Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think this is an interesting perspective on what was happening 72 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dcke4M4QiM

Truman wasn't popular, that's why he didn't run for a 3rd term.
And people forget just how unpopular the Korean war was.

[David Nieporent]

And people forget just how unpopular the Korean war was.

No, they don't.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was seen as necessary. And even now looking at the invasion that started it, it’s hard to disagree.

I remember people objecting to it being called a war — the proper term was “police action”.

[Frank Drackman]

You got that totally backwards

[defaultdotxbe]

[i]I remember people objecting to it being called a war — the proper term was “police action”.[/i]

I remember that being a line in MASH. I also remember being too young to tell if the character was being serious or sarcastic with the correction.

[Martinned2]

The Dutch also used "police actions" in 1945-49 to shut down Indonesian independence, until Truman told them to knock it off. (Back when there was still a reason to care what the US thought about such things.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Note to defaultdotxbe:

to get italics don't use open and closed brackets. Use open and close "lesser than" and "greater than" (on the usual keyboard it's the shift characters for the period and the comma).

[David Nieporent]

It was seen as necessary.

At the outset. And when MacArthur was rapidly advancing northwards towards the Chinese border, it was popular. But once the Chinese counerattacked, pushing the US ("UN") forces back and leading to a stalemate, it became unpopular.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The sides got to roughly along the line of the original border and it was a grudge match after that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was the National Guard that was sent to Korea in 1950 (remember that MASH's LTC Henry Blake was in the Illinois National Guard) -- these (including Blake) were all WWII vets who thought that they were done with war and only in the Guard for the benefits and comradery.

They were PISSED when they had to back to war but they were called up -- which Johnson should have done but didn't.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It was seen as necessary.

By whom? While polls showed that public support for the intervention was fairly high at first, after 6 months or so that support had plummeted by about half.

"I remember people objecting to it being called a war — the proper term was “police action”.

You don't remember any such popular objection. The term "police action" was used/pushed by Truman because he didn't want to go to Congress for a declaration of war.

[neurodoc]

You must be along in your 80's or beyond if you actually remember that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

neurodoc — I am 78 years old. The battle at Chosin happened when I was 4 years old, too young to remember much. But I do remember at that time visiting my dad at his civilian office in the Pentagon, where he worked on logistics to support the troops in Korea. He was also sent at times to Japan, to do similar work there. I remember taking him to the airport to send him on those trips, and meeting his arrivals home.

The war lasted long enough that I began to have first-hand memories from age 5 onward. When you grow up in the DC area, you get public affairs with your mother's milk. And the entire war was recent memory, and much talked about from 1953 onward.

As little kids we always enjoyed seeing military aircraft flying in formation around the DC area. When the prop aircraft began to switch over to sabre jets, that was vividly memorable. That happened about the time I turned 5.

By the end of the war I had my first paper route, a short one delivering the Washington Post. I learned to read late, but quickly became a voracious reader while I was delivering those papers. I have some first hand memories of those days, and of the war. I remember quite a bit from the 1952 political campaign. We bought our first TV set so my politics-junky mom could watch the conventions on TV. My wife who grew up in Delaware had exactly that same experience—first TV to watch the conventions.

I remember Ike's pledge to go to Korea. I remember military parades with marching troops, led always by Korean War vets, followed by WWII, followed by WWI, followed by Spanish American War vets in thinning numbers. On one memorable occasion, the rear was brought up by the last two surviving Civil War vets from Lee's army, riding in an open convertible. The last Union vet had been scheduled too, but ill health prevented participation.

McCarthyism, of course, renewed focus on the Korean War in a big way, and on all the issues dealing with the nationalist Chinese and the Red Chinese, and political fights over who lost China. It was natural during the mid 50s for a young person trying to get a grip on the adult world, and actually surrounded by military and civilian officials everywhere—including of course the parents of friends—to begin reflecting earlier in life on those events than many others did who grew up elsewhere. Those prompt early reflections provide something which feels like lived experience.

In the 1990s I found myself participating as a noise abatement advocate, in connection with plans to expand Logan Airport. At that time I met a senior United Airlines training supervisor, for 747 pilots. Final approach noise affected his home too, so we talked a lot. He had flown sabre jets in Korea, and later flew B-52s. His expertise proved notably helpful while talking to the FAA. His war stories about Korea and the Cold War alternated between gripping and hilarious. That felt like lived experience too.

[damikesc]

How, exactly, was the Korean War not worth our energy but Ukraine is?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Autireply daemon |dev null....

[Bwaaah]

Nothing lost.

[Krayt]

Korea was losing about as many men in 3 years as Vietnam did in the whole thing.

I detect a new talking point. But it fails in two ways:

1. No Americans are dying.
2. It wasn't a stalemate until Republicans started earning "Thanks, Gramps!" from Russian state TV. This condition only continues because of 3.
3. Someone lobbing out silly talking points, like concern for Russian soldiers, a concern their own leader, who he likes, as do several around here, does not share.

I guess that's 3 things.

[Ridgeway]

Didn't the 22nd Amendment also put a crimp in any re-election plans he might have had?

[Martinned2]

Give it time...

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, he had a special exemption:

But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Truman was exempt and could have run in 1952 -- and (wisely) chose not to.

[bernard11]

Pretty academic.

No one was beating Eisenhower in 1952.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting story for those interested in IP.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-one-programmer-broke-the-internet-by-deleting-a-tiny-piece-of-code?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

"Facing a crisis, with so much important software falling apart, npm decided to restore the 11 lines of code. “Un-un-publishing is an unprecedented action that we’re taking given the severity and widespread nature of breakage, and isn’t done lightly,”

I want to know how this was legal -- if you no longer have a license from the author to publish it, how can you?

[A Japanese Student]

That program is so trivial that it would not be copyrightable or patentable. If I remember correctly, the author also published it under irrevocable license allowing unlimited use, copying, or modification (which would apply in jurisdictions with more lenient copyrightability or patentability rules.)

[Voize of Reazon]

The linked story is about a trademark dispute, not copyright or patent infringement.
It's framed as open-source-versus-the-world, but I think few open source advocates lump trademark in with the others. Stallman certainly didn't. The free availability of ideas is a very different concept from the ability to masquerade as someone else.

[David Nieporent]

Who said they no longer had a license?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Autireply daemon |dev null....

[Absaroka]

What is 'autireply'?

It's /dev/null

[Dr. Ed 2]

it's |/dev/null

[Absaroka]

The device is /dev/null. The vertical bar is the pipe operator, to pipe between programs, e.g.:

ls | wc

But /dev/null is not a program:

$ ls | /dev/null
bash: /dev/null: Permission denied

The error is because that syntax is trying to execute /dev/null, and you don't have execute permissions for /dev/null (no one does, because ... it's not an executable)

I suspect what you were groping for is the stdout redirect:

somecommand > /dev/null

which will take the output from somecommand and write it to /dev/null.

In more detail

[defaultdotxbe]

https://xkcd.com/2347/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That cartoon would be a lot funnier if it weren't so close to being accurate.

I had been a computer hobbyist for a few years before I began developing software professionally. At that point I began writing software for what was at the time Tandem Computers systems. They were (and still are, after having been acquired by Compaq, and then again by HP as part of its acquisition of the former) a line of highly fault-tolerant online transaction processing systems that were, for many years, the systems of choice OLTP systems that needed to be available 24/7/365, even during failure/replacement/planned maintenance of critical software and hardware components. The hardware and O/S were both designed from the ground up to serve as critical business systems, and their development and maintenance were heavily geared toward stability, backward compatibility, etc. There are pieces of software that were developed 30 years ago and have not been changed since then still running today...and I'm talking original executable binaries and libraries, not recompiles from source...on currently supported and up-to-date systems today.

After a couple of decades of working in that sort of supremely stable and business purpose-driven environment, imagine my shock and horror when I was forced to delve into the wild west that is the world of 'nix (Unix/Linux), where stability and even backward compatibility are viewed as obstacles rather than guiding principles.

I've been asked what keeps me up at night. The answer is always, "Knowing that the world's technical infrastructure has come to be based so heavily on Linux."

[Michael P]

What's really awful is that it took a long time for npm (and similar registries) to handle cases like "Ann deletes package X, Mallory registers X and publishes malware".

Some software systems now require downstream users to specify a cryptographic hash for the version they want, to make sure they get the version they expect -- but even those can have bad effects where their tools allow lookups by name rather than hash.

[Krayt]

The system is a terrible design. I went to install some software that had many Linux dependencies. This problem is so common, someone wrote a utility to trace out all the dependencies and save them and their versions in a file.

In theory, you run another utility that does installs everything in the file. Nice, right?

A year goes by in the meantime. You go to install, and of the 50 dependencies, you get errors. This one is updated to a new version, and the old one is no longer available, sorry! That one is no longer available in any version, sorry!

It's a cosmic joke of poor design.

[John F. Carr]

Bitrot used to work on a time scale of years, not weeks.

Modern package managers use boolean satisfiability solvers to try to find a compatible set of dependencies. The package manager generates a set of equations, "package X implies package Y version > 40", "package Z implies package Y version < 50", and so forth. There are tools to generate a solution or prove that none is possible. I have a book on the subject titled "Handbook of Satisfiability". It's not as satisfying as the title suggests. Hundreds of pages of techniques for solving such problems. One useful technique that I have seen used in industry is counting in base 1.

[Krayt]

In theory, that's what Apache versioning is supposed to solve.

Major.minor.patch

A patch fixes something, but shouldn't cause problems for software that uses it, and should not neven need a change.

Microsoft has made hedculean efforts to continue providing old APIs. Software here, not so much.

And compatibility checks are useless if old, perfectly fine versions, are yanked.

[John F. Carr]

In theory we know how to avoid most of these problems. Avoiding them in practice requires efforts many people don't make.

I worked on a product where we had to maintain backwards compatibility for every user of our API back to our first public beta. There was floating point math, some of it in a binary component we licensed from a third party. It was not a simple task.

[Absaroka]

"if you no longer have a license from the author to publish it, how can you?"

I'm not motivated enough to look at that particular piece of software, but open source stuff is usually released with one of the flavors of GNU licenses or the like. You publish open source stuff because you want people to use it, and people won't use it if you can revoke their ability to use it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In sexbot news, technology is showing the truth of what I have always said -- women are expendable, men are not.

https://english.elpais.com/technology/2025-02-23/designed-by-men-for-men-why-sex-with-robots-does-not-have-appeal-among-women.html

Not quite said here is what I have been saying ever since the Austin Powers movies came out a quarter century ago -- the feminist movement will cease to exist as soon as sexbot technology makes an alternative viable, and that is now happening.

Like calculators and cell phones, sexbots will become inexpensive as the technology matures over the next decade, and that will be the end of anyone caring about women's issues, and that will not be a bad thing.

[neurodoc]

1) Is the VC's own Mr. Ed uber-misogynistic or just trying, lamely, to be droll?
2) Are Mr. Ed's attempts at drollery better or worse than his Trump promoting posts?
3) Does he stay up late (EST) or get up early to jump on VC open threads so as to draw extra attention to his "contributions," such as they are?
4) When will David Nieporent show up to keep Mr. Ed in line?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does he stay up late (EST) or get up early to jump on VC open threads...

Or is he woken up by the 3AM freight train hauling product to Boston Sand & Gravel?

"When will David Nieporent ...."

David Nieporent is nothing more than an autoreply daemon.

[David Nieporent]

1) Is the VC's own Mr. Ed uber-misogynistic or just trying, lamely, to be droll?

He is uber-misogynistic. He has not of course provided details, but he has made it clear that he blames women for all of his career failings, and likely personal as well. It would hardly surprise me if he identified as an incel.

4) When will David Nieporent show up to keep Mr. Ed in line?

Oh, I doubt that would happen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Autireply daemon |dev null....

[hobie]

We always knew half the hayseeds here are incels which explains their impotent rage. Ed's just making the diagnosis super easy

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I thought that the "in" stood for involuntary.

As opposed to not wanting a millstone around your neck.

[Estragon]

“As opposed to not wanting a millstone around your neck.”

I’ve got to say… this is one of the saddest things I’ve ever seen written here.

[hobie]

Do you think Ed even hates his own blowup doll?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That perpetual look of surprise starts to wear thin - literally.

[hobie]

HaHa!

[David Nieporent]

Heh. QED.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "As opposed to not wanting a millstone around your neck."

Here's what you're missing, Ed :

Women are actually highly cool. They're nice to look at, interesting to talk to, and capable of extraordinary accomplishments. On the whole, they tend to be more sensible than men - but I admit that's difficult to quantify. You'll object that they don't orient their lives en masse to every man's random desire, but why should they? I'll skip the whole body parts/fluids business, but they can be quite fetching in that respect too. All in all, they're a glorious highlight of Creation. At the cost of a rib, a real steal!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is the VC's own Mr. Ed uber-misogynistic or just trying, lamely, to be droll?

Is the guy who routinely celebrates over women being raped and murdered misogynistic? Hmmmm….

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is there a distinction between "meh" and "celebrating"?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes. The latter, which is what you do, is worse.

Thanks for your assistance with another round of easy answers to stupid questions.

[Dan Schiavetta]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PeR48EVOk1U

Bobby Bare, “My Ever Loving Machine”

[Krayt]

In Canada I think, but somewhere, a few years back there was the feminist-pushed banning of sex bots, well, just sex dolls.

"Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."

[Hugh]

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

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

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

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly HOW has he broken his oath, and what due process was accorded him?

IF what he's doing is wrong, then doing the same to him would be equally wrong.

[David Nieporent]

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

You posted this a week or so ago under a different username. Needless to say, that's not how it works.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Autireply daemon |dev null....

[Noscitur a sociis]

Twice, I believe, and under the same username.

[David Nieporent]

Twice, yes. If it was the same username, I stand corrected. "Hugh" didn't sound familiar.

[A Japanese Student]

Doesn't denaturalization require that the fraud occur before the naturalization, though? He was eligible for naturalization, so there is no grounds for revoking citizenship once conferred.

[windycityattorney]

I thought I read he was on a student visa but was working/not in school and not on a H1b or whatever and didn't update his visa status in a timely fashion. So maybe he wasn't eligible for naturalization if this alleged visa fraud had been known to the State Dept at the time??

[Kenneth Almquist]

Musk became a naturalized citizen in 2002. To show fraud, you would have to show that Musk didn’t intend to honor his oath at the time he took the oath. As far as I know he didn’t start undermining the U.S. Constitution until this year. (Also, I’m not sure that lying about whether you intended to defend the Constitution is a fraud that can get your citizenship revoked.)

[Brett Bellmore]

As far as I know, he didn't start undermining the Constitution this year, either.

This line is absolutely hilarious coming from the left, whose whole program is dependent on getting the Constitution out of the way.

[Sarcastr0]

BrettLaw is not the universal truth of the Constitution that all know and are bound to follow.

[Ed Grinberg]

- Brett says something obvious to all (including leftists themselves, who freely admit it).
- Sarcastr0 ... gaslights as usual.

[Sarcastr0]

The left freely admits their whole program is dependent on getting the Constitution out of the way?

[Krayt]

Some segments do. There's the whole sement of original sin believers who say things like the Founding Fathers were awful, racism was built in as a business process that's ongoing to this day, so scrap it all.

Odd, the people wouldn't change, even as the modern power brokers rewrote things to give themselves many more powers. Or tried to go full vox poluli vox dei.

[Sarcastr0]

1. A whole segment! Well that's truly nailing things down, and not nutpicking at all.

2. The Founders being bad doesn't mean Constitution is bad. See: Frederick Douglass.

3. Don't YOU hate the Founders, what with them being pretty into government, which you take as an axiomatically evil enterprise that exists only for corruption?

