Wednesday Open Thread

A belated thread today.

Sorry about that: Didn't properly schedule it, and then was traveling much of the day.

Comments

[IANNAL]

"A belated threat today."

Is that a slip, like unconsciously writing "martial" instead of "marital"?

[SRG2]

Did he mean "treat" or "thread"? 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Thought he might be experimenting with a late edition so as not to suck the life out of the other posts.

[Eugene Volokh]

Just a typo, now fixed. Whether it reveals some subconscious deeper truth, I leave to you folks.

[Frank Drackman]

Love Belated Threat Martial Sex

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds so Teutonic.

[SRG2]

An economics prof friend posted this on FB:

I was a consultant. We looked for inefficiencies -- professionally. That meant having a variety of experts examining manufacturing processes, input-output systems, technologies, activity structures, financing methods, marketing, and more.

It also meant a lot of benchmarking against world class examples. For a single organization with even the most rampant inefficiencies, the best team of diverse experts will take 9-18 months to recommend the cutting of 10-20% of an organization. Usually, the inefficiencies would amount to 5%. It is absurd to imagine that waste accounts for more than 20% of costs; beyond that, you are cutting into services provided, which has nothing to do with "waste."

To tackle the US government, it would take perhaps 100 teams, vastly more competent than Musk's monkeys, about 3 years -- if they were the greatest legitimate consultants one could assemble. At that point, by law, those proposals would be presented to Congress for approval and the Executive branch for enforcement.

What we are observing is a series of blatant lies that only people stupid enough to be flat earthers could believe have anything to do with "inefficiency." The wholesale devastation of agencies by hackers who know nothing about their purposes is not about waste. This is obviously an attack on the Constitution -- both its stipulation that government should promote the general welfare and its separation of powers.

[Life of Brian]

So... setting aside that we have no idea what industries your friend is talking about, the story is that a bloated consulting team takes a loooong time (with billing to match) to ultimately recommend bitty tweaks -- which of course they'll be happy to expand on in the next project! This doesn't seem very surprising to anyone who has much experience with consulting firms.

Back in the real world, that's not how most corporate downsizing works. And much like a downsizing for an enterprise that is teetering on insolvency, the situation we're in here is not trying to ever-so-precisely dial things in to achieve some sort of angel-pinhead theoretically optimal results -- we need to take big bites out of bloat and cruft to save our collective tushes.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the real world, you can't compare industry and government this way, because industry faces fundamental limits on inefficiency: competition, and customers who have a choice about whether or not to buy the product!

Inefficiency has no upper limit when competition is illegal and customers buy your product, no matter how bad or over priced, or go to jail.

[Life of Brian]

Absolutely -- even more reason why tiny targeted tweaks are not the order of the day here.

[Sarcastr0]

Government action is where your goal *isn't* efficiency, or there is some other market failure issue.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Government action is where your goal *isn't* efficiency..."

This is a government worker's understanding of efficiency, and why we need some serious housecleaning.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't want basic research done efficiency, you want it done creatively.

You don't want public goods like k-12 education distributed efficiently, you want them distrusted broadly.

You don't want the military done efficiently, you want it to be better than everyone else.

See also diplomacy; public infrastructure; the space race.
------------
Oh and I see you asking for an ideological purge. Only those who agree with you doing work in the government, eh?

It's not like I decide how much money we get; that's Congress.
Too unpopular to clean house there, so you take it out like the petty little man you are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. This is a list of false dichotomies. These things should be done efficiently in addition to creatively, well, etc.

People who don't understand this have no business working in the government, or, frankly, anywhere else.

"like the petty little man you are"

Yo mama.

[Sarcastr0]

The market can’t deliver any of those because its primary goal is efficiency.

You are the one setting up the false choice. No one said efficiency isn’t part of what government should try to do. It can be a secondary goal.

That you went for the binary is unsurprising, but silly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No one said efficiency isn’t part of what government should try to do. It can be a secondary goal."

You said, "Government action is where your goal *isn't* efficiency..."

"The market can’t deliver any of those because its primary goal is efficiency."

Efficiency can't be a primary goal by definition, dumbass.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The market can’t deliver any of those because its primary goal is efficiency."

The market can't deliver creativity, quality, etc. because its primary goal is efficiency?

Who's going for a binary now? And a ridiculous one at that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The market can't deliver creativity, quality, etc. because its primary goal is efficiency?

The market can't deliver creativity, quality, etc. if its primary goal is efficiency.

That's why established brands deliver specially-designed craptastic goods at Walmart, after Walmart demands price efficiencies beyond reason.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The market can't deliver creativity, quality, etc. if its primary goal is efficiency."

That's not what Sarcastro said, and as I said above, efficiency can't be a primary goal.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

It is the erosion of shareholder rights that makes efficiency a sustitute for morality. Citizens are also stockholders. so the answer is to let them vote again, with force. I worked for ANheuser-Busch. St Louis did not want it sold and Dylan Mulvaney would have been vaporized if that Dutch company hadn't bought A-B

[Absaroka]

"You don't want the military done efficiently, you want it to be better than everyone else."

That's a false dichotomy. For example, people say that the Sherman wasn't as good as the Panther or Tiger. But we had lots more of them. Without going deep into the weeds of every WWII debate, sticking with the Sherman was probably smart. The T34 had it's faults as well, but the Sovs had a buttload or them, because they were cheap. Quantity (which comes from cheap) has a quality all its own, as Uncle Joe said.

"Government action is where your goal *isn't* efficiency, or there is some other market failure issue."

Kinda depends. When JFK decided to go to the moon within the decade, he sure didn't intend to do it on the cheap. OTOH, I absolutely want GSA doing the motor pool as cheaply as possible.

Skilcraft pens (do they still have those?) might be a bridge too far, I'll grant you.

[Sarcastr0]

Unit by unit cost wasn’t what I was talking about though. I mean the whole defense enterprise.

Why do you think we have GSA as an house function and don’t have each agency contract of what it needs in the marketplace?
Efficiency! In this case via concentrating buying power.

Not the primary goal of mission based agencies, but it’s clearly in there.

[Absaroka]

"Efficiency!"

I think I've related this before, but I can't resist. Long ago - station wagons are the clue - I worked for a fed agency. A lot of our work was off pavement, so 4wd pickups were the norm. This was before king cabs were a thing.

But we also had a station wagon. One day several of us had to travel to a conference. We took multiple vehicles. I remarked it was a shame that someone had cheaped out gotten the station wagon without rear seats (it had the fold down seat structures, but no springs or upholstery). Those old station wagons would seat 9, so one vehicle would have carried all of us. The explanation was: "It wasn't cheaping out. There was a GSA ceiling on the number of *vehicle seats* per agency. Getting the station wagons without usable rear seats meant you could buy more vehicles. But it didn't save money: it was a special order and Chevy charged extra for the seat removal".

To be clear, Musk & crew are going about cutting waste all wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't waste.

[Noscitur a sociis]

To be clear, Musk & crew are going about cutting waste all wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't waste.

Tattoo it on me.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think I have ever said there is no government waste? That anyone on here has claimed that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

An administrator asked me why I was buying (large) 14 cubic foot refrigerators for student apartments instead of 12 cubic foot ones.

"Because they are a hundred dollars cheaper" I replied.

"Oh" he said....

[bernard11]

To be clear, Musk & crew are going about cutting waste all wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't waste.

Exactly.

And when you cut randomly you may increase waste and reduce efficiency rather than the other way around.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Which motor pools? Certainly not the fire trucks. Nor the police cars. Maybe the limos for senior State Department peace negotiators?

[Absaroka]

"Which motor pools? Certainly not the fire trucks. Nor the police cars."

I suppose "as cheaply as possible" is ambiguous. It doesn't mean "so cheap that the needed functionality isn't there".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Dodges the question again. Needed functionality measured against what percentage of expected serviceability? And implicating what costs?

In a town I previously lived in, it was standard practice to keep fire engines lovingly maintained, and utterly reliable, for decades. The same town, in the name of urgent need for reliability, replaced police cruisers on a regular cycle, every two years.

There may be some good reason to explain the contrast. Maybe the duty cycle on police cruisers was much closer to 100% than it was on fire engines, making it harder to find time to maintain the cruisers. Maybe the respective staffs just had a different notion of taking pride in what they did.

The fire chief went on to a high-ranking job at FEMA. Some of the senior police officers got indicted for scamming the pension fund.

The number of police cruisers was set high enough to meet a maximum demand which occurred weekly, but for only a small percentage of total time coverage. Most times, about half of the cruisers were in use—maybe not counting the ones some officers took home in the name of instant emergency readiness capacity.

I have no idea whether anyone ever tried to figure out whether all that loving care of the fire trucks was an economic improvement over replacing the trucks more frequently. Given the decades which elapsed between fire truck replacements, there might even have been an open question whether a new-bought one was a better serviceability bet than a lovingly-maintained older one. Case-by-case decisions as needed became the actual policy.

The notion of slap-dash efficiency reviews is obvious nonsense. Predicating government upheavals on nonsense is disruptive and bad. Knowing that, and choosing to do it on purpose, suggests malice, and opens the door to criminality.

[Absaroka]

I'm at a loss as to where you think you are disagreeing with me, or I am disagreeing with you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't want basic research done efficiency, you want it done creatively.

"Sex lives of gay frogs in the Amazon."
Enough said?

You don't want public goods like k-12 education distributed efficiently, you want them distrusted broadly.

We are paying three times what we did 50 years ago for education that is half as good.

You don't want the military done efficiently, you want it to be better than everyone else.

The USN ran yet another boat into something -- "lax oversight, poor planning..."
https://news.usni.org/2022/05/24/investigation-uss-connecticut-south-china-sea-grounding-result-of-lax-oversight-poor-planning

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is what I was looking for: "The USS Harry S. Truman, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, collided with the merchant ship Besiktas-M in the Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday night near port Said, Egypt, according to US Navy officials."

https://menafn.com/1109214236/US-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier-crashes-with-cargo-vessel

[David Nieporent]

We are paying three times what we did 50 years ago for education that is half as good.

As a taxpayer, I would like a refund on whatever was spent on your education.

[Reallynotbob]

In 1955, the public school student:teacher ratio was 27.

In 2021, the ratio was 15.

Over the same time, the character of US economic activity shifted strongly from blue collar and skilled labor jobs to white collar and desk/information jobs. I don't think you can make the case that "education" today is "half as good" without serious subjective judgments.

[Brett Bellmore]

Part of this is that a much larger fraction of the student population are taking the college tests these days. In my generation, most students did NOT take the SAT or ACT, because there was no point in them if you weren't college bound, and most students weren't going to go on to college.

So on those tests, you're comparing yesterday's elite students to today's average students.

[shawn_dude]

"Enough said?"

No, not really. There very good reasons why one studies "gay frogs" that have real impact on real people.

[Don Nico]

Yours is a false dichotomy.
Of course, you what creativity, but efficiently (or if you prefer cost-effectively) is also important. Any good research manager knows that.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one setting up a false dichotomy.

Yes, efficiency is *also* important. Government, despite the biases of those here, is the one that can have one goal and other sub goals.

Businesses and the market are created to be efficient to the exclusion of everything else. They can't do more than one goal.

Good for lots of things. Not good for everything.

[Reallynotbob]

The problem is there's no good objective measure of government "efficiency," only government "spend." On the private market side, you can choose to use net revenue, or market value, or a number of other metrics to measure "efficiency." (But query whether profit and efficiency are really the same thing.)

Is a $10B strike fighter program "efficient"? Compared to what?

Is a $250k research grant to investigate whether coastal wind farms hurt fisheries "efficient"? Eye of the beholder.

There's a body charged with making those decisions. It's in the Constitution even, Article 1.

[Sarcastr0]

I see your point, but even without a baseline metric, there are plenty of pretty indefensible inefficiencies that are easy to spot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, you get that when people say that government efficiency is an oxymoron, they're joking, right?

[Sarcastr0]

You sure don't seem to get that it's a joke.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a joke that makes fun of government inefficiency.

No one serious thinks that the government shouldn't try to do things efficiently.

[Sarcastr0]

You are correct no one seriously thinks that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Good to see you walking back your idiotic comment.

[Sarcastr0]

Can’t let a good strawman go. Yep that’s you all over.

[SimonP]

Just more magical thinking from the Goobster.

The Republican party has been starving the government of resources for decades. A big part of the dysfunction in government right now stems from the fact that we don't have the workforce or resources to enable them to go after the big actors inclined to break the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

If this is "starving for resources" I'd hate to see how large government that was well fed would be.

[shawn_dude]

Let's fully fund the IRS to go after billionaire tax evasion and find out!

Oops! The billionaires we just put in charge of our government just announced a layoff of 6000 IRS employees before tax season in support of a 4T tax cut for themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pointless to sic the IRS on billionaires, because billionaires have accountants to make sure that they're actually complying in excruciating detail with the tax laws. Sure, you have to audit them enough to keep them honest, but they're not where the real money is. It's in middle class smucks who mess up their returns, or try to skate by on something dubious.

[Sarcastr0]

This is trivially incorret.

Billionaires *would* comply if they had to. But for the past decade or so the IRS staffing means they don't have to, so they don't bother.

Odds of an audit along with anemic fines means I wouldn't bother either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Enough with the talking point. Billionaire get audited. They get audited continuously!

[Sarcastr0]

Busy so can't dig into the source, so feel free to tell me it's bollocks.

But:
https://financeband.com/how-often-are-billionaires-audited

"In all, 98 percent of those making more than $1 million did not face an audit last year (2021). There has also been a 55 percent drop in the number of audits of America's largest corporations. ... The sharp reduction in audits of the rich contributes to the tax gap between the amount of taxes owed and paid."

[Brett Bellmore]

Conspicuously, billionaires are far less than 2% of people making over $1M a year, so your source is perfectly consistent with every billionaire being audited on a regular basis.

Both Musk and Trump have publicly stated they get audited every year, and I've never heard that the IRS contradicted them. In fact, as President, Trump is subject by law to mandatory auditing of his taxes.

[Magister]

The IRS didn't conduct annual mandatory audits of Trump during his presidency, so that's probably another Trump lie. Musk did say on Twitter that he gets audited every year "by default", whatever that means, but he also says a lot of untrue things there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But for the past decade or so the IRS staffing means they don't have to, so they don't bother."

What is your evidence for this amazing assertion?

[Mr. Bumble]

$36 trillion national debt and $1.5 trillion annual deficits is starving?
Time to go on Ozempic.

[Josh R]

I don't think downsizing would provide much bang for the buck.

There are about 5 million federal employees (civil and military). At at total cost of $130,000 per employee, that's $650 billion or less than 10% of outlays. A 20% reduction in the workforce would yield only a 2% reduction in outlays, less than 0.5% of GDP.

[tylertusta]

Downsizing will play a part, but it's also the outlays that the government is doing.

[Josh R]

Right. Musk can't do much.

The American people aren't going to like the real spending cuts once they hit home (assuming they happen).

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, I'm really going to miss the VA's "LGTBQ-X Community Coordinators"
Seriously, most Vets just want a decent prosthesis, maybe a treatment for their PTSD that doesn't involve SSRI's or sitting in a Drum Circle "Rapping", or just their goddamn arthritic knee replaced

Frank

[Reallynotbob]

As long as Frank gets what Frank thinks is important, I guess it's fine.

"Maybe I don't want to pay for your stupid knee replacement because I think you shouldn't have gotten shot, dummy." See? It's easy! Just demonize what you don't want to pay for! Governing is for suckers.

[shawn_dude]

This looks more like an employee purge which will be followed by loyal new hires. "Efficiency," which this bunch of yahoos isn't capable of improving, is just a cover story. Senior staff that would be difficult for Trump to fire are quitting in protest instead. It also has the side effect of reducing public confidence in the Federal system as a whole which primes them for alternative forms of governance that are more corporate-like.

[Bob from Ohio]

Well, a perceptive lefty comment finally.

[David Nieporent]

There are about 5 million federal employees (civil and military). At at total cost of $130,000 per employee, that's $650 billion or less than 10% of outlays. A 20% reduction in the workforce would yield only a 2% reduction in outlays, less than 0.5% of GDP.

And that assumes that firing people ultimately saves money at all. Of course there's an immediate payroll savings, but unless you eliminate their responsibilities, these things still need to get done.

[Commenter_XY]

David, maybe we stop doing many of the things the non-essential bureaucrats were doing. Yes, you save money, as it is a permanent reduction (well, as permanent as DC can muster, which truthfully, isn't very permanent).

It isn't just non-essential federal bureaucrats; it is also the NGOs and contractors that will no longer be funded.

You've made the point that the current reductions are scattershot; and you'd prefer a much more coordinated and managed process. I think we all would (I agree with you).

However, how do you address the point that this (fed workforce reduction) has not been seriously addressed in the last 30 years? The very people you want coordinating and managing it, refused to do it themselves. Now DOGE is doing it.

What alternative do you offer to get 2T in reductions?

[bernard11]

David, maybe we stop doing many of the things the non-essential bureaucrats were doing.

Maybe, but that's not for Elon Musk to decide, or Trump, for that matter. It's for Congress. And can we please stop talking about "non-essential" programs. It sounds all objective and analytical, but all it means is programs you don't like.

[Commenter_XY]

There will be no stop to talking about non-essential bureaucrats. One must acknowledge reality, however emotionally bruising.

[shawn_dude]

Non-essential to whom?

Programs that funded school lunches are essential to kids who don't get enough food at home. Programs that funded education for children with disabilities are essential to those children and their parents. Programs that fund tax audits on large corporations and wealthy citizens are essential to maintaining a fair tax system.

[David Nieporent]

David, maybe we stop doing many of the things the non-essential bureaucrats were doing.

That is not a decision the president, let alone an autistic CEO with no clear job, is entitled to make.

However, how do you address the point that this (fed workforce reduction) has not been seriously addressed in the last 30 years? The very people you want coordinating and managing it, refused to do it themselves. Now DOGE is doing it.

Even though the U.S. population and government spending have obviously increased massively in the last 30 years, the federal workforce hasn't. The problem has literally nothing to do with the workforce.

I reiterate: if you think (e.g.) the Clean Water Act is a bad idea, then repeal the Clean Water Act. Don't fire all the EPA employees who administer it and then just assume something will work out.

What alternative do you offer to get 2T in reductions?

There is no way to get 2T in reductions without touching the things that Trump has vowed never to touch (SS/Medicare)..

[Mr. Bumble]

Federal employment since 1939.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work-for-the-federal-government/

[Reallynotbob]

Huh. Relatively flat.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why "huh"? I took no position on the stats only provided them.

[Reallynotbob]

Wasn't directed at you or the stats, really. More of an emphasis for others to take note.

[Reallynotbob]

How do you know 2T in reductions is the "right" amount?

Listen, your car tires will probably stay on fine with 3 lug nuts. Just quit building wheels with 5. Ta-da! Savings! Anyone can do it!

[shawn_dude]

"Now DOGE is doing it."

Under who's authority? DOGE isn't empowered to do this.

Even if we agreed that this needed to be done, shouldn't we also agree that it should be done in a constitutionally-supported manner?

[Armchair]

I'm never a big fan of the "well, it's only x% of the budget, that's so small" argument. The problem is, it encourages waste. A tiny bit here, a tiny bit there, a tiny bit everywhere else, and it all adds up.

It's like saying "Well, it's OK to litter, I'm just one person, what's a few pieces of garbage. It's a big world".

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, that’s kind of the thing: it doesn’t add up. At least not to enough.

To be clear, I don’t think the government should be wasting money, and stopping it from wasting money is good. For instance, I think the government should have spent $30,000 on that Peruvian LGBT comic book or whatever. On the other hand, the federal government isn’t going to get its house in order by cutting $30,000 grants.

[David Nieporent]

Well, that’s kind of the thing: it doesn’t add up. At least not to enough.

Right; this is the banning plastic straws equivalent.

For instance, I think the government should have spent $30,000 on that Peruvian LGBT comic book or whatever.

I'm assuming a missing "not." I'd agree with you, except that… the GOP lied. There was no "LGBT comic book."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-comic-book-peru/

Now, one can still legitimately argue against funding what it actually was, if one wants. But one should do based on an understanding of the purpose of this sort of spending. Any particular grant can be challenged, but the purpose of USAID spending (although the link above shows that this particular grant wasn't via USAID) is to build up civil society and goodwill towards America in foreign countries.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There was no "LGBT comic book."

Your source links to a grant whose description says, "TO COVER EXPENSES TO PRODUCE A TAILORED-MADE COMIC, FEATURING AN LGBTQ+ HERO TO ADDRESS SOCIAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES."

[tylertusta]

...but did Republicans pounce!?

[David Nieporent]

Do you think any book (movie/tv show/etc.) with a gay character is ipso facto a gay book (movie/tv show/etc.)?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes...

[David Nieporent]

I was asking someone who wasn't a dumbass.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I.e. someone who didn't disagree with me.

What you are too obtuse to realize is that if it WASN'T a gay book (movie/tv show/etc.), the main character's sexual orientation wouldn't matter AND WOULDN'T BE MENTIONED.

[David Nieporent]

I.e. someone who didn't disagree with me.

