

To be fair, with sufficient institutional support, set-asides might start doing what they're supposed to. But as-is, I don't think it' works.

[Don Nico]

Some expanding the talent pool and some of the damage could have been undone by transforming the DEI set aside to an early career set-aside and allowing cancelled submissions to apply this year for such. We do know that in many agencies the changes for success are lower for those who have never received a grant. Why not increase their chances.

[Sarcastr0]

Or 2-hatted grants where one senior and one junior researcher work on a project.

Sure, lots of ways. But I would point out that what you are describing is something DEI offices do, since it helps level the playing field.

So a lot of those programs are now cancelled, absent explicit statutory authority.

[Don Nico]

whether Dei office do such things is not really the point; targeting early careers (by themselves) of 1st time applicants should enlarge the pool with running into the present political headwind.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course that's already happening. Stupid 'report stuff as secret DEI' hotline bedamned.

It'll take 2-3 years to stand up the new programs, I'd guess. If you're an early career research right now, sucks to be you.

Our best talent pool remains immigrants. We'll see how that works out.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
Fortunately DOE has been very successful with its early career grants for the past several years. I know several persons who have gotten such grants. Can those existing early career programs be extended just by adding more to the pot? I don't know, but it would be wise to ask if other programs are being terminated or shrunk.

As for immigrants, that is a more complicated issue if we want permanent residents eventually.

[Sarcastr0]

While no existing grants are being stopped, no new grants that may be construed as part of a DEIA program may proceed, unless the program is explicitly authorized by Congress.

I dunno what the DoE can do, but an internal reauthorization won't cut it.

Immigrant scientists getting a pathway to residency has maybe a couple of Republican champions.
DHS expanded O1 Visas recently, but they're not a pathway to residency like E2B is.

It's a bloodbath from where I'm sitting - I'm not at all optimistic about our talent retention and development for the next few years. And I'd wager the loss of trust will be a headwind to attracting International talent for quite some time.

I've had programs I liked wound down. This is a whole 'nother level of needless destruction.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Agreed. Foreign countries do a much better job of education because they don't care if every subgroup is properly represented. They educate the most qualified--even if disfavored qualified applicants are dismissed. Having a standard that admits the most qualified for access to education, is much better than lowering standards to admit less qualified applicants. Do you dismiss the concept?

China will discard highly qualified persons with wrong think. They still maintain a minimum even if they cut off the top. We lower standards in the name of DEI by accepting lower qualified applicants which means we also cut-off the top, or at least the middle, but accept lower standards.

Only people like you think it is hard to understand. The important distinction is not what women do vs men. It is what China does vs the US. We are losing, cupcake. They don't push Gender Studies. They push STEM. We push STEM, but only if the right people sign up. Which is why STEAM is a real thing in some circles. "STEM excludes so many people. We need to include rappers and graffiti artists to make it more equitable."

[Satchmo_Lives]

You get more value by finding people who would otherwise be left behind but are highly talented.

Not sure how dishing out money for reasons based on checked boxes, rather than solely merit, results in better value. I am feeling magnanimous today. I will let you have it order to get to my next point.

The idea is that underrepresented groups have more of those people than the other way around, due to demographic headwinds that are pretty well established.

[emphasis added]

Really? You think there is likely to be more undeveloped talent in, let's say, ≈6% (black males) of the population than ≈35% of the population (white males). Of course you don't. Racial quota wet-dreams make people say dumb things.

I think the real answer is stuff like proposer's guides, outreach events, support for grantwriting, dedicated support for having students in the lab, equipment grants for underserved institutions.

Holy apeshit, Batman. Sarcastro is 100% correct. No equivocation. No qualifying. No "wells." No "buts." He is right.

Level the playing field so richy rich's advantages don't hit as hard.

Instead of researching why chimps fling shit at each other and giving money for trans operas in Columbia, we spend that money on education k-12 (after blowing the whole damn thing up).

My most radical idea is to do a lottery once a threshold of technical merit is reached.

IIIIInnnnterrressting, how many federal employees do we get to toss in the garbage bin? One committee deciding the bare minimum is met. GO FOR IT!! No second committee making sure the first did it right as they hand it to the third committee to check the second's work. On to process level two. Three more committees under the direction of the assistant to the assistant of the assistant deputy undersecretary. Let's go to the committees headed by the assistant to the assistant of the deputy undersecretary (working our way up!! Just two more steps and six more committees until the deputy undersecretary). I'm sure you could flesh out the rest.

I'd anticipate no measurable impact on research outcomes there either.

Sarcastro? Surely, you of all people don't mean hordes of bureaucrats can be replaced by a few people and a random output algorithm?

Friggin' hell, what good are they now if they are no better at identifying good uses of taxpayer dollars than a random draw? MY GOD WHAT FUCKING BLOATED INCOMPETANCE!! (yes I was actually screaming when I wrote it)

[Satchmo_Lives]

First, the issue isn't the existence of these grants, it's that this is going to make a lot of minorities lose their jobs for no good reason.

We will never agree that cancelling grants that are not strictly merit based amounts "to no good reason." If a minority received a grant that no white male would have received, it is a perfectly good reason to cancel the grant. You can argue it has other benefits (talent pool expansion), but the fact it is not particularly beneficial to the populous, writ large, is a perfectly valid reason.

Second, there are research outcomes to these grants. Grants selection is not an optimization problem - for any well-subscribed program, the ability to predict the impact of an award within the top 10% of proposals is basically an arbitrary call.

I would be happy just determining what the bottom 40% would be and cut them. Ya know, spending $592k on studying why chimps sling feces, $856k for teaching lions to walk on treadmills, $2.6M on encouraging Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly, $1.1M on why boys and girls like different toys, and $27M on pottery classes in Morocco.

I am not going to swear all of the above are grants, as opposed to simple funding by orgs like USAID. If fact, I made one of them up (betcha can't guess). It may very well be true (probably is). My point is none of these are even remotely likely to end up being in the top 90 percentile of useful research--much less your "we can't determine what is the top 10%" without being arbitrary.

Maybe part of your admitted over simplification, but giving people grants so they learn how to apply for grants in the future really is quite funny. Giving grants doesn't expand the talent pool of doers. You don't create a great medical researcher by giving them a grant. They have that talent already. You give them the means to do great research without doubt. You can't take a poor talent, give them money, and expect great results.

[Sarcastr0]

The differential here isn't between keeping the grants and cancelling them. It's between letting those under diversity grants compete in the general pool and not.

I don't see why anyone would be OK with not letting those people compete.

But you have your precanned argument, so you're going to take out that strawman I guess.

And then you go after research *topics*. Well, that's just ignorance.
Plenty of weird seeming research ends up being bangers: https://www.goldengooseaward.org/

giving people grants so they learn how to apply for grants in the future really is quite funny
This is the way people learn to apply for grants in the American university system. The only difference is whether they do so as undergrads, post-docs, or young professors.

You don't create a great medical researcher by giving them a grant
No, that is how our research enterprise works - universities teach grad students science students by having them work on active science, funded by grants. Including grants directly to grad students.

They have that talent already
Talent is potential; undeveloped talent is left on the table.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I don't see why anyone would be OK with not letting those people compete.

I said that??

Did you say strawman?? I said they shouldn't be given grants based on boxes. I am more than happy to let everybody compete on merit without a thumb on any scale.

Plenty of weird seeming research ends up being bangers.

Your first example was for a grant(s) spanning from 1973 to early 1991. So for a Golden Goose Award in 2024 they had to go back 30+ years to find worthwhile grants? How much was spent? Can we get a Razzy Goose Award for absurd research over the last 50 years that went nowhere?

studying endangered birds =/= studying chimps flinging shit

I am also not one who thinks a single species going extinct collapses an ecosystem or is an existential threat to humanity. I mean, how devastating was the collapse of the Dodo bird? I am all for reasonable expense and regulation to prevent extinction. Tens of thousands of acres of Los Angles in ashes because...smelt, not so much.

Second winner, again no cost cited, was finding new group of penguins and a greatly better method to track penguins. Great!!! Mankind is saved!!!! Also, by tracking them we can study global warming. If they keep moving north from previous brooding grounds, it is probably getting warmer (I am not going back to see if it was northern or southern penguins). Give me my cool mil!!

I am being a jerk, I know. I am certainly not ideologically opposed to all kinds research. And I believe knowledge for the sake of knowledge alone is a good thing. I can be bigger jerk and suggest all things where the money could have an immediate and consequential impact--not that I would be in favor of a lot of those things either.

researching penguin migrations =/= as promoting transgenderism in Vietnam

I didn't read the third. It sounds cool. Studying how the human brain works, or any medical research that helps humanity is OK by me. Again, what is the cost vs reward?

No, that is how our research enterprise works - universities teach grad students science students by having them work on active science, funded by grants. Including grants directly to grad students.

I get you mean as a secondary result of grants; teacher gets grant and then teaches student. The student doesn't get the grant. I infer your meaning as the grant does the heavy lifting before a talent is ready, and they need the grant to be ready to get a grant. Hard to break circular logic.

Talent is potential; undeveloped talent is left on the table.

The question wasn't talent that is/isn't developed. Do grants create talent for the talent pool or does it draw from the talent pool?

... it's an investment that expands the talent pool available to work on these grants.

Again, it can indirectly expand the pool through grants to educators, but we are talking about the recipients of grants--not the down the line results. They were already in the pool

[Kazinski]

I'm not going to claim Republican pork is better than Democratic pork, but there does seem to be a theory among Democrats is that any spending is good spending, even when no positve results are required or even anticipated.

MAGA is somewhat different than the traditional Republican approach because its espousing the theory that all cuts are good cuts, with the exception of direct transfer payments.

I am definitely on board with seeing how that pays off.

Bloomberg has a related article:

"Environmental researchers are still trying to figure out how to navigate grant-proposal language around climate change and DEI in light of the executive orders. Applications that previously would have benefitted from a focus on helping disadvantaged communities, environmental justice or inclusivity — seen as demonstrating broad impact — suddenly could be undermined by the same references."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-04/-it-s-surreal-trump-s-freeze-on-climate-money-sows-fear-and-confusion

Certainly seems like social "science" rather than hard science.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think you will find many liberals saying all spending is good spending.
You do have plenty of MAGA tools around here saying all cuts are good cuts.

Social science is good science. Companies spend tons on advertising that is nothing more than applied social science.

Climate change is not social science. "Focus on helping disadvantaged communities" isn't obviously social science. Demonstrating broad impact is also not social science.

Yeah, criteria about helping vulnerable groups as an application of your research are now being used to cut programs. That's pretty fucked up.

[Kazinski]

Not all liberals, just the Democratic Congress and the previous administration, and they would have gladly done it all over again if they won the election.

[Sarcastr0]

So all cuts good is an explicit part of GOP rhetoric, but all spending good is you ignoring that a budget is not infinite spending.

Beyond the actual budget, which makes plenty of funding tradeoff choices, there's plenty of spending Dems speak out against.

But more culturally salient - do you see the Dems going after the GAO like the GOP goes after the IRS?

[Absaroka]

""Environmental researchers are still trying to figure out how to navigate grant-proposal language around climate change and DEI in light of the executive orders. Applications that previously would have benefitted from a focus on helping disadvantaged communities, environmental justice or inclusivity — seen as demonstrating broad impact — suddenly could be undermined by the same references.""

Heh. I was working at one of the big name cancer research facilities when the funding priority switched from cancer to AIDS.
If your grant to study the 1-4 alphaphosphylase metabolism pathways in mitochondria[1] had been sold as providing basic insight likely applicable to a cancer cure, suddenly the same study was all about providing basic insight that might find a cure for AIDS.

[1]totally made up

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like impact statements for basic research are bad.

[Absaroka]

Well, believing them might be :-). They were as likely to cure AIDS as cancer, or something else. Basic research isn't applied research.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m the research snob in my office. Transition paths got tons of people working on them. Knowledge for its own sake…that’s where the glory is at.

[John F. Carr]

Months after a slim majority of Missouri voters approved a right to abortion, abortions are still blocked. Planned Parenthood is not in compliance with regulations that treat abortion as a medical procedure rather than a pill you take.
A judge will hold a trial next year and decide how many of the regulations can stand.

https://www.propublica.org/article/missouri-abortion-ban-amendment-planned-parenthood-lawsuit

[Michael P]

Why should we believe Pro Publica this time? They've recently run (misleading) stories claiming that abortion pills have terrible side effects that require close medical oversight and hospitalization. This kind of regulation is pretty standard for Rx-only medications. My doctors comply with a lot of regulations about surgeries even though the only write prescriptions rather than operate on me.

[Brett Bellmore]

This sort of thing varies pretty radically from drug to drug, you know. I've gotten prescriptions where you had to ask why it was even a prescription drug; (That's an OTC pain killer, why is a double sized tablet prescription when I could just take two of the regular???) and I've gotten prescriptions that came with a list of things that would ordinarily have you running to the emergency room that I should just expect to live with, and a much shorter list of "Yeah, for that DO run to the emergency room!"

Where do drugs that induce miscarriages fall in that spectrum? Not at the "Why is that even requiring a prescription?" end of things, I'm pretty sure.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh the Humanity!! just think how many more Michael Brown/Floyd George's are being born

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is the incomplete abortion. You can see that with a D&C but not with the pill. And then you get gangrene inside of her, and then...

[Frank Drackman]

and you get JB Pritzker

[Mr. Bumble]

J[a]B[a] the Pritzker?

[Frank Drackman]

My one year playing Foo-Bawl, 8th grade, the Coach would constantly call us "Abortions" except he pronounced it "Bortion" he would even expand it to non-sentient beings, such as a particular play itself, which was funny, as it was his play. All my years of playing Baseball, no coach ever called me a "Bortion", I think that was in George Carlins "Foobawl/Baseball" routine

[Michael P]

That's *a* risky side effect. There are others, like uterine rupture.

[Frank Drackman]

Which most commonly occurs with attempted vaginal births after a previous C-Section, it's clear, women must stop having babies!!!!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

In 2024, how many women who have had a C section then have an unattended home birth? My guess is damn few.

HOWEVER, how many have home abortions with these pills?

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Ed 2 again demonstrates how dangerous it is to pretend to be a real Doctor,
I don't know about "Unattended" but thousands of women try to have a Vaginal delivery after a previous C-Section, it's even got a cool acronym, "VBAC", I don't get it, why stretch out your V-Jay-Jay when you could get a nice horizontal slash across your belly? Of course, like with "Natural Childbirth" most end up asking for Drugs and consenting to the healing power of stainless steel.

Frank

[John F. Carr]

I would believe the basic facts here. Abortion providers are subject to regulation as if they were medical service providers instead of pharmacists. Whether the regulations are unreasonable is a matter of opinion and you should consider where Pro Publica is on the political spectrum when judging the tone of the article.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See above about parts left inside her to decompose.

Personally, I think the abortion pill should be Schedule II because of that.

[Frank Drackman]

You totally don't understand what makes a drug Schedule II, here's what your local friendly DEA Agent, Agent Friendly (thats a joke, ever meet a DEA Agent? one thing they're not is "Friendly") would say (Scowling the whole time, and I'm not joking, they can read this stuff from memory without screwing up even a comma)

Schedule II
"Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are: combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin"

"Illegal Prescribing of Schedule II Drugs is a violation of 21 U.S. Code § 829 and punishable by First Offense:
Not less than 5 yrs, and not more than 40 yrs. If death or
serious injury, not less than 20 or more
than life. Fine of not more than $5 million if an individual, $25
million if not an individual"

Frank

[John F. Carr]

The Missouri regulations described in the article aren't well tailored to reduce the risk of medication abortions. The risk comes days after the pill is taken. Some Southern states required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. One such rule was struck down as an undue burden.

[Michael P]

You can mitigate risks by reducing their expected consequences, not only by reducing their frequency, and regulations like these are usually written to do the first. Do you have suggestions for ways to do the second instead? Would they be equally effective in terms of QALYs or similar outcomes?

I mentioned the earlier ProPublica stories because they were cases where having admitting privileges for local hospitals could easily have made a big difference.

[Riva]

Side effect? Abortion pills end a life. And that ain’t a side effect. As for Pro Publica, don’t know if they can always be trusted. Did they get any USAID money?

[Drewski]

(For those out of the loop, Propublica was accurately reporting on a Senate report. Michael's issue is that the Senate report was released by a Democrat and is entirely fact-based.)

[Michael P]

(For those as dumb as a bag of hammers, Drewski means that Pro Publica omits lots of relevant facts and spins all the rest in a hard-left direction, so when they start from a partisan output from a politician, you can bet they hold up like a wet noodle.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-trump-prosecutor-dc-who-was-present-capitol-riot-dropped-us-case-against-2025-02-05/

This is not good! And his response to the story is also not good! Very sloppy and unprofessional lawyering.

[John F. Carr]

The ethical problem is reduced because he was clearly acting on orders.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Nope. Not at all!

[John F. Carr]

Imagine if he had been a county DA, the top prosecutor, and dismissed charges against a former client. That's a lot worse.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Funnily enough that’s actually harder to imagine because those guys are more professional and screen cases!

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

[SRG2]

If true concerning the specific ethics violation, it leads to another ethics violation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also no one would need to order him to do that because there are procedures to have designees handle cases when the US Atty is conflicted out. This is also not at all uncommon because a lot of US Attorneys did defense work in private practice before appointment and have several cases they need to withdraw from/be screened from once appointed. And in light of the pardon this is practically a ministerial act so it’s the easiest conflict in the world to avoid, but he still couldn’t manage it. This does not bode well for the future.

[SRG2]

I don't know if the Trump supporters here understand the concept of "conflict of interest", or, if they do, whether they care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Padilla would have been freed with or without Martin’s involvement, because Trump granted clemency to all January 6 participants."

It was a clerical motion to dismiss a dead case. No doubt a technical violation of the conflict rules but why do YOU care?

[SRG2]

I care about the general principle. YMMV

[Bob from Ohio]

"general principle"

Hating Trump is your general principle

[LawTalkingGuy]

And you have a general principle of ignoring or downplaying clear ethical issues for partisan reasons. Which is not good for a supposed lawyer!