[Brett Bellmore]

Getting the Constitution out of the way is the only point of 'living constitutionalism', nobody would bother with it otherwise.

[bernard11]

You're deranged.

There are, in fact, people who disagree with you, for good reasons. Hard to believe, I know, but true nonetheless.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

At least in your straw man version of living constitutionalism.

[Krayt]

Re: point 3

Thank god someone is listening to me!

Anyway, they were a unique moment in human history. They were stuggling out from under the thumb of corrupt kleptocratic dictatorship. They put all kinds of safeguards into their governmental design, from initial philosophy like rights are inherent to you and not a gift from anybody, and precede government, to phrases and amendments with absolutist disabling of tools of tyrants, or, in the case of "necessary" things like investigation and prosecution of crimes, gating it behind openness like warrant requirements, habeas corpus, double jeopardy, punishment restrictions, seizure restrictions.

Is that something qualitatively different? Sure, why not? But I warned Europe that, by creating a federal government, pols would infiltrate it and try to grow their power, by feigning you should think of it as not government of last resort, but of first resort, where you run to the feds first rather than your state.

Compare vs. most modern countries which, when faced by a takeover by The People, just looked at vox rei vox dei and changed it into vox populi. I don't even know if I even got my Latin right.

Now consider the remaining 200+ years of corruptions insinuating themselves into power.

[damikesc]

They did champion stacking the SCOTUS and sided with Biden while he admitted to ignoring SCOTUS rulings.

[Sarcastr0]

Stacking the Court sure is constitutional.
It's kind of the name of the game.

And Biden didn't admit anything like that.

You're kinda low-key unhinged, eh?

[Martinned2]

Some people in the VC comments section are simply beyond helping...

[Don Nico]

Martin,
That is because some posters cannot resist being trolled.

[Martinned2]

That's a very charitable interpretation of what's going on. I hope you're right.

[David Nieporent]

Once more: that's not what gaslighting is.

[Bwaaah]

Now do "insufferable pedantry."

[not guilty]

"- Sarcastr0 ... gaslights as usual."

"Gaslight" is a transitive verb which requires an object. Just whom has Sarcastr0 gaslighted?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ed Grinberg...still doesn't understand the term gaslighting. To the surprise of no one.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

None of that is justiciable, true or false You would have to show that your view of the Constitution must be his, okay, Kamala

[Joe_dallas]

Hugh & Ken - your objection to musk is him exposing the extent to which the left has undermined the US consitution.

[Longtobefree]

Broke his oath?
By providing the entire world a way to access the internet?
By outperforming NASA in space?
By leading the way in electric power innovation?
By uncovering waste fraud and corruption in the federal government and actually seeing something was done about it?
By paying more in taxes than you?
Perhaps you be a bit more specific.

[bernard11]

By uncovering waste fraud and corruption in the federal government and actually seeing something was done about it?

He didn't uncover shit. How could he?

He has no idea what most of these agencies do or how they do it or which staffers are doing a good job and which are deadheads. He and his teenyboppers are just randomly firing people. They are as likely to be making things worse as better.

I have no experience at all in the automobile business, do you? If not, do you imagine that either one of us could walk into GM, say, and start improving its efficiency on day one? That it would make sense for us to fire a sizeable segment of its workers?

[damikesc]

I love this belief that the Federal Government has no waste to remove OUTSIDE of, possibly, the DoD.

Yup, everybody views government employees as the best of the best.

[Sarcastr0]

Nobody said there's no waste in the government. No one said anything at all like that.

Are you drunkposting?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps you could explain what any of that has to do with the Constitution.

[Michael Ejercito]

So a naturalized citizen can be denaturalized if they had participated in the enforcement of Chicago's gun control laws?

[DaveM]

Your political opponents are all very happy you are (still!) unable to cope with having lost the election so decidedly. It keeps you distracted and out of their way.

[damikesc]

I suppose this was a good post in your head.

I hope we have learned what bad things your head leads to.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the paranoia of the Muskrats spreads:
https://www.wired.com/story/surveillance-privacy-doge-federal-employees/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

I must admit two things though -- first, how does anyone competent not know that the majority of the Energy Department's responsibilities involves babysitting our nukes? Sure the details are (hopefully) classified, but if we have civilian control of our thermonuclear weapons, complete with PAL links and the rest, it stands to reason that some civilian entity has to be doing this, right? And it wasn't that long ago that John Tower publicly made the mistake of not knowing this, how do none of your people not know it.

Second, I am inherently concerned about a small army of young adults who can afford to go to DC and work 60-80 hours a week without pay. The exploitation of unpaid internships has been inexorably worsening over the past few decades, but this is truly obscene. It ought to be illegal -- there are reasons why we have a minimum wage law....

And I question the quality of work that comes out of a cult-like environment. The infamous Heaven's Gate cult wrote HTML code, I heard rather badly.

Not that I have any love for Federal bureaucrats.

[David Nieporent]

And it wasn't that long ago that John Tower publicly made the mistake of not knowing this, how do none of your people not know it.

John Tower has been dead for over 30 years, and as far as I know never made such a mistake. It is possible you mean Rick Perry, who other than being a male Republican from Texas has nothing in common with John Tower.

[Martinned2]

Oops

[Krayt]

It is possible you mean Rick Perry, who other than being a male Republican from Texas has nothing in common with John Tower.

Admiral Perry had many ships with giant masts that are sort of like towers.

[Magister]

I laughed.

Also, Rick and John both have four letters, and Perry and Tower both have five letters. So, it's possible that the accuracy of Dr. Ed 2's statement could be in the upper half of his oeuvre.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And both were embarrassed by Defense-related matters -- the Senate not confirming Towers.

[David Nieporent]

The Senate didn't confirm Towers because he was a drunk — something, until Pete Hegseth, that everyone agreed was disqualifying.

[Michael P]

"first, how does anyone competent not know that the majority of the Energy Department's responsibilities involves babysitting our nukes?"

They don't know that because it's not true. NNSA's fraction of the budget requests, at least in 2022 and 2023 (more recent ones were not broken out so accessibly) was less than half of the total request, and nuclear weapon activities were about a third of the total budget request in those years.

[Martinned2]

O, that's fine then. Let's fire all the nukes people and make it an even smaller share of the budget. Who needs people to look after the nukes anyway?

[Magister]

Come on, Musk can just send an email to all the nukes to see if they're still working.

[Don Nico]

By the way Martin, it would not be such a bad idea if the number of aged nukes are permanently retired and the >$1.2T of nuclear rebuilding were put to better use or even left in the pockets of taxpayers.

[Martinned2]

For sure. But retiring nukes requires *more* people spending more time on the nuclear arsenal, in the short term. And no one in the current administration is worried about anything other than the short term, so that's not going to work for them.

[Magister]

Or like with the CIA, Musk could just abruptly fire them, without worrying if they will sell themselves to other countries.

[Don Nico]

Magister,
That actually is just a stupid snark rather than a intelligent analysis. It generates far more heat than light.

[Magister]

You seem to be the only one heated. But you must have muted a huge number of commenters if I'm the one you're criticizing for heat over light.

[Don Nico]

Actually, NNSA is quite large. The huge outlay would mostly workers in government owned-contractor operated facilities and in industry.
While the "dismissal" of NNSA employees may have been unwise, it wold not have had the implications implied in the press. Fortunately the "dismissals have been reversed. That is not to say that NNSA does not need auditing or that expansive new activities don't need re-examination

[Sarcastr0]

DOGE fucked up. Yet again.

Because they're idiots, moving to be moving. Breaking the law and ruining people for the sake of doing so.

This is another example in a long line.

It is not something to dismiss and defend.

[Don Nico]

"It is not something to dismiss and defend."
How is it that you always have to rely pn untruths and misrepresentations to criticize?
It is a pathetic style of "debate."

[Sarcastr0]

Here is you dimissing and defending above:

-Scare quotes around dismissed. They were dismissed, no buts about it.
-"may have been unwise" is needlessly equivocal.
-"it would not have had the implications implied in the press" is unsupported. And minimizes the risk.
-"Fortunately the "dismissals have been reversed" pretends this was an easily reversable action. It wasn't. This falsely minimizes what happened.

Your minimization of the DOGE bullshit is right there in what you wrote; I don't know why you attempted to deny it.
You also were pretty cool with the NIH and NSF getting gutted both internally and externally.

GOP first, champion of research second.

[Don Nico]

They actually were not dismissed. That is not an HR term hence the scare quotes.
"it would not have had the implications implied in the press" is unsupported. And minimizes the risk."
No. getting rid of any 4000 persons in DOE (for what were hours) would not have put destroyed the US nuclear deterrant. That was what was implied by CNN among others. Learn to tell the truth.

"pretends this was an easily reversible action" and where did you read that? Another of your usual lies and gaslighting.

Your dishonesty is bullshit plain and simple. You are not so stupid not to know it. But obviously you don't care. You always put distorted words into people's mouth an then you criticize your lies.

As for this one:You also were pretty cool with the NIH and NSF getting gutted both internally and externally. That is an out and out boldface LIE.
What a gaslighter!
Where did you learn to be so dishonest and be proud of it?

Maybe Musk will fire you; you likely would deserve it. Since you seem to post during work hours.

[Magister]

They actually were not dismissed. That is not an HR term hence the scare quotes.

HR may use even gentler euphemisms, but they weren't involved in the action according to CNN. It doesn't change what happened to them or that the Trump administration scrambled to reinstate them.

[Sarcastr0]

Don's going to defend it while insisting he's not defending it for some reason.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No -- we need to maintain a credible MAD threat.

[Magister]

Sadly, the US seems bent on OSAD instead, even if it may ultimately take everyone else down.

[Don Nico]

By the way, the DOE designs and produces nuclear weapons, disassembles and rebuilds them. Once build they turn them over to the US military which babysits them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who maintains the PAL?

[SykesFive]

"Babysitting" is the wrong word, but the majority of the DOE budget has something to do with the military's nuclear weapons and propulsion, and a lot of the rest has to do with civilian nuclear power generation.

There is a longstanding public misconception that the Department of Energy sets national energy policy, exercises meaningful control over power generation or how cars run, etc.

[Don Nico]

Sykes,
You mischaracterize the DOE budget breakdown. Please have a look at the DOE authorization and appropriation bills and the OMB budget and reporting categories.
It has a very large program is the basic sciences, in environmental management - mostly at legacy radiation sites, and some program in the development of civilian nuclear power.
But you missed the point of my comment; namely, that one in the stockpile, the DoD has authority and control over US nuclear weapons.

[SykesFive]

If I'd realized that was the point of your comment, I'd have heartily agreed. The idea that NNSA people have physical custody of the nuclear stockpile is crazy.

I did look at those sources and stand by my characterization that most of the DOE budget has to do with the military's nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion programs (now down to just subs and carriers). The legacy radiation sites are nuclear weapon production facilities so I include those in the category--they would not exist without the bomb. I think I drew a larger category than you did, though.

[Kazinski]

The German elections happened Sunday and the winners were the "conservatives" and the "far right".

The conservatives can form a government without the AfD and likely they will, but that's an awfully risky move going forward.

Why? Because the CDU was just in a coalition with the SPD and the Greens, and the coalition left the economy in shambles and the government collapsed, if they go back into a coalition with the SPD, and they don't turn things around, that leaves the AfD as the only alternative for change at the next election. The CDU got a pass this time because they were a junior partner in the last government, this time, they don't have any excuses.

[Mr. Bumble]

Expect Martinned2 to weigh in soon.

[Martinned2]

It was an interesting results evening, because the 5%-hurdle played such a pivotal roll. Part of the reason for that is that the option of getting around it by winning three direct mandates has been abolished, but the fact that both the BSW and the FDP were just below 5% in the exit polls also made for a complicated night.

In the end both the BSW and the FDP are out. The FDP was also out in the 2013-17 Bundestag, and the BSW was only in the last Bundestag because it split off from The Left. The Left itself did really well, arguably exactly because it got rid of the far-left pro-Russia populists of the BSW. The remainder of The Left now has a more coherent message, i.e. they're socialists but not the "blow up German democracy" kind. That makes them a viable alternative for voters who were disappointed by the SPD and the Greens in the previous government, but who wouldn't have voted for the heirs to East-German communism in the past.

Because the new Bundestag will only have five parties (CDU/CSU, AfD, SPD, Greens, and The Left), the mathematics of coalition formation are straightforward. The AfD are toxic, and the parties of the left (SPD, Greens, and The Left) don't have a majority. That leaves what was once a Grand Coalition, i.e. CDU/CSU and SPD. That's the same coalition that Merkel formed twice as well. The only challenge is that the current CDU leader, Merz, is a lot further to the right and more populist than Merkel. But he has said he wants to have the new government sorted by Easter, and I think that's plausible.

A separate complication is that The Left and the AfD between them have 216 seats (out of 630), i.e. more than a third. That allows them to block decisions that require a 2/3 majority, like a constitutional amendment to allow Germany to borrow more money for dealing with the Trump-fallout. But I reckon that the current incarnation of The Left can be reasoned with, and that some sort of deal will be done to sort that out. (And obviously the last thing The Left want is to be seen working together with the AfD.)

[Commenter_XY]

Merz is the one who broke that 'firewall', correct (used AfD to help pass one piece of legislation)?

AfD doubled their representation (10% to 20%) the Bundestag; representing ~12MM people out of 80MM total population. No other party even remotely had a similar improvement in performance. Notably, SPD tanked.

There is little reason to believe Merz will do better than Scholz in the long run, maintaining the same coalition, more or less. I don't think the 'firewall' can be maintained. Especially when it comes to energy. AfD has reached a critical mass where they can no longer be ignored, their immigration and energy positions are very popular.

Maintaining that firewall in lieu of direct engagement only guarantees more AfD support in the next election, after the next few terror attacks are perpetrated by immigrants (usually a young male, btwn 16-40, from islamic country). This is the danger.

[Brett Bellmore]

"AfD has reached a critical mass where they can no longer be ignored, their immigration and energy positions are very popular."

This is, I think, the key point: So long as the left absolutely insists on maintaining unpopular positions on multiple critical issues, their share of the electorate will inevitably keep declining.

The left knows how to kill AfD: Coopt them on energy and immigration. They just haven't been able to bring themselves to do it.

Here in the US, there's a similar dynamic, even if we don't have a coalition system like in Germany, the major parties are in effect long term coalitions. And here, too, the left seems absolutely determined to maintain unpopular positions on multiple issues that brought the Republicans back to power.

It's like the left's very identity is wrapped up in opposition to the public.

[Martinned2]

The lesson everyone except the US drew from the 1930s is that getting into bed with the far right is how they get into power. In Germany they remember that lesson well. Nobody wants to be the Von Papen or Hindenburg of the 2020s.

In the US, on the other hand, the GOP establishment got into bed with Trump, and has now ended up sleeping on the floor in an authoritarian state where Trump is King. I'm not sure why you think that's an example the Germans should follow.

[tylertusta]

in an authoritarian state where Trump is King

Did I miss the coronation? What is Trump's ruling name? When was Congress dissolved?

When am I supposed to report to the detention center/concentration camps?

[Martinned2]

I don't think people who kiss Trump's ass as much as you do have to worry about detention centres anytime soon.

But yes, Trump has declared himself King. And, with Congress out of action and the Supreme Court bending over backwards to give him his way, that's all he needs.

[tylertusta]

So none of that has happened and you're just blowing hot air out of your ass.

Thanks for confirming that for us.

[Magister]

Trump declared himself king; it was all over the news.
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698

[tylertusta]

Yawn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is the antidote to Obama.

[Martinned2]

He is if you think the problem with Obama was that he was an uppity black man.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

You are like each other. It is the very definition of 'authoritarian' to think that you define what is legal and not legal. Anyway, maybe 80 million of your fellow citizens agree with Trump over you.