Well, no. Not really doing anything to disspell that dumbass reputation, are you? People who "don't disagree" with you are people who agree with you, who are by definition dumbasses.

What you are too obtuse to realize is that if it WASN'T a gay book (movie/tv show/etc.), the main character's sexual orientation wouldn't matter AND WOULDN'T BE MENTIONED.

So is Huckleberry Finn a "black book" because a character's race is mentioned?

[Michael P]

In this case, having a LGBTQ+ hero was the only distinguishing characteristic named in the grant summary. That's not merely "with a gay character", you dishonest hack.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you think any book (movie/tv show/etc.) with a gay character is ipso facto a gay book (movie/tv show/etc.)?"

I don't know. I suppose any book with a gay character (and especially a gay hero) might be found in a gay bookstore.

But I think a grant for a comic book with the given description can accurately characterized as a grant for a gay comic book.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There was no LGBT comic book, the comic book was just experimenting!

It was college! There was tequila involved!

It doesn't count.

[David Nieporent]

It was college! There was tequila involved!

It doesn't count.

I smirked. But it doesn't change the fact that the comic was just a dumb comic about education that had a gay character.

[Brett Bellmore]

And qualified as an alphabet soup comic because it was mandated by the terms of the grant to have an alphabet soup character.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's no use, flatly stating that easily proven facts are wrong is Nieporent's whole gig here.

[bernard11]

Mr. Self-awareness, and Trump fan.

[Artifex]

It's interesting because it sure looks a lot like an LLM hallucination. If you constrained an LLM ideologically and ask it questions that ran against the goal, it would do the same thing. Makes you wonder.

[Swede425]

LOL!
No, YOU lied.
And your typical bloviating notwithstanding, it was clear to see.
American tax dollars have no business being involved in this bullshit.
Which, in this particular case, is an LGBT comic book.

[Armchair]

"Well, that’s kind of the thing: it doesn’t add up. At least not to enough."

Here's the problem...it kinda does.

Josh is putting government labor costs at ~10% of total costs. Everyone likes to use the company analogy. An Auto Manufacturing company, for example (Say GM)....labor costs only make up 7% of the total costs. Commercial banking...5%. Newspaper publishing...8%. Yet, when tough times hit, these organizations all cut labor. They don't say "well, it's less than 10% of total costs, so we don't need to bother".

[shawn_dude]

Ah, but the "x% of the budget" argument is just a shorthand for so small a number that the cost of rooting it out and eliminating it would cost more than we'd save. The cost/benefit of being more efficient isn't guaranteed to be positive.

Has anyone in DOGE calculated the cost of their disruption alone? Based on their recent history, I'm not confident they'd even know how to do that.

[Kazinski]

We certainly aren't going to get all or even most.of the savings we need just from firing federal employees and cutting discretionary spending.

But that has to be among the first steps, that and cutting waste and fraud, and there is definitely waste and fraud especially in Medicaid and Medicare, as well as SS and SSI.

Then after all that is cut to the bone then will be the hard choices like taxes and means testing entitlements.

But the first step needs to deep cuts in everything first to keep faith with the taxpayers and those who do depend on entitlements, even if its not the majority of their income.

[Sarcastr0]

You said you want to burn it all down. So what is this talk about fraud and inky cutting to the bone?

[Kazinski]

I do want to burn down most of the discretionary spending.

But we all know that's not going to be enough, but its where we have to start.

[Sarcastr0]

Enough for what?

[Kazinski]

Cut the 2 trillion dollar deficit enough.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, see that is where you (and others) differ from the Sarcastr0s of the world. We begin with the end in mind = 2T reduction in spending. They never acknowledge the problem, because they are a part of it. It would never occur to them to slash spending by 33%, or reduce headcount by 50%.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don't extend Trump's tax cuts.

The question which ox gets gored is so evidently the only motivating factor throughout the efficiency debate. If, "only," is an overstatement there, then it applies less to Ds than to MAGAs. For too many MAGAs, its the delight to watch the goring which keys the expectation.

[shawn_dude]

We could cut that deficit by simply reversing the Trump tax cuts that created it. Instead, we're cutting school funding, medical funding, medical research, and national park resources so that we can justify another massive tax cut for the rich.

[Kazinski]

Bit we need to get spending itself below the 1990-2024 median of 20.2%. The only time its exceded 21% since 1990 in in a recession, or Covid now its 23.13%, so Federal spending needs to be cut at least 3%.

Here is the last 12 years of data, from Obamas second term to 2024:

2013-01-01 20.46648
2014-01-01 19.91286
2015-01-01 20.17954
2016-01-01 20.48728
2017-01-01 20.30192
2018-01-01 19.89194
2019-01-01 20.64511
2020-01-01 30.69021
2021-01-01 28.80964
2022-01-01 24.12152
2023-01-01 22.12976
2024-01-01 23.13834

We are not in a recession now, nor is there any rational excuse why it needed to jump 1% from 2023 when we are supposedly fighting inflation.

And this measure is independent of tax revenue.

[Kazinski]

And just for full context, here is federal taxes as a percentage of GDP, note that the current tax burden is above what it was at the beginning of Obama's 2nd term. Nor is it practicable for us to tax our way out of the mess 23% of GDP spending has created:

2013-01-01 16.43954
2014-01-01 17.15963
2015-01-01 17.76380
2016-01-01 17.37825
2017-01-01 16.90887
2018-01-01 16.12037
2019-01-01 16.07877
2020-01-01 16.02111
2021-01-01 17.09000
2022-01-01 18.83093
2023-01-01 16.01433
2024-01-01 16.85707

[shawn_dude]

Source?

https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump

[Kazinski]

St Louis Federal Reserve bank.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

And .../series/FYFRGDA188S

And National Debt is a separate question that also needs to be addressed, but it can not be addressed by ignoring long established norms for percentages of GDP of spending and revenues.

Its pretty obvious the effects on inflation of trying to permanently increase federal expenditures above 20% of GDP.

Following suit and trying to increase revenues above 20% is just going to cause permanent stagflation.

[bernard11]

I do want to burn down most of the discretionary spending.

Here we go again with "discretionary." Whose discretion? Not Musk's, certainly, and even more certainly not his crew of 20-somethings with little or no experience and no understanding of what they are cutting.

[David Nieporent]

"Discretionary spending" is not like C_XY's "non-essential workers"; it is an established term of art wrt the U.S. budget. It refers to things where the amounts to spend are appropriated for each year, as opposed to "mandatory spending," which is basically Medicare/Social Security/interest on the debt.

The discretion, of course, belongs to Congress, not Trump/Musk/etc.

[shawn_dude]

And Congress could easily stop this insanity if we hadn't voted in a MAGA majority to "stand back and stand by."

[Noscitur a sociis]

We certainly aren't going to get all or even most.of the savings we need just from firing federal employees and cutting discretionary spending.

But that has to be among the first steps,

Yeah, that’s wrong. The first step is (or should be) reducing what the government spends money on. (Seems like a great opportunity for a party with the White House, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court!)

[Commenter_XY]

Nas, suppose I agree (I do, btw) = The first step is (or should be) reducing what the government spends money on

(emphasis mine) - What government responsibilities would you ditch?

[shawn_dude]

Start with oil subsidies and the programs that support them. Oil companies make enough profit to fully fund their own ventures.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let's start addressing purported "disability" payments.

I know someone who "retired" from government service at age 26 because she had a "disability."

[bernard11]

Is it your opinion that it is impossible to become disabled at age 26?

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

And that thinking is shown to be the CAUSE of government over-spending !!! No one gains by complaining about the $X waste in some service or govt product but multiply that by the hundreds of times it happens yearly , to everyone, and you have the Public Choice answer to why you are wrong. We have garganuan waste because we have a billion little wastes that no one has the energy or time to attack. When you are nibbled by a million tiny fish you are worse off than the big fish that -- if you can handle --- it is all over.

[tylertusta]

Back in the real world, that's not how most corporate downsizing works.

Yeah, he lost me there, too. In the real world, corporate downsizing happens fairly quick. That must be why his friend is just a professor.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

[David Nieporent]

In the real world, corporate downsizing happens fairly quick.

Yeah, if it's an ailing company trying to stave off bankruptcy. In the real world, a CEO of a normal company doesn't get hired one day and the next day say, "We're immediately laying off a quarter of our workforce, effective tomorrow." Is there some situation in which it's already obvious that the workforce is bloated and needs to be trimmed? Sometimes — but even so the RIFs are gradual.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems close to what Musk did when he took over twitter.

[tylertusta]

Or any of a number of tech companies where they shutter entire divisions all at once.

[jb]

Since apparently Twitter has lost about half its revenue since he did that, I'm not sure it's the best example to point to.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be ad revenue.
"Twitter's Financial Performance

So, how does all this translate to Twitter's overall financial performance? In 2024, Twitter's total revenue reached $7.5 billion, up from $5.08 billion in 2021. This impressive growth can be attributed to the platform's diversified revenue streams and its continued focus on user engagement and innovation.

But it's not all sunshine and roses. Twitter's operating expenses have also been increasing, with the platform spending more on research and development, marketing, and content partnerships. In 2024, Twitter's operating expenses reached $6 billion, up from $4.3 billion in 2021. Despite this, Twitter managed to maintain a healthy operating margin of around 20% in 2024.
[Source: https://toxigon.com]"

[Brett Bellmore]

It's actually a great example. You take a company that has a huge cash flow, but is losing money hand over fist, and no sign of it ever stopping, and transform it into a company with a smaller cash flow that's profitable, that is usually considered a win.

Because it's the profit you're in business for, not the cash flow.

[tylertusta]

Some folks like to pat themselves on the back about the ad boycott.

Makes them feel superior about themselves.

[jb]

Twitter was already profitable, though. Now it's maybe temporarily more profitable, but with declining revenue that seems unlikely to continue.

Also, if we're analogizing to the US government: the goal is not actually to deliver services efficiently, not to make a profit. So while it may be true that you can cut an existing business's expenses and jack up profits even while hurting revenue, if you do something like make social security more "profitable" just by cutting payouts to retirees you're not actually doing the main job, which is to pay people their promised benefits. (Same goes for keeping the national parks open or keeping track of nuclear weapons or even administering foreign aid programs that Congress has authorized. The job of the executive is to actually do those things, not save money for the sake of it.)

[tylertusta]

Not really profitable.

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/

Twitter has only been profitable for two years (2018 & 2019). Every other pre-Musk year that financial data exists it operated deeply in the red.

[Brett Bellmore]

Looking at the numbers, they were going along in the red for years, and then for about a 2 year period became wildly profitable, and then cratered again.

Apparently it was precipitated by a large scale account hacking incident, but I wonder if there wasn't some book cooking going on, too.

[shawn_dude]

"Because it's the profit you're in business for, not the cash flow."

This might seem reasonable to people who haven't given much thought to how businesses really work but it's not entirely true.

Let's take Musk, for example, most of his ventures make money on the cash flow created from government handouts. His satellite internet company is doing poorly, largely because he wasn't able to get the technology to meet the Federal definition of "broadband" such that he could qualify for rural internet handouts. (expect the definition of broadband to change soon now that he's in charge.)

Even after deep cuts, Xitter is still losing money. Some of that because Musk fired people directly tied to their main source of advertising income.

[David Nieporent]

Even after deep cuts, Xitter is still losing money. Some of that because Musk fired people directly tied to their main source of advertising income.

But he has plans to solve that problem by suing advertisers for refusing to advertise!

[shawn_dude]

Has Eugene posted a 1A analysis on this? Suing companies that don't want their logo appearing next to Nazis and incels?

[tylertusta]

Actually, that's exactly what my employer did in my Fortune 500 company.

Except it wasn't 25% of the workforce at once. It started with 25% of the workforce, and then a year later it was another 25%.

but even so the RIFs are gradual.

My employer is currently gearing up for another 25% layoff. I guess you can say that they gradually did a 75% workforce reduction.

[Sarcastr0]

That doesn't sound like a healthy company at all. Sounds like it's being gutted.

[tylertusta]

That's because it's trying to stay competitive. Offshoring is a bitch.

[Sarcastr0]

75% workforce reduction? 50% of it over 2 years?

Something is out of whack.

[tylertusta]

Who said it was a reduction? The jobs are going to people in low cost countries. India mostly.

We hire a bunch of people from overseas and then lay off the US employees in waves.

Edit: To clarify, the decision to offshore our business was made to stay competitive. We try to use attrition instead of RIF'ing people. However, we didn't meet sales targets so the execs basically go "not offshoring fast enough. Go fire a bunch of people."

[bernard11]

So we should offshore government?

No thanks.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this was a late-breaking reveal that your anecdote was not germane to the issue.

[tylertusta]

You must have missed it when I said:

"In the real world, corporate downsizing happens fairly quick."

Thanks for contributing.

[Mr. Bumble]

With regard to bernard11 and Il Douche I fixed it for you.
Thanks for contributing (nothing).

[shawn_dude]

Firing people because you hired replacements for them in cheaper countries isn't "downsizing," it's "offshoring."

[tylertusta]

Depends on how you look at it: We downsized our US presence by offshoring our labor overseas.

[Commenter_XY]

David, downsizing happens quick in Fortune 500's. Quarterly.

Perhaps you are insulated from such things, but it is reality for millions of workers. RIFs happen - a lot.

[David Nieporent]

Perhaps you are insulated from such things, but it is reality for millions of workers. RIFs happen - a lot.

No, it doesn't. Of course struggling companies will sometimes let workers go when they need to cut spending. But they do not fire mass chunks in a week's time. (If they do, I would advise you to sell your shares immediately.) They announce plans for layoffs, and then gradually do it, strategically.

[tylertusta]

You do not understand how layoffs work.

Layoffs come in two varieties: Immediate, or delayed.

The first is obvious.

The second is me bringing you into a call and telling you that your job will no longer exist a month from now. I may offer you a severance if you're lucky and a posting to our jobs portal to see if anything else exists in our company. I'll do that throughout the line of business that I want to RIF.

When you see "they will be making layoffs" this is what they mean. The employees have just been told when their last date of work will be.

[tylertusta]

To expand on this a bit further, companies don't typically announce layoffs before they actually inform the people (Well, maybe some poorly-led companies do).

What ends up happening is that the rumor mill runs rampant when layoffs abound and people talk. I know through my company's rumor mill that my company is in the midst of a layoff right now. (It's a smaller one that hasn't been announced to the whole company, but it's definitely happening).

A good example of this is JPMorgan Chase, which announced layoffs a couple of weeks ago. Unnamed sources have gone to the press saying that there will be additional waves of layoffs throughout 2025.

[shawn_dude]

I understand how layoffs work which is why I'm struggling to understand your perspective here.

Layoffs aren't something people just decide to do one day. In healthy companies, they are meticulously planned well in advance. Various levels of management are consulted to identify potential cuts and provide cost/benefit estimates for their impact. Across-the-board cuts (fire 25% from every department equally) are rare and usually a sign of an emergency. Most cuts are targeted at underperforming product lines or non-renewed contracts or similar areas where demand is declining. There are legal considerations to layoffs that have to be worked out in advance like union contracts or other obligations. Musk is infamous for ignoring these things and we can see the result.

Your perspective "immediate or delayed" is from the perspective the person being let go and not from the perspective of the people who plan and implement layoffs. Setting aside emergencies and Musk-like incompetence, they're all planned well in advance with an avalanche of data to support the decision, its impact, its expected benefits, and legal contingencies.

[tylertusta]

Layoffs aren't something people just decide to do one day. In healthy companies, they are meticulously planned well in advance.

Unless you're psychotic, that's how all layoffs work. There's an underlying objective, but in nearly all cases it is to lower labor costs.

Across-the-board cuts (fire 25% from every department equally) are rare and usually a sign of an emergency

In our case it was because we had a target onshore/offshore labor ratio where we were very US-heavy before and our target was to increase the ratio of offshore workers.

I don't know whether that qualifies as "healthy" or an "emergency" to you.

Your perspective "immediate or delayed" is from the perspective the person being let go and not from the perspective of the people who plan and implement layoffs

That was in response to David's comment about companies announcing layoffs. No, companies typically don't announce layoffs before they start happening.

Setting aside emergencies and Musk-like incompetence, they're all planned well in advance with an avalanche of data to support the decision, its impact, its expected benefits, and legal contingencies.

You can be both fast and "meticulous." They are not mutually exclusive.

[David Nieporent]

You can be both fast and "meticulous." They are not mutually exclusive.

You can be both if you've got 300 employees. When you've got three million, they are mutually exclusive.

[tylertusta]

Uh huh. Right.

[Sarcastr0]

My dude, you were like "corporate downsizing happens fairly quick" "that's exactly what my employer did in my Fortune 500 company"

[actually it was offshoring everything]

Your example is not relevant for what you offered it as.

It's kind of disingenuous that you pretended it was.

[tylertusta]

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/19/wednesday-open-thread-4/?comments=true#comment-10925552

[tylertusta]

[Removed]

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jack Welch at GE fired 10% of his workforce EACH year...

[Mr. Bumble]

Probably not the best example.

[Absaroka]

Notably, he fired the worst performing 10%, not the most recently hired or promoted. The two strategies give very different results.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside what that ultimately did to GE, the idea Welch popularized (among CEOs, anyway) was to fire the lowest ranked 10% of managers each year. He did not fire an arbitrary 10% of the workers for the sake of swinging his dick around.

(Note that because it's much easier to fire probationary workers, Musk is going around firing the newest hires, who are, among other things, likely to be the cheapest.)

[Absaroka]

"probationary workers"

The local paper says that that includes long term employees who were recently promoted, so if you were doing such a great job you got a promotion you get axed. This seems ... non-optimal.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you were doing such a great job you got a promotion"

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[shawn_dude]

"Non-optimal" seems to sum up the current administration adequately.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Those who can were taught by those few who could teach. MORON

[bernard11]

Let's be blunt here.

There is no way you or I or Elon Musk and his teeny-boppers can walk into an organization where:

1 They don't understand what it does
2. They have no understanding of the necessary processes
3. They have no way of knowing what is necessary or not
4. They have no way of evaluating employee performance

and make even one-quarter intelligent decisions about staffing, program cuts, etc.

It's absurd beyond fucking belief. But the Trump cultists just nod their heads and say "great."

[TwelveInchPianist]

I dunno. It sounds like they can just ask the employees if efficiency should be one of the government's goals, fire the ones who say no, and save a bunch of money.

[Sarcastr0]

Not *one* of the goals? Not what I said.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You said, "Government action is where your goal *isn't* efficiency..."

You later tried to change that to claim that you said efficiency shouldn't be your primary goal, which is gibberish.

[Sarcastr0]

I provided examples that made it pretty clear that I was not talking about the only goal.

Bad faith reading ass.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Brett said,

Inefficiency has no upper limit when competition is illegal and customers buy your product, no matter how bad or over priced, or go to jail.

You responded,

Government action is where your goal *isn't* efficiency

You elaborated,

You don't want basic research done efficiency, you want it done creatively.

You don't want public goods like k-12 education distributed efficiently, you want them distrusted broadly.
Etc.

Show me the part where you said efficiency had any place in government, until you got called.

And since efficiency can't by its nature be a primary goal, the only way to read "your goal isn't efficiency" is that it's not a goal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Any by the way, k-12 education is neither rivalrous nor excludable, so it's not a public good.

[Commenter_XY]

TiP...Gibberish is right. /smh

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

But Biden was saying that while pissing mega-Billions on wind farms, Urkraine, EV charging stations and climate bullshit

[Krayt]

I'm fine with spending billions on Ukraine. I am not traitorous to freedom. I don't claim Putin wouldn't have invaded had I been in charge, then prove it by giving Hitler all his demands.

[Kazinski]

It hasn't even been a month, and they are making great progress.

[bernard11]

How do you know?

[Kazinski]

But they are getting help from career employees that also care about the waste.

Here is a heartwarming story:

"Leland Dudek was an obscure bureaucrat at the Social Security Administration who dedicated his career to stopping fraud. But when he worked with the Department of Government Efficiency to do just that, he came close to being fired.

“At 4:30pm EST, my boss called me to tell me I had been placed on administrative leave pending an Investigation,” Dudek wrote on LinkedIn. “They want to fire me for cooperating with DOGE,” he wrote in a now-deleted post obtained by The Daily Wire.

Then, a stunning reversal occurred. It was Acting Social Security Commissioner Michelle King who was out of a job. And Dudek was reinstated with a big promotion — taking her job leading the massive agency on an interim basis."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/almost-fired-for-working-with-doge-social-security-fraud-expert-now-leads-the-agency

[shawn_dude]

5. They have no understanding of the laws that obligate the organization to certain functions

[Dr. Ed 2]

The government is different -- the best example is the massive unemployment that occurred in the former DDR when the wall came down.

It took maybe 3 minutes -- not 3 years -- to tell who was redundant.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Ask your economics friend how long do you think it would be to uncover efficiencies or graft in that $100B high-speed rail boondoggle in California.

10 years, 1 mile of completed track, $10B spent.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Doesn't anybody ever READ ???

Report: At $1.5 trillion, California has nation's largest public pension debt load
By Madison Hirneisen | The Center Square Jun 9, 2022

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it isn't like there are existing railroad right of ways they can follow....