[SRG2]

Why is a legal ethics violation "hating Trump"?

and why don't you care?

[Bob from Ohio]

I refer you to Noscitur a sociis below who makes my point on why I don't care.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This would be credible if I hadn't seen you "not care" about other serious ethics issues in the past.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe he cares about DOJ lawyers doing the bare minimum to comply with their duties under both DOJ regulations and the rules of professional conduct? I mean how are you supposed to trust him as the US Atty if he 1) can't handle something as basic as not doing anything on cases he's listed as counsel of record on 2) asking ethics counsel before he does such a thing?

Plus his reactions and excuses are also nonsensical.

Whether its pro-bono is completely irrelevant. Being "off the case" is also completely irrelevant when we're talking about conflicting duties to current clients and former clients (not to mention your duties to the court). Also, how would he get that "impression" when he opened up the docket and still saw his name as counsel of record for the Defendant? Don't you care if the US Atty can't read a fucking docket?

Then when asked about the issue, he complained that it "immediately leaked to the media" and that it was "personally insulting" and professionally "unacceptable."

This response is just so fucking whiney and embarrassing for a lawyer.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Padilla would have been freed with or without Martin’s involvement, because Trump granted clemency to all January 6 participants."

[LawTalkingGuy]

Which makes this fuck up all the more astounding. If you know what's going to happen anyway...why insert yourself at all and risk sanctions or a bar complaint?

Christ you must have taken 8 times to pass the MPRE with takes like this.

[Bob from Ohio]

Never passed it! Guess why.

"Which makes this fuck up all the more astounding."

I refer you to Noscitur a sociis below who makes my point.

[LawTalkingGuy]

1) you are extremely old so it wasn’t a requirement

2) you are not actually a lawyer

[Bob from Ohio]

No fair to make two guesses!

[Bob from Ohio]

"put his name on a request"

Clear as mud. Did he sign it or was it "X, acting US attorney by Y, Assistant US Attorney" and Y signed it?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The filings indicate that on 1/21/25 he moved on behalf of the United States to dismiss the case against Padilla in his capacity as the US Attorney. It's his name in the signature block of the government filing.

On 2/5/25 he moved to withdraw as counsel of record on behalf of Padilla.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

While embarassing, this article is rather misleading.

His name appeared on the filings (which were form motions to dismiss the cases because Trump had pardoned the defendants) for the same reason it appears on all filings by the office, i.e. because he’s the acting U.S. Attorney. Obviously they should have recused him and had an acting acting U.S. Attorney be the one on the signature block. But there’s no reason to think he had any personal involvement in these filings, which were completely ministerial, and it’s all but certain that had he been properly recused, the only difference would have been that name. There’s certainly no argument I can see that his current or former client were prejudiced in any way, or to see this as anything more than sloppiness as they rush to get these notices out.

There’s plenty of actual bad stuff this guy is doing, I don’t see any reason to feign outrage at things like this.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I'm not really feigning outrage, I am actually mad about shit like this because it does in fact matter. Screening yourself from one of the three cases you worked on isn't that hard. Every other lawyer who becomes a prosecutor needs to be screened from cases involving former clients. They manage to do it. Why can't he do the same, with so few cases and so many resources and months to prepare? It's something that any competent attorney would do. If he's tripping up on something so basic and public, it speaks to the larger issue.

And then the response is horrible too. He didn't even give any of the excuses you gave, he got defensive and was "personally insulted" that someone "leaked" this when career ethics counsel (quite appropriately) asked about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am just a little confused about why somebody's former defense lawyer would in any way need to recuse from the purely ministerial execution of a pardon. What are they going to do as a result of bias? Dismiss the case instead of... dismissing it?

I could see the complaint if it were something where there was any discretion to be exercised at all, but here? There's no conflict of interest where there's no discretion to exercise!

[David Nieporent]

There was no pardon here, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Noscitur a sociis:

"His name appeared on the filings (which were form motions to dismiss the cases because Trump had pardoned the defendants)"

So, Noscitur was wrong about that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do you figure?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's probably his usual ultra picky approach. Were some of them cases where Trump ordered the charges dismissed, rather than actual pardons?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The two cases in the article were both defendants convicted of § 1512 offenses which were vacated following the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer and which were remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts. As such, I think they would be “ individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021”.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I should correct myself slightly. The article mentions two cases. Martin was the defense attorney in only one f them. On the other, the article suggests he was conflicted because he hosted a banquet in the defendant’s honor.

[Heedless]

It's a minor sin, but it's still a sin.

The law is enough given to injustice and the appearance of injustice that prosecutors must avoid even the appearance of favoritism. Otherwise the system looks corrupt (very important not to erode people's faith in the justice system even further), and it becomes hard to spot the actual corruption (of which there is always at least some) because people are careless about ethics requirements.

It's the same reason an accountant's books need to be accurate: if people are sloppy, then it because much harder to spot actual malfeasance.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll say it again: I don't see any sin AT ALL in failing to recuse from the execution of a ministerial duty where there is no discretion to exercise.

You want people to recuse where their bias might affect the choices they make. But where there are no choices, there is no room for bias to do that.

Recusing in such a case is just performative, it serves no actual function.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You want people to recuse where they are required to both by the rules of professional conduct and DOJ regulations. He did not do so.

This isn't BrettLaw. This is the actual rules of professional conduct he violated. Whether or not you think its serves no function is completely immaterial. There were rules, and he didn't follow them.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're explaining why the rules said he should have. I'm explaining why the "Oops!" doesn't bother me one tiny bit.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah it doesn't bother you because you're not a lawyer and you routinely demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of law and legal practice. You don't understand why the rules are so important, but I do. You didn't swear an oath to uphold the rules, I did. So it pisses me off, as a professional, when people don't follow them despite it being easy. It pisses me off when they don't own up to their mistakes, especially if it truly is an "oops"

The fact that some dilettante engineer who doesn't know jackshit about the law isn't bothered by this is actually quite damning for Ed Martin or his defenders.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yeah, you’re taking it too far the other way now. He should have been recused from these cases and the office’s tracking system should have prevented his name from ending up on them. I understand how the mistake happened, and I don’t think it ultimately matters much, but it is a mistake.

[David Nieporent]

I'll say it again: I don't see any sin AT ALL in failing to recuse from the execution of a ministerial duty where there is no discretion to exercise.

That's because you're not a lawyer. For instance, you don't grasp that there's actually no such thing as a "ministerial duty" here.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "there's actually no such thing as a "ministerial duty""

You do understand, as a lawyer, that there's no such thing as an "informal explanation," don't you?

DMN's First Rule of Legal Construction: "Your legal construction is not specific enough to satisfy DMN's First Rule of Legal Construction."

[Noscitur a sociis]

I would feel differently, of course, if he had actually been involved in the cases at all. But there is absolutely zero reason to think that’s the case here, or that his “involvement” consist of anything other than the AUSA not flagging it so that they could put someone else’s name on them. To be clear, they still should have had a system to catch that, and it’s bad and embarrassing that they didn’t.

I also agree that the guy’s response was pretty ridiculous, and unlike the underlying episodes does reflect on his fitness for the job, as does a lot of his other conduct, like accepting felony case referrals via twitter. But the actual error here doesn’t seem like anything more than an embarrassing but ultimately harmless mistake of the kind that happens every day, not the nefarious attempt to subvert the government by representing both sides simultaneously.

[David Nieporent]

or to see this as anything more than sloppiness as they rush to get these notices out.

"They're incompetent, not corrupt."

[Noscitur a sociis]

Correct, although I don’t even think it’s all that incompetent.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It is incompetent though. It requires a high level of incompetent conflict screening not to do this when there was so much lead time and so few cases for him to recuse from.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I would be very surprised if he didn’t have a conflict list (and if so, that certainly fair grounds for a complaint)!

Rather, what almost certainly happened is that after the pardons, the AUSAs got sent this template and told to file it in all their January 6 cases awaiting sentencing. Now, it should have said, “except for these two cases, where so-and-so is serving as Acting U.S. Attorney and will give further direction.” But they didn’t, and no one noticed.

Now, if you have any reason to think that’s not what happened, I’d definitely like to know!

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’d have way more sympathy with this position if he did an arraignment for a a random defendant prior to being a prosecutor and then his name ended up on filings. But these were very high profile cases that he tried and that he personally made a career move based on. They’re obviously at the forefront of his mind. And the ethics rules should be too.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But they’re cases that were substantively resolved when the defendants were pardoned. I don’t think it’s outrageous that exactly what paperwork needed to be filed to effectuate that is something that wouldn’t have been at the forefront of his mind.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Idk man. I guess I’m not a bigshot acting US Atty but I’ve seen “paperwork snafus” really screw people and lawyers over. Calendaring mistake for filing briefs by one day leads to dismissals and appeals. Judge doesn’t put a dismissal through and a guy spends an extra weekend in jail.

So I think some judges are way too hard on it. I’m inclined to be sympathetic. But if it’s the fucking DC US Atty fucking up the most high profile cases I’m going to be very hard on them!

Here’s a hypo: let’s say OJ was found guilty and Johnnie Cochran runs for DA on an OJ got screwed platform and wins. The new governor, feeling political pressure, pardons OJ. Johnnie signs the dismissal of the pending appeal/trial court case. How do we feel about it?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think maybe I’m seeing the disconnect. Martin didn’t sign anything (even electronically). His name, without a signature, was on the filing, because the template for filings all have his name on it. No one specifically chose to have it filed under his name: they didn’t catch that it shouldn’t have been. Which, again, they should have. But I don’t think it’s a major scandal that they didn’t (again, especially compared to stuff like, say, this.

And yes, sometimes even minor mistakes have real negative consequences. But

1. This one had zero consequences beyond embarrassing the mistake makers.
2. That’s becoming less and less true, especially in federal criminal practice.
3. The fact that it’s becoming less and less true is good.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t think it’s a disconnect on the facts. I know it’s a template. I know the AUSA e-filed it. I think we disagree about the weight to attach. I think it’s significant. You don’t as much. My view is that a first order of business is to make sure you are absolutely screened and this doesn’t happen. You view it as a guy going into a big org with lots on his mind and forgot.

[David Nieporent]

This is ludicrous. This isn't like forgetting to mail in this month's credit card payment on time. A practicing lawyer's primary thought is managing his cases. If you're for any reason stepping away from the practice of law, temporarily — e.g., going on vacation — or permanently — e.g., retiring, the first thing you're thinking about is "I've got to make sure that each and every one of my cases is taken care of before I go."

So the issue isn't so much that he entered an appearance on behalf of the government, but that he hadn't already withdrawn from representing these people. Once he knew he was going into government — and presumably he didn't learn that on January 20 — every waking moment would've been handing off his cases to other lawyers and withdrawing from them. (Because, guess what, even in cases where he didn't have an obvious conflict of interest like this one, he couldn't continue to handle them once he took his new job.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is a very fair criticism. It’s also not one mentioned in the article or until this comment, nor would doing it the right way have cured the ethical issue that everyone is complaining about.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Pretty sure that same point is evident from my criticism.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Actually, I take it back, it’s a bad point. A federal public defender entered an appearance in the case in November after it was remanded. The fact that Martin’s appearance wasn’t withdrawn at the same time also seems like a clerical oversight.

[David Nieporent]

nor would doing it the right way have cured the ethical issue that everyone is complaining about.

There were two separate ethical issues. One is that he can't represent the government on a case where he had previously represented the defendant. The other is that he can't represent two sides at the same time!

[Noscitur a sociis]

The other is that he can't represent two sides at the same time!

And as I just pointed out, he wasn’t, except in the very most technical of ways.

[Estragon]

Here’s a link to Missouri bar complaint against this guy. Why Missouri?

https://the65project.com/bar-complaint-against-edward-martin/

Well it turns out he’s not even in good standing with the DC bar, yet still signing angry letters to judges with his DC bar number on there. Oopsies!

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well it turns out he’s not even in good standing with the DC bar

Why do you say that? I just looked up in the directory and it says he’s in good standing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This was the Feb 5 entry. Maybe he corrected it?

NOTICE of Provisional/Government Not Certified Status re 126 Proposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Edward Martin by Edward Martin. by JOSEPH LINO PADILLA. (Martin, Edward).Your attorney renewal/government certification has not been received. As a result, your membership with the U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia is not in good standing, and you are not permitted to file. Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.21.1, you must immediately correct your membership status by following the appropriate instructions on this page of our website: https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/attorney-renewal. Please be advised that the presiding judge in this case has been notified that you are currently not in good standing to file in this court. Renewal Due by 2/12/2025. (zhcn)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59743200/united-states-v-padilla/?page=2

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s the bar for the U.S. district court in D.C., not the D.C. bar. I’m also not sure that an attorney should have to be admitted to the district court to move to withdraw from a case, since lapsed admissions seems like it would itself be grounds for withdrawal!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Good point. Although if his admission to DDC did lapse he still shouldn’t have had his name on the motion to dismiss which was filed first.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Edit: Withdrawn, looks like there two different Edward Martins working for DOJ in DC.

[Estragon]

Indeed, you are correct; DDC. My mistake.

[Estragon]

Out of curiosity— have you ever had a filing rejected on these ground?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, but it happens with some regularity. And is about as embarrassing as the issue that prompted the conversation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At what point will MAGA tell these obnoxious judges to go bleep themselves?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Which judges do you have in mind?

[Bwaaah]

LOL. Are there any judges (other than former judges) for which it makes sense to tell them to go bleep themselves? I mean, even if there's some cause for considering that, would *doing* that be a helpful strategy, e.g. yours?

Excepting subsequent, fairly immediate dismantling of judicial institutions, how would that help you advance toward your goal(s)?

As a refinement, you might want to skip the insult phase and move instead to just "fire" the judges. I suspect that either way, insult or dismissal, will advance you more quickly toward a crash-and-burn phase.

I will not be seeking your advice for my political strategies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Philly medflight crash is interesting, and no one is talking about possible sabotage to flight controls. Medflight to US costs $$$ and we know who in Mexico has it. Hmmmm....

A stall at that angle with at least one engine running (running lights on, QED engine generating electricity) -- hmmm.

The O2 could have exacerbated a fire -- but not caused it. A full O2 tank is 2000 psi so they will become rockets if valve broken off, and the standard 3 foot tall one contains 679 liters of O2. It wasn't high enough to be pressurized yet, but Oxygen-rich air leaking into an engine?

[John F. Carr]

Crashes due to sabotage are quite rare compared to crashes caused by pilot error and/or mechanical problems.

[hobie]

Speaking of conspiracy theories, you were actually right about the fire hydrants in LA, Ed. The Times published a picture of one. It has this tiny head and outflow spout. I've never seen such a thing. These dumb hydrants could very well have been a contributing factor

[Frank Drackman]

You've never seen one with a tiny head and outflow spout? I bet your wife has! Just busting balls, good on you for 1: Admitting you were wrong, and 2: letting me experience the miracle of Dr. Ed getting something right for once.

[hobie]

I guess Ed can be compared to a broken clock

[Absaroka]

"no one is talking about possible sabotage to flight controls."

And no one is talking about improper heat treatment at the factory, or pilots taking shrooms, or alien tractor beams, even though all but the last have actually happened.

"Oxygen-rich air leaking into an engine?"

Can you flesh out a couple of details for me?

First, what's the physical pathway by which you envision oxygen leaking from the cabin to the externally mounted engines on a Learjet 55?

Second, given the amount of airflow through a jet engine, can you ballpark the effects you would expect from even the few hundred CFM in a large oxygen tank vented directly into the engine to have?

(did you know that some Lear 55's have !!!!!!lithium batteries!!!!!!!. Surprised you're not all over that.)

[Joe_dallas]

Never needed that "border bill" passed to secure the border.

"The new US Border Patrol chief said the number of illegal migrants stopped trying to cross the besieged southern border has dropped an astonishing 90% since January 21 — a day after President Trump’s inauguration.

Michael Banks, a longtime former border agent himself, touted the plunge in illegal crossings in an interview on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” Thursday, adding that prosecutions of criminal migrants the agency has apprehended have also jumped 52%.

“US Border Patrol knows how to get the job done, we know how to secure the border. All we needed was a president that was going to empower us — a strong leader like President Trump — and a secretary like Secretary Noem that knows exactly what we need to do to secure the border,” he said."

[hobie]

I actually applaud the immigration results of this administration. I consider illegal crossing to be an act of arrogance and self-preoccupation.

I doubt any of this will affect fentanyl traffic. The drug is basically a murder weapon in my estimation. As such, I consider it's trafficking as a terrorist activity. This president could actually earn my respect if he were to approve military strikes on the labs in Mexico

[ThePublius]

Wow, hobie, that's two posts of yours this morning that resonate with me. Will this persist? I hope so.

[hobie]

It won't last, sure as the Trump will rise tomorrow

[Frank Drackman]

I was going to say the same, hey, even Constantine saw the light.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of like an exaggerated version of how smugglers during Prohibition preferred to smuggle hard liquor rather than beer, because the risk scaled with the volume, and the profit with the amount of alcohol, the trade in fentanyl is a product of drug enforcement to begin with. Prohibitions shift consumption towards more powerful and compact drugs for the smugglers' convenience.

It's so absurdly strong that hiding enough to get a whole city high isn't difficult. But then cutting it back to a controlled dose that won't kill people is tough, and drug dealers aren't exactly QC experts. So you get a lot of deaths.

The sad fact, though, is that even if you could completely end cross-border traffic in the stuff, it would just move manufacture into the US. Well, move it MORE into the US.

I've long opposed the war on drugs. It's just Prohibition Mk 2, with the difference that they had the sense to give up on Prohibition, and instead doubled down on the War on Drugs.

The erosion of civil liberties, massive funding to criminal gangs, and corruption of government, are all the same.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, the US has tight regulations on the stuff it is made out of.

Meth *was* made here until stuff like sutaphedrine was restricted.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about the labs in China where it originates?

[Martinned2]

Wait, what? You think trafficking in murder weapons is terrorism? Don't let the NRA hear you talk like that!

[VinniUSMC]

Awww, look at the Nazi moron trying to be witty. Fuck off Nazi scum.