[tylertusta]

Hmm?

[Riva]

The form of socialism practiced by the Nazis bears far more resemblance to the policies of certain modern Democrats than anything from the “right.” But that would require an honest self-reflection by democrats. They don’t do honest and they don’t self-reflect. Much too easy to just label everyone they disagree with as a “nazi” or racist. And nothing will change in the immediate future here, as I suspect they are all still in shock about Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.

[windycityattorney]

Do you think Dan Bongino is qualified for the position he was just named to?

[Riva]

A multiple degreed former police officer, secret service agent (and that includes being an instructor). How can anyone say he is unqualified?

[David Nieporent]

If the job of the FBI Deputy Director were writing traffic tickets, then I suppose his former experience as a police officer would be very important.

[windycityattorney]

He was a cop for 4 fucking years. He lost 3 elections...almost as many as years of being a cop. He served longer as a secret service agent but what the f does that have to do with leading and running a giant nationwide/international law enforcement agency?

Patel is alleged to have promised the rank and file that he would follow tradition and appoint an FBI veteran who knows the dept and the agency and worked their way up the ranks to be his deputy. Its likely Patel got leapfrogged by Trump...which sure, is Trump's prerogative. But its a highly critical job since Patel himself is also unqualified for his job and its widely viewed that the deputy actually runs the agency whereas the political appointee directs policy.

One thing about Bongino is that because he spent a considerable amount of time being a Rush Limbaugh type he has, like Rush, loads of highly questionable statements, positions and quotes that are controversial [to put it mildly]. Including about the FBI he is now going to run. He is a big lie believer about Trump's election loss because of course he is. That may be his most important qualification in fact. Suffice it to say he was too crazy for Fox News. Its a highly corrosive pick and yet another example of incompetence that will likely result in people actually dying - because his life goal, according to his own words, is only to 'own the libs.' Basically he is your average reason MAGA commenter running the FBI and if that doesn't tell you all you need to know nothing will.

[Riva]

What does the secret service have to do with federal law enforcement? Yeah, your knowledge of federal law enforcement is quite impressive. But that's beside the point. Director Patel made no "promises" to any "rank and file." That's utter horseshit. If one wants to reform a rotting institution probably not wise to choose someone from the rotting institution. Dan Bongino is highly educated, experienced as federal agent, and understands the FBI is grossly in need of reform, which is really the basis for your rant. You just want the old corrupt FBI to keep on rolling along. Tough shit. Elections have consequences, and the country is grateful.

[Michael Ejercito]

Which far right policies do you object to?

[Ed Grinberg]

It's like the left's very identity is wrapped up in opposition to the public.

Well, yes. They are, to use Ayn Rand's terms, "anti-life" -- possessed with a "malicious hatred of existence."

Q: Why do leftists hate the Bible so much?
A (from Abraham Lincoln): "In regard to this Great book...it is the best gift God has given to man. But for it we could not know right from wrong. And all things most desirable for man's welfare...are to be found portrayed in it." (source)

[SRG2]

"But for it we could not know right from wrong."

And Lincoln was wrong.

[Krayt]

The Great Book cannot be a gift from God as God doesn't exist. It is exactly what it seems to be, an assembly of stories and rhubarbs from pervious stories and traditions. Check out the history of the Golden Rule.

Which, hang on, don't leave, which means humans are capable of, heh heh, divining their own good rules based on disgust with rotten behaviors.

There's also something sad about thinking deciding murder or theft is wrong, is only because a god says it is, and not because it is.

[tylertusta]

The wrong lesson was learned among the American and European left after WW2.

The lesson they learned was to ostracize the right to prevent the next Hitler: call them Nazis, ban their speech, and banish them from participating in politics. Today, the authoritarian tendencies of the left are on full display in Germany. To them it's not that leftist policies are the cause of frustrated Germans choosing to support the AfD. Rather, it's that 1/5 of Germans are just Nazis. Since Nazis deserve no quarter, the left seeks to ban the only real opposition from politics and reflexively do the opposite of any of the AfD's stances.

What the left should have learned was that strongmen succeed when the public is frustrated with the political system not working to the public's benefit. Hitler's rise to power wasn't an inevitable product of ultra-conservative politics as the left likes to bleat. Instead, Hitler's rise was due to the economic frustration of the Great Depression and the Weimar Republic's inability to handle it. Germans were content with Hitler in the 1930s because Hitler got Germany back to work- the very thing that the Weimer government was incapable of doing.

[Sarcastr0]

strongmen succeed when the public is frustrated with the political system not working to the public's benefit

I don't think that's right. It pretends an enlightened and informed public, and ignores the effects of propaganda and new media's ability to whip up people.
In general if you conclusion ends with populism as a bulwark against nationalist strongmen, you're doing it wrong.

Hitler's rise to power wasn't an inevitable product of ultra-conservative politics as the left likes to bleat. Instead, Hitler's rise was due to the economic frustration of the Great Depression and the Weimar Republic's inability to handle it
You're doing that thing where liberals are the only mover in the entire world and responsible for everything including everything the right does.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto -- Hitler:

1: Opposed unpopular policies (reparations).
2: Fixed the economy -- got people jobs.
3 Resisted the Soviet advance -- don't forget this!
4: Replaced God.

[bernard11]

Resisted the Soviet advance -- don't forget this!

WTF?

[Absaroka]

Well, partially true! He first facilitated their advance into half of Poland, but he did try to resist their advance from Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad to Berlin :-).

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the KPD or Communist Party of Germany.
Very much influenced by the Soviets...

[tylertusta]

It pretends an enlightened and informed public

Actually, I'm assuming the opposite. The public is mostly a morass of the unengaged and uneducated who are content to go about their lives without paying attention to politics until they feel like they need to.

In the case of Trump, he tapped into low-propensity voters who are unhappy with the previous administration's handling of immigration and the economy.

I firmly believe that if Biden had not been so awful with his immigration policy and had his administration not ignored inflation, then even someone as vapid as Kamala Harris could have beaten Trump.

and ignores the effects of propaganda and new media's ability to whip up people

There's nothing really new about it.

You're doing that thing where liberals are the only mover in the entire world and responsible for everything including everything the right does.

Absolutely. My critique is a valid one, since up until January it was the "liberals" that set policy and governed the nation. Left-wing elites still control much of Europe's governing institutions, and they still control the transatlantic culture and media institutions.

They are wholeheartedly responsible for the policies that they implement, support, and fail to educate the electorate on- for good or ill.

[Sarcastr0]

You may say you think the public is unengaged and uneducated, and then presume a public who happens to align with your priors.

That's...an interesting combo of takes.

[tylertusta]

What's interesting about it?

It's low propensity voters who only engage in the political process, and they vote for the candidate promising a change from the currently bad status quo.

In past elections there are smaller-yet-similar movements that seek to tap that same pool of voters: Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Ross Perot, etc. This kind of effect even succeeded previously in a big way for Democrats previously: Barack Obama.

This isn't a left-or-right thing. This is a just-don't-suck-at-governing thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Also:
"You're doing that thing where liberals are the only mover in the entire world and responsible for everything including everything the right does."

"Absolutely."

This is stupid. You are so partisan you no longer have a good tell on who is left and who is right.

And even if you did, the right wing has agency, you utter moron.

[tylertusta]

If you seriously believe that the left doesn't own the major cultural institutions, then you are so far left that you can't see what's happening right in front of you, and discussing this with you is pointless.

[Martinned2]

Yes, we definitely need advice from Americans about how to avoid strongmen taking over your country.

[tylertusta]

Does this mean you're going to shut the fuck up about American politics and you'll cease giving advice to Americans?

[Martinned2]

Not really. Clearly you could do with some advice. The problem is that I can't make you listen, but I should at least try.

[tylertusta]

Not really.

Then you should prepare yourself to be lectured to on your own failings.

[Martinned2]

Merz is the one who broke that 'firewall', correct (used AfD to help pass one piece of legislation)?

A motion, not legislation. He didn't go quite that far, but breaking the Firewall did cost him an estimated 3%-5% of the vote. (The CDU typically polled well above 30% until that mistake, and now ended up with 28.5%.)

The Firewall is popular with voters who don't vote for the AfD. So I don't see any reason why any politician should drop it. To put it differently, the Firewall against the AfD is probably the single most popular policy in the country.

[Commenter_XY]

So the answer is yes, he did break the firewall. That is why I don't think it (firewall) will survive much longer.

There is no reason to believe that this new coalition (sans AfD) under Merz will do any better than the same old coalition under Scholz, particularly wrt energy.

Direct engagement over time will moderate AfD. Absent that, AfD will grow more popular with each monthly energy bill, and each terror attack.

[Martinned2]

Direct engagement over time will moderate AfD.

What is your evidence for that?

And, come to think of it, what is your source for the "muslim terror attacks" talking point? Because that sounds like something you picked up from whoever has the role of Limbaugh these days.

[Commenter_XY]

M2, think about the Tea Party, circa 2010. That is the analogy I would suggest. Energy cost (especially) and immigration are incredibly strong issues for AfD. Address those two (and a very strong majority of Germans want those issues addressed ASAP) and AfD shrinks in size to irrelevance, or moderates over time. Their reason for increased popularity goes out the window; what do they have to fall back on?

The most likely outcome is the other parties will peel off AfD supporters over time, after Germany addresses their energy crisis (especially) and immigration, and the AfD party falls into obscurity. That is politics. It happens all the time.

[Martinned2]

What are you talking about? The Tea Party has merged with the Trump movement and taken over the GOP, radicalising ever further to the right in the process. Every time moderate Republicans acted like those concerns about immigration were justified, the (former) Tea Party people moved further to the right.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's using the Tea party as an example of what happens if you DON'T do as he suggests; The political establishment instead of coopting the Tea Party's popular positions, settled for just directly suppressing them. The positions didn't go away, they just got taken up by somebody else.

[Martinned2]

The political establishment instead of coopting the Tea Party's popular positions, settled for just directly suppressing them.

They did? That's news to me. As far as I can tell the GOP embraced them, and got eaten by the far right monster in the process. Unless you think people like Paul Ryan aren't part of "the political establishment".

https://teapartyexpress.org/5047/congressman-paul-ryan-strong-tea-party-choice-for-vice-president

[Commenter_XY]

M2, take some time to think through the analogy I suggested to you. These things take years to play out, think decade or two.

I repeat: The most likely outcome is that energy/immigration get addressed, and AfD fades away into obscurity.

The failure to address those issues will make AfD more popular.

[Dr. Ed 2]

M2 -- Trump converted the GOP the way that FDR converted the Dems.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They did? That's news to me."

For instance, IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups

"The controversy began in 2013 when an IRS official admitted the agency had been aggressively scrutinizing groups with names such as "Tea Party" and "Patriots." It later emerged that liberal groups had been targeted, too, although in smaller numbers."

Even that last bit was a fakeout; They only started 'targeting' liberal groups after they realized the scandal was going to become public, and those groups never got the same treatment the Tea party groups did.

IRS auditor reaffirms that conservatives, not liberals, were targeted

"The IRS inspector general said this week that while some liberal groups were given extra scrutiny by the tax agency, they were not subjected to the same invasive queries as tea party groups — a finding that seems to confirm a political bias was at play."

[Sarcastr0]

The IRS in 2017 apologized to the right for being bad.

Brett is sure this is legit and on the up-and-up.

Incredible critical thinking, Brett!

[Brett Bellmore]

How did this end up here?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why is the AfD considered so bad?
They aren't out prancing around with swastikas -- that would even be illegal under German law.

Germany had 12 years of Nazism, and 47 years of Communism... Hitler died 80 years ago, while the Berlin Wall only came down 26 years ago, there are living victims of the DDR....

So unless you are going to smear the left with vestiges of Stalin, you can't smear the right with vestiges of Hitler. Not unless you want a populace making the mistake of concluding that "Hitler wasn't so bad" and that is perhaps the greatest risk in Germany right now.

The issues with the AdF -- as I see them, are the AdF's immigration and energy policies. both of which Hitler probably would have supported. Hitler also built the Berlin subway system and the autobahns.

Besides, in 1933 the Nazis were shooting it out with the Communists on streetcorners and Hitler had already been convicted of attempting to violently overthrow the government a decade earlier. Has the AdF done any of that?

And no, Trump hasn't either...

[Martinned2]

They aren't out prancing around with swastikas

They're not? I guess that's technically true. But still:

https://www.jta.org/2024/07/02/global/far-right-german-politician-fined-again-for-using-a-banned-nazi-phrase

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/far-right-german-politician-arrested-after-sieg-heil-salutes-heard

But I can see why Nazi salutes would be pretty ordinary to you...

[Martinned2]

(By the way, I really liked how the German news was asking tough questions even in the round of first reactions they did after the exit polls came out. When they spoke to Alice Weidel about 30 mins after the polls closed they asked her about this Neo Nazi shit, and she said - in a phrase Americans will recognise - that this was only meant "ironically".)

[Michael Ejercito]

Would it surprise you that the ranks of the first Stasi agents were Gestapo veterans?

[bernard11]

No.

[bernard11]

How is the AfD going to reduce energy prices in Germany?

[damikesc]

Restarting nuclear plants would be helpful.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Looking forward to neo-Nazi Germany, are you? Maybe hoping for a Trump alliance with it?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not much will change because AfD will be shut out from any coalition government.

[Martinned2]

Even Le Pen won't touch them with a 10 foot poll, that's how toxic they are. So no, at the federal level they won't matter. The fact that they have 30% in the parliament of Saxony and 33% in Thuringia is much more significant. In both places the Firewall has held, for now, but particularly in Thuringia it's pretty precarious, with a minority government of CDU, BSW (!) and SPD, relying on The Left for majorities.

[Riva]

You clowns really are afraid of democracy, aren't you? Must be because the vast majority of the voting public despises your policies, at least wherever they're allowed to express their opinions. Which, of course, is why you want to suppress free speech too.

[Frank Drackman]

Die Linke and the Greens are the closest to a modern day Nazi Party, they're both literally National Socialist Parties, and the former Head of Die Linke?
That Monument to Democracy Erich Honecker,
and as a 1/2 German, Native German Speaker (Engrish is my Zweite Sprache, can you tell?) its funny watching the Media totally get everything about Germany wrong, why did AfD do so well? It's the Moose-lums Dummkopf

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, Joe McCarthy was drunk.
What's your excuse???

[apedad]

Resorting to the ad hominem fallacy is evidence that one has lost the argument.

(H/T Dr. Ed 2!)

[Dr. Ed 2]

If CDU ignores AfD, CDU will be labeled RINOs and at this point, AfD has enough support to bring down the government.

Immigration is a real issue in Germany right now.
If the AfD are the only folk who will oppose it, NeoNazi or not, what choice do voters have?

[Martinned2]

If CDU ignores AfD, CDU will be labeled RINOs and at this point

By who? By Musk and Vance? Let them. They both campaigned for the AfD, so to hell with them.

AfD has enough support to bring down the government.

No it doesn't. That's why it's in opposition.

If the AfD are the only folk who will oppose it, NeoNazi or not, what choice do voters have?

They could opt not to vote for NeoNazi's? That doesn't seem like a difficult question. Why are you so keen for Germany to be taken over by Nazi's again?

[Frank Drackman]

AfD is about as “Right Wing” as Tommy Tuberville, like Amuricans, Germans are tired of their cities turning into Mini-Terror-Ann’s (HT A Rose)

[santamonica811]

"...Why are you so keen for Germany to be taken over by Nazi's again?"

Martin,
Some questions just answer themselves.

[Michael P]

The Nazis pitched wind and hydro power, using hydrogen for energy storage. They wanted very strong unions and extensive government control over private firms. They decried capitalism as responsible for economic collapse. Rather than winning elections, much of their influence was gained through street violence. They ran with slogans like "Nutrition is not a private matter!"