[Magister]

Wikipedia contradicts your claims.

[RedheadedPharoh]

lmao no it doesn't.

Thats where I got the $100B boondoggle part from and the $10B spent part from.

My bad though, I missed it. They don't have any track completed. They have 57 miles of "guide ways" and 40 buildings.

No single segment operational.

This is what Sacrastr0 calls "good government " because he argues you don't expect efficiency from the public sector.

[Reallynotbob]

Yeah, they should just start laying track. Figure the other stuff out later.

I grew up in a city that had a bridge to nowhere. Literally stopped in the sky. We made fun of it. I'm glad CA is going to avoid that problem with the train.

[AmosArch]

Got to have army of thousands of Nobel Prize triple ph.d experts with 100s of multibillion dollar supercomputers to know whether you should get rid of the Brazilian Forest Gender consultant!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/02/16/usda-axes-millions-contracts-including-230k-brazilian-forest-gender-consultant/

[David Nieporent]

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

[Noscitur a sociis]

That old RINO Chesterton. What a cuck!

[AmosArch]

*delete*

[Michael P]

We know why the Brazilian Forest Gender consultant was getting paid. It was a terrible reason. You are the one who is suffering from the illusion here.

[Sarcastr0]

We don't know anything about that, actually.
It's a line in a Breitbart post stenographied from a twitter account.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You clearly have never seen bureaucracy in action. I have.

I once explained to a UMass employee installing stop signs that while he could put one on both sides of the street if he wanted to, if he was only putting one in, it needed to go on the RIGHT side of the road, particularly as the intersecting street was one way with traffic coming from the right.

I had the local jail bid on reupholstering some furniture -- they do it for state entities and I was all for supporting prison industry, give the guys a trade other than stealing cars and dealing drugs.

Well, they arrived with two different administrators from the prison -- and a driver. Neither of them could have driven the basic automobile, they had to have someone else whose sole job was to do that. And they couldn't have just one guy examine the furniture, which took maybe 5 minutes, they had to have two.

Needless to say, their bid was so high that it was cheaper to throw the stuff away and buy new....

[Noscitur a sociis]

You are of course lying, but the first one doesn’t seem like “bureaucracy” even if it were true.

[Krayt]

Ironically, the profiteering on government action activates on previous sinemacimerifit of sporn jungen and claire tweet.

If'n be tarriff, besploden wunf.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

That inverts the whole problem actually. WHO tells you in the first place you need a Brazilian Forest Gender consultant ? THAT is the problem and udern a massivelly foolish, lazy, stupid, poorly-spoken BIden --- well did he even care one way or the other? When I hear Kamala talk about Cloud Storage and point up to the sky to show where that storage is, I see criminal stupidity

[Riva]

I guess one shouldn't believe everything they read on FB. He's probably angry for losing his USAID grant.

[SRG2]

Nope.

[Riva]

It is telling though that the left seems to be more outraged that the fraud and waste is being disclosed than then the actual fraud and waste. Probably because the left have been the primary beneficiaries of the grifting.

[SRG2]

Meanwhile those of us in the real world welcome actual fraud and waste reduction while strongly doubting that Musk's methods and people are acting intelligently and efficiently in identifying fraud and waste, and thinking that their actual approach will likely worsen things inn the long term for a number of reasons.

[Commenter_XY]

Gov't bureaucritters had decades to identify and eliminate wasteful and abusive spending. And did nothing.

Now DOGE is doing it, and getting rid of the bureaucritters.

[SRG2]

We don't know that DOGE is doing it. They've told us they have, but they keep fucking up their reporting of it, e.g., those alleged 150 yo getting SS, or misreading a contract amount. Getting rid of excess bureaucracy and bureaucrats is a good idea but there's no good evidence that DOGE knows how to do that either. Mere decimation isn't the same thing.

[bernard11]

DOGE isn't doing it, and what they are doing is mostly illegal.

Walking into an office and randomly picking out staffers to fire is fucking idiotic.

But you cheer.

[Don Nico]

Not just to bernard:
You folks are so wedded to inertia that the only change is more entropy.

Let's take the DoD for an example: massive cost overruns, failed audits. the largest budget. You know that means the most waste. Just ask Bernie. He is actually right.

[Sarcastr0]

Not just an example - the DoD is poster boy for waste and abuse.

But DOGE isn't addressing anything like that though. They yell about waste, and then provide evidenceless numbers or stuff that turns out to be lies/idiotic mistakes.

Meanwhile there are how many GAO Pentagon audits with actionable recommendations to avoid waste and fraud are being totally ignored?

[Mr. Bumble]

Be happy. Hegseth is reported to be ready to start at the top by removing dead weight flag officers.

[shawn_dude]

The alternative to inertia cannot be lawless chaos. Just doing something/anything isn't the solution to waste caused by inefficiency.

You don't need to convince people that efficiency and waste-reduction is a good thing; you need to convince people that this is actually what Trump and Musk are doing. Because from my vantage point, that's not what they're doing. They're making massive changes in the way these programs are run, yes, but not in ways that lead to improvements in performance.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

A number of reasons, reader, that you aren't worthy to hear, no reason poster should stir his lazy ass to action just because we are talking about trillions in waste. Another Biden peeks out into the world.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think what you're running into here is that we have different opinions about what constitutes "fraud and waste".

You think that if a grant is given to, say, promote the use of alternative pronouns in Uzbekistan, and a non-negligible fraction of the money gets spent doing that, it's all good.

We think that it's 100% waste, because the government has no business spending our money on that sort of crap.

A lot of the 'waste, fraud, and abuse' is going to be money going to things that the government should never be spending money on, even if the money legitimately gets spent on the purported aim.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — The standard you offer—Congress proposes; MAGA disposes—is authoritarian. If there is any substance in what you want—except for pro-authoritarian longing—rethink how to go about making it happen.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes. Any grant you don't understand, especially in social science, is fraud and waste.

Because you've decided. Based on not asking anyone nor any expertise.

And that means we should let the President impound funds for it.

Meanwhile Musk is just lying over and over about different stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, right: If I find it objectionable, it can only be because I don't "understand" it.

I've already stated my criteria:

1. It must be spent on something the federal government is actually given responsibility for.
2. It must be spent to advance the welfare of Americans, with any benefit to anybody else merely incidental.

[bernard11]

Oh, right: If I find it objectionable, it can only be because I don't "understand" it.

No. But you're finding it objectionable may be due to lack of understanding, or simply to honest differences of opinion (they do exist, despite your unwillingness to acknowledge that).

Further, recognize that your ideas about what advances the welfare of Americans are outliers. You've said you want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, for example. I'd say they benefit Americans.

There are plenty of actually knowledgeable people who think USAID was beneficial to the US. You disagree. OK. But your opinion is not objective fact, no matter how much you think so.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No. But you're finding it objectionable may be due to lack of understanding, or simply to honest differences of opinion (they do exist, despite your unwillingness to acknowledge that)"

As I said above: "I think what you're running into here is that we have different opinions about what constitutes "fraud and waste"."

"Further, recognize that your ideas about what advances the welfare of Americans are outliers."

My ideas are not nearly the outliers that you'd like to think they are.

"You've said you want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, for example. I'd say they benefit Americans.""

Yeah, I don't think these are programs the government should be running. OTOH, I don't think they can, morally, be shut down tomorrow. You don't surgically remove some poor guy's kidneys, put him on a dialysis machine, and then out of the blue say, "Crap, I shouldn't have done that!" and trash the dialysis machine.

The government has made whole generations mortally dependent on these programs, and while it shouldn't have done that, it did, and can't morally just kill the programs it made people dependent on. They will need to be gradually and carefully wound down over a period of decades.

[Sarcastr0]

You have criteria, but you also endorse spending zero time inquiring with people about whether those criteria are being addressed.

Just vibes for you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How many convicted rapists do you personally know?

Yet do you have a problem saying that convicted rapists are bad people?

[Frank Drackman]

Convicted? No, never convicted

[Bob from Ohio]

"social science, is fraud and waste."

Yes, they are. Just like alchemy grants would be.

[bernard11]

Are you aware of such a grant?

If you can find some grants that are unwise, even imaginary ones, does that mean they all are? You're not arguing, you're trying to cherry-pick some bad examples (per you), and having a hard time, so you make one up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

SRG2 — You must have a very short view of the long term.

[Riva]

SRG2, if you welcome fraud and waste reduction, please enlighten me as to what reductions, among the recently disclosed fraud and waste, you would welcome?

[SRG2]

What fraud and waste reductions have taken place?

[Riva]

Wow. You begin this thread with some unnamed, self-proclaimed “expert” whining about “a series of blatant lies that only people stupid enough to be flat earthers could believe have anything to do with ‘inefficiency,’ “ but you are completely ignorant (or pretending to be) regarding what actually has been disclosed. Almost like your complaints really have no basis and are just meritless political rants. No, not like that, they are. And stupid politics at that, unless you want to be a permanent minority party.

[Sarcastr0]

What fraud and waste reductions have taken place?

[David Nieporent]

The bot is not a modern generative AI; it can't actually respond to anything (not even with hallucinations). It can only regurgitate talking points. "Executive Vesting." "Domiciled." "Waste fraud abuse."

[ReaderY]

Government efficiency means the same thing business efficiency currently does - to maximize profits for the proprietors, folks like Trump and Musk. Every dollar spent on government services or paying government workers is a dollar that could be going to them, and they mean to end this massive waste and make sure government benefits #1 and friends, and only #1 and friends, to the extent possible.

Sure, the marketing department will kick out ads saying everything is fresh and natural and done for the little guy same as any marketing department. And the law department will say they are for justice same as any law department. But the law department in particular will, like any business law department, not only scrutinize carefully to see if legal compliance requirements (providing services and such) can be met with as little expenditure as possible, they will also advise on the probability and cost of consequences if compliance is simply dispensed with and the money saved for profits.

They’ll have to launder the profits of course. Expect government work to start being outsourced to a network of companies controlled by Yours Truly and Friends who will charge the government as much as they can possibly get away with and provide as little in return as they possibly can. THAT’s what efficiency means.

[SRG2]

I'll repost my counterfactual here.

President Roosevelt today sat down with Adolf Hitler to discuss a peace settlement following Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland. Roosevelt offered to back a peace treaty between Germany and Czechoslovakia if the Czechs handed over mineral rights and future profits for 50% of Czechoslovakia's natural resources, and preferential access of American companies and investors to the Czech economy.

Another condition of the treaty would be that the current occupation of Sudetenland would be made permanent, A State Department spokesman said that Hitler's claims to the Sudetenland had considerable merit, given the large number of Germans living there, and the current discussions merely reflected the new reality.

Most of FDR's supporters approved of the Roosevelt proposal, citing historical claims, Czechoslovakia's chaotic and corrupt government, and the US's not owing the country any defence obligations. Some supporters wondered why Roosevelt's apparent friendship with Hitler was even a matter of concern.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In this counterfactual, has the US been dicking around for 11 years since the invasion?

[Dr. Ed 2]

That would have kept the peace. Remember Grenada and why Reagan invaded?

Russia is not going to invade with Americans on the border...

[Frank Drackman]

Knowing your near Jimmuh Cartuh ability of being absolutely wrong about almost everything (OK, Cancelling the B1, good, everything else, bad) that's actually got me scared, can you please say that Russia will invade with Amuricans on the border, just to make me feel better?

[shawn_dude]

A protection racket "keeps the peace" in a non-substantive way.

[David Nieporent]

Roosevelt offered to back a peace treaty between Germany and Czechoslovakia if the Czechs handed over mineral rights and future profits for 50% of Czechoslovakia's natural resources, and preferential access of American companies and investors to the Czech economy.

I just want to make clear that your hypothetical is unanalogous in one important way: Trump's demand for massive tribute from Ukraine isn't in exchange for anything. It's not "We'll only protect you from Russia going forward if you pay us this." It's "We demand this from you because we aided you before."

[hobie]

I think it's worse than that. I think this is Trump's revenge for the first impeachment

[Dr. Ed 2]

AND???

If you are going to bribe a politician, you want to bribe the one who is going to win...

[Reallynotbob]

Can we agree bribing politicians is bad?

[SRG2]

I just want to make clear that your hypothetical is unanalogous in one important way

Yes, but I wanted it to be somewhat believable. For example, it's not like I had FDR calling Churchill (later on) a dictator for not holding elections in the middle of a war.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at the settlement of the Winter War between Finland & Soviets.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Bad analogy, because FDR would have never made a sellout deal with a murderous dictator.

Also, Putin isn't Hitler, he's extra-Hitlery Hitler, like Hitler cubed.

[Armchair]

Let's see.... lets go with your counterfactual. What happens next?

1. Hitler invades Czechoslovakia anyway. The US then goes to war with Germany, but in 1938 instead of 1941. With full US support, that encourages France and the UK to declare war as well in 1938. Germany is defeated before it can properly rearm. The Holocaust is averted.

2. Hitler doesn't invade Czechoslovakia....WWII doesn't occur...

[Reallynotbob]

In the counterfactual, Hitler already invaded Czechoslovakia.

[Krayt]

Demanding first dibs on mineral rights is fine for such a defense.

Demanding Ukraine pay reparations to Russia, as well as pay for what the US sent, instead of using seized Russian oligarch money to pay for it is completely criminal.

How stupid are people?

[RedheadedPharoh]

If you saw a $2B (yes with a 'B') EPA grant to a 3 month old organization with $100 in total revenue that was politically well-connected to an activist Democrat, would you think that smells suspicious?

Or is that the norm y'all are fighting to preserve?

[David Nieporent]

I love these random out-of-context comments with no explanation that only someone who spent time on 4chan would have any idea what Voltage is talking about. (I guarantee he's going to respond with a "Why don't you people know about these fake scandals that exist only in right wing non-media circles?")

Given the Musk track record so far, it's unlikely whatever he said is actually accurate, so there's no point in addressing it without having actual specific facts.

[RedheadedPharoh]

There are no facts that will change your beliefs about your political elites that you worship.

[Kazinski]

Not a lot of details yet but:

"The Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration awarded Power Forward Communities the grant in April 2024 as part of the agency's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program. Power Forward Communities received the green energy grant despite the fact that it was founded months earlier in late 2023 and never managed anywhere near the grant's dollar figure—it reported just $100 in total revenue during its first three months in operation, according to its latest tax filings.

Power Forward Communities' grant was one of just eight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants that the EPA doled out in April 2024 and that, altogether, totaled $20 billion. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced on Feb. 13 that his staff and Department of Government Efficiency officials discovered that the Biden administration parked that same $20 billion at an outside financial institution before leaving office, limiting the federal government's oversight of the program.

The revelation that Power Forward Communities is among the beneficiaries of the funds Zeldin's team located raises ethics questions about how the Biden administration selected recipients of such massive grants and whether it played favorites when doling those grants out. Abrams was a vocal proponent of the Biden administration's green energy agenda and campaigned for former vice president Kamala Harris."

https://x.com/ThomasCatenacci/status/1892321122693067043

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — What would happen to your commentary if you excluded links to the NY Post? If you did it, which direction do you suppose the trend line on your mental health would point, up or down?

[Krayt]

the fact that it was founded months earlier in late 2023 and never managed anywhere near the grant's dollar figure—it reported just $100 in total revenue during its first three months in operation, according to its latest tax filings.

Oddly, if it were a preplanned scam, one would think the scammers would used a hell of a lot more seed money for show.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently with the fix in, they had no need to.

[MoreCurious]

Facts. Evidence. Proof. As you prepare your response to David, Mr. Pharoh [sic], you might want to keep those three words in mind. Otherwise the rest of us will naturally assume that you're just making stuff up.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's really not hard to find if you're willing to look.
https://ncrenegade.com/doge-finds-2-billion-in-taxpayer-funds-earmarked-for-stacey-abrams-linked-group/
I make no claim as to its accuracy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

DOGE “discovered” it by… reading the Biden administration’s press release announcing the award?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Obviously not because the Biden PR didn't cover the
fraud part.

Duh

[Brett Bellmore]

As usual, the real scandal is what Democrats don't think is scandalous.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I was waiting from one of you dipshits to go "sure, that's sus", then when I revealed it was Biden/Democrat grift, you'd vanish or you'd deny it, or do a 180 on your previous comment.

It's hilarious.

[MoreCurious]

Facts. Evidence. Proof. Still waiting.

[RedheadedPharoh]

There's like 3 comments with the deets. Are you blind?

[Drewski]

So far, there's some guy on Xitter and some guy with a blog saying stuff. Neither are backed up with anything credible. Using unsubstantiated rumors to support spreading them is. . . well, a very MAGA thing to do. As is attempting to count to two and getting the wrong answer.

[PaulS]

You have to subscribe for access but here is where you will find the info on the nonprofit (can get 990 no charge). The $100 in revenue appears accurate - that was what they self reported in revenue on their 990 in 2023
https://www.guidestar.org/profile/93-2705500
if it doesn't come up just type in the organizations name

[David Nieporent]

Noticeably absent from their 990: Stacey Abrams' name.

[PaulS]

Good Point - However, she is employed/paid by Rewire America whose President/CEO is also Co chairman of the Board of Power Forward
https://www.rewiringamerica.org/newsroom/press-releases/stacey-abrams-joins-rewiring-america-as-senior-counsel

[David Nieporent]

I acknowledge the press release, but she's not listed on their 990 either.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/932830316/202423199349311507/full

BTW, don't get me wrong: I thought the IRA was a colossal waste (Inflation Reduction Act, not Irish Republican Army, though… that too). I mean, my eyes glazed over reading the press release where these grants were announced:

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-20-billion-grants-mobilize-private-capital-and

But I don't think it's waste-fraud-abuse as MAGA uses that term, and I don't see any evidence of any wrongdoing. (The reason Power Forward Communities didn't have any revenues the previous year is because it is a newly formed coalition of well-established groups: Rewiring America, the United Way, Enterprise Community Partners, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and Habitat for Humanity.)

[PaulS]

I'm with you - Stacy Abrams is noise (Maga loves noise) - Shaun Donovan is why they get 2 Billion $ - He would have Obama, Biden and Schumer's personal cell phone numbers. His call would be answered/returned.

[PaulS]

Also - I'm guessing the other Co chair of the board (Shaun Donovan) has plenty of political connections on his own. I would agree he had no need for Stacey Abrams connections to get 2 Billion for a start up non profit.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ex HUD secretary

[PaulS]

Also their mission statement begins "To apply for funding through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund...." that was the sole reason that the organization was formed (hence the lack of revenue until they were awarded the 2 billion $)

[LawTalkingGuy]

They cancelled WestLaw at the SEC.

https://www.doge.gov/savings

https://www.fpds.gov/common/jsp/LaunchWebPage.jsp?command=execute&requestid=239737894&version=1.5

Being governed by fascist morons is occasionally very funny.

[Stephen Lathrop]

According to MSNBC, they massively canceled periodical subscriptions for State Department posts abroad.

However tangential that may seem at first glance, if true it strikes me as an overt expression of treasonous intent. What else could it be? Why would MAGA want the State Department blinded to the contents of foreign publications?

[John F. Carr]

According to newspapers not in the habit of publishing satire, the city of Quincy, Massachusetts will spend $850,000 for "two 10-foot-tall statues depicting St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, the patron saints of police and firefighters respectively."

"[Mayor] Koch said the saints 'add interest' and 'connect to the uses of the building.' Koch, a devout Catholic, pointed out that St. Michael is a figure common to Christianity, Islam and Judaism." https://www.patriotledger.com/story/news/2025/02/08/saints-statues-new-police-fire-station-quincy-ma-st-michael-st-florian/78258726007/

Quincy taxpayers might appreciate the freedom from religion folks sending in their lawyers. As long as the legal fees don't exceed half a million. Which they would. So forget I mentioned it.

[Bwaaah]

Sometimes it gets so bad it's not funny at all.

And just to beat the horse, it doesn't make a difference because it's only $850,000.

[shawn_dude]

Quincy taxpayers voted for these politicians and can recall them if they don't agree with this waste. Why get the Freedom From Religion folks involved when they could just have the DOGE brownshirts come in and kill the project for free?

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts businesses can't buy heavy trucks this year thanks to state emissions rules. Dealers can't sell any diesel trucks until an electric truck is sold first, and from then on 7% of trucks must be electric. Nobody is willing to spend twice as much money for a truck with half the range and less cargo capacity. Literally nobody. "There hasn’t been a single new diesel or electric truck over 16,000 pounds sold in Massachusetts so far in 2025, [dealer industry group executive director Kevin] Weeks said, compared to more than 2,000 of both types over all of last year."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/19/business/trucks-diesel-electric-vehicles-massachusetts-regulations/

California is also cranking up the regulations but has a better electric vehicle charging network.

[tylertusta]

The parallels with the New Jersey "smart" gun law are astounding.

[shawn_dude]

You mean industry insiders are mobilizing a misinformation campaign to protect their bottom line at the expense of people's health?

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there a call out for muleskinners?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Talk about encouraging trucking companies to move to NH...