[SRG2]

Any evidence he's telling the truth?

[David Nieporent]

"The new US Border Patrol chief said the number of illegal migrants stopped trying to cross the besieged southern border has dropped an astonishing 90% since January 21 — a day after President Trump’s inauguration.

Still not sure why Trump's people are bragging about their border patrol doing a much worse job at stopping illegal immigration.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The USPS is committing suicide.

It now takes six days for a letter to go 3/4 of a mile in the same town, and I don't see why anyone would have a PO box when they charge the same price as the UPS Store, which provides all kinds of additional services at the same price.

[hobie]

The fuckers managed to lose my tax filing last year even though it was registered priority mail with tracking

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hobie, that's smart to mail yours in.

Here's a tip for anyone who has anything but the simplest tax forms.

Do not e-file. E-filings are being screened now by software and rejections/notices, etc. are being auto-generated and sent out without any agent review, so right or wrong. Paper filings, however, don't get this treatment.

I learned this lesson last year after six months of my accountant writing letters. He didn't find out until he actually called in and talked to a human.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw, the IRS had a very low error rate pre covid. starting with the 2019 return filing season (spring 2020) the IRS error rate exploded. Processing Error rate on paper returns went up by at least 100x.

[Frank Drackman]

You ever been to a USPS mail handling facility? The riots in 2020 were better organized (bad example, as the riots in 2020 were quite well organized, I mean that in general, your typical USPS mail handling facility looks like what people think of when they imagine a "Riot") Back when Netflix still mailed DVD's they all went through the Atlanta Distribution Center, there was a story on the local news with security cam footage of the mail handlers throwing DVD envelopes at a big bin like it was basketball, and rifling through the DVDs and putting ones they liked in their pocket. I'm surprised anybody got their DVD's/mail.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hang in there. After he finishes his gig at DOGE, Elon is going to be named Postmaster General.

[ducksalad]

If you pay for Priority Mail you can extend it to 9 days within one state. They'll also give you a tracking number and a website that lies every day for five days that the package will be delivered that day, so that you can drive five times to the delivery location.

(Finally got it yesterday.)

[Kazinski]

They need to cut costs and improve service, one of the things thats way overdue is cutting service to 3 days a week.

I don't need my junk mail delivered daily.

I was a rural route substitute carrier in Napa's Carneros district in the 70's back when mail was a critical service, it really isn't anymore.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Here in Michigan, a lib state legislator has voluntarily sterilized herself so that she can't get pregnant during Trump's presidency.
And she claims that men are mad at her for doing it.
Now, I don't claim to speak for all men, but here's some thoughts:
1. Great job! You totally pwnd Trump.
2. Get your friends to do the same. Just imagine how upset Trump will be then!
3. Withhold sex while you're at it, just to be sure!
4. I promise to be mad about it. You win again!
These weirdos aren't having kids, and I completely support that decision. But it's also why they go, hammer and tongs, for everybody else's kids in schools. They're not going to replace themselves by having a family of their own. So they need to do so with YOUR family. It's why they fight so hard for DEI, LGBQTXYZBBQ, and keeping parents out of the loop while their kids are in school. It's why the push against this shit has been so forceful and experiencing a lot more success lately. LFG!

[John F. Carr]

Next we need a conservative to sterilize herself because Biden shipped all the condoms to Gaza.

[Frank Drackman]

I was going to make the obligatory "ever notice that the women who get their tubes tied you wouldn't want to (redacted) anyway?" joke, but looked her up, she's not hideous.
I'd do her, and with my own (redacted) not someone elses (never understood that "I wouldn't (redacted) her with (insert someone elses name here) (redacted) I mean, how would you (redacted) with some other dudes (redacted)?
Oh wait, John Wayne Bobbit, I get it now
I wonder if she read the part in the "(Un)Informed Consent" where Tubal Ligation increases the risk of Ectopic Pregnancy (which kill roughly 1,000 US women annually, or more women than were killed in the October 7 massacre)

[ReaderY]

It’s one of the reasons conservatives are dominating. Socially liberal women tend to have other priorities in their lives than having children, indeed have been somewhat conditioned to see making children a priority as a bad, backwards thing, and hence tend to have fewer children than conservative women. This means demographics tend to favor conservatives over time.

Liberals have time and again assumed a world where everyone shares their values, and consistently failed to think about how to behave or indeed what what the practical consequences of their behavior are in a world where they are in conflict with others with different values. They base everything on how they think things ought to be without taking into account how things are, assuming human nature is infinitely malleable because they think it ought to be. (They are no different from many conservatives in this respect).

If you favor democracy, and you favor women having fewer children to self-actualize themselves more and letting children figure out their own identity on their own without much help from and indeed often against the prior generation, then eventually the descendents of women who favor having more children and transmitting distinctive cultures to them will dominate both culturally and in the ballot box. By taking self-perpetuation for granted, you seal eventual loss of dominance and possible extinction.

This woman is an example. She has just contributed significantly, perhaps the most that anyone can contribute, to the future of the conservative movement and the lack of a future of the liberal program. Conservatives ought to thank her profusely for it.

[Frank Drackman]

My daughters are about as far as "Socially Liberal" as you can get, but see the prospect of giving birth about as enticing as a case of Genital Warts, maybe it's taking them into the OR when they were children, seeing that part of a C-Section where the OB pulls the Uterus out, flips it inside out like a football, and massages it like Ursula down at the Y, their own mothers stretch marks, ("Your Fault" I'd tell them) and then having some of the most obnoxious younger cousins possible didn't hurt either. I know, I'm keeping the world from enjoying the progeny of the superior Drackman breeding (Scotch/Irish/German/Jew, and maybe even a 1/1024th Seminole hiding out in the Cupboard) and no, they're not "Cat Ladies" (OK, they do like Cats, and Dogs, and Ferrets) they get more Sausage than JB Pritzker and Jerry Nad-ler combined, news flash, alot of dudes don't want kids either.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"seeing that part of a C-Section where the OB pulls the Uterus out, flips it inside out like a football"

The thing that really impressed me was the surgeon leaning into that giant shoe horn. Made me glad the wife had a spinal block going!

[Brett Bellmore]

But as Swede points out above, this is why the left is so gung ho on turning all institutions they control into indoctrination centers: If they can co-opt the children the conservatives have, that they don't have any of their own will not matter for a very long time indeed, genetic evolution being so incredibly slow.

Sort of inverse cowbirds: Instead of tricking other birds into raising their children, they raise the other birds' children and turn them INTO cowbirds.

[David Nieporent]

this is why the left is so gung ho on turning all institutions they control into indoctrination centers:

Wait until Brett learns about churches!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, well, as a Catholic I'd get pretty mad about the government forcing me to send my son to a Methodist school, too.

[Sarcastr0]

You had a good point earlier this week that schools are going to teach about culture and history and the like.

So indoctrination in this case just means 'teaching stuff I don't like.'

[Brett Bellmore]

My point earlier this week was that the school was teaching my son to have left-wing views about current political events, and he's not taking any courses on current political events! History? Sure. English? Sure. Music theory? Sure! Math? Sure!

But he's not taking any courses at the moment that current political events are relevant to!

[Sarcastr0]

History isn't relevant to current political events?

[Brett Bellmore]

This is NOT a transitive relationship, Sarcastr0. Just because history is relevant to current events, does not mean that current event, and in particular a specific take concurrent political events, is in anyway relevant to history.

They don't need to teach him to have an opinion about what Trump is doing on the border to teach the history of WWII.

[David Nieporent]

You couldn't have picked a worse example. The history of WWII explains why we have the refugee policies we do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again I say: This is not a transitive relationship. You're teaching the history of WWII, and while that might be relevant to current events, current events are not relevant to that history.

[Absaroka]

"current events are not relevant "

I dunno. Appeasement in the 1930's and Ukraine today sure have some rhyming lines.

Teachers absolutely shouldn't be pushing personal views on hot button political issues, but current events help show kids exactly why the class topic matters. My wife (HS bio) always had some current news article up when the kids were walking in. The dry mathematics of epidemics is a lot more interesting if there is an Ebola epidemic raging in Africa.

(every now and then she would slip in something from The Onion, just to remind them to think critically)

[Sarcastr0]

Teaching the salience of history to current events is a pretty important part of making history engaging, and teaching that kind of causal link is the a baseline critical thinking skill like HS is supposed to build.

You would lobotomize history to make it 'apolitical.'
A fool's errand, given by simply choosing what to teach about WW2 you're doing politics.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think the best thing to teach the children is that Trump is Hitler, and that this is the key lesson of World War Two.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nonsense. Trump loves Jews. Therefore, he cannot be "America's Hitler".

[M L]

I agree that current progressive ideologies are much like a religion and a theology, and its institutions are the churches of that religion.

It's a good point.

[Sarcastr0]

Only progressive ideologies, naturally.

The secular/religious distinction is an explicitly Christian innovation.

Weird to then turn around and use religion as an insult.

[M L]

Yeah. Lots of misdirected biological imperative going around. It gets directed at pets, livestock, people groups they imagine need mommy's help, various lib causes, and so on.

[Sarcastr0]

misdirected biological imperative
It's still sexism if you dress it up with big words.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's still true if you call it sexism.

[Sarcastr0]

I thought you agreed with me that EvoPsych was crap.

This isn't even EvoPsych, it's pop-EvoPsych. A just-so story and nothing more

Same biotruths(tm) as men are better at math but women are better at spatial reasoning. No support, just sciencish vibes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying that "dress it up with big words" has no relevance to the truth of a proposition in EITHER direction. Any more than calling it "sexism" does.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say that dressing it up in big words makes it less or more true, I said: "It's still sexism if you dress it up with big words."

So if that was what you were saying, you chose an odd comment to reply to.

[Brett Bellmore]

If an assertion is true, it's true, and one should not care one bit if it's 'sexist' in somebody's opinion.

OTOH, if the assertion is false, that by itself is sufficient reason to reject it, and 'sexism' is redundant.

And if the truth value of the assertion is unknown, saying that it's 'sexist' does nothing to determine that truth value.

So, in factual matters, 'sexism' is always irrelevant. And when somebody raises it anyway, it's either a distraction or an attempt to make you arrive at conclusions on some other basis than facts.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a fact.

It's a sexist canard.

Dressing it up in big words does not change that fact.

I think my previous statement said the exact same thing, but you seem bound to misunderstand stuff today.

[hobie]

Trump administration orders states to halt EV charging programs

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/02/06/trump-ev-charging-halt-transportation-department/

That should leave the Tesla network as the major charging monopoly. Elon's $250M buy-in just paid for itself in spades

[Mr. Bumble]

To be fair, they haven't halted much since so far less than a dozen have been installed.

[Michael P]

Is Tesla's network really a monopoly? I see Electrify America stations more often, my mother prefers them for her EV (I'm haven't asked why), and most of the charging spots I see at strip malls lack have a big brand label (and don't have the trade dress I associate with Tesla's chargers).

[hobie]

Let's just say competition for Elon has now been reduced significantly. I'm sure it's coincidental

[mulched]

Those chargers weren't even being built, just pissing money away to favored vendors.

[David Nieporent]

They were in fact being built. Look, one can criticize the whole idea of a charger construction program; my view is that it's a wasteful use of taxpayer money, and if the private sector won't build them, then they shouldn't be built. But the attacks on the program of "They've spent billions of dollars and have only built a few" are based (at best) on a misunderstanding of how government programs are designed.

Congress appropriated all that money, but to spend on the long term process, not up front. And the long term process does not involve the federal government actually constructing the things. Rather, the federal govt left it to the states to decide where the things should go, and put in requests for the funds as they do so, to actually build. That whole decisionmaking process is a multiyear process. (This is one reason that stimulus spending is a poor recession fighting tool — there are no "shovel ready" projects where the government is concerned.)

[mulched]

Yep, hypothetical chargers that could have someday been built if they just had more time and money.

Except they had years and billions of dollars and they accomplished so close to nothing that it's imperceptible.

So fuck them and their long term process to maybe someday build chargers in the future.

Why so sad that it's canceled if you don't like the program anyway?

[David Nieporent]

Except they had years and billions of dollars and they accomplished so close to nothing that it's imperceptible.

It's like you didn't read a word I said.

Why so sad that it's canceled if you don't like the program anyway?

Who said I was sad it was cancelled? I'm sad that people make stupid, ignorant arguments. I'm also sad that people think a president is a king who can do whatever he wants.

[mulched]

The argument you're sad about is spot on. They had the resources, they had the time, they produced nothing usable.

You blathering on that it's the way federal programs are supposed to work misses the entire point. Of course that's the way they work, and that's exactly why they should be canceled.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that the feds came up with a charger specification that no existing product could meet, so they couldn't just buy off the shelf chargers and start installing them on day one. Somebody had to invent a charger that the feds would be willing to buy.

That made a great excuse for paying a bunch of managers for years without putting any actual money into installing chargers.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Screw your "long term costs." Tesla partnered with Buccees and has built HUNDREDS of charging stations at the rest stop. They didn't need tens of millions from the government to do it. Maybe they took advantage of govt stupidity with Biden's electric boondoggle for friends. I don't know. But the fact Tesla built so many while the govt built eight should tell you something. It really does say something, but you just refuse to listen because, for you, govt must be correct when they say "we are awesome and can do no wrong. It just takes us a long time."

[ThePublius]

Tesla's primary business is selling vehicles. They built their charging network to support this business. Why would they be opposed to others building out charging infrastructure? That doesn't make sense.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I don't know what position Tesla holds. I do know charging stations for Teslas are proprietary. You can't plug up a Prius to a Tesla station. Nothing works from the adaptor to the regulation of electrical flow. A Tesla station will fry the batteries in a Prius if connected. Tesla planned out, AND IMPLEMENTED with investment, how to service their customers. Biden comes along and wants to subsidize all of Tesla's competitors with billions of tax dollars and screws it up royally.

It is a mixed bag with Tesla since they are the most profitable company producing electric vehicles (Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Honda etc are taking a bath). They love subsidies for electric vehicles, but don't love subsidies that will be in direct completion--like building charging stations so FORD, GM, Toyota can challenge Tesla.

[Brett Bellmore]

Tesla's chargers are now the industry standard, and for a while now you've been able to charge non-Tesla EVs on them using an adapter. But future EVs starting this year are supposed to have the same charging ports as Telsas.

While this obviously gets Tesla a lot of charging business, it also means that new chargers by other manufacturers will use this standard, and so Tesla drivers will be able to use them. Which doesn't exactly advance the monopoly narrative, does it?

It's the usual thing with Musk companies: They evolve towards being monopolies, not due to predatory actions, but just by being better than the competition.

[Michael P]

If I recall correctly, Tesla is not charging anyone who builds a charger or vehicle with that charging interface. There were big arguments about which interface was technically superior, and I think Tesla narrowly won that, although that kind of argument always involves thumbs of the scale due to inter-corporate politics. On the whole, I think that also rebuts the monopoly narrative.

[Brett Bellmore]

It has a Beta vs VHS vibe to it: It hardly matters whose standard is technically superior so long as both get the job done; What matters is who built the biggest charging network fastest. And that was Tesla running away, so they became the de facto and now official industry standard.

[bernard11]

They evolve towards being monopolies, not due to predatory actions, but just by being better than the competition.

But you should understand that the negative effects of (most) monopolies have nothing to do with that, and that there are so-called "natural monopolies" where the cost structure is such that it's almost impossible for effective competition to enter the market.

So maybe hold off on canonizing St. Elon for a bit.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are natural monopolies generated by network effects, where the first mover ends up with an unbeatable advantage. This may explain why Tesla's charging standard ended up an industry standard.

Then there are monopolies generated by one of the companies in the field being just so good at what they're doing that nobody can successfully compete with them. THAT would be SpaceX. There's no network effect for space launches, and SpaceX was hardly the first to enter the field. They are just really, really good at it.

[ThePublius]

"That should leave the Tesla network as the major charging monopoly. Elon's $250M buy-in just paid for itself in spades."

That kind of analysis, or conclusion about what's going on is so biased and cynical as to be repulsive. And, it's fundamentally not logical.

Trump built out a charging infrastructure to support his EV business. There is NOTHING stopping Ford, Chevy, Nissan, Toyota, Mazda, Honda, et.al., from doing the same. Just because no one else isn't doing it doesn't make Tesla's charging stations a monopoly. Second, there is nothing logical about the government stepping in to build charging stations, other than the climate change hoax. So, stopping government charging station buildout creates a monopoly for Tesla? Remember when the U.S. government built that huge network of federal gas stations in response to Esso, Shell, Texaco, et.al. back in the 1930's? Yea, me neither.

You're just always looking for the most negative take on anything Trump and company do, and distorting reality to make your point. It's sickening.

The U.S. charging station program is a glaring example of government waste, corruption, and incompetence. That's why it was stopped.

[hobie]

"You're just always looking for the most negative take on anything Trump and company do"

I call consummate influence peddling and quid pro quo when I see it. Or you tell me what it means when someone basically funds a politician's entire campaign with a quarter billion dollars, then said man gets an unaccountable position of king-maker over government contracts and has his biggest competition knee-capped by the same politician. To anyone outside the cult, this is ABSCAM and Menendez all in one but on a massive scale and it stinks of criminality. But, hey, Biden something something

[windycityattorney]

I think the news about Musk being able to handle or determine his own conflicts of interest as head of DOGE (as his companies have lots of contracts with the govt) is the bridge too far.

Its beyond ridiculous and nobody in govt should put up with it. That isn't a partisan issue. But as we have seen, attempts to subpoena Musk before Congress to explain himself get hit with massive GOP resistance.

[hobie]

Well, Elon better get all his self dealing done soon. 90% of Tesla's business is with progressives like me. And none of us, including Scandinavia, will ever touch his products again. And renewables and EVs are like kryptonite to the MAGA bros. So no help from his new pals. By 2027 all Tesla will have is aftermarket parts and a charging network. It's a shame because the Tesla story is compelling

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-stank, proof that PT Barnum was right. Henry Ford was a Nazi, VW, Mercedes, BMW made by Nazis, Mitsubishi made the Jap Zero, do I care? I just want a car, a fast car, faster than that (HT B Darville) preferably with rear wheel drive, a V-8, and a stick shift, I stick with Amurican brands because I don't like paying $1,200 for a replacement headlight. Mrs. Drackman has the obligatory JAP Beemer, both daughters Hondas, and my Mom a S560 (the East German dream, a Jew driving a Mercedes just like Adolf did in "Triumph of the Will)

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're accurately describing the mentality in your limited circle, but that doesn't mean you're describing the mentality of the average Tesla driver.