Maybe the better question is why the Nazis are still in charge of Germany.

[Frank Drackman]

That's a Bing-Go!!!!!
Is that how you say it? "Bing-Go"??

[Brett Bellmore]

So, their choice is to either vote for neoNazis, or just accept that democracy in their country can never deliver what the voters want?

This sounds like a way to convince people that voting for 'neoNazis' might be a reasonable option.

[Martinned2]

Democracy does deliver what voters want. 80% of voters want the AfD to be shut out of government, and that's what they're going to get.

Elevating those voters who vote for a populist to The People, who speak with one voice (the populist's voice) is the very definition of populism. The AfD is not The People, and AfD voters are not The People.

[defaultdotxbe]

And what if voters want both the AfD shut out, AND immigration reforms? Will democracy deliver both, or will the voters have to forgo one for the other?

In 5 years, will the calculus still be the same, or will they have to forgo shutting out the AfD in order to get immigration reforms?

[Martinned2]

And what if voters want both the AfD shut out, AND immigration reforms?

Then they probably voted for the CDU, because that is exactly what Merz campaigned on.

But unless the voters you describe make up a majority of the electorate, they cannot reasonably expect to get their way.

[damikesc]

"Then they probably voted for the CDU, because that is exactly what Merz campaigned on."

...and walked back within 24 hrs. That certainly seems like leadership --- admitting you lied so quickly and brazenly.

If you're scared of your voters, you are the bad guy.

[Martinned2]

You're not the only American who is confused by concepts like compromise and coalition. But I promise, if you think about it, it all still flows from the idea that, say, 20% of the electorate shouldn't get to run the country, the way it does in the US.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I heard that: As soon as the election was safely past, the CDU flipped in immigration.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why are you so keen for Germany to be taken over by Nazi's again?"

You could ask the left that question. Energy and immigration are the AfD's life support, you know that; Why not rip that IV out and let them bleed out on the floor?

Why is flooding the country with immigrants the citizenry don't want, and rendering the country energy insecure, so important that you'll gladly nurture the AfD?

[Martinned2]

Wait, you think that the best way to avoid Nazi's taking over Germany is to adopt Nazi policies?

Nobody is flooding Germany with anything, except possibly the flooding caused by the climate change that the AfD is denying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_European_floods

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Climate Change is bullshit and you seem to miss the money angle

WASHINGTON TIMES POLL
Not one dollar: One-third of voters unwilling to spend anything to counter climate change

So get your cattle prod ready. CC is bullshit and I can't take anyone seriously who lets BIden send $350 BILLION to Ukraine but lets our schools, military, borders, etc go to shit. What world are you actually saving from climate change anyway 🙂

[Martinned2]

O wow, that's a lot of lying in just a few lines of comment.

I'll skip over all the climate change denial, because you know full well that that's nonsense. But let me direct you to the details about the US contributions to the Ukrainian war effort (most of which consisted of letting the Ukranians buy crappy old US equipment anyway).

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

[Brett Bellmore]

"Wait, you think that the best way to avoid Nazi's taking over Germany is to adopt Nazi policies?"

Geeze, way to make my point.

Characterizing "not flooding the country with immigrants" and "having reliable and affordable energy" as "Nazi policies" is how you normalize Nazis, is my point!

We're not talking death camps here, we're talking about policies that were damned near universal in the West until recently! But, sure, go ahead and think not having open borders and routine brownouts is the definition of Nazism.

[Martinned2]

having open borders and routine brownouts

Tell me you know nothing about Germany without telling me you know nothing about Germany.

And, for the record, I describe the policies you advocate as "Nazi" because they are being pushed by the modern Nazi party, the AfD. You have the causality of the naming backwards.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And, for the record, I describe the policies you advocate as "Nazi" because they are being pushed by the modern Nazi party, the AfD. "

And that's what I'm telling you is stupid. If the Nazi party advocates higher speed limits that doesn't make higher speed limits meaningfully a Nazi policy in any pejorative sense.

You're ceding popular issues which are not actually morally offensive to them, and when you describe those popular issues as "Nazi", all you're doing is taking the edge off calling somebody a "Nazi".

[Martinned2]

If the Nazi party advocates higher speed limits that doesn't make higher speed limits meaningfully a Nazi policy in any pejorative sense.

No, but it does make someone a Nazi if they're OK voting for a Nazi party to get higher speed limits.

You're ceding popular issues which are not actually morally offensive to them

They may not be offensive to you, but anti-muslim bigotry sure is offensive to me, and to most Germans.

[Brett Bellmore]

We already knew you're incapable of not pejoratively describing policies you don't like, you didn't need to prove it again.

[Bob from Ohio]

"In December, a refugee from Saudi Arabia killed six people, including a nine-year-old boy, at a Christmas Market in Magdeburg. In January, an Afghan refugee fatally stabbed multiple people, including a two-year-old boy, at a park in Aschaffenburg. Ten days ago, another Afghan asylum seeker drove a car through a trade union protest, injuring dozens and killing two, in Munich. On the day after the stabbing at the Holocaust Memorial, there was another, more deadly one, in Alsace, just across the French border from Germany, also perpetrated by a failed asylum seeker." The Last
Stand of Germany’s Establishment
Germany will once again have a moderate government. If it fails, the far right will be at power’s door.
Yascha Mounk substack

[Dr. Ed 2]

German Jews voted for Hitler in 1933 as they were more afraid of the KPD...

[David Nieporent]

German Jews voted for Hitler in 1933 as they were more afraid of the KPD...

It's in his dissertation, folks!

[Michael Ejercito]

What makes restricting immigration a Nazi policy?

As for climate change, should we blot out the sun, Animatrix style?

[Martinned2]

As for climate change, should we blot out the sun, Animatrix style?

That would objectively be a less terrible response than what Trump and the AfD are doing/proposing.

[David Nieporent]

What makes restricting immigration a Nazi policy?

If an anti-immigration position were based on the idea that it would be good for a country's economy to ban immigration, that would just be economic illiteracy. But when the anti-immigration position is that one needs to keep the country's culture pure…

[Michael Ejercito]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35250903

And then there was October 7, 2023.

[David Nieporent]

"Some member of a racial group did something bad, so therefore that racial group is bad" is literally racism.

[damikesc]

The Nazis were hyper-environmentalist. Also hyper-vegan. Not sure what Nazi policies you think AfD is supporting, but none you have listed are it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

By who? By Musk and Vance?

No, the German People.....

Let them. They both campaigned for the AfD, so to hell with them.

And, apparently, all the German voters who will listen to them.

They could opt not to vote for NeoNazi's? That doesn't seem like a difficult question. Why are you so keen for Germany to be taken over by Nazi's again?

They have no choice if the NeoNazis (which I don't believe the AfD are) are the only ones on their side of the isle.

We supported Stalin during WWII because he was the lesser of two evils. So too here...

[Martinned2]

Given that, in a poll taken together with the exit poll, 82% (off the top of my head) of CDU voters said they disapproved of the AfD, I don't think it's very risky for Merz to keep his vehement promise ahead of the election and tell the AfD to get stuffed.

Because the CDU was just in a coalition with the SPD and the Greens

No it wasn't. The coalition you're describing has never existed in the history of Germany. Before the elections the CDU was in opposition.

The CDU got a pass this time because they were a junior partner in the last government

No it wasn't. The FDP was, maybe you're thinking of them.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, 82% of 30? That's about 25%. The bigger question is what percentage of the electorate as a whole, not CDU voters.

Pew: A small but growing share of Germans see AfD favorably, while views of other parties have turned more negative.

Looks like the issue here is not so much that the AfD is gaining ground, as that all the other parties are losing it. The coalition parties are alienating the electorate with their policies, but are sufficiently unified that they're leaving the AfD as the only viable alternative if you don't like what they're doing.

[Commenter_XY]

The real issue is the stubborn refusal to engage with 15% of the entire population of Germany, and directly address their concerns (energy, immigration).

And that percentage will only increase b/c everyone pays for energy (rates skyrocketed and continue to climb), and the terror attacks by young muslim males (aged 18-40) are not stopping.

[Martinned2]

WTF are you talking about? In any democracy there are 15% of voters in favour of all sorts of policies that the other 85% of the electorate oppose. The whole point of democracy is that you try not to decide things with 51% of the vote, but that you also don't let 15% of the people run the entire country.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

NO, the Founders rejected your view. Three things you seem in the dark about
1) People can support or oppose something for opposite reasons
2) Take any 4 issues of great ilmportance and the odd man out will be the one supporting all 4 !!! Statistically it does not happen, the totally normal voter does not exist.
3) Democracy separates out the principle from the implementaiton. Virtually everyone wants to help those stuck in minimum wage jobs ( maybe even venal dumb Newsom) but the difference is over how. Now to stick with Newsom, now that he implemented his solution to minimum wage and businesses have closed, jobs lost, and poverty increased...someone like you can speak of any majority at all

THE START CAN ONLY BE
--- no illegal immigrants , you come in to get on track to understanding and accepting our Founding Principles or you GO !!!
--- We need to teach Civics and Amercan Founding again in school
"National Survey Finds Just 1 in 3 Americans Would Pass Citizenship Test"

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a majority of the voters who don't like the left's policies on these topics, not 15%.

The 15% are not the voters who don't like the left's policies on immigration and energy. They're the voters who so far have become willing to support the AfD over it, rather than just sucking it up and voting for parties they know don't care what they think.

[Martinned2]

It's a majority of the voters who don't like the left's policies on these topics, not 15%.

Yes, which is why a majority of voters voted for parties that are not on the left. I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make here.

[Brett Bellmore]

The point I'm trying to make is that if the left doesn't coopt these issues that aren't really Nazism, just normal politics of 20 years ago, that majority is eventually going to coalesce into a functioning political majority. You can only keep the lid on the pressure cooker on for so long, if you're not willing to turn down the heat.

[Sarcastr0]

Right wing nationalism wasn't normal politics 20 years ago, either in the US or in Europe.

Again, your threat of 'be nice to the Nazis or else the voters will vote the Nazis into power' is ahistorical, and plays even stupider in Europe.

[Brett Bellmore]

What is being DESCRIBED AS "right wing nationalism" certainly was.

You're suffering from presentism, Sarcastr0, you can't recognize how recently in historical terms the policies you don't like were perfectly normal consensus policies. You're blind to just how freaking weird modern left-wing policy preferences are.

"your threat of 'be nice to the Nazis or else the voters will vote the Nazis into power' "

No, it's my "don't cede to Nazis popular issues that aren't actually morally problematic if you don't want to help Nazis". But you're having trouble admitting that any policy you disagree with can be not morally problematic, you've lost the distinction between morality and your politics of the moment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Right wing nationalism WAS normal US politics 60 years ago!
Kennedy rigged the election, but won by calling Nixon soft on Communism and exploiting fears of a missile gap that did not exist.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Your oh-so-personal premise is that it would be okay to vote for Nazis, to thwart immigration you disapprove. Whether that makes you a Nazi, or just Nazi-adjacent does not require an answer. It already proves your brain is not working, and that your advocacy is beyond reckless.

You are smart enough to do better. Stop following logical arguments after they fly out of top-storey windows. At least notice that with pro-Nazi arguments those open windows are at certain-death levels of elevation.

[Sarcastr0]

How are the AfD not right-wing nationalists, Brett? That's their freaking *brand*.

You're blind to just how freaking weird modern left-wing policy preferences are.

Except between the two of us you're the radical. Sometimes you admit it, sometimes you don't.

Here's a really lukewarm take:
If people vote for Nazis, then the people are to blame for voting for Nazis. No one is forcing them to do that by being too mean to the Nazis.

Your prescription is exactly what I'd write if I supported Nazis.

[Brett Bellmore]

"How are the AfD not right-wing nationalists, Brett?"

That's not what I said. I said that the left is ceding to them popular issues which aren't really morally problematic, and if they stopped doing that, the AfD would collapse, because that's what's fueling their rise in the first place.

Yes, obviously they're right wing. Takes a left-winger to think there's something wrong about being right wing.

Yes, obviously they're nationalists. There's nothing wrong with being nationalists, as such, either.

Now, if you've got policies that they've advocated that you want to argue with, fine, but thinking you win the argument by identifying which quadrant of the political map they occupy, just because it's not your quadrant, is pretty stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're saying Germany's leaders should address immigration issues better, since that's what the voters want, I won't really argue.

But you're saying that Germany must do that or else the Nazis will get voted in.

That's where I part ways. That's hostage taking and not a good argument for policymaking.

If people vote the Nazis in, that's the fault of the people for voting Nazis in. It is not the fault of the non-Nazis in government.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, obviously they're right wing. Takes a left-winger to think there's something wrong about being right wing.

Well, actual libertarians, rather than Republican poseurs, think so too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actual libertarians have about as much use for the left as they do for the right, just on different topics.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The LGTB+++++ community is way less that 15% of the population.

Blacks are only 14.4% of the US Population.

You propose ignoring either?

[Martinned2]

Sorry, I assumed I didn't have to explain that all other major parties' voter base has even less appetite for cooperation with the AfD. (Only the FDP is in the same ballpark as the CDU.)

The coalition parties are alienating the electorate with their policies, but are sufficiently unified that they're leaving the AfD as the only viable alternative if you don't like what they're doing.

Which coalition? The outgoing coalition that just got voted out of office, or the new coalition that will have opposition from the Greens and The Left to contend with? (Not to mention, outside the Bundestag, the FDP.) That's why it is good for German democracy that the BSW and the FDP fell below the 5% hurdle. Otherwise the CDU/CSU and the SDP would have needed a 3rd coalition partner, which would have narrowed the range of opposition voices.

[SykesFive]

What would a CDU-SPD-Green coalition be called? "Africa"?

Edit: looked it up--it's indeed called a "Kenya coalition."

[Sarcastr0]

The argument that shutting out the right-wing nationalist party will only make them more powerful later is a risk I suspect most European countries quite willing to take.

Because of Hindenburg appointing that chancellor and how that went.

WW2 hits different over on the continent.

Part of why Musk and Vance fucking about in the German election was not good.

[Martinned2]

Germans really enjoyed an American wannabe dictator coming to their country and telling them that they aren't a proper democracy.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, when you lose 2 World Wars and depend on a bigger richer country to keep you from losing a Third one, you sort of have to sit there and STFU

[Bob from Ohio]

"they aren't a proper democracy"

Truth hurts.

[Sarcastr0]

I disagree with Europe's freedom of speech policies.

But purity testing democracy is a terrible idea.

[Bob from Ohio]

"purity testing democracy is a terrible idea."

Tell Martinned that. He's saying we aren't.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's you Bob. Endorsing Vance's shitshow of a speech.

He said "wannabe dictator."

[damikesc]

Germany is not a proper democracy. They are scarcely better than when Hitler was in power. Importing people to kill the tiny number of remaining Jews for them while raping women. Silencing ANY speech the government does not outright endorse. Germany, to be generous, is a fascistic shithole and I want the US to shut our bases down there immediately (no warning to the fascists in Germany) and cut all diplomacy with them.

Their contagion is not wanted.

You may have missed just how evil your views are. Loathesome.

[Don Nico]

"Musk and Vance fucking about in the German election was not good"
True enough, but then the US has had a passion for regime change and its minor cousins for my entire life.

[Michael Ejercito]

How exactly did they do that?

[santamonica811]

Michael,
By doing what every single other responder (liberal and conservative) on this sub-thread already knows about. In other words, use the Google machine for 3 minutes, and you can answer your own question.

[Michael Ejercito]

In other words, you have no idea.

[SykesFive]

The French have been shutting out FN and its successors since 2002 and it's kind of worked.