[Kazinski]

Phoenix electric/hydrogen heavy truck manufacturer Nikola is declaring bankruptcy and selling off all their assets.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/struggling-e-truck-maker-nikola-files-chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection-2025-02-19/

[Brett Bellmore]

that's not shocking. Hydrogen power has always been a stupid idea from a basic engineering perspective.

1. It's not a source of energy, (OK, that has slightly changed lately.) just a way of moving it around.
2. The stuff leaks right through metal, and embrittles it in the process!
3. It's ridiculously bulky even if you liquefy it, which requires absurdly low temperatures.

It's got some rocketry applications, but for cars and trucks? That was always insane.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot how expensive and energy intensive it is to produce.

[Bwaaah]

Reminds me of flying cars and the niggling little problem of gravity.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are fundamental physics problems with flying cars, mostly revolving around the tradeoff between size and the downdraft you have to create to keep them in the air. Lift a car sized object into the air by throwing air downwards, and you've got a 100mph down gust underneath it. So you're never going to be taking off from your driveway with a flying car, it would rip the siding of your neighbor's house!

But the biggest issue is that cars got grandfathered in before the regulatory state hit its stride, and private aviation was small enough to keep suppressed, so it did get suppressed. Because the regulators took one look at the average America flying around and said, "Nope, never letting THAT happen!".

[Jmaie]

[David Nieporent]

So you're never going to be taking off from your driveway with a flying car, it would rip the siding of your neighbor's house!

Counterpoint: https://youtu.be/tTq6Tofmo7E?t=14

[Brett Bellmore]

As an engineer, I've actually done some looking at what would be necessary to make flying cars a realistic thing. Flight backpacks, too.

It's actually doable, but it wouldn't look anything like the Jetsons' car, or any of the silly flying cars they're playing around with as high end toys.

[SRG2]

What links Kurt Goedel to a risk management concept and my political views?

Despite my not being a leftist and being a registered independent, I mostly criticise the GOP/Trump/the right, rarely the Democrats or the left But my reasons tie in to the idea underlying a risk management concept, avoid rare extinction level events without worrying too much about general business.

In a democratic political context the extinction level threat is the rise of a dictator, or at least, a highly authoritarian regime. In some countries, like Venezuela, the threat came or comes from the left. In the US for historical reasons the greatest threat to democracy is from the right, where there is a long tradition of white supremacy and racism, and a more recent growth of Christian nationalism. There is no equivalent tradition on the left.

The authoritarian personality type is essential for social cohesion (and its very existence renders a dogmatic Libertarian model of human behaviour worthless) but it can be hijacked by a sufficiently skilled demagogue. And the demagogue need not adhere to any political stream, though he will usually have to appeal distinctly to left or right. Trump after all has implemented tariffs, which run counter to right-wing economic principles, has suggested infringing on the sovereignty of other countries - decidedly not a traditionally conservative position, nor does his despicable character (please do not defend this unless you want to be seen as a cultist fool) fit in well with a traditional conservative model.

Now some of you will inevitably disagree with my overall perception - whether there is a threat at all and if so, where it comes from, but that isn't the point. The point is, if I believe that there is an existential threat to US democracy and it comes from the right, what kind of hypocrite or coward would I be if I said nothing? And I have seen enough happening in the last few years and most obviously the last three weeks to think the risk is not negligible.

And compared to that risk, I find other issues or problems with government, be it waste or overspending, over-regulating or undue moralising, of far less grave concern.

Oh, and as for Kurt Goedel, when he was being naturalised, he studied the Constitution in detail and supposedly when in front of the naturalisation official had to be silenced by his friend Einstein when he contradicted the official's statement that a dictatorship was impossible. He allegedly jumped up and said words to the effect of, that's not true and I can show you how it can be done.

[RedheadedPharoh]

What's the risk you're worried about? That 10 of the top 15 richest counties in America wouldn't be surrounding DC any more?

Or that we won't have a global obesity epidemic? Or a national chronic disease epidemic? Are you afraid that the government won't control 50% through direct spending or compliance costs of our economy? Are you worried about the grave risk of more free speech?

It's a terrible future, this Trumpian Dystopia.

[SRG2]

Free speech under Trump? You poor deluded cultist.

[Bob from Ohio]

" You poor deluded cultist."

Your commenting here proves you are wrong. You're not in prison.

[shawn_dude]

As if government censorship is only facilitated through prison. Gobs of people are being fired right now because they used the wrong speech (liberals all of them). Heck, you can get fired from a government job for using a person's preferred pronouns in some parts of the country.

[Michael P]

"The point is, if I believe that there is an existential threat to US democracy and it comes from the right, what kind of hypocrite or coward would I be if I said nothing?"

You would be the kind of fool who is clear-headed enough to recognize when he is deluded.

[shawn_dude]

I used to wonder how good people let their country fall to autocracy. Germany, Venezuela, Hungary, Russia... But one hour on Reason.com is all it takes to understand.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news"
USDOT rescinds approval for congestion pricing in lower Manhattan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the MTA sues....

[John F. Carr]

The MTA already sold bonds backed by tolls and started spending the billions of dollars in revenue. So who is going to be mad at Trump? Banks? Insurance companies who guaranteed the bonds? Whatever sucker bought the bonds on the secondary market?

[bernard11]

who is going to be mad at Trump?

Any sensible person.

Certainly not all the Trump ass-kissers around here.

It's fucking astonishing.

[Bwaaah]

"who is going to be mad at Trump? Any sensible person."

Come to New York City, and talk to the doormen, the construction workers, the store employees, the maintenance people, the people who live in the outer boroughs.

By your view, there are very few sensible people around here, Bernard. (Like it's only $9 per day!)

Your attitude is "fucking astonishing."

[Sarcastr0]

Your plural is a lie.

The only outer borough filled with Trump supporters is Staten Island.

[Bwaaah]

This was about congestion pricing, not Trump.

Wage-earners with cars in the outer boroughs can no longer [economically] "hop" into the city. Effectively, tolls have been implemented on inter-borough travel between anwhere else in the city and downtown Manhattan. Forever, we had free bridges (Brooklyn, Willliamsburg, Manhattan, 59th Street) to make auto transportation easy and affordable.

Gone.

But given TDS, that's understandably a Trump thing for you. (You don't have to come out from under your rock, though.)

[David Nieporent]

Wage-earners with cars in the outer boroughs can no longer [economically] "hop" into the city. Effectively, tolls have been implemented on inter-borough travel between anwhere else in the city and downtown Manhattan. Forever, we had free bridges (Brooklyn, Willliamsburg, Manhattan, 59th Street) to make auto transportation easy and affordable.

If you're just passing through you don't have to pay congestion tolls, as the West Side Highway and FDR are exempt. And if you're actually driving into the congestion zone, it was never "easy and affordable" because cars do not fold up into little suitcases; you have to park them.

[Bwaaah]

The driver stays with the car while other person(s) run into a store or pick something up/drop something off somewhere. It's especially helpful when you need to transport something that's bulky or heavy.

I've been doing street parking in NYC for many years and a car has worked well like that, particularly in the off-peak hours.

The state is making that convenience uneconomical. The alternatives suck, unless you're wealthy enough to be in the "just-call-an-Uber" class. (That would be a paid trip in and a paid trip out...no wage-earner can afford that.)

Try to act like affordability of life for wage-earners, i.e. most people in the city, matters, this year. And no, David, cars do not fold up into little suitcases.

[David Nieporent]

The congestion fee is nominal during off peak hours, and if one is just driving in occasionally to "drop something off somewhere," even the full fee isn't a very big deal for one's budget.

[bernard11]

And why does this idiotic, spiteful, act give you so much pleasure?

Whatever happened to the glories of federalism, local control, etc.?

Why are you such a complete asshole?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask NJ governor (D) Phil Murphy why he opposes congestion pricing.

[Commenter_XY]

That's (D)ifferent = Phailing Phil. He has principled opposition!

[bernard11]

I know why he opposes it.

It will make it expensive for New Jersey residents to drive into NYC.
So what? Let them take the train.

NYC has a serious problem with traffic. Are they supposed to live with it because a sensible quasi-market solution will slightly inconvenience New Jersey residents?

[Estragon]

The congestion plan has high approval ratings from all the people actually experiencing its effects— including people who commute by car to NYC from NJ on a regular basis; those people are happy to pay $9 for reduced commuting times. The only people who don’t like congestion pricing are people who don’t drive into the city regularly and philosophically object to the city managing its own affairs in a way that promotes the common good. See Krugman for more:

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/trump-to-new-york-drop-dead

[Dr. Ed 2]

The company who rolled over an airplane in Toronto on Monday are, at the very least, big time into DEI. https://conservativeus.com/media-blames-trump-for-toronto-plane-crash-but-this-crew-video-tells-a-different-story/

It was a terrible landing, plane came down hard and fast on the right landing gear, which failed. No flare.

[Kazinski]

Their TikTok had their female pilots and flight crews dancing to Live Fast Die Young.

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1892081329312813478

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is an aviation expression:

There are old pilots.
There are bold pilots.

But there are no old, bold, pilots....

[Frank Drackman]

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one, and it's corollary, "Never fly with a Pilot who's takeoffs don't equal his landings"

[Frank Drackman]

My daughter flies 737's for Delta, the Real Delta, not Endeavor Air, AKA the "Delta Connection" which is sort of like comparing the Rome Braves (Atlanta's Single A Farm team) to the Major League team. She's made thousands of landings including a number on an Aircraft Carrier (T-45 and FA-18, not a 737) how many landings you got? (MS Flight Simulator doesn't count)

Frank

[bernard11]

You just gave Dr. Ed a heart attack.

[jb]

You know, there's recordings of the ATC communications where it's pretty obvious there's a man in the cockpit, right? But who cares about that when you can find a random video from the company with some DEI-ish message, I guess.

[bernard11]

WTF?

[tylertusta]

Judge appears on track to let DOJ dismiss Eric Adams case

NEW YORK — The Justice Department appears likely to get the green light to dismiss the criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams after the judge overseeing the case acknowledged at a court hearing Wednesday that he has “very little discretion” to interfere with the department’s effort.

U.S. District Judge Dale Ho took a measured and gentle approach to questioning Adams, his lawyers and a top Justice Department official, Emil Bove, about the department’s bid to drop the five-count indictment in which Adams is accused of bribery and other corruption charges.

Some legal experts and advocacy groups had urged Ho, an appointee of President Joe Biden, to forcefully push back against the Justice Department’s decision to abandon the case — or even to appoint a special prosecutor to take it over. But Ho seemed uninterested in that approach, and he suggested he had limited authority to maintain a case against the wishes of prosecutors.

[Sarcastr0]

Been thinking a bit about the toolification of some parts of the Conspiracy.

Because no, being on both sides of every issue is not a sign you've got a broad base. I don't want controversy over whether the Holocaust really happened.

Anyhow, those that started and then shifted tend to be those with a particular way they want America to be. Utopians writ small. Those that have managed to avoid giving up their dignity to make laughable argument rationalizing Trump's latest authoritarianist nonsense are those who want America to go in a direction, but don't have a clear vision.

The vision? That's what gets ya. Never realizing it is what makes you decide maybe the ends do justify the means.

But then you have those who didn't shift. Who were always tools and shills.
Those types have come and gone here, but there's some kind of conservation rule that keeps about 1 at a time posting here. That kind of lack of shame takes a truly incredible self-regard.

[Dr. Ed 2]

???

[Kazinski]

He's still just upset about the election.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm going to continue to call out when the Conspirators write bad things and when the administration does bad things.

I guess you'll just be lazy and smug about until your comfy life gets effected.

What a great way to be.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As Orin Kerr used to like to remind people, if you're not happy with what the Conspirators write, you are entitled to a full refund.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not really an argument against being critical.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's an argument against calling people you disagree with tools and shills.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInch — Nope, not even that. When Orin Kerr did that he was in the habit to insist that commentary on this world-wide published blog be conducted on politeness principles restricted to appropriate dinner-party conversation.

If I had my preferences, I would edit for politeness about half the commentary which appears here. But even I was boggled by that one from Kerr. I ended up liking him better for it, but still, not realistic.

I continue to oppose any practice to call you a tool or a shill. I figure everyone will reach their own judgements about that.

[Sarcastr0]

At some point, it can't just be disagreement.

Misreading the Constitution to make it more nativist.
Tons of words about how the obvious strongarming of a corrupt mayor didn't actually happen.
Getting weird and petty about Supreme Court justices.
Advocating for blowing up any kind of checks on the executive, from budget to the Pendleton Act.

At some point, it's not just a difference of opinion, it's MAGA tools carrying water.
Ask Orin. Or Prof. Adler. Or plenty of actual serious posters on here.

[Bob from Ohio]

"actual serious posters on here."

Please name them. Thanks.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, I guess it is a good thing Sarcastr0 is past the denial stage. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

Don't worry Ed, you're not useful enough to be a tool.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why are you still employed?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is he?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In less than a month, Trump has turned our allies against us, and publicly started sucking Putin's dick, placing the US squarely on the wrong side of right and wrong.

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-trump-war-zelenskyy-putin-7fe8c0c80b4e93e3bc079c621a44e8bb

Perhaps one of our former allies will rid us of this troublesome King.

[SRG2]

The fundamental question about current US foreign policy is this: If you piss off Western Europe and make Putin happy, whose side are you on?

[ducksalad]

But he explained the strategy clearly this morning:

Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and “TRUMP,” will never be able to settle. The United States has spent $200 Billion Dollars more than Europe, and Europe’s money is guaranteed, while the United States will get nothing back. Why didn’t Sleepy Joe Biden demand Equalization, in that this War is far more important to Europe than it is to us — We have a big, beautiful Ocean as separation. On top of this, Zelenskyy admits that half of the money we sent him is “MISSING.” He refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden “like a fiddle.” A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left. In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to the War with Russia, something all admit only “TRUMP,” and the Trump Administration, can do. Biden never tried, Europe has failed to bring Peace, and Zelenskyy probably wants to keep the “gravy train” going. I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job, his Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died – And so it continues…..

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114031332924234939

[SRG2]

And not one word on Putin. who started the war.

So fuck off with this alleged explanation.

Some of you traitorous cunts seem to think that Putin is or should be our friend.

[ducksalad]

But he also explained yesterday that the Ukraine started the war.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/president-donald-trump-says-ukraine-should-have-never-started-war/vi-AA1zn4v6?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[Commenter_XY]

Zelenskyy made the very serious mistake of dissing The Donald. I think people forgot about how 45 dealt with being dissed; 47 won't be different by turning the cheek. There is a saying about biting the hand that feeds you...

[bernard11]

When did Zelenskyy "diss the Donald?"

How does what ever he did justify Trump's revolting, disgraceful, capitulation to Putin? Or his lies about Zelenskyy and Ukraine starting the war.

Why do you worship this POS human being?

[Absaroka]

"When did Zelenskyy "diss the Donald?""

Around the time of Zelensky's trip to PA he said "Zelensky told the New Yorker in a piece published Monday that “Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows,” and he said Vance is “too radical.”"

At the time I winced over Zelensky's visit. It kinda looked (to me!) like he was buttering up to Harris as the presumptive winner. I remember thinking Zelensky better hope Trump doesn't win.

Trump shouldn't hold that trip against Zelensky, but...

[Commenter_XY]

That wasn't it, Absaroka. When the talks were occurring in KSA, TresSec Bessent was sent to UKR simultaneously, as The Donald's personal representative. Zelenskyy (rudely?) blew him off. That's a personal diss of The Donald. Big mistake. The Donald has a titanic ego. Did I mention that The Donald hails from NYC, and he has a NYC + Titanic ego? Did the UKR FM do anything to help?

UKR just lost any hope of financial or military grants in gratis. I suspect any further help or support will be conditioned on access and ownership of some portion of rare earth supply. I don't think that Zelenskyy obsequiously 'kissing the ring' will fix this.

You might say it is small, and petty. And I might say you are right. But that is the reality of the situation.

[David Nieporent]

TresSec Bessent was sent to UKR simultaneously, as The Donald's personal representative. Zelenskyy (rudely?) blew him off.

You're being gullible again. This didn't happen. Zelensky met with him; the claim that he didn't is just a flat out MAGA lie. (There are pictures of their meeting!)

[David Nieporent]

At the time I winced over Zelensky's visit. It kinda looked (to me!) like he was buttering up to Harris as the presumptive winner. I remember thinking Zelensky better hope Trump doesn't win.

On the one hand, you're right. On the other, Trump has been Putin's stooge for years; he was never going to side with Ukraine regardless of what Zelensky said.

[Bob from Ohio]

"capitulation to Putin"

Did I miss the peace agreement?

[Michael Ejercito]

The 1980's are over

Why are you still stuck in the Cold War?

[David Nieporent]

Why are you quoting Barack Obama?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, it sure sucks that Trump adopted Obama's Ukraine policy. But Biden's faking support wasn't fooling anybody.

Sucking Putin's dick while pretending not to doesn't accomplish anything.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm the one who quotes Barry Hussein on this Blog (I do a great Barry Hussein impression, you gotta get the "Uh"s right, it's all about the "Uh"s)
SCENE: League of Women Voters Hall, Filthydelphia PA
President Barry Hussein Osama:
"Uhhh, Governor, Uh, Romeney, the Uhh, 80's called, Uhhh they want their Uhhh, Foreign Policy, Uhh, Back!! Uhhh"

Frank

[SRG2]

Why do you support the nearest equivalent to Hitler or Stalin that Europe has produced since the latter's death?

[Michael Ejercito]

Did not your side oppose intervention in favore of South Vietnam?

Did not your aside vote to cut off aid to South Vietnam?

Why is the Ukraine more deserving?

[SRG2]

My side? What side do you think that is?

And why do you support Putin?

[Bob from Ohio]

" nearest equivalent to Hitler or Stalin that Europe has produced since the latter's death?"

A "recency bias" comment. Ignoring al the post Stalin rulers, the dictators of E. Germany and Romania, and others.

Putin is not nearly as important as you puff him up to be.

[shawn_dude]

Trump has a big ego and he wants everyone to know Putin is his friend. If Putin isn't important, why isn't Trump trying to extort minerals from HIM in exchange for "peace?!"

[David Nieporent]

Trump has turned our allies against us, and publicly started sucking Putin's dick, placing the US squarely on the wrong side of right and wrong.

In general, Trump's approach to diplomacy appears to be to suck up to our enemies and smack our allies in the face.

[Brett Bellmore]

More like "smack our allies in the face" and remind them that they're allies, not dependent children, and are expected to carry their share of the load.

It was understandable that we were doing most of the heavy lifting on international peace keeping and defense after WWII, when we were basically the only country that hadn't been pounded into rubble.

That situation hasn't existed in decades, and it's long since time that we transition from the world's protector to just another country. It's time for, as somebody once said, Atlas to shrug.

[SRG2]

I can accept the undiplomatic attempts to persuade our allies, but the sucking up to Putin and blaming Ukraine for starting the war is utterly indefensible.

[Brett Bellmore]

I haven't been following this very closely, because, frankly, I'm trying to disengage from politics, and only voted for Trump to keep Harris out of office, not because I like him. Sure, I like some of what Trump is doing now, hardly all of it. And, like I said, we're deep in the fog of war, literal and political. I'm content to evaluate things again before the midterms, and 2028, and see if after 4 years I still find the Democrats worse, rather than the Republicans "good".

The claim that Zelenskyy is a "dictator" seems factually accurate, even if you can make excuses for it. When was Ukraine's last regularly scheduled election, again?

I'm seeing numerous similarly worded news stories saying that Trump " appeared to blame Ukraine for starting the war", what I'm NOT seeing is anywhere that Trump actually, you know, blamed Ukraine for starting the war.

Just claims that he appeared to be...

Apparently the substance of Trump's complaint is that Zelenskyy should have just accepted Russia taking another bite of his country. I can't really agree with that, but I can agree that OUR interest in stopping him is much less than Zelenskyy's, or Europe's, for that matter, so why the hell are we on the hook for it?

I really don't think the US has to bleed itself dry trying to fix every injustice in the world. And that's what we've been doing, and we're getting pretty pale at this point.

[bernard11]

What Trump said about Zelnskyy:

“You’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it ... You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”

But hey, you've got an explanation as usual, even though you repeat your phony disclaimer about not liking Trump.

Your comments tell a different story. But you always have a retreat prepared. Good tactics, but dishonest ones.

[Brett Bellmore]

And there's a reason all the news accounts say "appeared to". Because Trump's usual public speaking is a dumpster fire if you're looking for concise and well thought out language. Even the people who WANT you to think Trump was saying it's all Zelenskyy's fault know better than to just outright assert it, when if you look at a larger chunk of what he said you can tell he did nothing of the sort.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He literally said, “you should have never started it.” What else is it you need to hear?

[Brett Bellmore]

See what I mean? He's so careless about the way he speaks that everything he says is peppered with these little bits you can cherry pick to make him look bad, even if somebody looking at it in context wouldn't think much of it. (But the media won't show you the context...)

That's something professional politicians learn to avoid doing, or they get winnowed out fast. Trump's whole experience outside of politics leaves him vulnerable to that.

[shawn_dude]

ROFLMAO.

Prosecutor plays a voice recording where the accused murder says "you give me no choice; I'm going to kill you."