[ThePublius]

You're saying the government funded charging stations are the biggest competition to Tesla charging stations, the latter of which, by the way, support competing car brands?

Why on earth would Musk want to limit the number of chargers that his cars could use? Does that make sense?

And why on earth should the U.S. government be in competition with any company?

[bernard11]

There is NOTHING stopping Ford, Chevy, Nissan, Toyota, Mazda, Honda, et.al., from doing the same. Just because no one else isn't doing it doesn't make Tesla's charging stations a monopoly.

Of course it's a monopoly, Publius. If you are the only supplier in a market you are a monopoly - that's the definition. If other companies choose to stay out it may well be because Tesla has established a natural monopoly and the economics means other manufacturers could set up a network profitably.

I'm curious.

Where are the Tesla stations located?

Presumably some locations are better than others, aren't they? Is there room for a Toyota charger next to a Tesla charger, especially if you can charge your car on either one?

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, right, there are so many chargers out there there isn't room for any more, that's why the other companies aren't building them... [/sarc]

No, the reason Tesla has most of the chargers is that, wait for it, they sold most of the cars.

2024 sales of EVs, by manufacturer:

Tesla: 129,743
Hyundai: 15, 480
VW: 7,932

Tesla has nearly 75% of the market to themselves. Everybody else is in the single digits! Except for Hyundai, the LOW single digits.

So, given numbers like that, why wouldn't you expect the Tesla chargers to vastly outnumber everybody else's chargers?

[Kazinski]

Its probably a monopoly on competence.

But Elon took some shortcuts on some of his charging stations, like using diesel generators to supplement the grid, because the grid can't supply enough power when the charging station is busy.

"There’s been a lot of EV vehicle stories in the news cycle recently. The Biden Administration just gave automakers $15B to help the companies update their factories to help with EV production and now, Tesla, is in the spotlight once again! No Elon didn’t say or do anything, but this time the presence of a diesel generator at its iconic supercharger location in Central California is creating a buzz.

Some are calling it a “dirty secret,” but it’s well known that electricity doesn’t grow on trees."

https://www.generatorsource.com/blog/September-2023-(1)/Does-Tesla%E2%80%99s-Mega-98-Supercharger-Location-Count-O.aspx

If fact we may have to choose between EV's and AI. Amazon and Microsoft have both said that they can't get enough power to bring new data centers online and its limiting growth of their cloud and AI revenues.

[ThePublius]

"Of course it's a monopoly, Publius. If you are the only supplier in a market you are a monopoly - that's the definition. "

First, I differ on the definition, but as a matter of fact, Tesla DOES NOT have a monopoly on charging stations. In fact, they are in second place, among more than 20 charging station companies. Number one is Chargepoint Network, with almost twice as many ports as Tesla.

(And that's not counting all of the charging stations people have installed in their home garages.)

So, what are you talking about???

https://evadoption.com/ev-charging-stations-statistics/us-charging-network-rankings/

[Kazinski]

He cut off the supply of federal funds, they are certainly still free to spend State and private sector funds for charging networks.

It certainly didn't help Elon that Trump suspended the 2030 and 2035 EV mandates:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order promising to eliminate what he incorrectly labels “the electric vehicle mandate” imposed under former President Joe Biden. His order on Monday is consistent with pledges Trump made on the campaign trail to end what he calls a “preposterous” focus on EVs by Biden and other Democrats. The order, along with other steps expected in a second Trump administration, could slow U.S. efforts to address climate change, much of which is caused by burning gasoline and diesel fuel that emit carbon dioxide and other planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Here is a look at Trump’s actions and what happens next.

What does Trump’s executive order say about EVs?
Trump’s order said he would “eliminate the electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice, which is essential for economic growth and innovation, by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access; by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles.” While there is no Biden mandate to force the purchase of EVs, the Democratic president’s policies were aimed at encouraging Americans to buy them and car companies to shift from gas-powered vehicles to electric cars.

Trump’s order, entitled “Unleashing American Energy,’' revokes a non-binding goal set by Biden that EVs make up half of new cars sold by 2030. The order also seeks to terminate a federal exemption that allows California to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035. The federal waiver is important not only to California but also to more than a dozen other states that follow its nation-leading standards on vehicle emissions."

[ThePublius]

"That should leave the Tesla network as the major charging monopoly."

Incorrect. There are over 20 charging network companies, and Tesla is in second place. First place has almost double the ports of Tesla.

https://evadoption.com/ev-charging-stations-statistics/us-charging-network-rankings/

[SRG2]

Unusually, the SC tells the acting solicitor general to fuck off.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/020625zr_9o6b.pdf

The motion of the Acting Solicitor General to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance is denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

To my observation, usually the SC will defer to any procedural motion of the government - including situations where they would dismiss the identical motion coming from a citizen.

They did grant one of the three motions. No idea why Alito didn't take any part.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Amy Howe has more, including a quote opposing the request from the other side in one of the cases.

https://amylhowe.com/2025/02/06/justices-agree-to-pause-briefing-on-biden-era-loan-forgiveness-rule/

Alito often recuses because of his investments though it would be nice if he said why he recused. Only the liberals on the court do that.

[John F. Carr]

They probably recuse for different reasons. At least Kagan has a lot of "prior government service" recusals.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson cite a specific ethical rule when they recuse. The conservatives do not.

The justices do recuse for various reasons. Alito's investments have been the subject of some court watchers' commentary.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fuck off"

Alternatively, they denied two motions and granted one without making a moral or political judgment at all.

[Life of Brian]

To my observation, usually the SC will defer to any procedural motion of the government

The true scope of "usually" depends on what the procedural motion actually requests. Here, it was just to put the cases on hold for an indefinite period of time while the government took stock of where it stood on the issues under the new administration. But as Joe's linked article points out, in at least one case the question before the Court is grounded in standing and thus can be decided independently of wherever the government might later come down on the merits. At a quick glance, the other two cases not put on hold also appear to concern issues (e.g., venue) not related to the underlying merits.

[Frank Drackman]

Of course it was 30 years ago, but back then Military Aircraft didn't have Cockpit Voice Recorders, when you investigated a "Mishap" (such a quaint term for a hundred thousand pounds of mangled steel, titanium, Jet Fuel, bodies, and healthy composite fibers) you were lucky if maybe you had some recorded radio calls to ATC to listen too (like in Surgery, "Oops" is never good)
Not like most Military Cockpits are like "The View" most of my FA-18 flights were Carl and Gaer's convo in "Fargo" I'd point out something interesting, like the Continental Divide, or an abandoned Military Base, and be lucky to get a "Yep" or a "Nope" out of the Pilot,
That being said, I'd bet my last Shekel that the Chick knew they were at the wrong Altitude, but the Warrant had 1,000 more hours, and was the one evaluating her, are you going to be the one to tell Professor Kingsfield he's wrong? Everyone believes in the "Big Sky" theory of Air Traffic Control (you don't want to know what it is)

Frank

[ThePublius]

30 years ago? This chopper didn't have a cockpit voice recorder, so I've read. Oh, excuse me, I mean flight deck voice recorder; don't want to be politically incorrect.

[Frank Drackman]

I was referring to my experience in Military Aviation

[Riva]

And President Trump is ordering an audit of every NGO that relies on government funding. Not only will billions in wasteful spending be exposed but there is the added bonus of listening to the various leftist trolls try to justify the wasteful spending. Not really sure what about the valid policy reasons underlying funding to NGOs to facilitate the invasion of our country. On a practical note, of course the illegals and their coyotes need maps, just would suggest US taxpayers probably shouldn’t be paying for that.

[Krayt]

Just curious as to the mechanics. "NGOs", non-governmental organizations, don't rely on government money by definition, but do rely on donations, and often very large ones.

Sometimes, depending on party, their size and wealth are seen as dangerous as they are thus not under direct government control (oh the horrors! to the power mongers.)

The whole fearsome point, if you want to call it that, for governments around the world is they have no strings they can attach.

An NGO receiving government money is a charity. Even that's kind of bass-ackwards. But power mongers gotta monger.

[Bob from Ohio]

"don't rely on government money by definition"

Well, they sure get a lot.

An NGO simply means its private, often but not necessarily, a non-profit. It doesn't have anything to do with its sources of funding.

[Riva]

Uh..what? Charity? Faciliating the trespass of millions of illegal aliens is not really a "charity." It's their cause.

And in general, NGOs live off taxpayer funds, and the vast majority serve the interests of those in goverment so its a joke to call them "non-governmental" but whatever. The 1.5 million or so would never exist if they couldn't exploit government dollars. Hopefully that number will be drastically reduced in a few years,

[David Nieporent]

An organization founded to help people in need is pretty much by definition a charity. And of course there are no NGOs who "facilitate the trespas of [any] illegal aliens," let alone millions of them. Once again, MAGA fails to understand the difference between refugees and illegal immigrants, and of course the bot isn't programmed to do anything but repeat talking points.

It is true that charities can receive government grants, but that does not make them governmental.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/06/trump-politico-subscriptions-doge-elon-musk

Any federal contracting people know how wide this would sweep if the reporting is accurate? We talking Bloomberg terminals/BloombergLaw government-wide? Does media contracts include Thompson Reuters (WestLaw) or LexisNexis?

It’s bad for governance, but it would be really really really funny if government attorneys were locked out of WestLaw at some point.

[hobie]

Elon will be targeting space launch spending next

[Martinned2]

After he's done getting other people to pay for the clean up of the Turks & Caicos, presumably?

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/30/science/spacex-starship-explosion-debris-turks-caicos/index.html

[Ed Grinberg]

article headline: "Scoop: Trump orders key government agency to cancel all media contracts"
And why exactly would "government attorneys [be] locked out of WestLaw"?! How is a WestLaw subscription a "media contract"?!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Its owned by Thompson Reuters and DOGE people aren't very smart.

[Bob from Ohio]

"DOGE people aren't very smart"

LOL One of them help create a program that read one of the Herculaneum Scrolls, got a big prize.

Best I can tell, everyone of them is smarter than anyone who comments here.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Are you sure about that? They don't know what PoliticoPro is. One of them was a eugenicist racist. Just because they are decent programmers doesn't mean they are actually smart of know what anything is.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They don't know what PoliticoPro is. "

Oh noes, they don't know that it is SOP to have 12,000 subscriptions.

If that is true.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean they don't anything about government or why things are done before fucking things up. That's not very smart! Smart people recognize their own limitations and try to learn things first.

[Bob from Ohio]

" before fucking things up"

They haven't done that though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There are thousands of humans with serious diseases that would disagree.

[Bob from Ohio]

Pausing USAID was a political decision made by Trump or maybe Rubio though.

[Sarcastr0]

Pausing USAID was a political decision made by Trump or maybe Rubio though.

I'm not at all clear that's true.

[SimonP]

If you did, I mean, even the slightest bit of looking into this, you would have realized that Politico Pro is not unusual, either in its subscription fees or subscriber count. They are one of several operators in this space, who have been doing this for decades.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok. The government still shouldn't be spending that kind of money on journalists writing shallow analysis.

[Sarcastr0]

Not what Politico Pro is.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you know this because you are subscriber? If how are how much is your subscription?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not what Politico Pro is."

"POLITICO Pro gives policy pros non-partisan news, real-time intelligence, in-depth analysis, government directories, stakeholder management solutions, policy monitoring tools, and more, all in one place—to quickly elevate winning policies."

"POLITICO Pro is staffed by a dedicated reporting team within the POLITICO newsroom." Politico Pro web sire

"in-depth analysis" by "reporting team" so I'm not really wrong, am I?

[Sarcastr0]

I know because other people on this thread that I trust have said what it is.

But hey, lets take a look at the actual thing:
https://www.politicopro.com/pro-features/stakeholder-management/
https://www.politicopro.com/pro-features/trackers/

This is not "journalists writing shallow analysis."

Make something up, and then get aggressive about anyone saying otherwise.
It's the only way to defend some of this shit.

[David Nieporent]

How is a WestLaw subscription a "media contract"?!

Is is such in exactly the same way that a Politico Pro subscription is.

[Bob from Ohio]

Is WestLaw "media"?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thompson Reuters is a media company that offers WestLaw as a service.

[windycityattorney]

Speaking from some experience; a lawfirm (for example) can't just buy one westlaw subscription and everybody in the office share it. Each attorney that uses westlaw needs a subscription and a separate login/credentials or "license."

They are quite strict about that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do they offer a discount when you have multiple subscriptions or offer a master subscription with X # of users allowed?

[windycityattorney]

I didn't do the procuring/purchasing but if memory serves, everything was negotiable. But it was more about the scope of services included (like if you wanted your state's jurisdiction plus US Sup Ct instead of all 50states + federal courts). If you tried to access something out of your subscription, you would hit a pop up that says that would incur additional fees.

Discounts for govt service vs private I think was common. But even then i am sure they likely still require a license per user even if discounted.

[Armchair]

WestLaw is a service (essentially a database service). Not a media contract. It's a subsidiary of Thomas Reuters.

Simply because a media company owns subsidiary, it doesn't change what the subsidiary is.

Likewise, if the US Government has a contract with Comcast for internet service and telecommunications, that doesn't mean that NBC (a subsidiary of Comcast) is suddenly an telecommunications service as well.

[David Nieporent]

WestLaw is a service (essentially a database service). Not a media contract.

So is Politico Pro.

[Armchair]

No.

Politico Pro markets itself as "policy news coverage" and "in-depth policy analysis." It PRODUCES news and policy analysis for distribution.

Compare that to Westlaw, notes "Access the most comprehensive collection of primary and secondary law for thorough research." and "Find related law quickly with the most reputable and granular subject classification system, the Key Number System"

It provides ACCESS to pre-existing databases and caselaw.

Politico Pro produces items, sometimes subjective

Westlaw provides access to existing caselaw.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're ignorant both of Politico Pro and Westlaw.

Westlaw isn't just a portal. They do plenty of curation, both finding sources and curating them. Even PRODUCING case summaries.

As for Politco Pro, it seems you've chosen not to go to their website or do any research. You're rather just vibe with sometimes subjective which is weak, weak tea to support the idea that there's any kind of partisan subsidy going on.

[Riva]

Politico is equivalent to Westlaw? Or LexisNexis? Or even Bloomberg?

[LawTalkingGuy]

PoliticoPro is fairly similar to Bloomberg in that it contains a lot of policy analytics and updates. Which is why a lot of Republican Congress members subscribe to it.

But, the reporting was that GSA needs to end Bloomberg contracts specifically which likely includes their legal research and market research tools.

[Riva]

It is a disgrace to use taxpayer funds to subsidize the left wing rag Politico. As for Bloomberg, who cares?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Even setting aside the idiotic notion that politico is leftwing…maybe take it up with all those republicans in congress who subscribe too.

“As for Bloomberg, who cares?”

You don’t care if the treasury and other financial agencies have comprehensive and up to date information?

[Bob from Ohio]

"all those republicans in congress who subscribe too"

They should stop too!

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean sure. Having access to niche policy analysis and reporting has not made them any smarter on policy issues. So I guess they might as well.

[Bob from Ohio]

"policy analysis "

By a bunch of journalism majors. I'm sure its high quality!

[SRG2]

Of course Politico is left wing. - it doesn't agree with everything Trump says or does. How dare they? And that is the only definition Trump supporters understand. Liz Cheney? Left wing. WSJ? Left wing., etc etc

[David Nieporent]

Bot just repeating stupid talking points again, even after they've been decisively refuted.

1. Politico is not left wing.
2. Buying something is not subsidizing the vendor.
3. People who think that government officials should have the most up to date information care.

[LawTalkingGuy]

When you think about it, federal, state, and local government is simply a taxpayer funded subsidy of Big Paperclip.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Politico is not left wing."

Its "liberal" so left of center so "left wing".

"Buying something is not subsidizing the vendor."

It is when its a grossly inflated price. You are defending the government spending 8 million at $12,000 a clip.

"most up to date information"

Journalism majors writing stuff doesn't qualify

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, if buying something did not subsidize the vendor, boycotts would never work.

[David Nieporent]

I'm sure there's a language in which this is English, but it's not this one.

[Commenter_XY]

Politico is not left wing 🙂

[Kazinski]

Well forgive us for the thinking USAID was just a conduit for funding the Democratic NGO sphere to pay "grassroots" political activists to lobby against democratically enacted laws that enjoy broad support.

Here is one example of a USAID grant to Arizona Save Our Schools to pay their director to campaign against Arizona's Universal School Choice program.

I certainly think she should be allowed to lobby for or against anything she wants, but the federal government should not be paying activists $65,000 to astroturf a campaign against a state law.
https://x.com/GarretLewis/status/1887996733336207743?t=XO1i8iZPSEZPrcNZzn7CRA&s=19

[Sarcastr0]

You have no idea what the grants selection process is, and you have no baseline just anecdotes.

It's transparent bullshit.

[Kazinski]

Does it show the grant information for Arizona Save Our Schools?

Are they lobbying against current legislation and running candidates for office?

There own website makes it clear they should not be getting any public money from the federal, state, or local government for their explicitly political agenda:

HELP US ELECT PRO-PUBLIC EDUCATION CANDIDATES IN 2024
Your contribution will help us elect pro-public education candidates up and down the 2024 ballot, from school board to the state legislature.

"Your donation to SOSAZ’s Public Education Defense Fund supports our efforts to:

Flip the Arizona state legislature to a body that will prioritize, fund, and defend Arizona’s public school students and educators

Recruit, train, and elect public education champions running for local school boards"

https://sosarizona.org/donate/

USAID dug their own grave when they started giving grants like this to domestic political organizations.

[David Nieporent]

So I tried to follow up on this, and not surprisingly, I found that it wasn't true. USAID did not give any grants to this organization.