[Martinned2]

Kind of. Le Pen or Bardella might well win the presidential election in 2027, and then we're in a world of hurt, because the constitution of the French 5th republic is fundamentally flawed. But at the same time, that constitution has forced them to tack to the centre in a way that the AfD has explicitly refused to do.

[SRG2]

the East Germans obviously like authoritarianism - the Nazis odf AfD had almost all their electoral success just in East Germany.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-election-results-and-voter-demographics-explained-in-charts/a-71724186

[Martinned2]

That's a complicated issue. To be sure the Wiedergutmachung after the war didn't really happen in East Germany, which mostly celebrated how the Workers had defeated the evil fascists, rather than acknowledging that they *were* the fascists. But the former East Germany is also statistically significantly different from the former BRD in a number of other ways that are relevant for explaining propensity to vote for the AfD, such as income, employment, education, etc.

It's a bit like trying to disentangle whether people in the former Confederate States vote for Trump because they're inherently more likely to be authoritarian racists, or whether it is because they are poorer, more likely to be unemployed, and have less eduaction than people in the rest of the US.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't realize Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Arizona were "Former Confederate States" Or most of Nebraska and Northern Maine, man, you're really cutting lose with the Cerebral Flatulence this morning.

[SRG2]

Fair point

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you look at the rest of the Warsaw Pact, they are the most anti-authoritarian nations in Europe, the most defensive of (small "d") democracy.

Why wouldn't this apply to the DDR as well?

[David Nieporent]

Ah, yes. Viktor Orban, famous democrat.

[SRG2]

Russia, defender of democracy! According to Dr Ed...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — Back in the Tea Party days, the NYT published a county-by-county heat map to show where Tea Party support was concentrated. It rang a bell. I looked it up, and it was a close match to the 1860 anti-Lincoln vote east of the Mississippi, including in the upper Midwest.

As a side note, another NYT heat map got published later in another context. It purported to map county-by-county the prevalence of Medicare fraud by doctors who mis-billed for services, or who set up ancilliary imaging businesses and the like, to generate unneeded services. It too was practically a match for the anti-Lincoln vote.

Culture remains subtle, complicated, and sometimes almost insanely persistent regionally. By what extent that happens according to inheritance, or by aggregate migratory choices made by people choosing where to live remains a persistent riddle—but maybe not one there is apparent benefit to solve.

[Sarcastr0]

AfD is careful to keep their outgroup to Muslim citizens, but they will occasionally slip and let the antisemitism out.

It's a lesson many Jews have learned well. Once the right-wing nationalists are in power, it's only a matter of time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I never knew that Muslims were Jewish...

Hitler was a Pagan, BTW...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Notably, the Musk/Trump attack on the federal bureaucracy took the world by surprise. Nobody could mistake the pre-existing anti-government hostility of course, but the actuality of lawless massive discharges without particularized review, in one federal department after another, went undescribed, and thus unanticipated. MAGA types will of course insist, "It's promises kept," while understanding fully that no such plans were announced. And could not have been, without costing Trump the election.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He's violating the Constitution and the law.

He's firing Inspector's General, and now purging the military JAGs and leaders who would otherwise abide by their Oaths to defend the Constitution. Weird how he doesn't seem to want anyone to know what he's doing or how much money he and Musk are stealing.

He is now directing the DOJ to investigate his enemies mere hours after real Americans had the basic courage to stand up against him:

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/office-civil-rights-launches-title-ix-violation-investigations-maine-department-of-education-and-maine-school-district

Trump and his supporters have to be purged from America, forever.

[Martinned2]

Must be a coincidence that all the flag officers who were fired were black, women, or JAGs...

[Frank Drackman]

Like the coincidence you don't know WTF you're talking about, do you even know what rank makes you a "Flag" Officer? The USAF Vice Chief of Staff who was fired, General Jim Slife (Callsign "Jim", how original) Auburn Grad BTW, is about as White as you can get, Whitey-White, you look up "White Guy" in the Dictionary you see his Picture! Could be an Extra playing an SS/Gestappo/German Soldier in any WW2 Movie, I mean he's White, he's got less rhythm than Stevie Wonder without his Metronome, Steven Hawkins has a better vertical leap, I mean He's so White, he puts Mayonnaise on his Mayonnaise, I mean he's WHITE!
So if you can't get that little nugget of information straight I'm supposed to trust you on Constitutional Ish-yews?

Frank

[Michael P]

Two out of three means "all" in his maybe German, surely.

[Frank Drackman]

In German "Fast" means "Almost", "Bald" means "Soon", it's like those Germans have a different word for everything!!!!!!

Frank "Damit!"

[Martinned2]

How many out of what? https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02/trump-franchetti-slife-fired-brown-hegseth-woke/

[Michael P]

You: "all the flag officers who were fired were black, women, or JAGs"

Also you, linking to a subhed "The firings of Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Gen. James Slife follows tonight's removal of Gen. CQ Brown as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (naming the three senior officer who got fired): "How many out of what?"

Slife wasn't a JAG any more than any of them were flag officers, but I suppose you are going to argue that you meant something other than what you wrote.

[Frank Drackman]

So you don't know what "All" means? Since you've obviously got the mind of a Flea, let me remind you what you said a mere 2 hrs ago.
"Must be a coincidence that all the flag officers who were fired were black, women, or JAGs"
You said "all" not "most" or "a plurality", you said all, when literally the 3rd highest Officer Fired looks like Richie Cunningham,

Did you ever play Hoops? Of course not, but for those who did/do, I just Rejected your lame excuse of a shot into the nose bleed seats, "No, No, No!!!" (HT D. Mutombo, RIP) Take that shit back to Yo Mama, Bee-Otch!

Frank

[ThePublius]

Not true!

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff James C. “Jim” Slife is a white male.

[ThePublius]

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

[Jason Cavanaugh]

For those who think Publius the lying fuck might actually have made a legitimate point:

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

Seems like those were actually good reasons to fire people, as opposed to no reason at all, like King Dipshit.

Enjoy the destruction of our country while you can. Eventually the clock will strike midnight and retribution will come.

[Krayt]

As Dan Akroyd said to Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, "I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."

In the rust belt, execs calve off entire sections, many hundreds, thousands at a time, tens of thousands total, for just one company.

Particularized review? How quaint, and indicative of a mindset relying on the legal power to force your customers to pay.

[Martinned2]

In the rust belt, execs calve off entire sections, many hundreds, thousands at a time, tens of thousands total, for just one company.

Well, that's what bad execs do anyway.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — I worked for a great company—Morrison-Knudsen—which after many decades of brilliantly effective management by up-from-the-shop-floor veterans, fell into the hands of one of those private management experts you mention. Took him only a few years to wreck it completely. Had the help of a prestigious, big-name board of directors while he did it.

None of them knew the company had always prospered because it hired practical farm boys, and promoted them based not on education, or any other kind of irrelevant credentialing, except practical success. That had propelled Morrison Knudsen to world-wide dominance in heavy construction, and made it one of the best places to work in the Northern Rockies region—or in countless other places around the globe.

While I worked in the Boise equipment shop, there was an intermittent parade of executive visitors—many in delegations from Asia—taken on tour to show how the magic happened. None of the shop floor workers like me were even aware there was any magic. It just seemed like a business that let the right people run the place.

[Kazinski]

Here's what the Harvard Harris poll says about voters perception:

Trump approval: 52-43% (+9)

58% say he is doing better than Bidenflation
81% support deporting criminal aliens
76% support eliminating fraud, waste
76% support closing the U.S. border
70% support merit-based hiring
61% support reciprocal tariffs
60% think DOGE is helping

Probably the most telling is the 'Country on right track/wrong track' has gone from 28-62 to 42-48 from November to February. thats from negative 34 to -6.
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/HHP_Feb2025_vFinal.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

Second hand of the clock stuff; I'm not a polls person.

But:
"Bidenflation"
"criminal aliens"

You didn't used to be an open shitlord.

[Kazinski]

Now I missed bidenflation, that might have been a cut and paste error, the actual question was

Do you think Donald Trump is doing a better job as President than Joe Biden? Yes 58, No 42.

And the other question is support:

"deporting Immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes" 81-19.

Not my questions or phrasing, although I might have made an editing error, but 98% of your complaint should be directed at Harvard-Harris.

[damikesc]

Bidenflation is real and illegals are, by definition, criminals.

[DaveM]

"No such plans were announced"? You've got to be joking. They talked it up literally every chance they got. I got sick of hearing them repeat themselves.

You seriously never heard them do this? Huh.

[damikesc]

"W0N'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE POOR GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS WHO FUCK EVERYTHING UP!"

PLEASE run on this. I BEG you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What "lawless massive discharges"?

Other than probationary and temporary workers -- who can be fired at any time without cause -- exactly who is no longer receiving a paycheck?

The Muskrats are making a lot of noise, but other than addressing what would otherwise be called chronic absenteeism, I haven't seen them accomplish anything yet.

The legal basis for DOGE is Obama's USDS, which some of us opposed at the time. But if it was legal then, it is legal now.

And what part of "Drain the Swamp!" did you miss?

[Martinned2]

And what part of "Drain the Swamp!" did you miss?

The part where Trump made lots of promises that rely on a functioning government continuing to exist? I don't think planes falling out of the sky on a weekly basis was part of his platform.

[Frank Drackman]

The Delta CRJ was doing fine in the sky, it was returning to ground they had a problem with.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it was a female pilot hired by a subsidiary that advertised "unmanned" crews. No DEI there....

[Reallynotbob]

Actually, it was the white male instructor who (mis)communicated with ATC and also keyed the mike over the part where ATC told the chopper to pass behind the jet. Whoops.

[David Nieporent]

The legal basis for DOGE is Obama's USDS, which some of us opposed at the time.

No, you didn't. You had never heard of the USDS before a month ago, and you certainly didn't oppose it.

[Martinned2]

Not to mention that, realistically, the legal basis for DOGE is "Trump is in charge of everything, and his commands are the ultimate authority that supercedes everything else". (Or, as the Germans used to put it, Führerbefehl hat gesetzeskraft.)

[SRG2]

"Führerbefehl hat gesetzeskraft"

I don't think any cultist here has expressed any disagreement with this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is that the same as "Chief Executive"?

[Commenter_XY]

Ames v. OH Dept of Youth Services

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/02/supreme-court-to-hear-oral-argument-in-case-called-the-final-nail-in-deis-coffin/

QUESTION PRESENTED:
"Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

Does Parker [DC circuit decision] get overturned by SCOTUS?

What is the practical effect of a win for Ames?

[Brett Bellmore]

" is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.""

How did they get THAT assumption built in? It's been some time since employers who discriminate against the majority were particularly unusual. I wouldn't say they're necessarily the majority, but they're fairly common.

I assume this question doesn't preclude the plaintiff disputing that 'unusual' assumption?

[Michael P]

From https://www.margolisedelstein.com/blog/scotus-to-decide-the-fate-of-requiring-majority-group-plaintiffs-to-prove-background-circumstances-in-support-of-a-discrimination-claim-made-against-an-employer/ :

The “background circumstances” rule, which has been imposed by five circuit courts – the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits – heightens the standard for a majority-group plaintiff to prove a prima-facie discrimination claim. [Citations omitted.]

In particular, the Sixth Circuit requires majority-group plaintiffs, like Ames – i.e., a heterosexual woman alleging sexual orientation discrimination – to prove either that the employment decision at issue was made by a member of the relevant minority group or make a showing of statistical evidence depicting a pattern of discrimination by the employer by members of the majority group.

[David Nieporent]

What is the practical effect of a win for Ames?

Not much; her position is already the majority (no pun intended) view.

[Frank Drackman]

My Delta 737 pilot daughter thinks the CRJ flipped due to deploying the Starboard Thrust Reverser and not the Port, it’s happened before, there was even a 767 crash in the 90’s when both reversers deployed inadvertantly in flight(was due to a faulty valve, which caused a warning light, the Crew tried to convince themselves it wasn’t real) part of why Lada Air went tits up

[Dr. Ed 2]

No.

1: If that had happened, and the Black Box recorded it, they would know it by now and I like to think that there would be an airworthyness alert going out to everyone flying CRJs, and if the pilot had done it, a caution to pilots not to.

2: Don't the wheels have to have weight on them for the reversers to engage?

3: That plane went in fast and hit hard, actually bounced, with immediate fire from the wing. Would a mere wingtip scraping the runway do that, or did she break the wing?

4: While the plane rolled, it went straight down the runway.
I rolled because of lift from the port wing (and momentum), if it had thrust from there, it would have also gone to the right. It didn't.

5: Would it even be possible to fly straight with a reverser deployed on a running engine? It's difficult to fly straight with a dead engine and this would be far worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

When you're doing your morning calisthenics, never ignore that first "twang". I was halfway through my first set of toe touches, (I do them knuckles to the floor, I'm a fairly flexible guy.) when I got a twang in my right hamstring. I thought, "I can finish this set anyway, I'll just back off to the finger tips."

Nope, bad choice. Probably not doing toe touches again for a week, to give that hamstring time to recover. Gotta remember I'm not 20 anymore!

[Frank Drackman]

That was your Plantaris Tendon rupturing (longest tendon in the body, I learned that in Evil Medical Screw-el), don't worry, it's a rudimentary accessory muscle J-hay included free of charge, like those extra fuses in the glove compartment. It won't heal back, but you can do without it. If you believe in Evil-Lution it's the legs version of the Palmaris Longus in the forearm, you know, the muscle they use for "Tommy John" Surgery

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm actually pretty good at localizing pain in the body, (Possibly due to 4 years of human anatomy and physiology in college.) and this happened about halfway between my knee and my hip, nowhere near the Plantaris.

[Frank Drackman]

4 years of Anatomy and Physiology? I only took it first year Med School, so how many Human bodies did you dissect? But hey, I learned all my legal stuff from Perry Mason, Law & Order (Closing Cell Sound Effect), and Boston Legal (with a little LA Law) and doesn't stop me from opining,
So keep moving, take an 81mg ASA, your previous malignancy makes you a higher risk for PE
One Word: (OK, Two)
"Referred Pain"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I was doing a dual degree in human biology and electronics, intending a career in designing medical instrumentation. I mean, somebody has to design them, and I didn't want to go into actual medicine, where I'd have to regularly meet people who I'd know were dying. Seemed kind of depressing.

I really don't know how my oncologist coped with losing half his patients, even if that WAS a good batting average.

[Frank Drackman]

Most Oncologists have the bedside manner of Morticians (and the limp clammy handshake to boot) Love how they prescribe chemicals that were literally weapons of mass destruction in WW1, and think a little Phenergan or Zofran will take the edge off, they're also notoriously reluctant to give an actual prognosis, when you can actually know to within a matter of weeks how a particular Stage malignancy is going to play out.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Love how they prescribe chemicals that were literally weapons of mass destruction in WW1"

I still laugh when I think of the photocopied, "Don't bother going to the ER if these things happen." list they gave me when chemo started. Like, "Are you vomiting a lot of blood, or just a little bit?"

"when you can actually know to within a matter of weeks how a particular Stage malignancy is going to play out."

Yeah, I was stage 1, maybe stage 2, (2 lymph nodes, but they were right next to each other.) and actually did get a decent prognosis; Only 1 chance in 6 of dying. As he explained, that basically only happens with lymphoma if some other medical condition causes it to be discovered before it becomes symptomatic, as happened in my case. If you wait until the lymphoma itself becomes symptomatic, you're screwed.

[Frank Drackman]

As the Late Great Johnny Sacrimone said when told he had Stage 4 Lung Cancer
"and there's no Stage 5?"

[Commenter_XY]

How often does the DOJ file an ethical complaint against a judge? Just happened. Is it rare (I assume it is)? I don't think it was a religious test.

https://x.com/Article3Project/status/1893045125405655210

Does Judge Srinivasan sanction Judge Reyes?
If yes, what form does that sanction take?