Defense attorney: "The prosecutor is cherry-picking!"

[David Nieporent]

I haven't been following this very closely,

The last refuge of the conservative when confronted with the indefensible from Trump: "Oh, I can't comment on that because I didn't see [the thing that was all over every news outlet.]"

[Absaroka]

"The claim that Zelenskyy is a "dictator" seems factually accurate"

I'm not seeing that:

"...Ukrainian law does not allow presidential elections to be held when martial law is in effect. ... Martial law has been extended in 90-day intervals since the full-scale invasion with parliament's approval"

The Brits did something similar in WWII, skipping the 1940 general election. They went 10 years (1935-1945) without a general election. I wouldn't characterize Churchill as a dictator during that period.

[Brett Bellmore]

You think they couldn't have found a way to hold an election if they WANTED to? Leave a 1 day gap between one 90 day interval and the next, to fit the voting into?

[Absaroka]

Sure, just like the Brits could have conducted an election during WWII. I don't think they want to; they seem pretty happy with Zelensky, like the Brits were pretty happy with Churchill. If the Ukrainian parliament wants to have en election they can have one.

(there are some logistic challenges ... getting ballots to trenches, refugees, there isn't any practical way to let folks in the occupied zones vote)

[David Nieporent]

I'm seeing numerous similarly worded news stories saying that Trump " appeared to blame Ukraine for starting the war", what I'm NOT seeing is anywhere that Trump actually, you know, blamed Ukraine for starting the war.

Normal people see that the media said that Trump appeared to do X bad thing and realize that the media is just too timid to forthrightly state that Trump did X bad thing. Brett sees that the media said that Trump appeared to do X bad thing and mistakenly concludes that Trump didn't do it.

[Sarcastr0]

only voted for Trump to keep Harris out of office

Sure, lets not hold the fac tthat you defend every single thing he does as a sign of anything that might tie you to him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's not ignore the fact that you're lying, (Or, granted, delusional.) about me defending everything he does.

I defend a lot of what he does, sure. Not everything.

[shawn_dude]

Brett is already distancing himself from his guy and his vote. That's amazing; it's only been a month of him back in office.

[David Nieporent]

That situation hasn't existed in decades, and it's long since time that we transition from the world's protector to just another country. It's time for, as somebody once said, Atlas to shrug.

We are not "just another country." We are — were, pre-Trump — the most powerful, richest, most important country. Telling Latvia, "Sorry, you need to stop Russia on your own" is not "reminding them that they're allies"; it's reminding them that they're not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I want us to be the most powerful, richest, most important just another country. Not the world's policeman, not the world's nanny, not the world's boss, just another country that simply happens to be the best.

We have a tangential interest in Russia not working it's way towards the EU. The EU has a direct interest in this. So, why is it our problem, rather than theirs?

We can't do everything that needs doing in the world! The effort to is warping and destroying us. The rest of the world needs to get over their dependence on us, and pick up their share of the load.

As wealthy as we are, we can't afford to keep doing this. If we could afford to keep doing this, we wouldn't be running enormous deficits year after year!

[Sarcastr0]

This philosophy did not serve us well in the runup to WW2.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, it did: It's why we went into WWII the wealthiest country in the world, rather than flat broke. You think we'd have fared as well if we'd already been deep in debt and over-extended?

[Sarcastr0]

No, it didn't.

1) America First was pretty Nazi-aligned. Just like the neo-isolationists end up being pretty Putin-aligned.

2) America First wasn't 'lets get in but later' it didn't want us to do lend-lease or anything like that. Because not our war, right? How do you think that would have turned out for us?

3) The counterfactual if we'd added our force to the allies earlier is not an easy one; don't pretend it is.

[Bob from Ohio]

America First was not the majority of isolationists nor its driving force. The large majority of Americans were isolationists. The draft famously won by only 1 vote.

[Absaroka]

"The draft famously won by only 1 vote"

Which draft bill was that? Because the 1940 bill passed 233-124 and 58-31.

[Bob from Ohio]

It was an extension of service from 12 to 18 months. H.J. Res. 222, August 12, 1941

Article at American Heritage

"The Day When We Almost Lost the Army
Debate over America's involvement in World War II came to a head in July 1941 as the Senate argued over a draft-extension bill. The decision would have profound consequences for the nation."
Joseph E. Persico Spring 2012 Volume 62
Issue 1

[Absaroka]

Thanks!

Link to the American Heritage article

House vote was 203-202, senate was 45-30. Pearl Harbor was four months away.

[Noscitur a sociis]

and it's long since time that we transition from the world's protector to just another country

Why?

[Jmaie]

Dunno, something about blood and treasure.

Regarding Sarcastro’s comment above, today there’s no resemblance to the run up to WW2…

[Brett Bellmore]

Because being a military superpower with commitments all over the world is warping us and bankrupting us.

[Absaroka]

I will chime in with a recommendation for a book from 1987, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy.

He charts the rise and fall of various powers - Spain, Portugal, the Dutch, France, England. The tl;dr is that the cycle is:

1)Become rich (industrial revolution, exploit colonies, whatever) while not spending much on the military, perhaps 1% of GDP
2)Acquire far flung interests, start spending on military to protect/enforce those interests, perhaps 4% of GDP
3)Over a century of compounding that 3% difference the current hegemon in stage 2 ends up being outgrown by some new country in stage 1. Repeat the cycle.

I think it's worth careful thought. On the one hand Britain probably wishes it had bought a few more Spitfires in 1940; you can clearly spend too little. But over time, you can also spend too much. It's a Scylla and Charybdis to be sure,

(I read it in the 90's; apologies for any memory faults)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Calling for the assassination of the President is never a good look. You might have to have yourself flogged.

[Stephen Lathrop]

During upcoming Ukraine peace negotiations, do you suppose Zelensky will be afforded access to the Putin/Trump presence without a prior strip search?

[ducksalad]

50-50 whether he'll be allowed in the room at all.

It's clear that right now, Putin and Trump share a goal of making Zelensky look completely feckless and irrelevant. Putin wants a puppet government and Trump is childishly seeking revenge for his first impeachment.

[hobie]

Microsoft. Wow. This is almost incomprehensible!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fauci going to jail (for state offenses)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOwv1lfP8dQ

[hobie]

Guess he better start running for office.

[bernard11]

That announcer, his pal, and those AG's are full of almost as much shit as you are.

Fauci committed crimes in South Carolina. Sure. I mean, fuck off with this crap.

[SRG2]

Ah but when the Republicans weaponise justice departments, it's different because (R)easons.

[Commenter_XY]

No, it is (D)ifferent. 😉

[David Nieporent]

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[ducksalad]

The anti-birthright order got another loss, this time 3-0 at the 9th Circuit.

The Trump appointee on the panel wrote separately to point out that even if Trump eventually turns out to be right about the 14th Amendment, there's no "emergency" here.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.3b7bc70c-6fcb-460e-9232-c6bc8ad16303/gov.uscourts.ca9.3b7bc70c-6fcb-460e-9232-c6bc8ad16303.37.0.pdf

[Roger S]

Not a decision on the merits. The only opinion that matters will be from Scotus.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I suppose if Presidents get to decide if there's an emergency in the context of moving troops about, courts get to decide if there's an emergency in the context of scheduling legal matters.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Clarksdale, MS, gets an order requiring a newspaper to remove an editorial critical of city officials.

[Bill Poser]

The court that issued this almost certainly unconstitutional TRO was a chancery court. As I understand it, in Mississippi chancery courts deal with things like divorce, custody disputes, and probate. I wonder whether the court even had jurisdiction.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I wonder whether the court even had jurisdiction."

As I understand it, these types of courts don't concern themselves with matters like jurisdiction, rules of evidence, facts, etc.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Cruelty is the point.
From now on these (brown) kids appear in court unrepresentated.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/18/politics/unaccompanied-migrant-children-legal-services-trump-cuts

[Roger S]

Yes, it was cruel of the Biden administration to invite these kids to illegally cross the border.

[shawn_dude]

This is just porn to the MAGAts in here. If you expected them to feel shame over the way children are being treated after they already fist-pumped cuts to school lunches and healthcare, you haven't been around here for more than a couple hours...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Somewhere down the road maybe we will have a film called "The Madness of King Donald."

Things in the news today including him parroting Mel Brooks and saying it is a good to be king, RFK Jr. continuing the Trump Administration's war on trans people, an attack on congestion pricing in New York, attacks on Zelensky as a "dictator," and the Trump Administration supporting Russia over our European allies.

Just a taste:

Hegseth’s biggest concession to Russia, though, was his warning that “stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.” Also on Wednesday, President Donald Trump spoke to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, for nearly an hour and a half and came out echoing Putin’s rationale for his attack on Ukraine. Trump’s social media account posted that the call had been “highly productive,” and said the two leaders would visit each other’s countries, offering a White House visit to Putin, who has been isolated from other nations since his attacks on Ukraine.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-19-2025

Well, at least Spring Training. Mark Gooden, a Mets beat writer noted on Bluesky:

"The Mets have released their 2025 promotion schedule. It includes Drag Queen Story Hour and Big Gay Choir, as well as Ment Bashoona and Wuspoore Womer."

Yeah, I have no idea who Ment Bashoona and Wuspoore Womer is either.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Republicans are supporting streamlining, so to speak, government these days & often sound like libertarian about its dangers. Then, they say people should have nothing to fear from it if they didn't do anything wrong. Talking out of two sides of their mouths.

https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/02/19/rep-mike-lawler-questions-citizenship-latino-lawmaker-jose-alvarado/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Another female teacher molesting middle school boys.
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/02/nh-middle-school-teacher-arrested-for-allegedly-stalking-one-of-her-students/

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit, why were my teachers mostly 300lb Esther Rolle doubles??

[ReaderY]

I find it surprising that Mr. Trump was willing to settle for declaring himself King.

I was expecting him to declare himself Emperor. Or maybe Fuerher.

At any rate, it should be clear enough that in his eyes this whole democracy republic constitution bullshit where the high-IQ genius natural ruler class has to defer to the little people and their stupid little laws is definitely on its well-deserved way to the dustbin of history as far as he’s concerned.

May I suggest renaming the Republican Party the Royal Party? It now has and wants nothing to do with that stupid little man Lincoln and his nonsense about government of, by, and for the stupid low-IQ people. The party’s current fundamental principal is that government is of, by, and for the 0.01%, the high-IQ super-genius elite. And the stupid low-IQ people are there to be conned and fooled by the high-IQ people into serving THEM.

[Michael Ejercito]

What is he going to do?

Require all employers to require all employees to take one recently developed vaccine to keep their employment?

[ReaderY]

Look around you. What do you think he’s doing? He’s busy transforming the federal government from a government of, by, and for the people into a government of, by, and for him and his super-high IQ extreme genius 0.01% friends.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, from a government of, by, and for, the bureaucrats, anyway.

[shawn_dude]

That still managed to support poor families, hungry children, farmers, retirees, veterans, etc. Whatever you think about bureaucrats, a lot of Americans were helped by their efforts. Now all that bleeding heart liberal boolsheet is being flushed in favor of partisan loyalty to the oligarch class and their needs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I was expecting him to declare himself Emperor. Or maybe Fuerher."

Another cat constantly chasing the laser pointer.

You have it backward on the mertits, the Democrats are the party of the suburbs and the rich/upper middle class, the GOP is increasingly the party of the lower middle class and non-black working class,

[shawn_dude]

Nothing says party of the (white) working class like union busting, keeping working wages below poverty level, and demolishing the social safety nets they've come to rely on.

[Commenter_XY]

Does Kash Patel get confirmed today as FBI Director? Y or N

Yes, and by EOY, the DC-based FBI bureaucracy will be fed to the woodchipper; that 13K will be shrunk to <5K.

[hobie]

Don't know. Has he been disloyal to the United States at some point?

[bernard11]

Ignorant cheerleading by XY.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He hasn't the maturity to cheer any other way.

[shawn_dude]

Same question: Will Congress do it's job?

If no, then more C_XY cheerleading.

[Commenter_XY]

RE: Judge Newman of Fed Circuit stealth impeachment by judicial and not congressional process...

What on earth did Judge Newman write to offend Chief Judge Kimberly Moore?

Reading through the various memoranda, it sure reads like CJ Moore has a personal issue w/Judge Newman. Maybe not just the Chief.

I have to ask: Does petty shit like this happen often amongst the black-robed judges?

[Noscitur a sociis]

You can read some of what Judge Newman wrote here:

https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/JudicialMisconductOrders/September%2020,%202023%20Judicial%20Council%20Order.pdf

If that doesn’t illustrate for you why some of her colleagues might be concerned about her mental capacity, I’d be interested to hear it.

[Commenter_XY]

Judge Newman should retire, Nas. There is more to it.

The problem is....impeachment is the constitutional way to remove her, absent persuasion. What stops the Judicial Council from approaching Congress directly (with the report and testimony), and ask them to impeach and remove from the bench?

Sort of like policing your own, and following the process. It would be messy, but it is the way to do it, no?

[shawn_dude]

You're invoking the Constitution? I think your support of DOGE and other unconstitutional actions by this Administration weaken your argument there.

[apedad]

Trump Antitrust Duo Keeps Rules From Biden-Era Deals Crackdown

The Trump administration is engaged in a wholesale unwinding of President Joe Biden’s policy agenda — except when it comes to competition enforcement — disappointing dealmakers who had been anticipating an easier time with regulators.

Trump’s antitrust chiefs at the US Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission said Tuesday that they will follow tougher merger review rules adopted under Biden in 2023, surprising critics who had hoped for a rollback of those requirements.

“The Trump Antitrust Division and FTC will serve as tough enforcers, and they will work closely together to deliver results for the American people. America First Antitrust,” said Mike Davis, a key Trump ally, and head of the conservative legal advocacy group Article III Project. “The Trump antitrust enforcers won’t do regulations; they will serve as law enforcers first.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/trump-antitrust-enforcers-to-keep-biden-era-merger-review-rules

Some good news.

Brett, et al, seem to think the US magically became the greatest country in spite of govt oversight and regulations, e.g., EPA, OSHA, SEC, etc.

I say we became great precisely because of the guard rails (not speed bumps) the govt created.

Having clear laws and regular enforcement allows capitalists and entrepreneurs to safely and securely create products and services, and investment opportunities - which produces positive results for all of society.

[Michael P]

Most regulations and laws are written to be guardrails against market entry as a primary goal. They do more for the safety and security of producers than of consumers.

[Sarcastr0]

You ever look at the history of antitrust laws, or just gonna throw out sourceless anti-government pronouncements?

[Michael P]

Regulatory capture happens a lot more often than people expect. This is a cousin to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.

[Sarcastr0]

Airy pronouncements.

Ideology alone is an awful way to make policy.

[apedad]

That might be partly true at the state level but not at the federal level (primary goal thing), and regardless haven't deterred business in the US from growing tremendously.

- Small businesses employ about 57.3 percent of the private workforce (NTIA).

- Scientific and Technical Services; Construction; Health Care and Social Assistance; and Retail Trade combined are estimated to consist of 2.8 million businesses that employ about 51.1 million people and have an annual payroll of approximately $2.6 trillion (Census).

- With a Global Entrepreneurship Index of 83.6, the US is the best country for entrepreneurs (GEDI).

https://www.shoeboxed.com/blog/small-businesses-then-and-now/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P — Why shouldn't employees of producers enjoy safety and security at work? Ever worked in a place where a notable percentage of the workforce had been permanently maimed on the job? I doubt it. If you had, you would understand that the ones still working were the lucky remnant.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, et al, seem to think the US magically became the greatest country in spite of govt oversight and regulations, e.g., EPA, OSHA, SEC, etc."

I don't think there's anything magical about it, and I've already pointed out that the US became the greatest country BEFORE all that crap showed up.

Over 2000 years of Economic History in One Chart

Notice that the US share of the world economy was growing rapidly from the start, and we easily had the largest economy in the world by 1900. In fact, the growth stopped in 1950, and we've been shrinking as a fraction of the world economy ever since. Quite rapidly since around 2000!

So, when was the EPA created? 1970.
When was OSHA created? 1971
When was the SEC create? Well, OK, 1934.

Is this some kind of reverse causality you're advocating, where all these agencies caused our phenomenal growth before they ever existed?

In fact, your "guard rails" all came after we were on top of the world, they didn't put us there.

[Sarcastr0]

We're a magnet for the best and the brightest in the world in part because we have breathable air, rivers that aren't on fire, and don't sell our children and workers' lives cheap.

You have the relationship on it's head - markets serve society, not vice versa.
America was not created so that the productivity number goes up. If we only care about that number going up to the determent of our people, we've lost the bubble and become some kind of weird technocracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Breathable air, rivers that aren't on fire, valuing workers' lives, are a product of being wealthy enough to care about such things, not a source of wealth. Poor people treat them as luxury goods, the wealthy spend some of that wealth on them.

And you have completely blown away my point: Your agencies can not have made us #1 when we were #1 before they existed! Are you even capable of admitting that? That they're not what made us #1?

What made us #1 was being large enough to capture all economies of scale internally, lack of land borders with hostile countries, a fairly comprehensive set of natural resources, and the liberty to take advantage of all of these assets.

Our growth rate actually stalled as your treasured regulatory agencies really got going! Not accelerated!

As it happens, I LIKE a clean environment! I like having parks and green spaces! But that's not going to make me pretend they're what made us wealthy. They're not, they're something we SPEND that wealth on.

I'm also not going to pretend that sort of genuinely valuable stuff is what most of the regulatory state is about today.

[Commenter_XY]

There are none so blind who refuse to see, Brett. You'd expect a bureaucrat to sell the virtues of a leviathan administrative state, and Sarcastr0 does not disappoint.

[bernard11]

You have a highly constricted vision of "wealth."

As it happens, I LIKE a clean environment! I like having parks and green spaces! But that's not going to make me pretend they're what made us wealthy.

Really? You don't think that having clean air and unpolluted water is wealth? Is it better to be healthy, or to have lung diseases, or get sick from bad water?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying parks didn't make us wealthy, being wealthy allowed us to afford parks! Just think of what we could afford if we were wealthier still! We could clean up so many messes that are left over from decades ago, because we could afford to clean them up!

You're looking at the guy with the mansion and swimming pool, and asking, "Isn't having a mansion and swimming pool 'wealth'?"

No, it's what wealth lets you buy. Wealth is the ability to afford stuff, it's not the stuff you use that ability to obtain.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't do environmental regulations, it keeps us from maximizing or wealth creation. Which we need so we can one day afford to spend money on having a good environment.

But not yet! we gotta concentrate on maximizing wealth creation.

One day, though...
---
You sound like those effective altruist grifters.

[Brett Bellmore]

Dude, I LIKE genuine environmental regulation! But this is just another version of "Washington Monument Syndrome": "Let me regulate everything, or the valuable regulations get it first!"

My employer is about to spend enough to just about double our payroll on replacing some perfectly good equipment, because Biden's EPA after the election lowered the allowable level of a compound we're using from "Justified by biological studies" levels to "What's the lowest level state of the art equipment can distinguish from zero?" levels, as a step towards a complete ban before the next Presidential election, and the new levels are impossible to meet short of the sort of measures used in nuclear laboratories, and like I said, are just an interim step to a ban in under four years.

We fully expect these regulations to be rolled back to something sensible, by the way. It's just that we can't afford to have them come roaring back the next time a Democrat is elected, and the regulation set a schedule for meeting them that's so short we have no choice but to immediately pull the trigger on junking some of the most expensive equipment in the plant; Lead times on the replacement are such that we have to order it NOW.

This is a totally senseless expense that amounts to a serious fraction of our annual revenue, and everybody in the industry is getting hit with it. A regulation that seems tailored, AFTER they lost the election, to cause a major hit to industry while Trump is President. Apparently wasn't worth doing until they were certain Harris wouldn't be President while it kicked in.

Multiply that by a hundred other similar regulations, that take the attitude that the only allowable level of anything toxic is zero, and the hit to the economy is enormous.

Your regulators don't seem to grasp the concept of "diminishing returns", that you don't get a thousand times the benefit when you cut the permissible level of some toxin from ppm to ppb.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm pointing out that your logic never has a time when we as a society get to enjoy anything other than wealth.

It's growth for growth's sake over and over again.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm pointing out that regulation, like anything else, is subject to diminishing returns. Something people who don't care about the economic impacts tend to ignore.

Biden's administration in particular has been fond of creating regulations so strict that they are literally impossible to comply with, as a way of killing off disfavored industries and products, such as gas appliances.

They did a lot of that after the election last year. Basically cluster bombed the economy with new regulations in December.

[Sarcastr0]

No, everyone agrees regulations are subject to diminishing returns.

You're arguing that the EPA should never heave existed!

[apedad]

Brett, now do all the spectacular capitalism failures that happened during that period.

As I've mentioned before, I'm pro-capitalism as it allows for entrepreneurship, investment opportunities, worker mobility (up and sideways) - while AT THE SAME TIME we have to prevent the fraud, deaths (worker and consumer), environmental destruction, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is no success without failure, Apedad. If you can't let people fail, you're not letting them succeed, either.