[SRG2]

Yes, but how can Trump stir up outrage amongst his supporters if he were restricted to telling the truth?

[Kazinski]

Here is the grant flow diagram.

https://x.com/bullfrog35/status/1887715277477191815/photo/3

[David Nieporent]

Indeed. And do you know what the phrase "grant flow diagram" means? Nothing at all. It's basically, "If USAID gave money to organization X, then I will attribute anything that organization X spent money on to USAID, if I think it makes USAID look bad."

Save Our Schools Arizona got no money from USAID. None. Zero. Zilch.

[David Nieporent]

but the federal government should not be paying activists $65,000 to astroturf a campaign against a state law.

I agree. But given that you people lied about Politico, and lied about Chelsea Clinton, and lied about the BBC, and lied about condoms for Gaza, why should I believe you that this person got any money from USAID or that, if she did, the money was for lobbying against a state law?

[Commenter_XY]

Either way, USAID is bureaucratic history. It has been re-orged into the State Dept. The courts can delay it somewhat, Meyers says the POTUS can let any Exec Branch employee go.

Find a cheap warehouse in DC, for the time being, and have USAID hangers-on commute in each morning for the business day. NYC has a rubber room for wayward teachers, so similar concept. No workstations, no electronics (TV, radio), no wifi. Unsubsidized vending machines for food, coffee, H20, etc). Comfortable seating. Board games.

The more we see at USAID, the worse it looks. A deep state money sewer. And now Senators stepping forward and talking about USAID obfuscation, and rank insubordination.

USAID: A program of good intentions perverted by bad people.

[David Nieporent]

Meyers says the POTUS can let any Exec Branch employee go

It does not. It is about officers, not employees.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Is JB's typo now official?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's that time of year again -- National Prayer Breakfast.

"Prayer" seems to have a certain ecumenical flavor to it though perhaps not totally universal to all religious beliefs. The foundation behind the ceremony suggests otherwise in its vision page:

The vision of the National Prayer Breakfast Foundation is to promote and share the idea of gathering together in the Spirit of Jesus of Nazareth, adopted by the Senate and House Prayer Breakfast Groups in the United States Congress.

Trump had this energy when releasing an executive order regarding "Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias."

Some Christians were not too supportive:

The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, a Baptist minister and head of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, accused Trump of hypocrisy in claiming to champion religion by creating the task force.

“From allowing immigration raids in churches, to targeting faith-based charities, to suppressing religious diversity, the Trump Administration’s aggressive government overreach is infringing on religious freedom in a way we haven’t seen for generations,” Raushenbush said in a statement.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-national-prayer-breakfast-30ff6f55a2e3c7b8643a15e7b158537d

Quakers have also voiced their opposition. Perhaps, Trump doesn't mean those Christians. Religious freedom for all, not for those Trumpites support, is our birthright.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The EO cites his pardon of abortion clinic protesters.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/eradicating-anti-christian-bias/

The Hill noted: "Trump’s pardons included a group convicted of a 2020 planned blockade of a District of Columbia-area abortion clinic. Protesters bound themselves with chains and locks and physically obstructed clinic staff and patients during the blockade, which was live-streamed on social media."

The DOJ press release noted how nine people: "forcefully entered the clinic and set about blockading two clinic doors using their bodies, furniture, chains and ropes"

BBC: "The group was convicted of conspiring in 2020 to storm a Washington reproductive health clinic and block access to intimidate patients and staff. Members forced their way into the Surgi-Clinic, injuring a nurse, and spent several hours inside."

The people pardoned included those involved in multiple efforts like this. These are not just innocent grandmothers etc.

Religious liberty includes getting health care according to your faith. Encouraging lawless interference with medical care is wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure that failing to allow religious institutions to aid and abet crimes is actually an attack on religious liberty.

[Martinned2]

Interesting. It turns out that the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund contain a specific provision about where the offices of the IMF are located:

Article XIII
The principal office of the Fund shall be located in the territory of the member having the largest quota, and agencies or branch offices may be established in the territories of other members.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/aa/

So if Trump withdraws from the IMF, like his Project 2025 friends seem to wnat, the principal office of the IMF will move to...

[drumroll please]

Japan.

(But only barely. The difference between Japan's quota of 30,820.5 million SDRs and China's 30,482.9 million is probably not going to survive the next review of quotas.)

[Martinned2]

I didn't check, but I am told the World Bank has the same rule.

[Riva]

Who gives a shit where they go.

[David Nieporent]

People who care about things like policy and governance (as opposed to terrorists who just want to blow stuff up to see their enemies suffer.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Very libertarian to back the IMF and the world Bank!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Given their preference for privatization it’s not actually that un-libertarian.

[David Nieporent]

Should libertarians not care how the DEA is being run since we oppose its mission?

[Bob from Ohio]

IMF and World Bank are not US government operations though.

[David Nieporent]

Well, not anymore. But they effectively were.

[SRG2]

AFAICT the only international organisation that many Trump supporters - particularly here - think the US should be a member of is the Warsaw Pact

[windycityattorney]

DOJ sues Illinois, Chicago and Cook County over immigration.

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/06/nx-s1-5288871/justice-department-sues-chicago-and-illinois-over-sanctuary-laws

Party of State's Rights/10th amend strikes again!

[link to DOJ complaint at npr site above]

[Brett Bellmore]

Much as I think the laws being challenged are a bad idea, I think directing state employees to not assist the federal government in enforcing a federal law is actually constitutionally protected. Though I question whether they can really order them to not even rat out the illegals in their spare time.

Some 'sanctuary' jurisdictions, of course, do venture into actual obstruction.

[windycityattorney]

I do not dispute that some actions or sanctuary policies/laws can walk the fine line between simple non-cooperation to active obstruction.

But there is the whole anti-commandeering case law out there. Our state and local officers enforce state/local law. IL can direct them to prioritize or de-prioritize whatever our legislature deems fit. And its my understanding our state law says our officers shall ignore CIVIL ice holds. I.e, if someone in our custody has a civil ICE hold, we don't hold them.

If they have a federal criminal warrant; its a different matter. They are not released.

I don't know what the case law says of the difference or if this distinction has been litigated.

It is funny to me that Texas and other jurisdictions pass their own immigration laws to make their own local/state officers immigration enforcers and that is okay? If the feds occupy the field of immigration enforcement to the exclusion of the States; then Texas' laws would be as preempted as IL's if the govt's theory is accepted here.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But there is the whole anti-commandeering case law out there."

That's why I said, "I think directing state employees to not assist the federal government in enforcing a federal law is actually constitutionally protected."

Where the state gets into legal trouble is when they aren't content to just not help the feds, but instead set out to oppose them. California absolutely crossed that line when they mandated that private employers warn their employees when ICE was coming. I think it's arguable that a state ordering it's employees to not voluntarily talk to ICE while they're off the clock might also qualify as obstruction.

"It is funny to me that Texas and other jurisdictions pass their own immigration laws to make their own local/state officers immigration enforcers and that is okay?"

The Supremacy clause states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

It's quite clear how state laws that contradict or oppose federal law run afoul of the supremacy clause.

But it's not at all clear that state laws which are aligned with federal law do. Such laws are not "to the Contrary", after all.

Of course, current Supreme court precedent is that the clause makes federal policy supreme, even where it is a policy of violating federal law. But at the moment, with Trump in office, federal immigration policy and law are pointing in the same direction, and Texas law is not contrary to that direction.

[windycityattorney]

I am reminded of the situation where one undercover cop from one agency gets into a shootout with another undercover cop from a different agency in some random drug investigation. Oooppps.

Mississippi is apparently thinking about putting bounties on illegals so every wanna be rambo out there is going to go hunting to get paid. Can't wait for the bounty hunters to fight ICE over who gets to claim a specific target. 'But I got kids to feed!'

Just because policies may align doesn't mean there won't be interference. Jim Bob shooting an ICE agent for taking his bounty might be substantial interference. Texas agents trying to deport migrants personally themselves might also cause issues with actual border agents and border controls. Good intentions can also cause substantial interference is all i am saying.

[Krayt]

In other contexts, government putting bounties on illlegal behavior is seen as a wonderful enforcement mechanism, as with the ADA.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "states' rights"
States don't get to subvert the federal immigration policy. (Any more than they'd get to subvert the federal National Defense policy.)

[David Nieporent]

They are not required to assist in any way.

[ducksalad]

Ed, it's good to see someone consistent rather than partisan in their principles. We all remember how you laid into Greg Abbott when he subverted Biden's immigration policy. You took a lot of heat for it, but you bravely told your fellow conservatives that the feds are supreme when it comes to immigration and Biden had exclusive executive authority over immigration.

[Kazinski]

Did Biden ever claim that was his immigration policy?

As I remember he, Harris, and Mayorkas always claimed the border was secure and they were doing everything they could to stem the flow.

[Bwaaah]

I don't recall the Biden administration ever having stated an immigration policy. "MAGAs" accused the Biden administration of opening up the borders, and Biden was like, "What are these crazy people going on about?" And then they built up a four-year-long list of millions of aliens and set them free in the U.S. and Biden was like, "That's not us. That's asylum seekers. We don't control that." And then he lost the election, and they were all, "These MAGA people just make shit up about everything."

I think their only guiding policy was to oppose all things "MAGA," although like their immigration policies, they never actually said so. But unlike their immigration policies, they don't deny it. They can't. They won't.

If there's one thing Democrats stand for, it's contempt for "MAGAs." That's a policy, isn't it?

[Michael Ejercito]

Jack Marshall critiques Reason authors.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/02/06/reason-thinks-the-60-minutes-deceptive-edit-of-the-harris-interview-was-just-fine/

It’s hard for me to use a publication as a news source after it does something this ethically obtuse. I often find Reason, the libertarian magazine and website, insightful and useful, especially since the Volokh Conspiracy hangs out there now. But the site has not one but two essays claiming that CBS and “60 Minutes” were “vindicated” by the unedited transcript of Harris’s infamous interview, and all I can say in response is, “What’s the matter with them?”

Well, not all I can say. In an earlier post I pointed out how egregiously CBS cherry-picked relatively coherent pieces of Harris’s typically garbled responses, indeed taking middle-of-the-answer sentences and then middle-of-the-sentence portions to make Harris sound less like the dim-witted empty suit than she is. Jacob Sullum frames his “It isn’t what it is ” piece by repeating Trump’s rant about how the editing was “illegal” and should lose CBS its license. Yawn. Gee, Trump exaggerates. He was nonetheless correct that it was attempted election interference and “fake news.”

“The transcript also makes it clear, beyond any serious dispute, that CBS did not commit any journalistic sins when it presented an edited version of Harris’ response to a question about Israel,” the author writes. Hey, let me fix that for you, Jacob: “The transcript also makes it clear, beyond any serious dispute, that CBS was engaged in unethical journalism when it presented an edited version of Harris’ response to a question about Israel.”

Guess what Sullum’s defense is. The edited version took a section of the same answer to present Harris as more concise and clear than she in fact was or is. That means the edit was OK? As a whole, her answer was an incoherent, babbling mess, like most of Harris’s responses in interviews. Taking a single relatively clear sentence out of the whole and presenting it as her actual answer is by definition deceptive. Sullum says, without explaining why this is fair or true, “The idea that making Harris seem a bit more cogent (or less “CRAZY” and “DUMB,” as Trump put it in October) could have been “election changing” was always silly, all the more so in light of Trump’s victory, which was by no means close in the Electoral College.” On the contrary, it’s not silly at all. Harris’s inability to articulate a coherent position was her main weakness as a candidate just as it was her downfall as Vice-President. The editing didn’t make her seem “a bit more cogent,” it hid the reality that the woman is a shallow, babbling fool. That Trump happened to win despite CBS’s unethical assistance to his adversary doesn’t alter the seriousness of what was done or its intent. This is like saying that the Democrats didn’t try to beat Trump by burying him in contrived prosecutions because it didn’t work.

Sullum also tries to excuse the “60 Minutes” cheat by describing it as “standard journalistic practice.” Really? Good to know: now we can safely disregard any pre-recorded interview on “60 Minutes” or any other news program because it is likely to leave out crucial information or the context of the words we hear. The fact that Kamala Harris can’t speak intelligently was crucial information for voters, at least those who hadn’t figured this out already. If the true answer would have made voters decide, “Wow, this woman really is a dummy!” and CBS made her answer sound more concise so voters wouldn’t think that, that’s election interference. That’s unethical journalism. That’s broadcast news distortion. And that’s exactly what “60 Minutes” did.. and why. Proof of the why is in discoverable material; that’s why CBS is settling Trump’s lawsuit.

The other Reason piece falsely excusing CBS, “Transcript Proves the 60 Minutes Scandal Was Always Fake” tells us, “CBS denied any wrongdoing, saying in a statement that the excerpt ‘used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response.’ In a second statement, the network clarified that ‘the interview was not doctored’ and that ’60 Minutes did not hide any part of Vice President Kamala Harris’s answer to the question at issue.'” And the author, Joe Lancaster, is satisfied with this deceit-fest!

It was not the “same answer”! The answer “60 Minutes” pretended was Harris’s answer was what the program’s editors decided that her answer should have been, if only the candidate knew how to talk. How can Reason agree that “the interview was not doctored”? Surgically removing large toxic masses of malignant verbal gunk so the speaker’s reputation isn’t killed is the essence of doctoring. “60 Minutes did not hide any part of Vice President Kamala Harris’s answer to the question at issue.” Get that? “At issue.” They hid the part of the answer that didn’t say anything, so, see, they really didn’t hide anything. But they did. They hid Kamala Harris’s incompetence….and that was something that its viewers had a right to see to be informed voters.

In the Ethics Alarms post, I wrote that everyone except the brainwashed, Trump-deranged and Axis useful idiots knew that CBS engaged in unethical journalism in a last ditch effort to get Kamala Harris elected. Which of those describes Reason’s writers? Maybe all of them, but I know this: my respect for this publication is permanently diminished.

[Ed Grinberg]

I've said this before: Reason Magazine's take on anything political (which is what it writes about) is indistinguishable from that of the New York Times (or any other "mainstream" media-source -- CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, etc.). Their "libertarianism" is fake (just like ACLU's supposed concern for Americans' civil liberties).

[David Nieporent]

I've said this before: you do not understand libertarianism.

[SRG2]

I've said this before:

Ah, you adhere to the meme maxim that a lie oft repeated becomes the truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and all I can say in response is, “What’s the matter with them?”"

Honestly, I'm waiting to find out that Reason has been getting some of that sweet USAID cash. It would explain a lot.

"Good to know: now we can safely disregard any pre-recorded interview on “60 Minutes” or any other news program because it is likely to leave out crucial information or the context of the words we hear."

OK, seriously, if you didn't already know that 60 Minutes was absolutely NOTORIOUS for recording hours and hours of interview, and then running with out of context bits to run a hit on somebody, or throw a softball, you haven't been paying attention. Many people refuse to be interviewed by them unless they can record their own copy of the interview, and I'm in awe of the people foolish enough to not make that demand.

Sadly, this sort of misleading editing IS SOP in the 'news' industry.

[ThePublius]

Excellent post, thank you.

I subscribe to many media outlets, including some I vehemently disagree with, like the NYTimes, Wapo, etc. But I won't give a nickel to Reason for the reasons you cite.

[David Nieporent]

Jack Marshall is a bad lawyer and a worse ethicist. I mean, how fucking stupid does a person have to be to use the phrase "election interference" in this context? The answer is: not as stupid as Jack Marshall — but it helps. And Elon Musk may be the only person with a bigger ego.

And his rant is almost as stupid even without the use of that ridiculous phrase. Yes, interviews are routinely edited and condensed to eliminate fluff and time wasting and focus on substance. If Marshall doesn't know that, maybe he should shut up and let more knowledgeable people speak. If Marshall does know that and is pretending otherwise, then maybe he should shut up and let more honest people speak.

[Krayt]

"Election interference" has wandered about in the hands of motitivated hack rhetoriticians.

It used to be used in a context of external actors hacking your computers and systems, other illegal stuff.

Then it got applied to external politicians speaking their mind about some other country's elections, typically a US president, in Israel, Brazil. Stop election interference = shut up!

Finally it gets applied idiotically to American citizens and American journalists, that (claimed) slant was "election interference". Well, no. Americans have the right to slant anything, especially with respect to politics.

This is just rhetorical hackery trying to piggyback off a real concept several transmogrifications ago.

Another example was the reliance on "harrassing" speech, internet media needs to ban it, er cancel it, er put a scare flag on it of trigger warning.

As that started getting punched down by people pointing out harrassing speech could not possibly be made illegal, there was a distinct shift to "dangerous" speech, to piggyback off the type discussed much around here, of exhortations to imminent lawlessness.

Except that this new application of "dangerous" speech was nothing of the sort. Piggyback on the borrowed nasty cachet of a phrase to accomplish rhetorical points.

And that's how Americans beaking off about their own politicians became them "interfering in their own elections", a nonsensical concept.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — American citizens not sworn to uphold the Constitution ought to be counted among the jointly sovereign People. Meaning they remain at liberty to say whatever they want about any election at any time.

By contrast, elected officials or candidates for office sworn to uphold the Constitution ought to be counted in a different category. If they persist with election denial past the time when an election result has been duly certified, that ought to be treated as oath breaking. Oath breaking in that way ought to be treated as election interference, and it ought to be punishable.

[Michael Ejercito]

There is this thing called freedom of speech.

[Kazinski]

Contrast what CBS did with Trump's appearance on Joe Rogan, 3 hours unedited, no preconditions:

“They said a bunch of things that weren’t true,” Rogan said to guest Dan Richards. “They supposedly talked to like 150 different people about her … but they didn’t talk to us, which is kind of crazy. Like, they didn’t even ask.”

Rogan says as a result, the book got several facts wrong:

“One of the things they said that wasn’t true was that we lied about the day that Trump was coming on,” Rogan said. “No, we just didn’t tell you that Trump was coming on. He was already booked a long time ago. … Trump was really easy to book, like super easy. We offered one day, he said yes, and that was it. There was no ‘What are we going to talk about? How long is it going to be? Is it going to be edited?’ There was nothing.”