[Martinned2]

Lots of things that were rare before Trump came to power suddenly became very common. That's how you find out if, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, you have a republic you can keep.

[Brett Bellmore]

But a lot of those things that were rare were initiated by Trump's enemies, not Trump himself. I've provided links on this before: People were talking about impeaching Trump before he'd even secured the nomination, a majority of Democrats in polls favored doing it by February of 2017, even though they couldn't identify anything he'd done to be impeached for. So, what the hell did they want to impeach him for?

It really looks like the 'uniparty' went nuts when somebody who wasn't a member got elected, and decided to make an example of him so it wouldn't happen again.

Well, guess what: Once you prove to somebody that you're coming after him no matter what he does, he no longer has any motive to not piss you off.

[Sarcastr0]

You predetermine a narrative and cherry pick to bolster your confidently held vibes.

We all know the narrative you create - the ends-justify-the-means omnipresent oppressive liberals versus the plucky underdog conservatives making the Hard Choices to fight them.

It's childlike.

[Brett Bellmore]

I literally provided, over and over, links to document the unprecedented level of advocacy and support for impeaching Trump before he'd had a chance to do anything to be impeached for, and you call that a 'narrative'.

[David Nieporent]

You provided zero links to document any "level" of advocacy at all, let alone that it was "unprecedented."

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see why I should have to provide these links for the umpteeth time, as though we hadn't been over this before. But, whatever.

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?

Note the date: He hadn't even yet been nominated.

The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun

January 20th; He hadn't done ANYTHING yet.

[David Nieporent]

As is true roughly 173% of the time, you didn't read past the headlines.

[Brett Bellmore]

As is true basically all the time: You don't actually care if a claim is true.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What is true is that the early impulse to impeach Trump would have been a wise one to follow.

[Commenter_XY]

173% of the time? You missing a decimal point? 🙂

[David Nieporent]

I was not.

[Brett Bellmore]

3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020 January 30th, proposing to use the 25th amendment on him. He'd been President 10 days!

[Sarcastr0]

When you're settling for clickbait as legit sources, that's a sign you're being outcome-oriented.

And your outcome is the right as plucky rebels against the overpowering power of the ruthless left. It's childlike.

[bernard11]

Calm down, Brett, and try to understand the articles.

Fundamentally, they say, "if Trump does A, B, or C, which he talked about during the campaign, he could possibly be impeached." They also outline the impeachment process, and the people they mention as calling for quick action are not "the Democrats."

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, and the same genre would be just as reasonable if the target were a Democrat, but how often do you see this genre of discussing how soon you can start impeaching a potential Democratic candidate?

Trump was basically unique in that discussions of impeaching him began before he got anywhere near the White House, and were just a little uncertain about what the basis for doing so would be. But that they would find some excuse to impeach was treated as a given.

I don't think Trump will be unique in this regard going forward, though. I think Democrats have lost patience with the idea that anybody else is entitled to be President, and they'll go after any other Republican President in the same manner going forward.

[David Nieporent]

Trump was basically unique in promising to commit crimes — up to and including war crimes — before he got anywhere near the White House.

But that they would find some excuse to impeach was treated as a given.

…by unhinged conspiracy theorists. Not by the people responsible for doing so, which is why they never did, until he actually did something terrible.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No. Democrats would not go after, "any other Republican President," in the same manner. That's nonsense.

Democrats would be sensible, however, to do what they can within reason, and without violence, to prevent Trump dynasticism, whether figurative or literal. It was not until this last month under Trump that I ever got insight into why the Bolsheviks thought it necessary to kill the Tsar's entire family. When an actual tyrant shows signs of making tyranny a family enterprise, prospects for relief become a receding horizon.

Bellmore, you and MAGA could help with that. Bring us back, "some other Republican President[s]," by supporting them. If you and MAGA insist on Trump, and Trump turns openly dynastic—as he appears likely to do—then the fat will truly be in the fire.

Please help spare the nation that. Start now, with an open repudiation of Trump's lawless abuse of power, and his continuing effort to achieve a coup.

[Brett Bellmore]

Partisan gaps on recent Presidents far wider than for their predecessors

The situation has not been static. As time has passed, the amount of support a President derives from the opposing party has shrank, and it is now in the low single digits.

When you only have a 2% approval with the opposing party, it is essentially inevitable that they will not treat you as an ordinary political opponent, but instead fundamentally illegitimate.

Since the trend portrayed in the first link did not start with Trump, I see no reason to suppose it is going to be restricted to Trump. BOTH parties are losing their grip on the idea that the other can legitimately rule.

[bernard11]

how often do you see this genre of discussing how soon you can start impeaching a potential Democratic candidate?

Not a question of "how soon" but of "in response to what actions."

[David Nieporent]

People were talking about impeaching Trump before he'd even secured the nomination,

There you go again, although at least you now just mention unspecified "people" rather than attributing it to "Democrats." There. Was. No. Consideration. Of. Impeaching. Trump. It's just some random nutty thing you found on the Internet — and it was not "before he'd even secured the nomination" — where one can find an infinite number of nutty things. That's why there was no attempt to impeach Trump until he did something seriously impeachmentworthy, years later.

I mean, Andrew McCarthy was advocating for impeaching Hillary before she was elected — and by that I don't mean that his advocacy started before the election, but that he was advocating that it be done in advance of the election, to disqualify her from office — but that doesn't mean that "people" were, doesn't mean it was actually under consideration, doesn't mean it was ever going to happen. It means that one guy said something dumb on the Internet.

[Michael P]

Hillary Clinton's behavior as Secretary of State with her illegal email server qualified her to be impeached over that.

As for the rest of your claims, see for example https://web.archive.org/web/20170325113117/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/maxine-waters-donald-trump-democrat-congresswoman-california-get-ready-impeachment-a7642681.html and Rep. Al Green's soundly rejected effort in later 2017, and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/ details advocacy of impeachment (as Brett said) "before he'd had a chance to do anything to be impeached for".

[David Nieporent]

The email server was not illegal. No law — then or now — forbid the use of a private email server to conduct official business.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170325113117/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/maxine-waters-donald-trump-democrat-congresswoman-california-get-ready-impeachment-a7642681.html

Another person who didn't read past the headline.

Ms Waters has been pressing Congress to quickly impeach Mr Trump if evidence arises of his alleged collusion with the Russian government during the election race.

[Michael P]

You could at least quote something that Waters actually said, instead of relying on a journalist's whitewashing.

[David Nieporent]

That is really desperate on your part. But I will humor you:

"If the facts are there, then I think we should move very quickly to do something about it.

“And if there was collusion, and any support for undermining our democracy, I think the President should be impeached.”

[Michael P]

Yes, she was hunting for excuses. She knew they would invent something, she just didn't yet know when.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, having the email server was not illegal. What was illegal was,

1. Not configuring it to back up to the government system, if she was going to transact government business on it.
2. Using it to transmit classified information.

But, just having it? Disfavored, but not illegal as such.

[Michael P]

And she knew she was doing #2, so she knew it was illegal.

[David Nieporent]

What was illegal was,

1. Not configuring it to back up to the government system, if she was going to transact government business on it.

The Federal Records Act does indeed require that emails on a non-governmental server be backed up to a government server, promptly (within 20 days). Hillary didn't do that. Trouble for your argument is, that law was enacted in November 2014, while Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State ended in February 2013, and February 2013 is before November 2014.

2. Using it to transmit classified information.

Yes. The people who did that, if they did so knowingly, did indeed violate the law. But Hillary wasn't one of those people. She was not accused of sending any classified information from her personal email. (Well, she's accused of all sorts of stuff by Internet randos; that's obviously not what I meant.) She was accused of not having taken care when others sent stuff to her.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was a regulation before it was a statute, but it was point 2 where she really faced the liability. And you're in a bit of denial about what she knew she was doing.

[Joe_dallas]

"Yes. The people who did that, if they did so knowingly, did indeed violate the law. But Hillary wasn't one of those people."

DN long ago ceased trying to be honest
Lets pretend she didnt bleachbit her server
Lets pretend she didnt smash her blackberry with a hammer
Lets pretend huma abedin didnt print off classified docs off her server.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, each of those claims are false in ways small or large, but also, none of them have anything to do with the comment of mine to which you were responding.

[Joe_dallas]

DN "I mean, each of those claims are false in ways small or large, but also, none of them have anything to do with the comment of mine to which you were responding."

A) All those statements are factually accurate
B) you know those statements are factually accurate
c) All those statements are direct rebuttals to your distortion of the facts for partisan purposes and partisan dishonesty

[Joe_dallas]

concur
leftists have to distort the actual facts to portray the illegal activity as legal

[bernard11]

Trumpist complains about people "distorting facts."

Ever think of trying to write for The Onion, Joe?

[David Nieporent]

Surely the Babylon ("We have one joke") Bee is more his style.

[Sarcastr0]

I have him pegged as more a Timecube guy.

[David Nieporent]

How often does the DOJ file an ethical complaint against a judge? Just happened.

Virtually never, and all the attorneys i know regard this as basically yet another example of the jokes that Trump's lawyers are. Like, anyone else would be embarrassed to have filed this.

[Commenter_XY]

I thought as much = Virtually never

So you don't think it goes anywhere. Fair enough.

But what sanction is actually available to Judge Srinivasan? I cannot imagine what that is...a letter of admonishment?

[Magister]

Hey, maybe he could order her to attend diversity training!

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe you know: But what sanction is actually available to Judge Srinivasan?

[not guilty]

Judge Srinivasan does not himself impose a sanction. He is obliged to conduct an initial investigation, after which he can dismiss the complaint or attempt to seek an informal resolution.

After reviewing a complaint, the chief judge must determine whether it should be: (1) dismissed; (2) concluded on the ground that voluntary corrective action has been taken; (3) concluded because intervening events have made action on the complaint no longer necessary; or (4) referred to a special committee.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, this is what I was looking for. Thank you!

He can't reassign, but he can refer to a special committee.

[tylertusta]

and all the attorneys i know regard this as basically yet another example of the jokes that Trump's lawyers are

And on those other instances where Trump's legal positions are vindicated in the end, what are your feelings?

[David Nieporent]

This isn't about "legal positions." This is about not being a whiny little baby. As a lawyer, whether you're right or wrong, when a judge yells at you, the normal professional response is not to run to tattle. The response is to take it like a grownup and then — if necessary — appeal.

[tylertusta]

And on those instances where Trump's legal positions are vindicated in the end, what are your feelings?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI

[not guilty]

"This isn't about 'legal positions.' This is about not being a whiny little baby. As a lawyer, whether you're right or wrong, when a judge yells at you, the normal professional response is not to run to tattle. The response is to take it like a grownup and then — if necessary — appeal."

As Lyndon Johnson said, sometimes you just have to hunker down like a mule in a hailstorm.

[not guilty]

"How often does the DOJ file an ethical complaint against a judge? Just happened. Is it rare (I assume it is)? I don't think it was a religious test."

Here is the misconduct complaint: https://x.com/Article3Project/status/1893045125405655210

It is indeed a rare occurrence. It's not smart to needlessly antagonize the decisionmaker that one is trying to persuade. I suspect that the DOJ is trying to pressure the judge into recusing herself.

The rules applicable to complaint procedures, along with official comments, are here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/sites/cadc/files/RulesJudicialConductAndDisability20210101c.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

So disqualification is it?

Judge S would tell Judge R, "You're off this case, and I am reassigning it". Not much of a sanction.

[not guilty]

"Judge S would tell Judge R, 'You're off this case, and I am reassigning it'. Not much of a sanction."

Where do you get that? A single Court of Appeals judge cannot order a District Court judge's disqualification. (On appeal an appellate court panel can order that upon remand, the Chief Judge of the District Court assign a different judge.)

[David Nieporent]

I suspect that the DOJ is trying to pressure the judge into recusing herself.

The DOJ is trying to whip up a mob frenzy against the judge. If it were actually about recusal, they would have moved for recusal.

[Frank Drackman]

Israel should return every single Palestinian prisoner.
Heads only, if the fambilies want the rest of the remains, we can discuss that later, when they've moved out.

[Reallynotbob]

Apaches calling for Drackman. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

[apedad]

Food question....

Had person over for dinner (friend of a friend so I didn't know them), and they asked for salt and pepper to add to the food.

We don't do that (even growing up) - and as the cook in the family - was taken aback a little.

Does anyone else do this?

[Brett Bellmore]

This doesn't strike me as even a little shocking. I've always thought it perfectly normal to have salt and pepper shakers on the table, and they're not there as a decoration, they're there because people have different tastes.

I hate to say it, but your experience is the one that's abnormal.

[Frank Drackman]

Add salt and pepper (and Hot Sauce, I usually bring my own, I add Hot Sauce to everything, bartender busting my Balls one night asked if I put Hot Sauce in my Martini, I tried it, it was great!)
So you're obviously one of those peoples who thinks everyone should do things your way, I OTOH, believe in free choice, if peoples want to ruin French Fries with Mayonnaise, (Gross Gross Gross, looks like Pus and a Yeast Infection had a baby) be my guest, just try and eat downwind.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I have tended to replace salt with hot sauces, but realize that salt is an important constituent of the hot sauces. As for Martinis, I would never spoil the taste of gin with hot sauces and real Martinis use gin.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't tell me about Martinis, My mom has had one every night since I was a kid (and maybe before I'm guessing, but look how smart I turned out) Hers are so dry, she just waves the glass in the general direction of Italy, in Berlin I asked for a "Dry Martini" and they brought me 3! and yes, I'm not Apedad, if people want to have a "Vodka Martini" drink to your heart's content, but it's not a Martini

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, there is always salt and pepper (in grinders) available at the dining table. I've also been known to have homemade aji (a south american hot sauce) in a small container for guests. I don't take it as implicit criticism by a guest of my cooking if they add salt, pepper to their food. It is a matter of taste.

It isn't the food that matters, it is the quality of the interaction at the table (or afterward) that counts the most.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh Yeah, I'm sure Apedad is just a joy to be around as he gives the excruciating details of how he prepared the meal you're trying to get down without gagging, and these "Foodies" always have to come up with some shit that looks like roadkill, that people have to be polite and act excited, when they'd be happier with a platter of Quarterpounders, KFC, Taco Bell, Buffalo Wings, like "47" does when he has the CFB Champions over (Eagles didn't want to visit the White House? Fuck em)

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I watch to see when people salt their food. If they salt before tasting. I then assume what they really like is the taste of salt.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I'm with you there, I AM mildly annoyed if somebody salts the food I've cooked without tasting it first. If they do it after, that's fine, they just like it saltier than I was aiming for.

[Frank Drackman]

It's the Anesthetic equivalent of when we suggest an exquisite mixture of Continuous Thoracic Epidural Infusion, Low Flow Volatile Anesthetic, and TIVA, all to allow for optimal Operative conditions, Preservation of Brain/Heart/Kidney perfusion, and the knucklehead says
"Just put me to sleep!!"

Frank "OK, please sign the Uninformed Consent form"

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually find the descent into anesthesia kind of interesting. Different parts of my brain shutting down, I reach this point where I have something I want to say to the anesthesiologist, and realize my motor functions are already turned off so I can't say it. And I always wake wondering how much I experienced after that last point I remembered, and it simply didn't get recorded in long term memory.

Hopefully not the actual surgery... 😉

[Stephen Lathrop]

While I was struggling out of the black whirlies subsequent to a knee replacement, one of the surgeon's assistants came by to ask one question:

"Do you remember anything about what happened during the surgery?"

I said, "No."

He said, "Good," and dashed away.

A couple of nights later I awoke in a sweat from a vivid dream. Somebody had given me a whack on the bottom of my humerus, a whack so hard that I felt the shock go right up my spine.

I suspect I may have shown some sign of wakefulness during the surgery. But who knows?