My point remains, even if Sarcastr0 can never admit it: The regulatory state did NOT make us #1, we had been #1 for decades before it was born.

[bernard11]

Business failure is far from the same thing as fraud, unnecessary deaths, environmental destruction. Conflating them is either stupid or dishonest or both.

[Brett Bellmore]

Great, then don't do it.

I am contesting a specific claim made above by Apedad: That the regulatory state made us #1 in the world.

By pointing out that we were #1 in the world for decades before the regulatory state came into existence, I have fundamentally refuted that claim. Do you dispute this?

You can defend the regulatory state on all sorts of basis, but the claim that it made the US #1 in the world is categorically, objectively, false. I'd like to see that conceded.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Your vague comparison to world-wide experience prior to the mid-20th century makes nonsense of your argument.

Even across the U.S. the advance of industrialism was uneven, generating booms in some places, and bypassing others. World-wide, the introduction of industrialism—not the introduction of capitalism—accounts for most economic growth.

The earlier time frames you use as a baseline correspond to an era featuring a wider world just on the brink of industrial progress, but mostly not yet reaping its economic benefits. That process remains ongoing, with the U.S. economy destined to look progressively less dominant as a result.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett you are looking for internalities and you should be looking at externalities. The 1950 marked the time when European and Asian countries began to rebuild from the devastation of WWII. In 1970s countries with natural resources, particularly oil began to flex their muscles. These countries began to demand a fair price for their resources. Finally, towards the end of the graph we see China emerging onto the world market with its tremendous population and natural resources. Before WWII the US had a corner on resources and was developing a strong population from immigration. WWII gave the US the economic lead, but the period after other countries have step in for their share of the market. The US needs to continue to find our place in that world market and not to try to hide from it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, that's why they were growing, but if we'd maintained our own growth rate that had predominated before the vast expansion of the regulatory state, all that would have happened is that the distribution of wealth would have remained about the same at ever higher levels.

Instead, they recovered, and our own growth rate stalled, which is why we're a shrinking fraction of the world economy.

And if you look at the record of economic recessions and recoveries, you can see that our economy has fundamentally changed; It used to be that a recession would be a quick drop, followed by a rapid climb to where the economy would have been if the recession hadn't happened, a return to the projected growth path.

The last few recessions, instead, have had rapid drops, and then growth resuming from the bottom, with no return to the pre-recession trajectory. Each recession is now a permanent setback!

[Moderation4ever]

Again, I think you are over focusing on internalities, like regulation, and denying the big impact of the externalities, like increased competition in the global market. As to recessions, most recession in my lifetime have occurred after an economic expansion from exploiting a resource or situation. In late 1990's we saw the dot bubble from early tech expansion in late 2000's the housing bubble exploit home values. The market expands from exploitation, then a collapses to a recession and then recovery but without the resource or situation to exploit. Expansion cannot occur again until there is something to exploit.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's just another way of conceding that the economy is acting differently today.

What I think has happened is that the heavy weight of regulation and the resultant crony capitalism has made new productive endeavors less attractive, so money gets pushed into those exploits, instead. But unlike productive endeavors, exploits don't lay the groundwork for growth.

[ducksalad]

Apedad, there's only one thing needed to explain why they are keeping antitrust.

It's what is allowing Trump to extract millions of dollars from CBS for the "crime" of not showing every flaw of Kamala Harris in an interview, something he had zero chance of winning in court. But he can take the money by holding up a merger their parent company wanted to do until they agreed to settle the fake, meritless lawsuit out of court.

And therefore: No, this is not a good thing, it's not done for good motives, and consumers who believe in free markets don't want or trust the protection offered by utterly venal people like Trump and Biden.

[David Nieporent]

I don't doubt that Trump likes the ability to hold threats of enforcement over people's heads (see Eric Adams), but the MAGA Jacobins are not free marketers. They hate "Big Tech" as much as Elizabeth Warren does, and they ideologically are in favor of attacking it.

[Frank Drackman]

Am I the only one here who'd love to see Vlodimir Zelenskyy hung upside down and shot like they did with Mussolini? (After a fair trial of course!)

[Michael P]

Probably so. Putin deserves that much more.

[Frank Drackman]

Do you get the Irony that Putin's only doing to You-Crane what Lincoln did to the South? Bringing them back into "The Union". Usually the side with the bigger Army wins.

[Moderation4ever]

So, after Putin brings back Ukraine where does he go next? Lincoln did not just bring in Virginia, he brought the nation back together. Are you suggesting Putin is rebuilding the USSR?

[Michael P]

The USSR no longer exists and was not a natural default condition for borders.

[shawn_dude]

Except for the division of Russian troops flying the Soviet flag these days...

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think you are.

[Moderation4ever]

Yea, I guessing you are about the only one.

[Commenter_XY]

Frank, I think you went too far out on that proverbial limb.

Dissing The Donald does not qualify for the death penalty. Yet (just teasing!).

[Estragon]

Can you believe that guy? He couldn’t even get himself out of bed to meet with Treasury!!

[apedad]

President Donald J. Trump Intends to Nominate Individuals to Key Posts at the Department of Justice

Today the Department of Justice is proud to announce President Trump’s intent to nominate John Eisenberg to serve as Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Brett Shumate to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, and Patrick Davis to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs.

During President Trump’s first term, John served as the Legal Advisor to the National Security Council, Assistant to the President, and Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs. John has also served at the Department of Justice in several positions, including Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel.

Brett presently serves as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. Prior to rejoining the Department, Brett was a partner at Jones Day in Washington, D.C. He previously served at the Department as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Federal Programs Branch in the Civil Division.

Brett clerked for Judge Edith H. Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

This will be Patrick’s third stint with the Department of Justice. During President Trump’s first term, Patrick served in DOJ management as Deputy Associate Attorney General. Earlier in his career, he served as a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the DOJ’s Civil Division. On Capitol Hill, Patrick was the Deputy Chief Investigative Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he led the Committee’s “Russiagate” investigation and was instrumental in the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He later served as the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/president-donald-j-trump-intends-nominate-individuals-key-posts-department-justice

You see, this is why it's laughable when Comm_XY and Dr Ed2 gleefully post about draining the swamp - and yet here's Trump bringing in 'swamp creatures' - and PROUDLY posting about it too.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, there will be far fewer fed bureaucritters on the federal payrolls by EOY. The current body count is at least 300K....200K probationary employee RIFs + 75K buyouts.

[Bob from Ohio]

"draining the swamp "

And if he picked newbies you'd be carping about "unqualified and inexperienced" like with some of his cabinet picks

[apedad]

‘Entirely independent criminal conduct’: Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons don’t cover Capitol rioter’s conviction for planning ‘assassination missions’ of FBI agents, DOJ says

The Justice Department is refusing to drop the conviction of a Jan. 6 rioter who was found guilty of plotting to kill the FBI agents who investigated him for his pardoned Capitol attack crimes, which included breaking in and assaulting a police officer.

“(Edward Kelley, 35, of Maryville, Tennessee" is wrong,” wrote prosecutors in their response. “As both parties made explicitly clear to the Court and jury throughout litigation in this Court, this case is not about Jan. 6 … This case is about the defendant’s entirely independent criminal conduct in Tennessee, in late 2022, more than 500 miles away from the Capitol: threatening, soliciting, and conspiring to murder agents, officers, and employees of the FBI, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Tennessee Highway Patrol, Maryville Police Department, Blount County Sheriff’s Office, and Clinton Police Department.”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/entirely-independent-criminal-conduct-trumps-jan-6-pardons-dont-cover-capitol-rioters-conviction-for-planning-assassination-missions-of-fbi-agents-doj-says/

Of course, Trump is looking to fire (or already has) "the FBI agents who investigated (Kelley) for his pardoned Capitol attack crimes . . . . "

[Brett Bellmore]

That's fair enough, I think. Just because the agents engaged in abusive conduct doesn't clear a guy from plotting to murder them.

[Sarcastr0]

What abusive conduct?

[Brett Bellmore]

The abusive conduct that prompted the pardons, obviously.

[Estragon]

Ah yes. The arc of myth making continues. Where are you on the continuum?

Antifa false flag?

Just grannies taking pictures?

All the work of FBI informants?

It was the cops who assaulted the great patriots, not the other way around?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they were all in the mix, frankly. Except maybe the Antifa; They're not much into false flags from what I've seen.

I wouldn't have issued a blanket pardon like that, but I think an awful lot of the J-6er did deserve pardons, or at least commutations.

And a fair number of them didn't.

[shawn_dude]

And we keep hearing about what great people they were too! Nearly a week doesn't go by with another pardoned maniac getting back in the news for another violent crime.

How's Trump going to form his own brownshirts if they keep getting arrested for violent crimes or die in shootouts with the police?

Meh... just another consequence of voting for Trump.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"On Wednesday, Mr. Bove argued that dismissing the case was “a standard exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” and that Mr. Adams’s indictment had negatively affected the “national security and immigration objectives” of President Trump."

IOW, dismissal (without prejudice) is a quid pro quo.

[John F. Carr]

COVID killed off enough non-working old people to save America $205 billion in social security payments, postponing depletion of the fund by two months. Thanks, Fauci. Or thanks anonymous Chinese bat.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33465/w33465.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

Well, that is one way to address the SSA shortfall, just arrange for a lab accident. /sarc

[SRG2]

I must applaud the red states' willingness to sacrifice their citizens to help lower the SS deficit. Good job!

[ThePublius]

New York's a red state?

[SRG2]

Ho. I'm looking at what happened after the first COVID wave, once vaccinations became widely available.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've linked to the data before, but almost all the variation state to state in mortality was actually driven by differences in obesity and age profiles of the states.

The exception WAS the vaccination rate, but only for those above 65. Vaccinating people younger than that had no statistically significant effect on mortality rates, I suppose because Covid simply wasn't much of a killer unless you were either elderly or already sickly. (Being elderly IS a form of being sickly, but try convincing the FDA of that...)

[shawn_dude]

How does that theory play out wrt hospitalization rates? If over a million have died, how many were merely hospitalized? (and of those, how many were bankrupted?) Further, with all the hospital beds filled up, how many people with other critical conditions died because an unvaccinated COVID patient was taking up a bed?

Should we be equally callous for other diseases that only affect the "sickly?" How about diabetics? Or veterans exposed to nerve agents?

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, it helps if you force senior housing facilities to accept carriers, too. Hearing Wrap Up: “Must-Admit” COVID-19 Nursing Home Mandates were Deadly for Elderly Americans, State Officials Responsible

The policy never made any sense from an epidemiological standpoint, but as an effort to cut future costs is sure rocked.

[Moderation4ever]

Last Tuesday was Wisconsin's spring primary election. This is an election for non-partisan offices. Everyone had the opportunity to vote because the primary included one state-wide office, but most other offices up for election had two or less candidates. I was one of the unusual voters who actually had two offices to vote on. The election brought out about 20% of the eligible voters. There is no reason this primary could not have been rolled into the April 1 Spring Election and decided using a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) method. People talk about government efficiency and saving money. These low turnout nonpartisan primary elections simply could be replaced by using RCV. Regular primaries could be retained for partisan election. It a simple compromise that could save millions.

[SRG2]

RCV is baaaad because Republicans once lost an election they feel they should have won because of it.

[David Nieporent]

You joke, but that's literally how MAGA thinks! They (incorrectly!) think that Murkowski won in Alaska because of RCV, and so they now think it's a Democratic plot. Even though Murkowski is a Republican!

[ducksalad]

I was a big fan of RCV and not a Republican. But what happened recently in the Palin/Begich/Peltiola election shows (a) that Republicans inflicted the loss on themselves, and (b) that the theory behind RCV doesn't take into account how real people are motivated.

The RCV "mistake" as I see it, is a belief that (for example) a strongly progressive voter would vote for the outright socialist first, the mildly liberal Democrat second, etc. Perhaps, the idea goes, the two candidates might even have a friendly agreement to encourage their supporters to put the other one second.

In the election mentioned above, the RCV idea was that a MAGA supporter should vote for Palin first and Begich second.

What actually happened was Palin instructed her supporters to NOT to put Begich second and spent much of her effort attacking him. Because that's the kind of person she is, and unfortunately it's a common attitude these days: my way or just burn it all down, compromise is worse than defeat, etc.

RCV is a way for polite moderates to resolve mild disagreements among themselves. It doesn't have the intended effect in bitter, high-stakes elections that are more about personalities than policies.

[shawn_dude]

It does solve the issue with the more motivated and extreme primary voters who effectively narrow the options for their party to the extremes. We use RCV here in SF and it appears to be electing more moderate candidates to local offices--which is the aspect of RCV that appeals to me.

[ThePublius]

No, it's bad for a whole bunch of reasons, nit least of which is that not everyone's vote is counted; i.e., in a round two, ballots are discarded, as if they never voted.

[ducksalad]

I wouldn't say that's a fair criticism. The results of the first round are published and everyone's vote counts towards that. You're no worse off (in that respect) than if it was a simple single round plurality wins, and your candidate didn't win.

What you could complain about is that you would've done something different for a traditional runoff, where you already know how the first round turned out. With RCV you're forced to predict, and that leads to some people adopting a strategy of leaving their 2nd/3rd/etc blank, which amounts to giving up their right to participate in the runoff.

[ThePublius]

That's not entirely true. First, it depends on what type of RCV it is; there are several. Second, in successive rounds of instant runoff, which is what I think Maine uses, ballots are indeed discarded, disenfranchising those voters.

[ducksalad]

Yes, there are different varieties, and down in the weeds some the rules do raise my eyebrows. The rules for multiple-winner RCV elections are, IMO, particularly questionable.

I think what you mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if we had a system where first the lowest candidate is eliminated, then we all vote again, then again remove the lowest candidate, we all vote again, etc, then every voter would get to vote in every round. In RCV it can happen that at some point all your choices got eliminated and your ballot is just no longer relevant. In fact it will happen unless your 1st or 2nd choice makes it to the last round. That is true.

As I see it, I'd be no worse off in that case than when I voted for Chase Oliver and he lost and there was no second round. And just for the record, if there had been RCV I still would have been tossed in the second round.

[David Nieporent]

Everyone's vote is counted. No ballots are "discarded." Obviously if you only vote for one person, and that person is eliminated, then you won't have a vote in the second round, but that's the same way a regular runoff works: if you don't show up and vote in the second round, you don't get a vote in that round.

All RCV does is allow runoffs without forcing people to show up at the polls more than once.

[Brett Bellmore]

My problem with RCV is that it rests on a notion which I think is demonstrably false: That the average voter actually HAS well formed preferences below their top choice.

I'd rather see actual runoff elections, which give the voters a chance to form those preference in reality.

[Moderation4ever]

The fact is that the average voter can select and rank as many candidates as they wish. Voters are not forced to pick any of the candidates. They can vote their top choice and leave it at that. What political parties want is only two candidates, so their second-rate candidate is running against the other party's second-rate candidate. The parties hoping that people will select their candidate as the least bad.

And Brett, I did offer a compromise so that political parties can have their primaries for partisan offices.

[shawn_dude]

The voters know they have RCV before they vote. They have, presumably, researched all the candidates they care about to come to their top selection. So they should also know who their second and third choices would be. IOW--they're not going to be any less lazy or ignorant with a standard primary election than RCV in the main election.

The really issue, as I see it, is the party extremes are the real losers in RCV.

[Moderation4ever]

This, party extremists lose when RCV is used.

[Michael P]

Which RCV method, though? Arrow's Impossibility Theory means there are trades for having more than two choices on a ballot, even before reaching Brett's point about voter ignorance.

[Moderation4ever]

No election system is perfect, but in lower turnout nonpartisan elections I think RCV works best. It engages the most people and is cost efficient.

[ThePublius]

That's an excellent question. Researching I found there are many systems, and if one goes to the state of Maine's website, for example, the explanation of the system is both ambiguous and confusing.

[ThePublius]

On RCV, this is an interesting and enlightening read:
Ranked-Choice Voting: A Partisan Plot to Engineer Election Results

KEY FINDINGS
- Ranked-choice voting’s track record is the best argument against it.
- Ranked-choice voting requires that legitimate voters’ ballots be thrown in the trash when no candidate receives a majority of the vote.
- Candidates with the most votes often lose while those receiving as little as four percent of the vote win, diminishing voter confidence in elections.
- Ranked-choice voting leads to errors and delayed results lasting weeks, or even months.
- Legislation supporting ranked-choice voting is overwhelmingly sponsored by Democrats.
The Bottom Line: To protect voters and their ballots, states should follow the lead of Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee and ban ranked-choice voting.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think RCV is overwhelming sponsored by Democrats, but rather by moderates that want better candidates. The current system of primary/general elections favors party candidates over other candidates. It is true that Democrats have benefitted more, but that is because RCV has been primarily implemented in Republican dominated states. I think that if Democrat controlled states begin the use of RCV you will see Republican make gains. RCV will elevate centrists and moderates. Currently both parties are pushing candidates at the extreme.

[Magister]

It's also promoted as discouraging negative advertising; with two viable candidates, a successful negative ad against an opponent is as good as a successful positive ad for the candidate. It has been strongly opposed by Republicans, who have banned it in a number of states they control.

[David Nieporent]

I think that if Democrat controlled states begin the use of RCV you will see Republican make gains.

NYC uses it, and it got them Eric Adams.

[shawn_dude]

ThePublius' link goes to the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) which is a Florida-based right-wing think tank that backs a Project 2025 style agenda.

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit ruled that a principal acting creepy with a high school girl was bad enough to make him personally liable for deprivation of civil rights under section 1983. Individuals are not liable under Title IX. The student was having trouble with her family and he helped her out. Got her a car, asked for pictures of her in a swimsuit, tried to get her on birth control pills, complimented the effect of birth control pills on her breast size, that sort of thing. "At no point did the relationship ever become physical." That means she only has an equal protection claim, not a substantive due process claim.

Wadsworth v. Nguyen

[Brett Bellmore]

" "At no point did the relationship ever become physical." "

IOW, he was caught before it got that far...

[John F. Carr]

I think he was never getting into her pants no matter how much he wanted to.

[Michael Ejercito]

Plenty of people would have thought the girl was lucky if it got that far.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/05/02/yecchh-the-daily-caller-and-its-commenters-cheer-on-sexual-predator-teachers/

[Michael P]

Thank goodness that the student's friend, the police and the superintendent all did the right things. It's somewhat dismaying that it has taken eight years to get to the point of resolving a motion to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, though.

[shawn_dude]

If you voted for Trump and you are repulsed by this story, you have some soul-searching to do.

[Moderation4ever]

Public confidence in air travel is eroding. Most people know intellectually that air travel is very safe, but the recent string of crashes have taken an emotional toll. The Trump administration, and in particular SOT Sean Duffy need to get out ahead of this problem and reassure a nervous public. Elon Musk and his cutting crew need to step back from the limelight and let DOT remind people how safe air travel really is and what is being done to continue to provide safety.

[Michael P]

Biden DEI hire crashes helicopter into a passenger jet. DEI airline rolls a plane in Toronto. Tiresome bore blames Trump.

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, except none of what you say happened. And I am not blaming anyone, I am suggesting that Sean Duffy get off his ass and address public concerns about air travel safety.

[shawn_dude]

Trump firing air traffic controllers isn't a great start to this.

[Michael Ejercito]

A Hamas terrorist admitted to raping a woman during the October 7th massacre.

https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/JtPtGgPD/hamas-terrorist-confesses-he-raped-a-woman-during-the-october-7th-massacre

What he did to the least of the Judenfraulein, he did unto St. Mary,
mother of Christ!

[SRG2]

A reminder: Trump blamed Ukraine for starting the war v Russia (an outright lie), blamed Zelensky for not having stopped it at any time in the last three years, is trying to negotiate a peace deal with Putin without involving Ukraine-n the grounds that as he could have stopped it ay any time int he last 3 years he doesn't desrve to be at the negotiating table, wants Ukraine to hand over mineral resources in perpetuity to the US to pay for military assistance, claims that Zelensky only has 4% support (an outright lie), claims that Zelensky is a dictator because he suspended elections (at best misleading, because this suspension was within Ukrainian kaw) and basically repeating Russia's propaganda.

Trump is behaving as though he thinks that Ukraine should immediately surrender. And most of you cujltists seem to have no problem.

If you say, the US shouldn't get involved - fine. Then criticise Trump for getting involved. And you should at least have the decency and honesty to see that Trump is on Putin's side. The question is, do you?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact all over again, and we've now joined the Axis of Evil by siding with Russia, but the Trump rubes are too fucking stupid to realize what they've done.

This is an existential crisis for the US.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, and this time we're taking the Molotov side. It's very likely that any agreement we make will only last until Putin feels he's ready to complete the job.

However, "existential for the US" is a severe exaggeration. Our protective presence in the Ukraine under the deal would likely be limited to mining consultants, salesmen, and some of Musk's men in the Ukraine treasury to take our 50% cut. When our puppet falls, we'll simply do a bit more looting at the treasury and then evacuate civilians, and Putin's puppet will take over.

What'll happen is the US will no longer be trusted to honor agreements or deal fairly. For people like me who want fewer international obligations, that's not entirely bad, but of course it would have been far preferable to do it in a less dishonorable and destructive way.