"Rogan recalled how the Harris campaign offered for him to come to Washington for a shorter interview – 45 minutes to an hour – less than a third of his normal conversations (Trump went the full three hours), but he didn’t want to do a “fake” version of “JRE.”

Obviously it is totally up to her how she wanted to do interviews and run her campaign, but when you can't do an interview with a friendly outlet without extensive edits, you should not be running for president.

[Sarcastr0]

"Contrast what CBS did with Trump's appearance on Joe Rogan"

They don't even have the same purpose, so equating them so you can pretend Trump going on Rogan was much more badass than an interview with CBS is impressive know-nothingism.

Not as much of a banger as when Armchair said The NY Post is right in the middle of the ideological scale, but pretty good.

[Kazinski]

She could have done both, but the fact she was incapable of doing either one without heavy editing is the point.

[Sarcastr0]

Why Harris wouldn't go on the conspiracist entertainer guy's entertainment show buy Trump would?

It is a puzzle!

[Frank Drackman]

You’ve obviously never listened to the JRE. I watch the first hr of “Morning Schmoe” all the time, it’s like a 3 Stooges short without the eye pokes, I love slapstick comedy

[Kazinski]

A puzzle she failed to solve.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be taking as a given that if she'd gone on Joe Rogan's show, things would have been better for her.

Or, conversely, that Trump clinched the election by going on Joe Rogan.

I don't think either is self-evident.

[M L]

“When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hence Trump.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don't like that? Just call your representative in the House, or your U.S. Senator. Ask to speak with someone who advises on policy, not someone who helps with constituent services.

I did that once, and by some miraculous mistake got through and began a conversation with a policy aide. About one minute in he suddenly hesitated, and asked, "Wait a minute, are you a donor? I thought you were a donor." I said no. He said, "Just a moment," and hooked me up with constituent services.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and the stands of organized interest groups"

So, I got to looking at what they had to say about 'mass based' interest groups. And it leads me to wonder how accurate the "average American" stands that are feeding this analysis really are.

"Some particular U.S. membership organizations—especially the AARP and labor unions—do tend to favor the same policies as average citizens. But other membership groups take stands that are unrelated (pro-life and pro-choice groups) or negatively related (gun owners) to what the average American wants."

But, when the public actually votes on gun issues, which one would think is a pretty reliable indicator of actual public opinion, they tend to vote much more in alignment with gun owner groups than the polls would tend to indicate.

Voters Say They Want Gun Control. Their Votes Say Something Different.

The bottom line is that votes in favor of gun control ballot initiatives consistently and significantly run far behind polling on those exact issues in the same states. The polls are not accurately representing the behavior of the public when they get a chance to vote on issues!

We might want to consider that there's something systematically off about public opinion polling on controversial issues. And if that's so, it's going to skew the results of this study.

[Kazinski]

X announced its doubled its profits since Elon took over Twitter 4 years ago, but its revenues have dropped 50%.

Based on Elon's purchase price of 40 billion that would give X a PE of 32, which isn't bad for a tech stock.

I think this analyst is getting out ahead of himself though claiming a possible valuation of 185 billion, although the synergies with spaceX cellphone service and a possible Xphone are intriguing:

X will start X Payments soon which will give it Paypal like features, revenues and profits.

X has 25% of xAI. xAI currently has a valuation of $50 billion. X portion of xAI is worth $12.5 billion. xAI valuation will increase in 2025 with the release of Grok 3 this month and Grok 4 in the summer or fall. xAI valuation at $100 billion would mean $25 billion for the X portion.

SpaceX is starting Starlink direct to cellphone texting, voicecalls and low speed internet. X will be able to be used with Starlink cellphone on 1 billion or more cellphones in 2026.

X with $4 billion of EBIDTA per year in 2025 and potentially growing at a significant rate of 40% per year would justify a 40-50PE. This would be about $160 billion and the $25 billion for xAI 25% ownership. This would be about $185 billion or 4 times the $44 billion purchase price."

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/02/x-in-2024-doubled-highest-yearly-twitter-profits.html

[Brett Bellmore]

So, while revenues have dropped, Musk reduced expenses much more dramatically. I guess his cutting wasn't as irrational as people claimed?

I've gotten an X account, and I expect to switch to paid when Musk starts up X Payments. I was an early adopter of Paypal, and found it quite useful until, a bit after Musk left, they started deciding they were entitled to dictate what you'd be permitted to spend your own money on. I'd be glad to have an online payment service again that didn't do that sort of thing.

If he really does, as he has suggested, pay money market rates on any balance you maintain, that will be icing on the cake.

[Commenter_XY]

For a stupid man, as many VC commenters have said, Musk seems to be doing quite well: Tesla, SpaceX, X, Starlink, etc. He must be the luckiest stupid man alive. How did he parlay that stupidity into those companies and all that money?

I hope he and DOGE take Fed spending to the woodchipper with the same level of stupidity and luck. /sarc

[John 4]

What if I told you that a 50% decrease in revenue is not typically a healthy sign for a company?

[Life of Brian]

What if I told you that scary-sounding, context-free statistics are not typically a healthy sign for an argument?

[David Nieporent]

I would respond that you should direct it at the MAGA loons who keep breathlessly reporting often fake but always out of context claims about USAID funds.

[Life of Brian]

Just a couple of days ago I did a sizable writeup on the NYT one, explaining in detail what I saw when I tried to replicate it and how it differed from the headline claim. You and I went back and forth extensively on some other points that day, so I'd be a wee bit surprised if you didn't see it.

I know that doesn't meet your standard of excellence for snarky "nuh uh" one-liners, but maybe I'll get there someday.

[ducksalad]

DJT, 2/6/25:

The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting. The Palestinians, people like Chuck Schumer, would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region. They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free. The U.S., working with great development teams from all over the World, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth. No soldiers by the U.S. would be needed! Stability for the region would reign!!!

Those of you who say this kind of stuff is a negotiating ploy: are you willing to say in advance who he is negotiating with here, and what would constitute a "win"?

No fair waiting until Egypt and Jordan say "Absolute no to your Gaza plan, but we agree to keep showing up at meetings and accepting US financial support" and then claiming that was the big win you'd been seeking.

[Frank Drackman]

What’s the alternative, Ham-Ass gets to say “My Bad” and go back to Gaza? Don’t think so. Getting some help to go somewhere else (where somewhere else can deal with their bullshit) is the best deal theyre going to get

[Bob from Ohio]

Maxine Walters led a bunch of Dem congresscritters to try to go into Dept. of Educ. but a "security guard" calmly blocked them. I recommend watching the video, the dude is great!. Ole Maxine is a screaming banshee.

[David Nieporent]

I understand that if they had smashed windows to get in, it would've made them tourists.

[Paladin_44]

And have gotten a presidential pardon.

[CountmontyC]

I thought smashing a window was justification for shooting the window smasher?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I thought smashing a window was justification for shooting the window smasher?

Nobody doubts it would be if it was a White House window. Why should a Capitol window be any different?

If the first rioters who broke into the Capitol had been shot down, the tourist rioters would have skedaddled; the militia hardcore might have gone for the guns they had brought and cached nearby, and a pitched battle might have ensured. If so, a lot of the militia guys would have been killed, and the survivors arrested and tried for treason—a charge they richly deserved anyway. That would have changed the course of American history for the better.

Trump himself would have confronted a choice whether to back with the army or the national guard the militia guys against the Congress. That would have put Trump's plot in the openly treasonous context a trial would likely have proved it had.

More likely, Trump would have backed down in the crisis, making it clear to the MAGAverse he had no intention to take any personal risks to back their idiocy.

Mea culpa, for breaking my rule against historical counter-factuals. I plead an exception for events I take to be continuously ongoing into the present.

[Frank Drackman]

When Maxine asked to see his ID I thought he was gonna do a “Deeze Nuts” joke

[RedheadedPharoh]

USAID gave the Clintons $84M.

$3M went to Chelsea's wedding.
$10M bought them a mansion.

But everyone is pissed at Big Balls.

[David Nieporent]

USAID gave the Clintons $84M.

Lie. USAID gave the Clintons $0.

[ThePublius]

Why is it that liberals always cry "lie" instead of saying something like 'you are mistaken?' Why such vitriol? Can't we keep it civil?

[David Nieporent]

Because the Nazi is an established liar, and because the comment in question is an obvious lie. No rational person would believe it, and the Nazi does not; he's just trolling. There are many here who I would give the benefit of the doubt to, but he's not one of them.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Laundered through their bullshit foundation.

Everyone knows that, it didn't need to be said. But then again, I forget how mindblowingly ignorant Democrats are.

[ThePublius]

Even Snopes acknowledges that USAID gave the Clinton Foundation $7.5M.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and whatever happened to the Clinton Foundation?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing? It's still operating, though it did change its name to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation a decade ago.

[David Nieporent]

Even Snopes acknowledges that USAID gave the Clinton Foundation $7.5M.

No, in fact, Snopes does not acknowledge any such thing.

See, two things can have similar names and yet be different. York and New York are different. Delta Airlines and Delta Dental and Delta Faucets are all different. (That's three things with similar names that are different!) Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are different.

And Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation are different. Not only that, but the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative — the latter of which is what Snopes actually said received $7.5 million — are also different.

(I realize that Trump treated the Trump Foundation as a personal slush fund, so much so that the Foundation was shut down by the courts, but that is not in fact the norm.)

[M L]

USAID gave 1.8 million to leftwing Christianity Today.

Is . . is this that Christian Nationalism I keep hearing about?

[David Nieporent]

Is this as accurate as all the other "USAID gave $X to so-and-so" claims we're seeing?

[Sarcastr0]

Any sense of what the purpose of the grant was?
Any idea that the selection process was?

No, just going to ignore all context and process?

Bad job.

[Kazinski]

End it all, then restart necessary programs on a case by case basis.

If its that important then people can volunteer or get private grants until the program is reviewed.

[Sarcastr0]

So assume they're bad with no examination.

If its that important then people can volunteer or get private grants until the program is reviewed.

1. Continuity is a thing that exists.
2. And the poor don't really make for a great value proposition.
3. Nor does charity scale well (see Dickensian England).

Your callous proposition is easily seen to be hogwash. But you are not one to self-reflect a lot - you just type stuff. Which is more work than some here put in! I'll be interested in what you stoop to arguing next.

[John F. Carr]

The Court of Appeals of Massachusetts just decided whether it is actionable for a developer to sell a house where the yard is contaminated with Japanese knotweed. It's not a breach of contract (per the jury). It's not a private nuisance (they bought a lot with preexisting contamination). It's not a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It's not actionable negligence (per the jury, developer's negligence did not cause plaintiff's damages). But it still seems wrong, doesn't it? So it must be a consumer protection law violation. Award of $186,000 plus attorney's fees upheld.

Trites v. Cricones, https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/02/07/e23P0884.pdf

I understand in the UK a Japanese knotweed infestation is legally a big deal. Here... if it were daytime I could see an infestation from my window. When I worked in the city I would walk along a path lined with knotweed.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The trial judge decided the consumer protection law violation count but had a jury decide the other counts, which seems strange.

Carr seems to suggest that the Court is stretching the law to make the consumer protection law apply here, but as far as I can tell it’s a straightforward application of the law.

I think that this case illustrates why we have consumer protection laws. Intuitively, justice should be on the side of the plaintiff, but all of the laws other than the consumer protection law fell just short of providing a remedy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How is it the seller's negligence if not the develolper's?

This seems like the principle of the Holder in Due Course rule, without liability for the original holder.

[Bwaaah]

For what it's worth...

I waged war against knotweed on a property, and won. A little bit of it will grow and proliferate easily. But the dire tales of knotweed's invincibility are overstated. The stuff is quite susceptible to the herbicide glyphosate (a.k.a. "Roundup"), especially sprayed onto the leaves in the fall just before the above-ground shoots begin their retreat to winter dormancy. (They transport the herbicide down to their subterranean root network, wreaking havoc upon the plant's health.)

From what I can see, the great knotweed scourge is mainly endured by the growing number of people who won't use chemicals, even an herbicide like glyphosate that has a good safety profile. These people have no alternative but to resort to expensive excavation, growth control and eradication efforts that can span years.

In my experience, knotweed did not fare well against just a little Roundup (one application of 8% solution in the fall, with one spot treatment of any upcoming sprouts in spring).

[RedheadedPharoh]

Congress provided $516 BILLION in appropriations this fiscal year to programs that had expired

But we can't cut spending guys! We have to raise taxes guys!

[Josh R]

No. The programs did not expire. The budget authorization expired.

As part of the budgetary process, Congress first passes budget authorizations and only later on appropriates the money to be spent (*). If the authorization has expired, Congress can nonetheless spend on the program (it still exists) if it so chooses.

(*) For some things such as Social Security, the authorization includes an appropriation (mandatory spending).

[Hugh]

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Enjoy your Super Bowl Weekend.

Can both teams lose?

(I'm told that is not allowed.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Who are you, Henry Kissenger?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in case you missed it;
President Trump revoke former President Biden's security clearance and access to daily briefings.
Turn about is fair play is suppose.

[Kenneth Almquist]

It’s fair play assuming you are playing a game in the first place. I wish Trump would treat the Presidency as a job where he has an obligation to work in the interests of the American people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was Biden playing a game when he did the same to Trump?

[Voize of Reazon]

No. Trump had led an insurrection.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure he did and now he's leading a revolution.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, the Jacobin sort that makes actual conservatives scream in horror.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You do realize Obama kept the Bush Republican Mueller and appointed the Bush Republican Comey for CYA?? So if a terrorist attack happened Republicans would bear responsibility for the attack.

[Commenter_XY]

The cauliflower was probably trying to parley that access into more money.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden is psychologically qualified to hold the clearance?

Isn't that one of the qualifications?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Since Eugene Volokh doesn't seem to care, here is one discussion of the various moves (including legal related) that Trump has made so far that threaten media freedom.

https://www.justsecurity.org/107377/trump-control-us-media-information/

[Mr. Bumble]

"...that Trump has made so far that threaten media freedom.[to continue spreading misinformation]"
There, fixed it for you.
Why would you insult the host of the site because he doesn't come out in support of your position?
He's given you a forum to express your point of view.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Eugene Volokh is particularly concerned about free speech and has promoted a libertarian-leaning view of the First Amendment. He does so partially by referencing current legal issues and cases.

This includes (allegedly) the right to spread "misinformation," which in Trump's view entails the media reporting the news.

The link discusses various things that overlap with EV's ambit if he cares to discuss them. He does not. That's his 1A right but since he also leaves open comments, I can reply as well.

[Michael P]

That's a lot of hot air and feels that boil down to "Trump is tightening his fascist grip on us by reducing the size and scope of the federal government", much like the positionally identical claims made recently in the Washington Poo.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From your article:
"but even in his personal interactions with reporters, Trump normalizes the idea that journalists who simply ask questions of him are valid targets of condemnation."

EV didn't write about it when Biden responded to a question from a journalist with "you're a stupid son of a bitch", so I'm not sure what's inconsistent.

All you guys had to do was be the adults in the room, but Biden couldn't help fucking that up.

[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.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He promoted a "constitutional right" to abortion?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Hugh, you said this exact thing before.

[Riva]

Not really your decision Adolf.

[ThePublius]

Well, I'll play along. In what way has Elon broken his oath to defend the constitution?

Here's the oath:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[Noscitur a sociis]

Somewhat like rain on your wedding day, this course of action would be much clearer constitutional violation than anything Elon Musk has been accused of doing.

[David Nieporent]

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.

Pretending that Hugh's argument was intended to be sincere/serious, the legal flaw in it is that breaking an oath does not mean there was any fraud. One would have to show that Musk didn't intend to defend the Constitution at the time he took the oath.

[Sarcastr0]

I, too, am amused by the very long game this posits Musk is playing.

[Hugh]

I admit it's a stretch, but less stretchy than Musk's outrages. The opposition needs to being a knife to a knife fight.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you’re going to be just as bad as the opposition, why would I support you?

[not guilty]

A second federal district judge has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of President Trump's executive order which purports to withdraw citizenship to persons born in the United States to some parents who are not American citizens. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943.114.0_1.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

This will land at SCOTUS, eventually.

[not guilty]

Who do you surmise will be four votes for certiorari?

[Commenter_XY]

NG...I don't know that SCOTUS grants cert, but it will eventually land there, and they'll address the question in some manner. The basic question (independent of the legal questions presented) is whether a child born to two illegal aliens within the US is a US citizen by virtue of birth in US (geography). The question should be addressed directly on point, and WAK does not. That is the crux.

As a policy matter, I would say no, not citizens merely b/c of geography. But this childs citizenship status is not just a policy matter, 14A is involved. I was taught at school, you're born here, you're a citizen (geography). Many, many developed countries in the world do not grant citizenship in that manner (geography), are they wrong? No. Would we be wrong to adopt the same? No. Can we, constitutionally...well, SCOTUS can tell us.

All of this is independent of Congress passing sane immigration laws.

[David Nieporent]

The question should be addressed directly on point, and WAK does not.

It does.

Once again: your argument is the equivalent of saying that because WKA does not say, "All persons born in the U.S. named George are citizens," that therefore the question of whether persons named George are citizens hasn't been answered. But all persons means all persons, and the court need not say "And we really mean it when we say all persons."

In this case, it says all persons born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And there is no dispute — none, at all — that people born in the U.S. whose parents were not diplomats, Indians, or invading armies, are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Wong Kim Ark could not have made that clearer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fine. But we can exclude everyone related to the child.
AND deny the child a passport unless they renounce US citizenship.

So kiss your family good bye -- and birth tourism means putting your child up for adoption and being expelled postpartum, never to be allowed to return.

[Noscitur a sociis]

AND deny the child a passport unless they renounce US citizenship.

We cannot, in fact, do this.

So kiss your family good bye -- and birth tourism means putting your child up for adoption and being expelled postpartum, never to be allowed to return.

When people allege that “the cruelty is the point”, this is the kind of thing they’re talking about.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We cannot, in fact, do this."

Or this:

"birth tourism means putting your child up for adoption"

[Commenter_XY]

WAK's parents had legal status. That is the difference, David.