That was 17 years ago, and the replaced knee remains the best joint in my body. A medical miracle of precision rivaling anything that could be done in a machine shop. I went in bow-legged, with the foot twisted sharply outward, and the affected leg probably an inch shorter than the other. I came out with both legs perfectly matched, the bow leg corrected, and the toe pointing forward. The surgeon had not even ventured to tell me I could expect all that.

After recuperation, I have never felt so much as a twinge from the joint. Except for the expected loss of a slight pivotal capacity at the knee, there has never even been any feeling that the knee is not completely natural.

If you need knee replacement, do not delay, and do not worry. Do your research, find a surgeon who does those at least multiple times per week, and who enjoys a reputation among the nurses as an outstanding success. The sooner you do it, the longer it will benefit you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I've actually been thinking of getting my knees and ankles checked out. I rather suspect the only reason I can still walk on my right leg is that the nerve damage prevents me from feeling what's going on in it. I'll be talking with my doctor about that at my next physical.

Of course, I *AM* still walking on it, so, joint aside, everything else is still working fine. But my mother had quite the problem with her knee replacement because she'd waited too long, and didn't have enough muscle left to help stabilize the joint.

" I went in bow-legged, with the foot twisted sharply outward,"

I've always joked that, after my leg was put together after shattering both bones right above the ankle, they'd put my foot back on at the wrong angle. I stand with both feet facing forward, look down, and the right foot's always canted out about 10 degrees...

[bernard11]

I came out with both legs perfectly matched, the bow leg corrected, and the toe pointing forward.

But could you play the piano?

[santamonica811]

heh

[Stephen Lathrop]

No better than before.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard11 — Oh, got it. This is embarrassing, because of course I meant femur.

Problem is, I had humerus on my mind. Ten days ago I fell and suffered a torn rotator cuff at the top of the humerus. Wear and tear, it never stops.

[SRG2]

IIRC IBM used to take job candidates out to lunch and wouldn't hire anyone who salted their food before tasting it.

[Frank Drackman]

I used to do that with new Anesthesiologists, then realized it didn't eliminate the ones I was trying to avoid, so now I just hire the Asian ones (they work so hard! never complain!)

[Krayt]

Dilbert comic has a whole analyzis by Dilbert, when he challenged the whole taste first before you salt, arguing most dishes need salt, so if you add up all the time eating that first flavorless bite, compared to a salty but not distasteful pre-salted first bite, your quality of life is imprived with untasted pre-salting.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I excuse my family doing it, because they already know what level I typically salt food to, and they prefer more.

[Kazinski]

My mother likes to salt and pepper her food before tasting it.

My wife wants to put hot sauce on before tasting.

It can be mildly annoying, but they're probably at least mildly annoyed i cook to my taste, not theirs.

[Armchair]

It's pretty normal to have salt and pepper shakers at the table, so people can add if they like.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Don't ask for salt!!
(this was a great series)
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10152997535460382

[Sarcastr0]

Knew the clip was gonna be posted.

Amazing show.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"While I was down there I couldn't help noticing that the kitchen floor is in the most disgustingly filthy state that it is possible for the human brain to conceive. Amateur microbiologists amongst you will find much down there that will enthral and fascinate. Very likely species as yet unknown to science are breeding freely underfoot even as I speak. It is possible that I'm kneeling all unbeknownst on a cure for the common cold, herpes and male pattern baldness all rolled into one. Put all such considerations out of your minds and clean this frigging floor!"

The way Lenny Henry delivered those lines made them even funnier.

[ducksalad]

1. Got invited to a dinner party hosted by some newlyweds. At the table she told us she was enraged when he put salt on food before tasting it. Marriage ended a few months later.

2. Russians and Armenians have told me that in some parts over there, failure to put a salt shaker/dish out on the table when someone visits your house is a grave insult.

3. As a child, did you not notice salt and pepper shakers at restaurants? Perhaps you thought it was something that only happened at restaurants, like getting a check and having to pay.

[Stephen Lathrop]

With other factors held equal, homeostasis requires larger people (by body mass) to use a saltier diet than smaller ones. Resting metabolism rates tend to track more closely with body surface area; salt intake to keep a stable sodium level tracks more closely with body volume. As weight increases, volume goes up faster than surface area. Hence, more massive people require a relatively saltier diet than less massive people.

Note also that minimum sodium tolerance is sharply bounded, and critical for survival. One excursion below your minimum sodium limit can prove fatal. The high end of sodium tolerance is, at least in the short term, risky, but not as likely to be quickly fatal as a severe sodium deficiency.

To get in trouble near the minimum limit is surprisingly easy to do. Anything which makes you pee a lot risks trouble, if you repeatedly rehydrate with salt-free fluids. For people acclimated to life at sea level, a few days at elevations no higher than about 8,000 feet can induce mild altitude sickness, with elevated metabolism, and consequent frequent urination. To counter that, eat a saltier diet, and use fluids containing electrolytes.

[ThePublius]

There's a salt cellar depicted in Da Vinci's Last Supper. So, apparently people have been putting salt on the table for a long time.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Everyone get on this side of the table if you want to be in the picture."

[Brett Bellmore]

I always wondered why none of the other Apostles noticed that Judas didn't have a halo. You'd think that would have been conspicuous...

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good point!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, duh. There are historical references to table salt going back so far it's absurd. Predates recorded history, really.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There are historical references from before recorded history?

[Life of Brian]

and as the cook in the family - was taken aback a little.

I cook a lot, and fully expect people to add salt and pepper to taste at the table. Pepper in particular is best added, fresh-ground, right before eating (better restaurants, in fact, often offer it when serving the food). Adding it during cooking, particularly at high heat, kills the aromatics and can actually make it bitter. And salt taste sensitivity can vary immensely, not only by age but how much a given person is used to eating.

What ultimately matters to me is that people enjoy the food and the experience. While I agree with other replies that I'd prefer for them to actually taste the food first (particularly for salt), if they've tried it and want to dial in the flavor I'd much rather they do that than have a suboptimal experience just to be polite.

[Ridgeway]

"...better restaurants, in fact, often offer it when serving the food..."

Freakin Olive Garden does so

[TwelveInchPianist]

You lost me...

[Bob from Ohio]

"Does anyone else do this?"

Surprised you don't have shakers on your table. I've never been to a private home without the table or a buffet table having them.

Most cooks under salt the food they cook.

[Brett Bellmore]

And properly so! It's not like somebody can remove it again if they personally find the dish too salty.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I've never been to a private home without the table or a buffet table having them."

Not more than once, anyway.

[Commenter_XY]

In the Constitution,
Article 1 defines the Legislative
Article 2 defines the Executive
Article 3 defines the Judicial

Is there something to be adduced from the order in which the Framers defined the branches of government?
Is this aspect discussed at length (the order) in a typical law class, or is the order irrelevant to any constitutional interpretation?

[Martinned2]

There are no laws to execute until Congress first makes them. And there are no disputes to adjudicate under Federal law until Congress first makes them and, for the most part, until the Executive Branch executes them. Which is why John Jay was so bored when he was Chief Justice.

But no, I don't think any of that is relevant to constitutional interpretation. At least it hasn't been for some time, because the courts have been quite willing to give the President his own original powers.

[Brett Bellmore]

One does get the impression, from reading founding era state constitutions, that the judiciary are something of an afterthought. Understandably so, since governments don't technically have much of a need for one to function. And they did call it the 'least dangerous' branch.

But, first the branch that writes the laws, then the branch that executes the laws, then the branch that holds proceedings concerning that execution. Seems like a logical order.

[Martinned2]

Understandably so, since governments don't technically have much of a need for one to function.

Wait, what? Are you nuts?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not nuts. I'm not advocating the government not having a judiciary, I'm just noting that governments can function without one, have historically, though not so recently. Badly, but they can.

It's like noticing that your house doesn't technically need breakers in order to have working wiring. Doesn't mean you're stupid enough to omit them.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't need branches of government at all; early feudalism didn't have laws it had statuses.
What's the upshot of this observation I do not know.

[Martinned2]

It's like noticing that your house doesn't technically need breakers in order to have working wiring.

My definition of "working wiring" includes the house not burning down. Does yours?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, mine simply includes appliance working when you plug them in. You know, the minimum functioning system?

It's the usual development process for any technology: First you get it to sort of half-ass do the thing you want done, then you start adding and modifying to eliminate problems and failure modes.

[Martinned2]

Once your house has burned down there isn't really anything left to plug in.

[Brett Bellmore]

My house has literally not tripped a breaker in a decade. So I kind of assume it wouldn't have burned down without the breakers. Which isn't to say that I don't appreciate their being in the system.

Can't say the same about the GFI in the kitchen, though. But that's due to a bad switch on the light over the sink, which I just haven't gotten around to replacing. I should probably do that this weekend.

[Sarcastr0]

My house has literally not tripped a breaker in a decade. So I kind of assume it wouldn't have burned down without the breakers.

Holy shit you're an engineer? Is a decade the acceptable mean time till an electrical fire?

[Brett Bellmore]

What part of "Which is not to say that I don't appreciate their being in the system." did you not comprehend? I'm just saying that the breakers are a secondary system not actually required for function, as contrasted with a primary system which absolutely must be present for function.

Look, we're discussing why the judiciary typically gets mentioned after the legislature and executive in constitutions, I'm not suggesting that a government without a judiciary is remotely a good idea. It's just that it's kind of a downstream element of government which doesn't tend to get priority in constitution drafting.

[Absaroka]

Geez. We had a house without *working* breakers (google 'Zinsco'). I learned about Zinsco after a GFCI shorted and my troubleshooting found 12 gauge wires in a wall that had acted as a fuse, fortunately without starting a fire. We replaced the panel.

But in the decades we lived there, I sure wouldn't say the wiring wasn't working - when you flipped a switch, the lights came on. A house with non-functional breakers has a higher risk of burning for sure, as does one without arc fault breakers, or for that matter one without sprinklers, but I sure wouldn't characterize all the houses without arc fault breakers as not having working wiring.

[Kazinski]

I don't think the judiciary was an afterthought because it was a very important part of British law.

Not to mention that about 60% of the framers of the constitution were lawyers (32 of of 55)

They don't mention the bureaucracy much either but everyone knew it was going to be an important part of government.

[Drewski]

Courts have rejected the notion that the Bill of Rights is ordinal with the 1st the strongest among them and the 10th the weakest. I expect that can be generalized to the main body of the Constitution, but I don't think it's ever been argued and decided.

[Commenter_XY]

Here is why I ask. In my religious tradition, in rare instances the order that concepts/ideas/strictures/commandments appear in the text make a material difference in interpretation. That made me wonder about the order in the constitution, and whether there was a significance in the order.

I understand the logic piece; make law, execute law, interpret law. But I wonder if there is an additional layer of interpretation based on the order the Framers adopted.

I gather this is not something ever really discussed. Thx for the response.

[ducksalad]

Sensible Christians (the kind you don't need to be afraid of) generally agree that the last book of the NT is the one you shouldn't take too seriously.

[bernard11]

I doubt it.

You have to put the articles in some order, after all.

[Moderation4ever]

Elon Musk's recent comments on about the International Space Station gives us a clear picture of what a narcissistic fool he is. The ISS has years of service left and Musk's talents would be better used thinking of ways to extend the life of an existing space asset. Musk fantasy of a human expedition to Mars is decades off. Even plans for humans to return to our Moon are foolish. For now, the real future for space exploration beyond near Earth are in robotics. The technology exists to send extremely smart crafts to explore in places that are beyond current human reach. Near Earth space station are practical for study, manufacturing and even for space tourism and should be supported. Although, I would prefer that these near Earth SS be privately funded in the future. That Elon Musk cannot see the reality of the situation is obvious. He can do as he likes with his and his investors' money, but he should be kept at arm length for our countries space program. I have no problem with him as a contractor but no desire to see him as anything more.

[Michael P]

The first ISS modules were launched in 1998, occupied in 2000 and originally planned to be a 15-year mission. The 2016 de-orbit was put off again and again, and it now costs $4 billion/year for ever-decreasing benefits and increased risk. That money and risk could be better spent elsewhere.

[Krayt]

Watched a YouTube video, if the Earth became uninhabitable, how long could the people on the ISS survive?

With care, food and water and air could get to 4 years. Sadly, the ISS is designed for a lower orbit and needs regular burns to keep out of the atmosphere. Without resupply, that would run out and in about a year they'd enter the atmosphere. It's actually plowing through super thin atmosphere but that adds up, and faster than you think.

In short, aliens wouldn't swing by in two years, much less a hundred years, and find some corpses floating in a can.

[Brett Bellmore]

They could stretch that out if they weren't expecting resupply, by using their station keeping fuel to move into a higher orbit, instead of maintaining their current one. Drag drops off really fast with altitude, and they wouldn't have any need for the current orbit to be maintained.

[Brett Bellmore]

The ISS has a serious leak in the Russian sector which they have neither been able to localize or plug, and which has been increasing over time. This means that the odds of it simply blowing out without warning are also rising.

And this would also cut off access to one of the docking ports, making it harder to evacuate.

[Moderation4ever]

As I noted in my comment, Musk talents would be better spent solving the problems of the leak rather than trashing an asset. As for blow out, we are talking about a person who has no problem blowing up rockets and scattering debris all over the place.

[Brett Bellmore]

That last describes anybody developing new rockets.

The point here is that the ISS is less an asset at this point than an expensively maintained risk. The money to fix it would be better spent on a new one.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ... an expensively maintained risk"

Some points :

1. From what I've read, no one sees the Russian leak as a serious risk. NASA and the U.S. astronauts have tightened their security protocols, but see that as sufficient response:

“We’ve taken a very conservative approach to close a hatch between the U.S. side and the Russian side during those time periods,” he said. “It’s not a comfortable thing but it is the best agreement between all the smart people on both sides, and it’s something that we as a crew live with.”

2. The ISS is expensive to maintain and there has long been criticism its scientific yield is limited. However, there are other reasons to support extending the station's life as long as possible. It keeps a continuous foothold in orbit and still functions as a working international joint endeavor.

3. Everybody allows Musk's talents and achievements but he has the emotional maturity of a snotty & resentful acne-scarred twelve-year-old. When he's not sieg heil-ing in public (because playacting Nazi is fun!) or spewing a constant diarrhea of crude lies, he's off gushing about "some latest thing". He (and his employee Trump) might well sabotage the return to the Moon with Artemis because it's too passe. I can easily believe he's unable to see extending the ISS as valuable, but hopefully more rational minds prevail.

4. Speaking of what a buffoonish clown Musk is, here's him saying he could build a transatlantic tunnel from New York to England for twenty billion dollars. This was the same day he was lying about the proposed congressional pay raise. Every day the lies come in waves & layers with Musk. He seems to think the most braindead imaginable lies are somehow "edgy" and "clever".

https://www.dezeen.com/2024/12/18/transatlantic-tunnel-elon-musk-boring-company/

[Brett Bellmore]

1 "From what I've read, no one sees the Russian leak as a serious risk."

Yeah, and NASA lost two Space Shuttles because of their crappy evaluation of risk. I think they're slipping back in to politicized evaluation of risk, rather than engineering evaluation of risk.

2. And didn't I say the money would be better spent replacing it?

3. Yeah, I get that a lot of people who haven't revolutionized multiple industries really hate Musk for some reason.

4. Hurrah!

[grb]

1. So you're convince the ISS is about "to blow" because something ... something ... something ... Space Shuttles? I'm going with NASA on this.

2. It will inevitably be replaced, but not within the next few years. And when it is, the station will use new tech, like from Bigelow, Sierra Space, and Space X's own Starship. That's a separate question from whether the ISS should be extended a few more years.