Another good analogy would be Afghanistan. We badly needed out, but not in the disastrous way it happened.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Much as we hate to admit it, we do need the help of other nations, in many situations. Who will help us if we can't be relied on to hold up our end? Who will help us if we take gratuitous potshots at friends like Canada?

[Krayt]

I'm no fan of entanglements, but I'm fine with the status of outspending the next dozen nations or so put together in the military. I'm fine with a mere supply pipeline pushing Russia back behind its borders. What do people think the US worked so hard for?

To have a president come along and blame the Sudetenland for forcing Hitler to (threaten) to invade? To look at the war in progress and say, "Damn, that's a lot of German soldiers dying. We should let then keep it all and poof war over."

He literally came out of the meeting with Putin spouting those ludicrous talking points, as if they were correct and just.

I've complained about balls out 100% contrarianism by both sides for 10 years now. But this is something different. This isn't merely wrecking Ukraine because you wanna destroy the previous admin's efforts. You're after something else.

[ducksalad]

I don't disagree with you on any of that. The tone and dishonesty of the rhetoric is disgusting and shameful. As for the "after something else", I wouldn't give Trump credit for any deep strategy here. He's the same guy that said the point in Iraq should be to "take the oil"; he's just a grasping playground crybully and that explains most of what he does.

But having said that....

From a selfish point of view I'm much more concerned about the domestic situation. To the extent there is any "existential" threat to the US, it's not the war in the Ukraine, it's that we have a Congress that no longer cares about their constitutional rights and obligations, and a cabinet that's a combination of grifters, psychotics, sociopaths, and people who have sold their soul, all catering to the whims of a shallow, petty man.

It also needs to be said that Trump does have one good quality that should be acknowledged: he seems to have a genuine reluctance to do large-scale killing or engage in military escalation. That was evident several times in his first administration in how he dealt with Iran. So I don't think we need to worry about a repeat of the late 1930s. What we need to worry about is becoming a corrupt unstable republic with a low-trust society, a place that no longer has the continuity needed for people to plan, invest, and build anything nice.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm frankly going to wait to see what happens. The fog of war, in this case both literal and political.

[SRG2]

What "fog of war"? Is there a doubt about who started the war? About who's currently sitting down to discuss a peace treaty?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, there's no doubt about who started the war. How it's going? Yeah. What Trump is actually saying and doing? Yeah.

What you're looking at in the coverage is political warfare, and you're mistaking it for objective news coverage.

[apedad]

You're saying the press isn't quoting Trump's actual statements and intentions?!?

GTFO

[Brett Bellmore]

You think that when they write, "Trump appeared to", they're quoting his actual statements? No, they're expressing their interpretations of those statements.

Take this report at The Hill. (One of the BETTER publications!) You see a transcript anywhere? The Hill has access to one, to be sure. But do they share it?

No, they cut little bits out of it to share with you. It leads with the identical "appeared to blame" language the AP has been pushing out, and gives you a few more snippets of what he said than other outlets would bother.

But link to a transcript? Heaven forfend!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Have you somehow not heard of watching what he's said for yourself?

[Brett Bellmore]

Even after my cataract surgery I read much faster than Trump speaks, and they are so far as I can see only airing snippets of the video, too. And why do news outlets relentlessly fail to link to transcripts?

Because they don't want you to form your own opinion, they want to curate what you know so that you'll form THEIR opinion.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How much more context do you need for what he said, asshole? Do you need a one-take video from the moment he woke up in the morning and crawled out of the flaming hole in the ground all the way up until the words left his mouth?

Are you that fucking partisan that an entire paragraph of lies from Trump needs 'more context?'

[David Nieporent]

Because they don't want you to form your own opinion, they want to curate what you know so that you'll form THEIR opinion.

Look, conspiracy theory Brett has another crazy conspiracy theory!

[shawn_dude]

They're sane-washing Trump. He babbles. The "appeared to" language is meant to make the news agencies look less partisan. But they do quote his actual words and his actual words say that he thinks Ukraine started the war. It's baffling. But not as baffling as watching his suck-ups try to create "fog of war" to cover up this absurdity.

[Bwaaah]

But Trump said something like that in passing. So it's true, amiright?

They repeat things that very few believe, as if they're facts. And they feign incredulity as you express doubts.

TDS.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Vietnam War was started by North Vietnam.

[ducksalad]

You've described it correctly.

And BTW, I'm not one of the cultists. You need to replace the battery in your sarcasm detector. I understand that it's getting very hard to tell these days.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well put.

From the beginning (as in, since 2015), Trump has been acting like Putin has something on him. This level of prostration can't be solely due to his admiration for dictators.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny then that Putin waited until Trump was out of office to invade (minor incursion) Ukraine for the second time.

[ducksalad]

You greatly weaken any point you may have had by deliberately tossing in trolling like "minor incursion" to describe an attempt to take Kyiv. Why do you do this shit?

[Mr. Bumble]

That was slow Joe's reaction when this second invasion began under his watch.

[SRG2]

Fine. Biden sucked. This doesn't address my points.

[Mr. Bumble]

I was responding to Capt Dan and ducksalad.

[David Nieporent]

That was slow Joe's reaction when this second invasion began under his watch.

That is a complete and utter lie. Before the invasion, Biden was asked how the U.S. would respond if Russia attacked. Biden answered that the U.S. response would depend on what Russia actually did — that a minor incursion would be treated differently than a full-scale invasion. At no point did he ever characterize the Russian invasion as a minor incursion.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Biden was also smart in releasing intelligence showing that the invasion was actually going to happen and did happen.

[David Nieporent]

Yep — and he was attacked for it by the tankie/MAGA right. One that sticks in my mind in particular is that Glenn Greenwald made fun of him for it, because the Russian invasion was a quick two step process — step 1 being to "recognize" the independence of the two occupied regions of the Donbas and overtly send in Russian troops, and step 2 being to invade all of Ukraine. So at step 1, Greenwald mocked Biden, saying, in essence, "This is the invasion you were warning about? Boy you're stupid." And then when step 2 happened, Greenwald, not surprisingly, did not apologize.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Funny then that Putin waited ...."

Putin was furious Ukraine turned to Europe and the West. That's absolutely true. But the Russian leader has an objective much more important than his revenge in Ukraine : The destruction of NATO as an effective and unified poltical/military organization.

And Trump has delivered for Putin beyond the latter's wildest dreams. Trump couldn't be doing Putin's bidding any better than if he received instructions while on his knees at Vladimir's feet.

That said, caution is always necessary. Just because Trump is effectively Putin's whore doesn't mean actual money has changed hands. As many observe, Trump's heart melts and he becomes a compliant cooing tart whenever in the presence of a strongman, thug, or dictator. Bullying is reserved for the likes of Canada and Greenland (two very safe targets for his schoolyard antics).

And remember this story from the '16 campaign: Everyone was baffled why Trump was so effusively lovey-dovey over Putin in interviews. Only later with Mueller did we learn Trump was secretly negotiating with Kremlin officials on a massive Moscow business deal. The talks went on until the eve of the vote itself, and included talk of a payoff to Putin of luxury property. Trump was using the U.S. presidential campaign to help promote his business affairs.

Sure, that's a gauge of what sort of person Trump is. But it's also a reminder to be careful guessing his motives.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Putin has something on him."

So you are a Pee Tape Truther?

[A Woman of No Importance]

There's a far simpler explanation.

Trump is an authoritarian who admires authoritarians, and Putin is governing Russia the way Trump would like to govern the United States. It's simply a case of birds of a feather.

And I have this nagging feeling we're about to find out just how far toward outright fascism Trump can take us when there are no real checks or balances, and I have another nagging feeling the Supreme Court will live to regret having given him immunity for official acts. I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

But, that's what people voted for.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trump is behaving as though he thinks that Ukraine should immediately surrender. And most of you cujltists seem to have no problem."

He does seem to be taking that position, and I do have a problem with it. Ukraine was obviously under no obligation to just let Russia keep taking bites of their territory, even though you could argue that a lot less people would be dead today if they had.

"If you say, the US shouldn't get involved - fine."

Yes, I think that, given how over-extended we are, we probably shouldn't have gotten involved. We need to triage our military involvements.

"Then criticise Trump for getting involved."

Excuse me, but are you living in some alternate universe where Trump was the one who got us involved in the Russia-Ukraine war? Are you? Because I'm pretty sure that was Biden, not Trump.

"And you should at least have the decency and honesty to see that Trump is on Putin's side. The question is, do you?"

I see nothing of the sort. What I see is that he's on neither of their sides, but is correctly reasoning that Zelenskyy is in no position to end the war save by surrender, while Putin has the power to end on terms more favorable to Ukraine than simple surrender. So he's negotiating with the guy who counts, not the guy who has no power to influence the outcome favorably.

[bernard11]

Because I'm pretty sure that was Biden, not Trump.

I seem to recall that not long ago you guys were criticizing Obama and praising Trump because Obama just sent blankets to Ukraine, while Trump, the great warrior, sent missiles and the like.

Suddenly none of that ever happened.

[SRG2]

I see nothing of the sort.

Yes, that was covered by my "decency and honesty" comment.

Evidently you think that Ukraine should surrender. And if it does, what will stop Russia from seizing it all? Executing Zelensky, Vitali Klitschko and others? Trump has made no mention of a security guarantee, TTBOMK.

[Brett Bellmore]

I literally said that they were under no obligation to surrender.

" Trump has made no mention of a security guarantee, TTBOMK. "

Yeah, and the media made damned sure that was the best of your knowledge, by carefully curating the parts of what he said that you got to see. Just try finding a complete transcript of the speech they're letting out select pieces of.

[SRG2]

Why don't you show me what in the full transcript justifies your position?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Yeah, and the media made.... (whining)"

Geez Brett, everyone here knows you've supported Ukraine these past years. If there's one opportunity for you to maintain personal independence & self-respect, this is it. You can see what Trump's doing and it's completely wrong. Why not pause the firehose blast of excuses, misinformation and obscurantism just this once?

If you want, we can review Trump's spineless craven appeasement "negotiating" with the Taliban. Like Chamberlain, he wanted to wave about a piece of paper. As with Chamberlain, he got down on his knees and told the Taliban they could demand whatever they wished. They'd get all. No concession were required in return.

That's the future that awaits Ukraine. You should be opposed to that. Why not grow a pair and show it?

[Commenter_XY]

In what reality does UKR regain the territory they lost on the field of battle to RUS? There isn't one.

It is time for all involved to cut their losses.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This reminds of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "It is time for all involved to cut their losses"

Who do you address? The Ukrainians are the ones fighting and dying. Are they who you pat on the head and tell, "run after Uncle Vlady and be a good boy"? Maybe they don't want to. Maybe they actually care about their freedom.

Or maybe its the Europeans you lecture. After all, if you're a typical shit-for-brains MAGA dupe, you believe they've barely contributed anything to Ukraine. Isn't that what your day-glo-orange Cult God has told you? Newsflash : Trump's lying.

"European nations —specifically the EU, United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland — have allocated about $140 billion in total in aid for Ukraine, while the United States has allocated about $120 billion in total aid. Total aid includes military, humanitarian and financial aid to Ukraine."

https://www.voanews.com/a/us-figures-do-not-support-trump-claims-on-ukraine-spending/7981441.html

Or maybe the idea of grinding down Putin's military by the easiest and most sustainable of costs upset you. Who knows? I doubt you do yourself. The Cult's Leader tells his lemmings to scurry one way and they rush to obey. When told what to believe, they believe without questions or worrisome facts. Just be careful about that cliff!

[Commenter_XY]

grb, if you believe UKR can win back the territory lost by force of arms, I have a bridge to sell you. It is not wrong to advocate for peace, and an end to the killing.

[shawn_dude]

It is wrong to demand Ukraine give us a piece of their country too, though. Putin and Trump are dividing up the pie between them and it's Ukraine that's getting eaten.

[David Nieporent]

In what reality does UKR regain the territory they lost on the field of battle to RUS? There isn't one.

The one in which the Russian government runs out of the ability and/or willingness to sustain its war effort, because it is expending vast amounts of lives and materiel for essentially nothing. Maybe it's when Putin dies. Who knows?

[hobie]

Trump is acting like someone seeking revenge

[Moderation4ever]

Or someone who wants a certain dictator to keep his, the dictator's, private video collection private.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Or someone who wants a certain dictator to keep his, the dictator's, private video collection private."

So you are a Pee Tape Truther too?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's no worse than having sex with a porn star while his wife is home with their baby. Or having a copy of "Mein Kampf" at his bedside. Or telling his nephew that he should let the nephew's handicapped child "just die". Etc., etc., . . .

If it turns out that Trump peed on Russian prostitutes (or vice versa), it won't hurt him. We'll see the usual temporizing from invertebrate Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

It may be no worse, but it's still a stupid smear concocted by his political enemies, not something real.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Brett, I don't know if a pee tape exists or not. Given what we know of Trump's sexual history it would hardly be surprising if it did exist. But at this point, he has so much mud on him already that I don't see that a little more would make that much difference one way or the other. Everyone knows what he is and his voters don't care.

It's a little like haggling over whether Ted Bundy had 20 victims, 50 victims, or 100 victims. At some point, who cares?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "But it's still a stupid smear concocted by his political enemies, not something real."

I'm curious : Is there some mechanism in your brain which allows you to completely delete facts you don't want to face? Because I know you've been walked thru the facts on the Trump sex tape on multiple occasions - led gently like a small child holding the adult's hand. So, grab hold and we'll do it all again:

1. Per Mueller, criminal elements associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group (which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia) fabricated a Trump sex tape. According to the report, it was definitely a fake.

2. Nonetheless, Trump wanted it suppressed and tasked Michael Cohen with the job.

3. Cohen used a Russian-American businessman named Giorgi Rtskhiladze as an intermediary. He reported back to Cohen by text on 30 Oct 2016: “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know…”

4. Both Cohen and Rtskhiladze testified before Mueller’s grand jury. Rtskhiladze told investigators the “tapes” referred to “compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group.” Cohen testified he spoke to Trump “about the issue” after receiving Rtskhiladze’s texts in 2016. Both turned over their email and texts from the period to Mueller’s team.

But why bother? A few days will pass and you'll be back peddling the same lies as before. By this point you must realize endless continual lies are the only thing that will get you thru the next four years.

[Brett Bellmore]

Dan was clearly not suggesting a fraudulent "pee tape". And the only reason you'd have heard about one is that the Clinton campaign paid somebody to fabricate the Steele dossier.

[grb]

And you claimed the tape was a "stupid smear concocted by his political enemies".

Bloody hell, Brett, that statement is right above here for everyone to see. Recalibrating your position a few minutes later is ludicrous. Are we supposed to pretend you never said it ?!?

And you can't stop lying even now. Every step back is covered by a smokescreen of new lies. A few minutes ago, you would have claimed the sex tape as an example of Steele "fabricating" his dossier. Lord alone knows what your go-to bullshit will be now.

As a cultist, you're programed to say "fabricated" with "Steele". You do so mindlessly, but it's still empty garbage that doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Why do you continually say things empty of any real meaning?

[Dan Schiavetta]

"the Clinton campaign paid somebody to fabricate the Steele dossier."

Not true. It was already in existence before they got wind of it.

[grb]

For that matter, the Steele Dossier was what is commonly called "raw intelligence". It was a collection of rumors and back-channel information that Steele collected from his sources. Like the Trump Sex Tape, almost everything Steele heard had a degree of truth, though it was often only - say - 70% or 55%.

For instance, he heard Michael Cohen held secret meetings on the upcoming election with Kremlin officials in 2016. The details were incorrect (there was no Prague trip) and the aim wrong (secret business deal vs campaign talk), but the rumors Steele heard had a real foundation in fact.

Likewise, Steele had Trump's campaign manager holding secret meetings with a Russian spy. That happened, so Steele was well ahead of the game there. His account was 90% true even if you accept everything Manafort's version was totally honest - and nobody does that.

There was little in the Steele Dossier that was completely wrong. Some of his points of financial entanglements between Trump and Russia are unsubstantiated, but who knows what we'll eventually discover? Trump may be hiding his business dealings for reasons other that his typical rote criminality.

On the other hand, some of the Dossier was completely true. Steele wrote about the Russian effort to aid Trump's campaign and that's proved right. He wrote about the hacking of Ms. Clinton's friends, and that was true. All in all, it was a pretty stellar example of raw intelligence. (I say that as an expert, having read many a spy novel)

[Brett Bellmore]

Bullshit, that's a DNC talking point. Steele was not hired until after the Democrats had contracted with Fusion GPS, well after the Republican research had ended.

[Brett Bellmore]

"For that matter, the Steele Dossier was what is commonly called "raw intelligence". "

No, it's what is commonly called "a smear". That's Fusion GPS's specialty: Compiling/creating nasty stories about somebody you don't like, and then flacking them to the media. Sort of an inverted PR outfit.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : No, it's what is commonly called "a smear".

Sorry Brett, but my account is true. The facts hold up. Wouldn't you like to be in an argument were you could say the same? As an aside, please note Steele himself clearly believed in what he reported. Like a docile & obedient Cult robot, you're programed to insist the Dossier was some fabricated smear. You ignore that the greater part of it was 70% to 100% true. And you ignore that Steele himself believed in what he found - tirelessly working to get it before authorities long after the check from Fusion was cashed.

Indeed, the biggest criticism against Steele is he lost track of how raw his intelligence was. He became a believer, which is never good with intelligence work. That doesn't work with your hive-mind meme on the Dossier, but that's because you let your handlers think for you. Not good, that.

[David Nieporent]

"the Clinton campaign paid somebody to fabricate the Steele dossier."

Not true. It was already in existence before they got wind of it.

His claim isn't true, but your timeline is off. While Fusion GPS was hired to look into Trump before the Clinton campaign got involved, the Steele dossier had not been commissioned at that point. Steele was hired several months after funding for the opposition research had switched from Paul Singer to the Clinton campaign.

But his claim isn't true because the Clinton campaign did not pay anyone "to fabricate" anything. The Clinton campaign hired Fusion to do oppo research on Trump. Fusion hired Steele because he had lots of Russian contacts to try to dig up stuff on Trump's activities there. There is no evidence the Clinton campaign had any involvement in hiring Steele — he was just a subcontractor — and no evidence that Steele was tasked to do anything other than legitimate opposition research.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, thanks. It was originally an oppo research done by "stop Trump" Republicans.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (decided February 20, 1905): upholding state statute allowing local boards of health to require vaccinations (plaintiff contested Cambridge’s 1902 attempt to stem smallpox epidemic)

Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (decided February 20, 2019): Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment is enforceable against states under Fourteenth Amendment; remands on issue of whether civil forfeiture statute violates Clause (here, vehicle seized worth four times the heroin defendant transported in it) (Indiana Supreme Court later held the statute unconstitutional, 169 N.E.3d 361)

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (decided February 20, 2013): federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of patent cases but not legal malpractice claim alleging mishandling of patent case

United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707 (decided February 20, 1980): IRS doesn’t need a court order to make you go to their office to write a handwriting sample

Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (decided February 20, 1974): housing discrimination action brought under Civil Rights Law of 1968 carries right to a jury trial, even though it didn’t exist in 1791 when the Seventh Amendment was adopted and even though it allows injunctive relief (an “equitable” remedy; the 7A applies on its face only to actions “at law”)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

JB's date in SCOTUS history is

"2/20/1933: The 21st Amendment is submitted to the states."

DRINK!

===

Still waiting for the Third Amendment incorporation case.

[Sarcastr0]

Currently reading:
Citizen Clem by John Bew.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I've read it.

Attlee was called "the most boring man in British politics" but he was effective. It's amazing what his ministry did in 1945 - 1951 while the economy was still on its back after the War with rationing. And while he managed a rambunctious team of egos and guys who didn't like each other.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice.

Just started it. I really liked the McCollough Truman bio so this will be a fun other perspective.

I'm about 1/10th in and it's still throat clearing about context and legacy. Get on with it!!

[Dan Schiavetta]

He spends a lot of time on what formed Attlee's worldview. We forget that Marx was only one of the theorists of socialism and until October 1917 was not even the most influential one. A formative book on the young Attlee (and on a generation of social democrats) was Edward Bellamy's 1887 novel, "Looking Backward", which imagines the author writing in a socialist utopia in the year 2000 and reflecting on how it came to be. Also I think Bew was writing for a British audience who knew a lot more about their country's not-quite-recent past than I do (at least).

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mr. Attlee is a very modest man. Indeed he has a lot to be modest about."
Winston Churchill

[Dan Schiavetta]

Churchill said that early on. His opinion changed when Attlee opposed appeasement and was instrumental in getting Churchill installed to replace Chamberlain. And when Attlee stood by him throughout the War as Deputy Prime Minister.

[Bob from Ohio]

First impressions are usually the right ones.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Churchill would have disagreed with you on that, at least as to Attlee.

[Bwaaah]

I joined a local right wing reading group in NYC recently. There are about three or four hundred of us who get together every month in the basement of a West Village LGB community center. Somebody always comes in ahead of time and puts up huge DJT posters. It's very fun. This month, we're reading "Mein Kampf." (There's a greeter at the door who has the funniest way of saluting participants as they arrive.) There are no metal detectors, and somebody usually brings cookies.