[David Nieporent]

WKA's parents were from China. Why isn't that the difference?

When reading a court case, you can't just cherry pick some random fact and say, "That makes it different than this case." The fact has to be material to the decision. But the text of WKA makes clear, for dozens and dozens of pages, that it isn't a material fact.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Many, many developed countries in the world do not grant citizenship in that manner (geography), are they wrong?

Commenter_XY — Not unless they insist that interpretation applies in the U.S. If they do that, they are wrong. Just as you are.

[Commenter_XY]

Here is a short list of countries who do not grant birthright citizenship, lathrop.

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/01/countries-that-have-banned-or-restricted-birthright-citizenship/

[not guilty]

"The basic question (independent of the legal questions presented) is whether a child born to two illegal aliens within the US is a US citizen by virtue of birth in US (geography). The question should be addressed directly on point, and WAK does not. That is the crux."

To the contrary, that question has been addressed in a case directly on point. As I pointed out on the Wednesday Open Thread, 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). 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, Mr. and Mrs. Hintopoulos, were deportable aliens. The child's American citizenship was an essential element of their request for suspension of deportation.

When I pointed this out on the Wednesday thread, you pointedly declined to answer. You can run, but you cannot hide, XY.

[Riva]

The citizenship of the child of the deportable aliens was not raised or argued in Shaughnessy and to suggest that case is somehow controlling precedent as to the scope of the 14th amendment is somewhat laughable. Now, what is precedent is Wong Kim Ark where the issue was limited to whether the child of parents who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States” was a citizen at birth. Those were the agreed facts upon which the Court framed the issue and its holding. The entire concept of any broader reach of the 14th amendment has been manufactured administratively. It can be dismantled administratively.

[Josh R]

According to Just Security, the government conceded the child was a citizen at birth.

As to Wong, it is very hard to argue that green card holders are "subject to the jurisdiction" while temporary visa holders and those unlawful are not.

[Riva]

Temporary visa holders? You mean tourists? No it's not that hard to argue that tourists do not reside in this country and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US within the meaning of the 14th amendment.

[David Nieporent]

It's very easy to argue that foreign tourists do not reside in this country; I mean, that's pretty much definitional. It's very hard to argue — and by that, I mean there's no good faith argument — why the fuck that would matter to jurisdiction.

[Josh R]

Trump's EO covers all temporary visa holders (e.g., students and workers), most of whom have residences.

[David Nieporent]

The citizenship of the child of the deportable aliens was not raised or argued in Shaughnessy

It was not argued because it would have been sanctionable to argue otherwise. It was absolutely raised, and decided. The Court could've said, "We need not decide whether the child is a citizen because even if he is, they're not entitled to withholding of removal on these facts." But it didn't. Instead, the Court expressly said that the child was a citizen because he was born here.

the issue was limited to whether the child of parents who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States”

Liar, liar, pants on fire. That played no role of any sort in the court's decision. None. Zero. Zilch. Indeed, the court spent many many pages tracing the long common law tradition, explaining it applied here, of all people born in the country other than the exceptions — Indians, ambassadors, invading armies — being citizens at birth. It said so repeatedly.

M L is wrong on this issue, but at least he attempts to provide arguments. The bot just repeats the same refuted talking point over and over again.

[not guilty]

Riva, you couldn't be more wrong. The first step in parsing a judicial opinion is to pull your head out from up your ass.

The citizenship of the Hintopoulos child was an essential component of the litigation. As I pointed out above, the alien parents had requested 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 . . . ."

353 U.S. 72, 73-74 (1957) (emphasis added). If the infant were not an American citizen, the parents would have lacked standing to request suspension of deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals acknowledged the parents' unlawful presence in the United States as well as the child's citizenship, and SCOTUS expressly endorsed such findings. The Board's findings included the following:

"As stated above, we have, in the instant case, a family consisting of two alien parents illegally residing in the United States and one American citizen child, age about two and one-half years. These respondents have been in the United States for a period of less than three years. Both arrived in this country as seamen. They have no other dependents or close family ties here. The record indicates that the male respondent may be able to obtain work as a Greek seaman and earn about $85 monthly.

"Notwithstanding the fact that . . . the deportation of these respondents would result in a serious economic detriment to an American citizen infant child, the granting or withholding of maximum discretionary relief depends on the factors and merits in each individual case, and is a matter of administrative discretion. We have carefully examined the facts and circumstances in the instant case and we find that the granting of the maximum relief is not warranted by the record in the case. . . ."

Id., at 75-76 (emphasis added). Justice Harlan wrote for the Supreme Court:

We do not think that there was error in these proceedings. It is clear from the record that the Board applied the correct legal standards in deciding whether petitioners met the statutory prerequisites for suspension of deportation. The Board found that petitioners met these standards and were eligible for relief. But the statute does not contemplate that all aliens who meet the minimum legal standards will be granted suspension. Suspension of deportation is a matter of discretion and of administrative grace, not mere eligibility; discretion must be exercised even though statutory prerequisites have been met.

Id., at 77 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).

Justice Douglas, joined in dissent by Justice Black, would have granted relief to the parents based on the citizenship of the child and the hardship to the child that deportation of the parents would work:

This case, on its face, seems to be an instance of a deportation which would "result in serious economic detriment to a citizen," as those words are used in § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917.

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. A five-year-old boy cannot enjoy the educational, spiritual, and economic benefits which our society affords unless he is with his parents. His parents are law-abiding and self-supporting. From this record it appears that they are good members of the community. They do not seem to have done anything illegal or antisocial that should penalize their American son.

It would seem, therefore, that the maintenance of this young American citizen in a home in America is the way to effectuate the policy of the 1917 Act.

Id., at 79-80 (emphasis added). IOW, eight members of SCOTUS agreed that the Hintopoulos boy was a United States citizen. Six members of the Court nevertheless upheld the administrative denial of suspension notwithstanding the boy's citizenship, while two members would have suspended the deportation. (Justice Whittaker did not participate.)

[Riva]

If anyone really wants to rely on Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy as controlling precedent on the scope of the 14th amendment, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so. It only highlights your own legal ignorance and undermines your arguments. Whether the child of the deportable aliens was a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen was IRRELAVANT in that case. That issue was NOT raised, issued, briefed or decided. It was background noise. If Wong was overruled tomorrow, it would have zero bearing on Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy. So keep on with the stupid, it's amusing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If both parties agreed that the kid was an American citizen, why would the court have decided it?

[not guilty]

"If both parties agreed that the kid was an American citizen, why would the court have decided it?"

Because it was a threshold question for any federal court to entertain the lawsuit in the first place. No citizenship for the child would amount to no case or controversy and thus no Article III standing for the parents. The entire basis for asking the Board of Immigration Affairs, the Attorney General, and then the federal courts to suspend the deportation of the parents was the hardship that deportation would work upon an American citizen, to-wit: the Hintopoulos child.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If the parents hadn't claimed that the kid was a US citizen, then they wouldn't have stated a claim and there would be no jurisdiction. But they did claim that the kid was a US citizen.

If citizenship were disputed, the parents would have standing to argue both that the kid was a US citizen, and it was a hardship to deport them. The court could choose to decide either question first. They could rule on the hardship claim without reaching the citizenship claim.

What's the argument that the fact that the SG conceded the citizenship claim makes it a threshold question?

[Riva]

Deleted.

[David Nieporent]

Don't get our hopes up.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, if you're right, then SCOTUS issues a per curiam decision, and cites Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy. That is what you're arguing. That's fine.

There are many roads to Dublin. 😉

[not guilty]

XY, if I were to tattoo Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy on your wife's ass, would you discuss it then?

[Riva]

If you're going to threaten to tattoo something on someone's ass, don't ink in dicta. The scope of the 14th amendment was not raised, argued, or disputed in Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy and was irrelevant in that case. Whether the child of the deportable aliens in that case was a citizen by birth or was naturalized had no absolutely no bearing on the case. It barely even deserves to be called dicta. It was background noise. But you do seem to have a thing for dicta, and apparently, asses.

[not guilty]

Riva, the child's citizenship was the essential component of the parents' ability to request suspension of deportation. Absent the boy's citizenship, the parents would have had no standing to sue in federal court.

Every federal appellate court has a special obligation to 'satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review, even though the parties are prepared to concede it. Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934). The question of standing goes to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-101 (1968). Accordingly, no part of a federal decision going to the plaintiff's standing to sue can be characterized as dicta.

If the Hintopoulos child had not been an American citizen, SCOTUS would have denied certiorari for want of a substantial question or would have dismissed the matter for certiorari having been improvidently granted.

[Riva]

Not Guilty, you're welcome to embrace dicta if you want, you do it a lot, but you are absolutely wrong. The child's citizenship was not an issue in the case. No one disputed that. And a priori, the nature of how the child became a citizen was absolutely not at issue in that case. If you can't understand this basic preposition, there's no point in further discussion. Now, how can we end this with a demeaning little saying you might use? How about: Never argue law with a layman.

[not guilty]

Riva, the Hintopoulos child being a U. S. citizen was the sine qua non of the parents being able to sue in federal court in the first place. Without that citizenship there is no case or controversy and hence no Article III standing.

Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. Even if not raised by any party, every federal court must consider whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, and any appellate court must consider as well as whether any lower federal courts had such jurisdiction. As SCOTUS opined in United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995):

The question of standing is not subject to waiver, however: "We are required to address the issue even if the courts below have not passed on it, and even if the parties fail to raise the issue before us. The federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, and standing `is perhaps the most important of [the jurisdictional] doctrines.'"

Id., at 742, quoting FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-231 (1990) (plurality).

Jurisdictional facts appearing in a SCOTUS opinion of the Court can never be dicta. The parties to a federal lawsuit cannot agree or stipulate to subject matter jurisdiction. If no party raises an issue as to Article III standing, the Court must consider the issue sua sponte. The fact that the Supreme Court reached the merits of the dispute in Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy necessarily presupposes that the Court considered and found that Mr. and Mrs. Hintopoulos had standing to seek relief from the federal courts in the first instance. If those deportable alien plaintiffs were not related by kinship in the first degree to a U. S. Citizen, then § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917 was simply inapplicable to them, and no Article III standing would have existed. The boy's birthright citizenship was the plaintiffs' key to the courthouse door at every level of the federal court system.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. And I understand my "preposition[s]" just fine, thank you very much. As Winston Churchill famously said, this is the type of impertinence up with which I shall not put.

[Riva]

"The Court often grants certiorari to decide particular legal issues while assuming without deciding the validity of antecedent propositions... and such assumptions—even on jurisdictional issues—are not binding in future cases that directly raise the questions.” US v Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 272 (1990). Again, that the child was a citizen was not disputed and the question of how the child became a citizen was not an issue in that case. Like I note above, never argue law with a layman.

[David Nieporent]

Bot doesn't realize the difference between assuming without deciding something, and actually deciding it. When the Court says, "This person is a citizen," it is doing the latter, not the former.

[not guilty]

Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957), was not a case where SCOTUS assumed without deciding that the child was a citizen from birth. If not for the child's citizenship, the parents would have had no standing to sue, and no case or controversy would have been presented.

In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 272-273 (1990), Chief Justice Rehnquist discussed the Court's fractured treatment of INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) — where a majority assumed, without expressly deciding, that illegal aliens in the United States have Fourth Amendment rights. That is a very different situation. Neither Mr. Verdugo-Urquidez nor the respondents in Lopez-Mendoza was a federal plaintiff who needed to plead and prove Article III standing to sue in federal court. The former case was an appeal from a civil deportation proceeding. The latter was the government's appeal from an order suppressing evidence in a criminal case. The federal government was the plaintiff in both actions. Article III courts plainly had jurisdiction of these cases or controversies.

The burden of a federal civil litigant to plead and prove Article III standing to challenge governmental action as in Hintopoulos is as far removed from Verdugo-Urquidez and Lopez-Mendoza as the east is from the west.

[Riva]

Now you're just ranting. You need a time out. To repeat, that the child was a citizen was not disputed and the question of how the child became a citizen was not an issue in that case. You can keep posting tomes of nonsense on jurisdiction until your little eyes water, it isn't going to make Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy relevant precedent on the scope of the 14th amendment.

[not guilty]

Riva, IT DOES NOT MATTER that the parties did not dispute that the child was a citizen. As to how the child became a citizen, I'm sure that everyone involved in the case (other than the child himself) knew a bit about how babies are made. That doesn't matter either.

What does matter is that if the child was not a U. S. citizen, the parents had no cause of action to seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ruling and the Attorney General's refusal to suspend the deportation order.

Every federal court that considered the matter had a duty to ascertain that the child was in fact an American citizen -- irrespective of whether the parties did or did not agree that he was. Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. (Emphasis added.)

Do you even know what the phrase sua sponte means? The parties to a federal lawsuit cannot merely agree or stipulate to Article III standing. Every federal court must independently determine whether federal jurisdiction exists. You can write "that the child was a citizen was not disputed and the question of how the child became a citizen was not an issue in that case" until it harelips the devil, but that simply makes no difference.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If not for the child's citizenship, the parents would have had no standing to sue, and no case or controversy would have been presented."

What are you talking about? They had standing to sue because they were being deported. The question of whether or not the deportation harms a US citizen goes to merits, not standing.

As has been pointed out, they could have assumed without deciding that the kid was a US citizen. They couldn't have done that if it were a jurisdictional matter. But they appear not to have decided it because it wasn't in dispute.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, really. My wife is a rather modest woman. A tattoo?! 🙂

[Josh R]

whether a child born to two illegal aliens within the US is a US citizen by virtue of birth in US

Trump's order denies the child US citizenship at birth when the parents are lawfully living in the USA on temporary visas.

[Riva]

The order makes clear that that refers to "visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa." In other words not permanently residing in this country, as were the parents of Wong Kim Ark.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And I take Josh R’s (admittedly, rather obvious) point to be that such parents are not illegal aliens.

[Riva]

And I take it you fail to grasp that such persons do not have a "permanent domicil and residence " in this country, to quote Wong Kim Ark.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think I see the issue. Reason has a pretty bad commenting interface, so I can see how you missed this.

There are lines on the left side of the screen that show which posts are “replying” to which. When you click the reply button, the idea is that your “reply” to (i.e. say something responsive to) the comment you’re “replying”, not just say some random bullshit.

Hope this helps!

[Riva]

Ah, I think I see the issue. You're just a troll who is trying to distract from he/she/its failure to grasp that birthright citizenship does not (under a proper construction of the 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark) extend to the offspring of ALL persons who do not legally and permanently reside in the country. which would encompass illegal aliens, tourists, students, and itinerant congenitally retarded trolls.

Hope this helps! But it won't. Because, as noted above, you're just an idiotic troll.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahaha, no need to get mad. I know it sucks when it turns out you’re wrong, but getting all defense and mad just makes it worse. Just chill out, calm down, and touch some grass.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have a better solution -- grant the babies citizenship but impose a LIFETIME BAN on anyone related to them ever being in the US.

That would put an end to this.

[Noscitur a sociis]

“This” being…. What exactly?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't know that SCOTUS grants cert, but it will eventually land there

How exactly is it going to land there if the Supreme Court doesn’t grant cert?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who do you surmise will be three votes against?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU

[Dr. Ed 2]

What will land there first are these bullbleep national injunctions being issued by district judges.

Sooner or later it's going to be dueling injunctions -- someone like Judge Ho issuing an injunction to the contrary and then SCOTUS will have no choice but grant cert.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How exactly do you foresee Judge Ho being in a position to issue such an injunction?

[not guilty]

I doubt that any plaintiffs challenging President Trump's lawless actions will file suit in any district court within the Fifth Circuit.

[not guilty]

Do you mean the Judge Ho who wrote this?
https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

[Noscitur a sociis]

I would guess there maybe 10 federal judge in the country who wouldn’t enjoin this order, at least to the named plaintiffs.

And yeah, Judge Ho definitely isn’t one of them.

Oof, Dr. Ed. Even for you, distinctly oof.

[David Nieporent]

Let’s set aside your complete ignorance of the substantive law here, as well as Judge Ho’s position. Let’s also set aside the fact that no plaintiffs challenging Trump’s lawless order are going to do so in the Fifth Circuit. Assume away all of those problems, and riddle me this, Batman: what “injunction” do you imagine Judge Ho, or any other judge, could issue? Who would this judge be enjoining, and to do what?

[Riva]

So much for judicial courage, and judicial intelligence. But stupid, cowardly, and also political can basically be assumed these days at most trial court levels.

[not guilty]

Riva, have you read Judge Coughenour's order, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943.114.0_1.pdf , or the memorandum opinion of Judge Boardman in Maryland? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.65.0.pdf

Yes or no?

[Riva]

Putting aside that both courts rather arbitrarily dismissed any issue of standing, what can I say NG? The lower courts misconstrued the scope of Wong Kim Ark, although the second engages in a more in-depth swim some of the dicta (and the second seems to really like dicta because they mention Shaughnessy). Again, in Wong Kim Ark, the issue was clearly phrased and limited to the agreed facts as to whether the child of parents who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States” was a citizen at birth, as was the holding. And if I'm wrong and the Wong dicta has somehow metastasized into controlling precedent over the years, then the Supreme Court should overrule overrule Wong.

[David Nieporent]

And if I'm wrong and the Wong dicta has somehow metastasized into controlling precedent over the years, then the Supreme Court should overrule overrule Wong.

You're wrong in your understanding of what dicta even is.

[not guilty]

Distinguishing between ratio decidendi and obiter dictum is basic, first semester law school stuff. It is obvious that Riva lacks the ability to do so.

[Riva]

Which is why your habitual embrace of dicta is so appalling. At least it would be for a legal professional. And like the other trolls here, I suspect you may be just playing lawyer.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Here’s the thing. Let’s say you’re right that the words in the Supreme Court opinions that say children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are citizens aren’t technically binding in lower courts. Isn’t it still a good idea for those judges to pay attention to them? Particularly in a TRO/preliminary injunction context? If you’re going to say that the Supreme Court repeatedly got it wrong, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wait for full merits briefing.