All are welcome to join.

[ThePublius]

The Open Thread seems to have become the "I Hate Trump" thread. It's distressing and tiring.

[apedad]

As someone mentioned on another thread, you can leave and get your money back.

[ThePublius]

I would rather it revert to the 'style' it had before the election. I have enjoyed this for many years, lately, not so much.

[shawn_dude]

I preferred the style it had at WaPo but since then it's been 4Chan-adjacent. In the last decade, it's been constantly pro-Trump, racist, homophobic, and occasionally anti-Semitic. In the last month, the pro-Trump rhetoric as quieted a bit and even the regular right-wing yahoos are carefully backing away from their vote. Look for more hedging like "I don't agree with Trump on everything" as prices continue to rise and more (white) people suddenly realize they aren't exempted from the cruelty and pain.

Welcome to the "finding out" phase.

[Bwaaah]

[grb]

ThePublius : "It's distressing and tiring"

Yep. Lotsa stuff these days is "distressing and tiring". Some examples:

1. Jim Geraghty of the National Review posts this statement from Trump : “Scott Bessent actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially, they told him no and Zelensky was sleeping and unavailable to meet him,” Trump said Wednesday night on Air Force One." Right below that, Geraghty showed the picture of Bessent meeting Zelensky. Like who started the war, Trump just couldn't help himself from lying.

2. DOGE finally released some numbers, and they were a clownish mess of unsubstantiated assertions, bunglefest errors, and outright lying. Most embarrassing was Musk's claim they saved 8 billion dollars by canceling a 8 million dollar contract.

3. Trump began Oval Office talks with the PGA and the new rival Saudi organization on a plan to combine their tours. But Trump himself is a big investor in the Saudi group. Meanwhile, Musk says there's no conflict of interest in approving DOD contracts while being a major beneficiary from the same. Why? Because it's Space X getting those contracts, not him! Obviously, we've come a long ways since Hunter getting a biz associate a handshake with daddy was evidence of the "Biden crime family".

4. Meanwhile, some reporters found Trump on the golf course. This is hardly surprising since 10 days of his first month as president were spent playing golf. They discovered Trump didn’t know the head of the Social Security Admin resigned. He didn’t know SpaceX employees were working at the FAA/DOD. He didn't know Medicaid was being drasticly cut in the House budget he just endorsed. That's because he's lazy & dumb as a box of rocks.

5. Meanwhile, inflation has begun climbing again in response to the most pro-inflation agenda of any president I've seen in sixty-plus years. Trump is blaming Biden. We'll see how long that works.

6. Meanwhile, mass confusion reigns. Workers on bird flu are fired, then rehired. Workers on the nation's atomic weapons program are fired, then begged to return. Contracts are canceled, then reinstated, but maybe not reinstated. Musk talks of condoms to Gaza and everything he says is gibberish or lies. Trump spews out tariff threats willy-nilly as his mental illness dictates. We'll be lucky to avoid stagflation or a full-blown recession with all this cartoonish incompetence.

It's all distressing and tiring. Unless you're MAGA, of course. They see it as TV viewing equal to the most exciting pro-wrestling match.

[ThePublius]

QED

[grb]

No doubt we share a common affliction but from different causes.

1. I'm depressed over Trump's flailing toxic mess.

2. You're depressed from hearing about Trump's dishonesty, incompetence, and criminality.

I do sympathize with your predicament. Hearing those painful ugly facts must make it hard to focus on getting an extra bright gleam while you tongue-polish DJT's shoe leather. No one ever said being a cultist was easy!

[ThePublius]

Why do you, and so many on the left, have to be so nasty, so personally insulting? Why can't you keep it civil?

[Commenter_XY]

They have no ideas, so they must ridicule others.

[grb]

And yet a few of the Trump's lies & embarrassments are listed above. They're only from the last few days & just a fraction of the possible examples at that, but there they sit.

So maybe, XY, should should put all your "ideas" to work excusing the inexcusable. It's a hard job being a cult drudge to Dear Leader, and every slave must do his part. Butthurt snowflake victimhood whining won't cut it over these next few years.

[shawn_dude]

When Trump apologizes to the beaten police (or their surviving family members) for pardoning the people that beat them, I'll consider extending so-far unearned civility. We have a right to be angry with the people that crippled our country and made us pariah with other Western nations--made us allies to fucking Russia.

Elections have consequences. We're 1 month into this administration and the consequences are increasing rapidly. You won. This is your country now. Revel in it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Because you dumb fucks peddle in lies and stupidity. You, in particular, are overly-qualified in both.

You're responsible for this situation, and you will be held accountable in the end.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you, and so many on the left, have to be so nasty, so personally insulting? Why can't you keep it civil?

How many MAGA people defended Trump and dismissed criticism of him by saying, "Oh, it's just mean tweets"? If one cared about civility, the last thing one would do would be to support Donald Trump.

[SRG2]

OK, so you find these distressing and tiring. But where is grb wrong?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That's because he's lazy & dumb as a box of rocks.

What does that tell you about the Democrats?

[shawn_dude]

That we were wrong to think Americans would vote for a black woman for president. That we had more confidence in the intelligence and emotional maturity of our neighbors than they deserved.

And, by the events so far in DC, that the majority of our elected Democrat representatives are incapable of meeting this moment with the strength it requires.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would gladly vote for a black woman for President, if one was running whose positions and qualifications were such that I'd vote for her if she were instead a man. Or an Indian woman, more to the point.

I wouldn't have voted for Harris if she'd been a man, so you can hardly have expected me to vote for her as a sort of black woman.

I'm curious what exactly you think would constitute "meeting this moment with the strength it requires". Emoting more while losing votes?

[Moderation4ever]

Take a minute to read some of the comments. Many of the commentors are deeply in love with Trump and sell everything and follow him even into the ocean.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciate the coverage of Eric Adams here but the number of people opining on it got to be a bit silly.

There is so much to cover, and only a few things were covered in depth (Josh Blackman dominated the field). Five or so views on the Eric Adams Affairs is not a great allotment of space.

[Bwaaah]

But, then, ^^^this^^^...from one who purports to inform about over-attention to [blah] [blah].

Question: Did it occur to you to *not* post that?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

No, since around the 460th comment in an open thread, after I wrote about various other things, is not the same thing as a whole post about it while not writing about much else. Which I don't have the power to do, not being a member of the blog.

[Estragon]

“He texted me and said: ‘Jesse, this is not good. I’m really sad. I’m upset.’ This guy is not a DEI consultant. He is not a climate consultant. This guy is a veteran. So when you’re talking about DOGE-ing people, veterans should get priority. Because if you’re going to go out there and kill enemies, put your life on the line, you should not be in the same category as people that are doing DEI.”

I didn’t think the leopards were going to eat MY face!! People like this deserve to get what they voted for good and hard.

[ThePublius]

On a lighter note...cooking.

Anyone else love fresh ground pepper?

I just ordered a fairly extravagant pair of grinders, the Hexmill salt and pepper mills, along with a 2lb. bag of course Kosher salt.

I have a mill, but it's kind of clumsy and imprecise to adjust the grind, and I don't have salt mill.

I think fresh ground pepper is great. I also have a bit of a salt fetish, with perhaps six or seven varieties on hand. The best is the Maldon sea salt flakes, but while they are great for sprinkling on asparagus, they are not for everything.

Anyway, salt and pepper and the most important spices, in my opinion, and I'l looking forward to my new mills.

Anyone else so enraptured?

[Brett Bellmore]

I basically only use freshly ground pepper. Mostly I grind it with a mortar and pestle, which lets me control exactly the grind I want.

Don't freshly ground peppercorns smell amazing? So fruity!

Salt I don't bother grinding myself, because, it's not like it loses any taste after you grind it. I just stock it already in various grinds, and save myself some trouble.

What I've been doing lately that really works out, is making herbal tinctures to add to what I'm cooking, in place of the actual herbs. I've got a rosemary and bay one, a basil one, and a star anise one. (The last for Asian cooking.) Just slosh some in right at the end of the cooking, so none of it wafts away, and no fishing out rosemary stems or bay leaves.

It's easy enough, you just stuff a mason jar full of the fresh herb/herbs, top it off with cheap vodka, seal it up and leave it sit for a month, then strain it.

Just yesterday I was going to broil some salmon with a mustard and basil pesto glaze, and turned out to be out of pesto. So, just sloshed in some basil tincture, and the basil flavor actually penetrated the fish better than normal.

Sadly, no green color to the glaze, the way you get with the pesto.

[ThePublius]

Wow, very creative. I am growing my herbs: I have rosemary, curly parsley, sage, Italian oregano, basil, lemongrass, and more. I have a nice sunroom where they thrive.

[Brett Bellmore]

We have a backyard, but,
Rosemary
Bay Laurel
Oregano
Thyme
Sage (Pineapple sage, actually: Nice red flowers in the fall!)
Lemongrass
Thai basil
Dragon tail peppers
Garlic

We don't grow everything every year, some of them, like the peppers, we dry, vacuum pack, and keep in the freezer, and just grind whenever the shaker runs low.

Going to try growing some shiso this year. Always looking for new herbs to try growing.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm amazed more people with any room to grow stuff at all don't grow Basil, given how expensive the fresh stuff is and how ridiculously easy it is to grow. Let a few stems go to seed every year and you don't ever need to buy any more.

I'm always looking for new anything-edible to grow. I have ~3,300 sq. ft. of vegetable garden space (I have a tractor and a about an acre of pasture I'm not doing much of anything else with, so I got a little carried away). This year the new kid is going to be Jerusalem Artichokes (aka, "Sunchokes").

[Brett Bellmore]

Also known as "fartichokes"; I'll grant you that they're delicious, but the primary carbohydrate in them is inulin, a form of starch humans can't digest, but intestinal bacteria can. Think of them as beans on steroids...

I gather that if you start with small quantities, and introduce them into your diet gradually, your intestinal bacteria adapt a bit and the effect isn't so horrible. I didn't do that, not having been forewarned. It was not pleasant, though eating them had been.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The effect of inulin depends on your intolerance of it, if any, whether or not you suffer from IBS, etc. There are also ways of counteracting that effect to a significant degree. For instance, including psyllium-containing food with the meal.

[Moderation4ever]

As an old chemist I too have a mortar and pestle for spices. It a great way to make a spice mixture for a dish.

BTW - it is a cooking M&P I don't you one retired from the lab.

[ThePublius]

I bought a really nice M&P on Amazon a couple of years ago, specifically for some Asian dish I was making; I don't even remember what it was that I was to grind. But I remember very specific instructions about seasoning it. It's granite. Worked out great, and continues to be handy.

For pepper I prefer the precision (repeatability) of a good burr grinder, like the one I've ordered.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BX6VHRN1?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_1&th=1

[Commenter_XY]

If you're near a Wegman's, get the Wegmans tellicherry black peppercorns. They are a good value alternative to more expensive peppercorns.

[ThePublius]

Oh, thanks, I'll look. My most recent purchase was last week, on Amazon, Sauer's Whole Black Pepper, 1lb. for $7.50, so about half the price of the Wegmans. But I'll try the Wegmans on your recommendation.

[Commenter_XY]

It's Ok to spend a little money on spices, esp peppercorns. It is an aromatic, also. I am a little picky about spices b/c they make or break the recipe.

[ThePublius]

Ugh, no Wegmans near me, unfortunately. I know it's a great store.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I also use only freshly-ground pepper (and a variety of different peppercorns that I get from a local spice vendor), but didn't go overboard on the grinding method. I'm too lazy to use a mortar an pestle every time I want some pepper, so went with a simple hand grinder from OXO. I also keep a lot of kosher salt on hand at all times, since one of my hobbies is home cured meats (bacon, pastrami, sausage, etc.), as well as a lot of smoking of those and other large cuts...which involves quite a few other herbs and spices as well.

I also have an old small coffee grinder that I used for grinding spices, most notably the cumin seeds that I buy in bulk from the aforementioned spice vendor and toast myself. Normally I wouldn't go to that trouble for something that can be bought already ground, but I did it once just for fun and, after accidentally toasting them to a darker color than normal, found that the resulting flavor was noticeably deeper and what I consider superior to what you get from conventional commercially ground cumin.

[Frank Drackman]

With 2 Fighter Pilot Daughters, I love women in the Cockpit, you know what you won’t see with 2 women pilots? The knuckleheads that crashed the Air Florida 737 into the Potomac in Jan 1982, their Pre flight Briefing for a takeoff on a slippery icy runway?
“You want to do anything special or just go for it?”
Of course they may take an extra 5 minutes at the jet bridge getting the jet in just the right spot…….

[grb]

The link below is personal observations from a USAID contractor on what's he seen. As he notes, there has been a firehose of disinformation and lies about the agency, so his observations from being in the field offers a good counterweight. The story how they rebuilt the Moldavian wine industry is particularly interesting.

https://crookedtimber.org/2025/02/18/notes-from-a-usaid-career/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

personal observations from a USAID contractor

I'm totally convinced by the completely non-biased claims from someone who has been profiting from USAID largesse for the past 20 years!!

[Moderation4ever]

Great article. The story of the Moldavian wine reminds me of the saying that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish you feed him forever.

[ThePublius]

An interesting story, thanks. But, tell me, why are U.S. taxpayers funding the restructuring of the Moldovan wine industry? What's our national interest in this?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's the point, isn't it? They genuinely think that something being good in some general sense is reason enough to fund it. Never mind whether there was some better use for the money, such as, oh, not borrowing it in the first place.

[grb]

ThePublius : What's our national interest in this?

Well, our interest in the Moldavian wine industry was explained clearly in the account. We helped that country free itself from crippling economic dependence on Russia. Wouldn't you say that's a good return, national interest-wise, for the minimal investment?

And I guess you're pretending to be unfamiliar with the concept of "soft power". Without this pretend ignorance, you might be forced to justify Trump's harm to the long-term interests of the United States.

Well, if you want to pretend to play catch-up, I advise this : Look at all of China's efforts to spread their influence around the world. Ask yourself why we find that upsetting even while we cripple and destroy our own matching efforts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Our point is that in a universe of good things that we could spend money on if we had it, we are running enormous deficits, and need to do fewer good things even if they are genuinely good things.

When they're good things for other people, rather than Americans, that's an easy call when cutting.

The basic problem here is that you are implicitly only looking at the benefit, when every dollar we spend comes with a cost, too: Adding to our debt, and ongoing debt carrying costs. You need to think about costs, too: People who do, rationally decide not to do lots of things that might have benefits!

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, Brett. You can't argue both coming and going. No new goalposts.

You envision a society with a vastly smaller government as the ideal.

We can tell when you're pressed on that first vision's...practical issues, when you switch to our debt being so high we need to make society look like your ideal *right now*.

These are different theses; you switch between them at your convenience.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : " .... when you switch to our debt being so high"

I thought about making that point. Because unless Brett has radically changed his politics over the years, he's voted pro-federal debt every presidential election his entire life. With every opportunity, Brett has supported the candidate promoting massively more deficit red ink. And he did so this election as well. Trump exploded the deficit last term; his record will be even worse this go round.

But occasionally Brett will clear his throat & sonorously intone pieties on the evils of debt. It's enough to make your head spin.

[grb]

No, Brett, here's the story : The average citizen overestimates the amount of foreign aid by adding many, many more zeros. This is the average mind you, not even MAGA voters who are even less well informed. There have been dozens of polls on this and they're unfailingly consistent.

So then there is Trump, who is lazy, deeply stupid, and thinks "governance" is only any given day's empty huckster pitch. There's no "rational" analysis behind USAID's destruction. It's cartoon theatrics for the most moronic of Trump's base. It's the exact opposite of what you describe above. And you damn well know it.

[Commenter_XY]

How much money was it?

I would make a case in this way, grb. Romania, a NATO member, borders Moldova (a country of ~2.5MM people, abt the size of IN). Moldova is currently non-aligned, but has a pro-West government in place. They have played 'hard to get' vis a vis NATO membership, but seeing what happened to UKR, might be more favorably inclined to request fast admission, like Finland.

If the development money we spend in total was low enough, I could see value.

[shawn_dude]

"There's no "rational" analysis behind USAID's destruction."

If I may posit a "conspiracy theory" of my own, then:

USAID is a huge thorn in the side of Russian and China. As a projection of American soft power, it was so successful that China is imitating it. Trump is fatally wounding NATO and other projections of US diplomatic and military power around the globe. It doesn't benefit the average American to do this. But, it does benefit Putin, who Trump admires and listens to. So... my "rational analysis" is that this is Trump's attempt at aligning with Xi and Putin.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

[ThePublius]

Trump Administration Live Updates: Senate Confirms Kash Patel as F.B.I. Chief

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/20/us/donald-trump-news

I'm glad, as you might guess.

[Commenter_XY]

Senator Thune is doing a very good job getting nominees confirmed. I did not think he would get them all over the finish line.

[grb]

ThePublius : "I'm glad, as you might guess"

Why? Let's say you could somehow strip Patel's CV & bio from any partisan context. If so, no one (yourself included) would hold him qualified to be within a hundred miles of FBI HQs. In fact, there would be so many red flags he'd be the very last choice anyone (yourself included) would want in charge.

Or let's imagine a lefty version of Patel. That's hard, because today's Left is nowhere near as nihilistic, corrupt, and dishonest as the Right, but let's say it could be done. I can assure you of two things : You'd be horrified over the choice - but I would be too. Because my ethical standards aren't rotted to mush and dumped in the trash like yours, ThePublius.

And your support? Your glee over this toxic unqualified hack-of-hacks taking control of the FBI? Someone who scammed losers with pills that "reverse the covid vaccine" as "Mrna detox" now being in charge of our nation's premier law enforcement agency....

How is that possible, ThePublius? It's simple : You hate this country. You hate its laws, rules, standards and ethics. You hate its democracy and the norms which glue that democracy together. You want a big cartoon show of destruction for your TV viewing pleasure. That's how you support someone so worthless as Patel. That's how you support a president who tried to steal an election from the American voters.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well put. "a cartoon show of destruction for your TV viewing pleasure" fits a lot of MAGA people, including our MAGA-in-Chief.

[ThePublius]

Oh, puh-lease. You can magically read my mind and discern what I feel and think and believe?

Try being more civil, you might end up being more convincing, and certainly more polite.

[John F. Carr]

The Eighth Circuit allowed a group of red states to challenge a Biden rule requiring government employers to provide "reasonable accomodations" for employees seeking elective abortions. The District Court had ruled the states did not have standing to challenge the rule. But they have to obey it and "imposition of a regulatory burden itself causes injury."

On remand the judge will have to consider, among other things, whether the reference to abortion in the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act can or must be interpreted to include elective abortions.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/02/242249P.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

There is no reference to abortion in the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It would have been enormously more controversial if there had been. Per Volokh's post concerning this today, abortion was included when the EEOC wrote the implementing regulations, well after enactment.

[David Nieporent]

The act refers to the "known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee." Abortion would seem to fit comfortably into that description. I assure you that abortion is "related to" pregnancy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, there is no reference to abortion in the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It's not crazy to infer that it applies to abortion, but it is still objectively true that it doesn't refer to abortion.

As by far the most pedantic commentor at this entire site, you should appreciate this distinction.

[Bwaaah]

My limit when it comes to Trump admin actions: the courts.

Laws, and their [hopefully] faithful execution, are all I expect that we will share in common. Love, and agreement, are beyond my expectations.

I consider courts, in all cases, to be the arbiters of law (for better or worse). I expect the President and his officials (and all people) to abide by court decisions. And I expect that he will rely only on appeals to courts, and not subversion of their ultimate authority, as his means of sustaining his authority.

I will consider any effort to subvert the authority of the courts as a fatal breach of the limits of good faith. Under such a circumstance, I will not only withdraw my support of the President's authority, but oppose it.

...just so's ya'll knows the limits of a moderate believer in our system of government...

[grb]

Among my interests is space exploration. Obviously, that's also in the crosshairs of Trump's brat-child trashing of the country, but I thought there was time before the juvenile antics began. But no:

While recently on Hannity, Musk claimed the two astronauts who flew to the International Space Station on Boeing's Starliner were "stranded there" because the Biden Administration refused to let Space X "rescue" them.

Danish astronaut Andreas Mogensen called that out as a complete lie. Sputtering rage followed from Musk, first calling Mogensen "retarded", then claimed he was "didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground", was "only a passenger", and "has no idea what's going on". But despite all that flatulence, Musk is the one lying. As Mogensen notes :

"Elon, I have long admired you and what you have accomplished, especially at SpaceX and Tesla. You know as well as I do, that Butch and Suni are returning with Crew-9, as has been the plan since last September. Even now, you are not sending up a rescue ship to bring them home. They are returning on the Dragon capsule that has been on ISS since last September."

The two had been made a part of ISS Crew-9 when the decision was made to deorbit Starliner empty, and nothing about that changed since NASA made that call six months ago. As for Musk, he seems to think his nonstop lying is exciting, clever, and edgy (because of all his money). In fact, he most resembles a surly acne-scarred teen from junior high. They lie a lot too. Levels of emotional maturity-wise, the two line-up perfectly.