[David Nieporent]

Yes; indeed, there's a bunch of precedent out there saying that Supreme Court dicta is nearly binding, and that lower courts are not free to dismiss it.

[not guilty]

There is indeed a great body of law saying that Supreme Court dicta should not be lightly disregarded by lower federal courts.

In the discussion on this thread of Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957), however, the fact of the child's U. S. citizenship was essential to the deportable alien parents' Article III standing to sue in federal court. The recognition in Justice Harlan's opinion of the Court that the boy was a citizen from birth accordingly cannot be dictum.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, I agree; like I said, the bot doesn't even understand what dicta is. It's just programmed to use that word whenever someone cites a particular trigger word case. My point was just that calling something from SCOTUS "dicta" is not the trump card (no pun intended) the bot wants it to be.

[Mr. Bumble]

What's all this talk about Supreme Court dicks?
Dicta? Never mind.

[Life of Brian]

nearly binding

Is that like being partially pregnant?

[not guilty]

No.

[Sarcastr0]

More like persuasive authority.

[Life of Brian]

Sure. But courts often find reasoning from peer courts/circuits -- which hold no power over them at all -- to be "persuasive authority." That's not even remotely the same connotation as that suggested by choosing to use the word "binding" with respect to a portion of a Supreme Court opinion that simply isn't, particularly to readers that don't do this for a living.

[Sarcastr0]

You are splitting hairs. Nothing you just wrote contradicts

"Isn’t it still a good idea for those judges to pay attention to them? Particularly in a TRO/preliminary injunction context?"

Or
"there's a bunch of precedent out there saying that Supreme Court dicta is nearly binding, and that lower courts are not free to dismiss it."

[Life of Brian]

"Good idea to pay attention to" wasn't the post I addressed -- as you know -- and doesn't carry the same implications at all as "nearly binding" and "not free to dismiss" in the post I did address.

And yes, particularly to the non-practitioners, throwing language around like "nearly binding" and "not free to dismiss" paints a very distorted picture of the obligation a lower court has vis-a-vis Supreme Court dicta.

You're of course free to call me pointing out that distortion (which, interestingly enough, two other practitioners in the thread managed to avoid) "splitting hairs" if it makes you feel better.

[David Nieporent]

It's more than mere "persuasive authority." Here, for example, is the 10th circuit:

While these statements are dicta, this court considers itself bound by Supreme Court dicta almost as firmly as by the Court's outright holdings, particularly when the dicta is recent and not enfeebled by later statements.

Gaylor v. United States, 74 F.3d 214, 217 (10th Cir. 1996) (Emphasis added)

Here's the 1st Circuit:

"[c]arefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative,"

Doughty v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 6 F.3d 856, 861 n. 3 (1st Cir.1993).

1st Circuit again:

We think that federal appellate courts are bound by the Supreme Court's considered dicta almost as firmly as by the Court's outright holdings, particularly when, as here, a dictum is of recent vintage and not enfeebled by any subsequent statement.

[...]

If lower courts felt free to limit Supreme Court opinions precisely to the facts of each case, then our system of jurisprudence would be in shambles, with litigants, lawyers, and legislatures left to grope aimlessly for some semblance of reliable guidance. 

McCoy v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 950 F. 2d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1991)

D.C. Circuit:

For this "inferior Court[]," U.S. CONST. art. III, § 1, cl. 1, however, that argument carries no weight since "carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative." United States v. Oakar, 111 F.3d 146, 153 (D.C.Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);

Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 322 F.3d 718, 724 (D.C.Cir.2003)

4th Circuit:

But as we and our sister circuits have frequently noted, with "inferior [c]ourt[s]," like ourselves, "that argument carries no weight since carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative."

Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292, 298 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), quoting Sierra Club v. E.P.A..

8th Circuit:

Federal courts, however, are not "free to limit Supreme Court opinions precisely to the facts of each case." McCoy v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir.1991),cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1939, 118 L.Ed.2d 545 (1992). Instead, federal courts "are bound by the Supreme Court's considered dicta almost as firmly as by the Court's outright holdings, particularly when ... [the dicta] is of recent vintage and not enfeebled by any [later] statement." Id.

City of Timber Lake v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 10 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 1993)

I could go on; there is similar language from, I believe, every single circuit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There’s an argument that the best reading of the fourteenth amendment doesn’t grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It’s not a very good argument, but it’s not that much worse “the second amendment allows a complete handgun ban” or “the equal rights amendment was ratified”.

But there’s no way to dispute that the Supreme Court has rejected that argument. It’s one thing to try to get a case in front of them so they can reconsider. But I don’t understand how you can fault a lower court for doing its job and following the law as it is now.

[David Nieporent]

But there’s no way to dispute that the Supreme Court has rejected that argument. It’s one thing to try to get a case in front of them so they can reconsider. But I don’t understand how you can fault a lower court for doing its job and following the law as it is now.

Indeed, there was just a case a few weeks ago where Kagan, writing for a unanimous court said (paraphrased), "This language from a footnote in another case is dicta, and we decline to follow it, but it was entirely appropriate for lower courts to have done so because they're not supposed to ignore what we've said."

[Riva]

You probably should have read Wong Kim Ark before posting that comment. But it's so much easier not to think. Thinking is hard.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Thinking is hard.

It does not surprise me that you feel that way, but I promise it gets easier with practice. Try it some time!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump needs to announce a "Judges Wing" at GITMO and start filling it.

[Frank Drackman]

Didya see the Giggle (a real word, a group of giggling young girls) of young girls surrounding "47" as he signed the XO protecting them from seeing Male Peni in the Locker Room?
They can see them in a dark motel room, like in the old days!
Seriously, Sleepy Joe would have popped one of his aneurysm clips surrounded by that many talented young girls

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I want to see Title IX repealed.

[David Nieporent]

Yes; we know you hate women.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And we all know that you are a Kapo.

[not guilty]

Slate has some interesting information about Ed Martin, the interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/02/trump-musk-doge-staffer-resigns-ed-martin-us-attorney-jan-6.html

[ThePublius]

paywalled

[Mr. Bumble]

Try opening in reader view.

"This week, as the richest man in the world was rampaging through government agencies, Ed Martin, the interim United States attorney for D.C., was figuring out how to have his back.

Martin, a Trump appointee, has stumbled into an incredible amount of power; he decides whether to prosecute any federal crime charged in the nation’s capital. And he has already been busy—firing some 30 prosecutors who worked on the Jan. 6 cases, investigating Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and helping the Oath Keepers return to Washington."

Sounds like a plus.

[not guilty]

Mr. Martin's partisan hackery is palpable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/01/31/jan6-prosecutors-fired-dc-martin/

[Mr. Bumble]

...also paywalled.

[Frank Drackman]

You pay to read that shit?

[RedheadedPharoh]

He probably gets a USAID grant for it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Paywalled, but I read enough to see the bias.

[Dr. Ed 2]

i'm not surprised that mg doesn't like Martin -- elections have consequences and NG lost. I'm glad Martin's there as I do know who he is.

[Frank Drackman]

He looks like the actor from “Goodfellas” the JFK Cargo guy who had the idea for the Lufthansa heist

[Frank Drackman]

“Frenchy” (ht IMDb)

[Noscitur a sociis]

What exactly is it you like about him?

[RedheadedPharoh]

That he's upholding the Rule of Law, which is the opposite of the Rule of DC/Democrats/DeepState.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ah the guy that LawTalkingGuy flagged while some wanted to handwave his apparent ethical violation.

I note that if you turn off the cookies on your browser, you might be able to read that paywalled article.

[ThePublius]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you referring to me?

[Noscitur a sociis]

As I said then,

There’s plenty of actual bad stuff this guy is doing, I don’t see any reason to feign outrage at things like this.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The person was not "feigning" outrage. He said so. If you think he's a liar, be my guest. He and DN. were honestly concerned about what he did.

You made a yeoman effort to handwave it. One or more others did too but their judgment over such matters deserves less weight.

BTW, this is a reply to not guilty's comment. The threading here is hard to keep track of at times.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Elon.
https://x.com/Sadie_NC/status/1888033789567234328

[Noscitur a sociis]

What exactly is he doing that would stop the government from robbing me?

[ThePublius]

Well, how about putting an end to USAID, who funded left wing causes and media into the billions. Like, no more $28M to Politico, for example. That's something, no?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it’s been shown that there’s plenty of USAID spending of dubious value.* I’m sympathetic to the idea that eliminating all that spending would be better on net than keeping it.** So I don’t have any huge problem with getting rid of it.***

On the other hand, the total USAID budget is less than $50 billion, while the deficit is more like $1.8 trillion. Indeed, the whole non-military discretionary budget is less than $800 billion, so even if yo7 cut all of it (which, to be clear, would be bad), you still wouldn’t fix it.

But of course, no one actually cares about balancing the budget anyway (all caps Truth social posts notwithstanding), so none of this actually affects my pocketbook in the first place. Do you think they raised taxes to cover those Politico Pro subscriptions? Do you think you’re going to get refund now that they’re gone?

*Though the extent of the lying there has been to try to make the expenditures seem worse does make me skeptical.

**Although “get rid of all spending by an agency we don’t like” doesn’t exactly strike me as an idea that calls for a team of supergeniuses to come up with.

***I would, however, like to see that happen without breaking the law, which seems like it would be trivial, so the fact that they’re doing it illegally instead isn’t great.

[David Nieporent]

I think it’s been shown that there’s plenty of USAID spending of dubious value.* I’m sympathetic to the idea that eliminating all that spending would be better on net than keeping it.** So I don’t have any huge problem with getting rid of it.***

While I don't exactly disagree with this, I want to riff off it. What do we mean by "dubious value"? It's very easy to pick a specific USAID grant and mock it. I'm not talking about the malicious "someone I don't like got a grant, so therefore it's fraud and corruption" stuff. I'm talking about the "They funded a lesbian poetry festival in Nairobi!" stuff. (I made up that specific example.) Even assuming it's true,¹ measuring its "value" isn't really possible, but also one needs to understand the goal before trying to measure the value. (Chesterton's Fence FTW, once again.)
​
​
¹Some of it isn't; even the stuff that isn't just outright lies often confuses the recipient of the grant with things the recipient spent money on.

[Estragon]

Shades of Bobby Jindal’s volcano monitoring.

[RedheadedPharoh]

> you still wouldn’t fix it.

No offense, but that's a stupid argument. Reforming one program/one department isn't going to solve the problem.

It's a cumulative effect.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's more a matter of principle.

[ThePublius]

Have you seen the condition of those three hostages released by Hamas? They look like death camp survivors.

Also, the theatrics Hamas employed during the release are despicable.

There seem to be plenty of uniformed Hamas fighters still around. They need all be eliminated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It wasn't right, but when the USA liberated death camps, the soldiers usually responded by shooting every random German civilian in sight. And then there were the Nuremburg Trials.

I think it is time for the UN to be asked what it intends to do about this -- and if nothing, then time for Israel to NUKE GAZA!

It's not ethnic cleansing to exterminate rabid animals.

[Estragon]

“It's not ethnic cleansing to exterminate rabid animals”

Dude. Why are you like this? Seriously— what has gone so wrong in your life that this is your outlet? I’m genuinely asking. You need help amigo.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's like with Willie Horton -- well meaning people let him out of prison and look what happened.

The savages in Gaza have no humanity. Like rabid dogs, the only thing to do is to euthanize them. No other Arab country wants them -- Egypt was offered Gaza in 1979 and didn't want it, and look at the wall they have since built.

These savages , like the mad dogs they are, invaded Israel for the purpose of raping hippies and beheading babies, taking "hostages" in violation of the rules of civilized warfare -- there will be no peace until they are all dead.

Even if we were to let them kill all the Jews -- which is their desire -- that wouldn't end it because they would come after us next.

So they need to die. That simple.

[Noscitur a sociis]

These savages , like the mad dogs they are, invaded Israel for the purpose of raping hippies and beheading babies

So what did they do to piss you off?

[Estragon]

Without engaging directly with this genocidal talk (because what is the point) you are actually changing the subject. I was asking about YOU. What has gone so awry in YOUR life that your outlet is to come here to an ostensibly legal blog and advocate for the mass murder of over one million people? I mean, does that seem healthy to you, in an objective sense? Do you share these views with people face to face in your daily life? If not, why not? You have truly lost your way. I hope you find help before you hurt yourself or someone else.

[Absaroka]

"when the USA liberated death camps, the soldiers usually responded by shooting every random German civilian in sight."

Personal knowledge? Footnoted in your thesis? Some other source you can cite?

[Dr. Ed 2]

For starters: https://www.historynet.com/horrors-spawned-more-horrors-when-american-troops-entered-dachau/

[Noscitur a sociis]

It is perhaps worth noting that

1. That article doesn’t describe liberating a death camp and

2. That article doesn’t describe the killing of a single German civilian

[David Nieporent]

It wasn't right, but when the USA liberated death camps, the soldiers usually responded by shooting every random German civilian in sight.

Is this another "fact" from your dissertation?

[Commenter_XY]

Accounts will be settled with the hamas human animals. And those who directly helped them. The ceasefire will end, and the war will resume.

[Estragon]

“Human animals”

You mean like Island of Dr. Moreau? Could you be more specific?

[ThePublius]

America is back!

I am so disappointed there's no Carl's Jr. near me!

Check this Super Bowl ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-zeJJnS8bw

[Noscitur a sociis]

I used to wonder why companies thought their customers were dumb enough that it was worth spending so much money on these ads.

I’m starting to get it.

[ThePublius]

Are you saying I'm dumb to want a free hangover burger on Monday?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, that isn’t why I think you’re dumb.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, very clever - not!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, that’s a pretty good description of yourself.

[RedheadedPharoh]

lol got 'em

[ThePublius]

And Bud Light, of all brands, is back to basic American values!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7qbswwBCDo

[Dr. Ed 2]

This one is better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdO5cmjnlKk

And I love everyone having a riding mower with postage stamp lawns.

[Frank Drackman]

When I drink Beer I drink Dos Equis, because I’m the most interesting man in the world, even with a Tarriff

[Estragon]

“And one of things that's gonna be, l'm gonna speaking to John and to Mike and to Chuck and everybody, we have to get together and just as a single bill just pass where we get the best control system. When I land in my plane, privately, l use a system from another country because my captain tells me, I'm landing in New York and I'm using a sys— I won't tell you what country, but l use a system from another country because the captain says 'This thing is so bad, it's so obsolete. And we
can't have that.”

He forgot the part about the manly captain with tears in his eyes calling him “sir.” Can someone translate?

[not guilty]

Gwynne Wilcox has filed suit in U. S. District Court in D.C. against President Trump and Marvin Kaplan, the just installed chairman of the National Labor Relations Board for Trump's purported summary removal of Ms. Wilcox as a member and chairman of the NLRB. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277129/gov.uscourts.dcd.277129.1.0_2.pdf

There is no question that Trump's conduct is contrary to statutory requirements. I am glad to see him being held to account.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump should just toss her in the DC Jail.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For what, exactly?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-kennedy-center-board-chairman-firings-21cd0018c6e9f591d59becea8573d8c0

"[Trump] also indicated that he would be dictating programming at one of the nation’s premier cultural institutions, specifically declaring that he would end events featuring performers in drag. "

OK, let's say the Kennedy Center had been having strip shows (with biological women who had good bodies) or actors in blackface -- and a newly elected President took offense at this.

A: While both are Constitutionally protected forms of speech, does anyone want to say that the President doesn't have the right to ban them from the Kennedy Center (and replace those who authorized them)?

B: Other than who is offended, exactly how are drag shows different?

[ducksalad]

So here's the membership according to the law:

(2) Membership
The Board shall be composed of-
(A) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(B) the Librarian of Congress;
(C) the Secretary of State;
(D) the Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts;
(E) the Mayor of the District of Columbia;
(F) the Superintendent of Schools of the District of Columbia;
(G) the Director of the National Park Service;
(H) the Secretary of Education;
(I) the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution;
(J)(i) the Speaker and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives;
(ii) the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; and
(iii) three additional Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(K)(i) the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate;
(ii) the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; and
(iii) three additional Members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate; and
(L) thirty-six general trustees, who shall be citizens of the United States, to be appointed in accordance with subsection (b).

(b) General trustees
The general trustees shall be appointed by the President of the United States. Each trustee shall hold office as a member of the Board for a term of 6 years, except that-
(1) any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which the predecessor of the member was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of the term;
(2) a member shall continue to serve until the successor of the member has been appointed; and
(3) the term of office of a member appointed before July 21, 1994, shall expire as designated at the time of appointment.
----

Layman's reading: He could dump 36 members, with no problem. He could get rid of the ones that hold other presidential appointed offices, but only by firing them from their main appointment.

I can't see that he has authority to fire members of Congress.

Maybe he can fire the DC Mayor but just flat overturning an election is a bad look. It's like saying he could fire and replace members of the Puerto Rico legislature, at discretion.

[ThePublius]

"LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome.

Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence.

The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees.

This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship.

While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats.

Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned.

This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand."

https://x.com/amuse/status/1888310498036416643?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1888341445033050157%7Ctwgr%5E36a1a4945fa855d2ce6777470e84673ded137abc%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F701494%2F

[David Nieporent]

This is not legal analysis; it's a tantrum.

[ThePublius]

Well, I am not a lawyer, but I happen to agree with it. I think these judges and lawyers are way out of line, usurping the executive prerogative.

[David Nieporent]

Have you considered from your not-a-lawyer perspective whether these presidents are out of line, usurping the legislative prerogative?

[ThePublius]

I don't think he's usurping the "legislative prerogative." For example, how is it that the Secretary of the Treasury can't access treasury records?

[Voize of Reazon]

The order says

[F]or the reasons given by the States, the States have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, with the States’ statutory claims presenting as particularly strong. The Court’s further assessment is that the balance of the equities, for the reasons stated by the States, favors the entry of emergency relief.

The States' arguments he found convincing is here.
The TRO granted limits access
to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations
Except for a few situations where the President has Constitutionally-granted powers the "executive prerogative" is to execute the laws, not to ignore them.

[ThePublius]

Donald Trump will never become president of the U.S.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZeB78eHAVk