3. As I noted, Musk incessantly lies. Given you worship an even bigger liar as a cult deity, I understand why you need to pretend-away that behavior. Plus (as I noted) Musk regularly trolls in public at the level of a brat child just going thru puberty. Given you worship an even bigger child-man as cult deity, I understand why you need to pretend-away that behavior. Personally, I can't understand why someone with (effectively) unlimited money and great power has the desire or need to engage in constant childish trolling. As I noted, he seems to think it's "clever". Like giving Nazi salutes in public was "clever".

4. As I recall, you have an engineering background. So tell me, Brett: As qua engineer, how do you react when someone claims they could build a transatlantic tunnel for 20 billion?

5. But what am I saying? You probably find Trump & Musk's terrible-two cartoon antics great entertainment. As good as any pro-wrestling match!

[Brett Bellmore]

" So you're convince the ISS is about "to blow" "

Heck, no. I'm convinced that the probability of a catastrophic failure is rising. So are all the countries managing the ISS. The argument is about what to do about it. Musk isn't proposing to drop the ISS today, he's proposing to drop it sooner than is currently planned. (2030)

"As qua engineer, how do you react when someone claims they could build a transatlantic tunnel for 20 billion? "

Missed my literary reference, did you?

I think that the idea that you could build a transatlantic tunnel today for $20B is ludicrous. It's about 5400km from NY to London, that's about 3.7M per km. You'd be lucky to build a highway for that cost if it were level ground. Which it obviously is not.

The Chesapeake Bay bridge/tunnel came in at about $7M/km, though, so I think the estimates of $20T involved a bit of padding.

Using today's technology.

OTOH, depending on certain potential advances in automation, which Musk is much better placed than I am to speculate in an informed manner, maybe you could do it. You know, by omitting basically all labor costs, and mass producing tunnel segments in a purpose built factory.

Obviously it wouldn't be an underground tunnel, it would be a floating tunnel with guy lines going down the the sea floor.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Missed my literary reference, did you?"

I did indeed miss it!

Brett Bellmore : "... so I think the estimates of $20T involved a bit of padding."

First of all, I don't think it's effectively possible with current technology, so 20T is actually low to me. The average depth of the Chesapeake Bay is 21 feet and the water is barely any deeper at the Bridge Tunnel. Comparisons to a transatlantic tunnel are so off-the-chart different as to make it irrelevant as a benchmark.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said, it would not be a tunnel through the sea floor. (Wasn't in the novel, either.) It would be a floating tube anchored to the sea floor by multiple guy lines. They're currently working on those in Norway, for instance.

The tube would consist of thousands of identical sections built in a factory, suspended far enough under the ocean surface to not worry about ship traffic or weather, but not so deep that pressure would be an intractable problem.

Obviously nobody would be driving cars through such a tunnel, it would be a bidirectional hyperloop system, with the individual cars traveling at supersonic speed through evacuated tubes.

I wouldn't say that anything in the way of fundamentally new technology would be required to build such a system, it's just a matter of putting all the already existing elements together, and then getting the marginal cost of tunnel segments down low enough to make the project cost effective.

And Musk has demonstrated that he's pretty good at mass production.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I wouldn't say that anything in the way of fundamentally new technology would be required to build such a system...."

OK, I'm curious :

1. What exact depth do you foresee this monstrosity secured at? Too high and I have to believe it would shear itself to pieces. Too low and it deals with impossible pressures. I don't see any Goldilocks depth that's just right. I've dove 300-400ft long steel ships that have been flipped over on their sides or righted by ocean storms and swell. Year by year, the ocean rips them apart. And they're at 120ft below the surface or more.

2. Is this tunnel pressurized? If so, how? If not, how? There are massive problems either way.

3. When something goes wrong - as is inevitable - how will this house of cards hold up? What happens when someone tries to sabotage it? We've seen what happens when the Ukrainians, Russians and/or Chinese decide to target pipelines and cables. This would be a huge target.

4. How in the world would there ever be enough traffic running at a fast-enough speed to work in a practical cost-effective manner?

5. And that's not to mention disgruntled whales, angry orcas, and The Kraken. The latter may get released after all...

Look : You wanna do the futuristic visionary shtick? More power to ya. I don't want to be the stick-in-the-mud party-pooper. But I think what you're describing is a pipe dream two trillion-times over. It's not even close to achievable by today's means.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. I think a couple hundred feet is good enough, because it's stabilized by being buoyant and tied down by guy lines to the bottom, rather than lying loose on the ocean floor.

2. I not pressurized, because you don't want maintenance personnel to have to depressurize after their shifts.

3. You have identified the real problem.

4. Although that's an issue, too. It's just not flexible enough.

5. I honestly don't think they'll care.

I'm not saying such a thing would be a commercial success. I don't think it would be, nor would it make sense to build it in the current geopolitical situation. I'm just saying I think it's technically possible.

I'd personally prefer to build an orbital ring system anyway. But point 3 counsels against it, too.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I think a couple hundred feet is good enough..."

The average depth of the Atlantic Ocean is 12,881 feet. So your tunnel is secured by guy lines typically plus-minus 12,681 feet long. And how many of these "guy lines" are there? How often are they spaced? On the assumption you actually believe this nonsense, I must warn you the ocean would rip your design into tiny little pieces. Even an average storm would tear it to shreds.

I sure as heck hope you weren't a structural engineer.....

[Stephen Lathrop]

grb — Musk plans to go at that tunnel from both sides. From Western Ireland $10 billion; and from Newfoundland $10 billion. To bypass geologic instability at the mid-ocean ridge, Musk plans an underwater portage, with details still in the planning stage. That might add to the budget, but depending on how long the portage, make the permanent legs shorter and less expensive than if they had to extend the full distance.

See, when you make it concrete, plausibility increases. If plausibility is all you need, why care if everything is made up?

[grb]

Stephen Lathrop : " ... why care if everything is made up?"

The sacred motto of today's Right.

[Bob from Ohio]

"narcissistic fool "

Narcissistic yes, the only fool here is you if you think he is a fool.

Wrong perhaps but no one [except moi] is always right.

[Moderation4ever]

The US Stock Market fell on Friday wiping out any gains since the start of the second Trump administration. The fall is a directly due to dropping consumer confidence and concern about the administration policies. The implementation of tariffs and the loss of immigrant labor fuel concerns about inflation. In addition, the on/off again policies of DOGE add to consumer anxiety. Trump is an agent of chaos, and all Americans will likely lose in the chaotic mess. Change is necessary but needs to be done in an orderly fashion.

[Martinned2]

It was quite striking how much the shares of US defence companies fell and the shares of European defence companies rose last week. It's almost as if investors think that European countries are going to stop buying US-made weapons.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/european-defence-stocks-surge-top-leaders-hold-summit-ukraine-2025-02-17/

[Frank Drackman]

They've been making most of their own shit for decades, where do you think they make the "Euro-Fighter" (Duh). Which actually would be a better buy than our stupid F35's. Most make their own Assault Rifles, UK with the SA-80, Germany H&K G36, Italy the Beretta AR70/90, its the US that increasingly doesn't make our own weapons, Standard Sidearm of the US Army the Swiss SIG Sauer M17 (replacing the Beretta M9), and the ubiquitous "Colt" M4?, wait, it's a "Colt" right? must be made right here in the good Ole US of A!
"The primary manufacturer of the M4 carbine for the United States military is FN America, LLC, a subsidiary of the Belgian firearms manufacturer FN Herstal. They are the current sole-source provider under the latest U.S. Army contract."

Seriously, do people ever tell you you resemble Mortimer Snerd??

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"The primary manufacturer of the M4 carbine for the United States military is FN America, LLC, a subsidiary of the Belgian firearms manufacturer FN Herstal. They are the current sole-source provider under the latest U.S. Army contract."

Yeah, I did a factory tour there a couple years back. Very impressive facility, and they were handing out all the empty ammo cans you wanted, from doing the test firings before shipping those carbines.

My son's middle school lunchbox was the envy of all his classmates!

[Frank Drackman]

My Surplus G3 came with the test target H&K used, love that gun!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I love H&K products. My first serious involvement with gun rights was when that bastard Bush, (Don't you love how you don't have to specify which, they all were.) banned the importation of a bunch of semiautomatic rifles just as I'd finally saved up enough to buy that HK 93 I'd been dreaming of.

Spent the money on an NRA life membership instead.

[Martinned2]

Spent the money on an NRA life membership instead.

Subsidising Wayne LaPierre's lavish lifestyle is a lot less likely to get anyone hurt than that rifle would have been, so it sounds like a win/win.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said that was my first serious involvement with gun rights; If I'd known then what I knew within a few years, I'd have given the money to the GOA, not the NRA. A lot more bang for the buck.

[John F. Carr]

I doubt my local schools would let you bring anything so violent as an empty ammo can. One of the schools sent an email blast to parents when some kids were caught looking at a picture of an Airsoft gun. Parents were reassured that nobody was in danger.

[Moderation4ever]

All interesting stuff but address the market shift. Investors see the future in arms made overseas.

[Commenter_XY]

What market shift? The market is up YTD, has intraday movement of +/- 1% on a normal day. If you discover the magic market signal amongst the noise, patent it, and become a trillionaire.

If you want to argue that intl returns will be better because intl valuation is <US, that is one thing. Then state your valuation case.

Ignore the financial porn. The US market has outperformed intl in every 20 year period since 1926.

[Commenter_XY]

My index funds beg to differ = The US Stock Market fell on Friday wiping out any gains since the start of the second Trump administration.

Total US stock Mkt up by 2%, Tot int'l up 7%. Bond index fund up 1% YTD w/real yield. No investment issue for the 3-fund index fund investor.

Inflation is a concern. We're at 3%, need to be at or below 2%. That argues against lowering rates.

I would not worry too much. There is a big world outside of Washington DC.

[Moderation4ever]

That big world outside of WDC is affected by inflation caused by tariffs and loss of workers. While government agencies are headquartered in WDC many have large facilities operating outside. And many of these facilities are located in red states. If a private company laid off 1500 workers in a state the Governor and the Legislature would be upset. Will they be less upset closing a government facility that employs a similar number?

[Commenter_XY]

Your concern is overblown.

Will DC unemployment spike? Yes, it certainly will, much to the surprise of many here who never thought (or took it seriously) the prospect of a POTUS Trump taking a meat-axe and hacking away at the DC-based bureaucracy.

In 24 months, there will be screaming real estate deals in NVa. Stockpile your cash now, cash rates are still Ok, with real yield.

DC is one city. The country is doing Ok. The typical American got up today around 6, and noticed the sun in the east. Probably made breakfast, kissed their kids goodbye as they went to the school bus and then to work. They will work today, and come home tonight. Eat dinner, notice the sun setting in the west, watch some idiotic TV pablum, and go to sleep around 10-11pm.

The reality of the business world (and now govt workers are getting a taste of the same reality) is that no one is indispensable, and everyone is replaceable. If you don't add value, you're history.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sun doesn't rise until 6:30 this time of year in these parts -- and 4AM in June...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are a laughably ignorant fuck without any understanding of economics.

[Frank Drackman]

and it's going to go up today, directly due to rising consumer confidence and confidence in the administrations great policies, supporting US Manufacturing with selective Tariffs, and US employment by restricting cheap illegal labor, and encouragement with DOGE cutting wasteful spending such as "Condoms for Gaza"(OK, it's "Gaza, Mozambique", so why are we buying Raincoats for anyone?)

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I think consumer confidence is down because people are realizing that Musk think the little people are mushrooms. That he can keep us in the dark and feed us horse shit like "Condoms for Gaza".

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - the market has been overpriced for quite some time. Not unusual for such a correction.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The fall is a directly due to dropping consumer confidence and concern about the administration policies."

Oh, you know this how?

You are also making a long term conclusion based on 1 days market. Very dumb.

[Frank Drackman]

Lost in all the DOGE uproar, "47"(I love the sound of that number) has proposed cancelling the Pentagon's "Sentinel" Missile replacement for the Minuteman 3 Missiles, deployed over 50 years ago, and not only that, scrapping the 450 Missiles currently in Silos in Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, Montana, with B2 Bombers, and Submarines, what sense does having 450 Missiles buried in plain sight make? Just makes them a target.

[SRG2]

Musk congratulates the Nazis:
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/ckg82wwrwy6t

Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader has revealed that she took a phone call from tech billionaire Elon Musk, who congratulated her on the party's election success.

Alice Weidel says that the AfD is "in communication" with the Trump administration in Washington and she had woken up to a number of missed calls from the US.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Gay married interracial lesbians are now Nazis.

What a world we live in today!

[John F. Carr]

I believe they are partnered, not married. Weidel did not support same sex marriage.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Thank you for the clarification.

[Don Nico]

Kinda of true, but she does describe herself as the wife of her partner. She does talk out of both sides of her mouth on the SSM issue

[Dr. Ed 2]

The case against gay marriage involves children.

[SRG2]

Gay married interracial lesbians are now Nazis.

Only the ones who lead Nazi parties

[ThePublius]

The left in Germany is much, much more in line with Nazi philosophy and action than AfD ever was. They are marginalizing AfD, labeling them as extreme, surveilling them, and even trying to censor them. Nazi-like.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agreed. And the DDR was only 36 years years ago.

[Ed Grinberg]

...and Stasi-like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one who thinks the races are heritably different, right?

That random question just occurred to me for some reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure everybody who isn't a total moron thinks races are heritably different. They just argue about which traits that applies to.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for the pedantry.

TP is into the whole racial crime stats thing, and doesn't bother to adjust for confounding variables.

And here he is stumping for the AfP as super cool and normal and oppressed actually.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's not entirely pedantry, the races may heritably differ in subtle ways that influence the proclivity to commit crime, like aggression levels or impulse control. But you'd be hard put to prove it given the nature of the data available. If you didn't have confounding variables you'd have no variables at all...

[Sarcastr0]

Your brave truth telling about what may be true, but which would be swamped by other variations, and is going to be very hard to prove regardless (as you admit).

Seems not a useful observation.

It's also a bit of a walk back from The Bell Curve.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you should check a copy out of a library, and read it again? I'm guessing your memory of what they actually had to say is kind of vague, and distorted by hysterical condemnations.

[Sarcastr0]

It's been a while, but I do remember their headliner thesis was that racial IQ variation was at least somewhat genetic in origin.

Not heritable. Genetic.

You didn't go there. To your credit.

[Brett Bellmore]

That wasn't their headliner thesis, that was what critics obsessed about. The bit about racial IQ differences having some unknown genetic component greater than zero was barely more than a passing observation. In fact, their final word on that topic was,

"If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate."

Their actual 'headliner' thesis was that increasing assortive mating combined with heritability of intelligence in the general sense was creating a "cognitive elite" which is increasingly socially isolated from larger society. Contrasted with the former cognitive elite prior to widespread assortive mating, who would inevitably have social connections to larger society.

They were worried about the long term effects of this in terms of social mobility and understanding between economic classes.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"I'm pretty sure everybody who isn't a total moron thinks races are heritably different. "

Except for the people who don't think there are biological races in humanity, just continuous spectra of various physical characteristics that get arbitrarily classified into races in an unscientific way. There is no race designation that Prof. Bernstein hasn't shown to be completely irrational.

[Sarcastr0]

You also said the AfD were the new Jews, right?

By all means, please proceed with your defense of AfD, ThePublius.

[David Nieporent]

In a recent thread — perhaps the previous Open Thread — there was a brief discussion of what happened to Randy Barnett. So yesterday Twitter saw him endorsing open fascism:
https://x.com/RandyEBarnett/status/1893806437681213826

If politics don't give the desired results, then we need the man on a horse to come in and sweep away the obstacles, whatever it takes. And anything resembling principles? Get rid of 'em.

[Michael P]

Open fascism! As the meme says, Donald Trump has become the first fascist ever to shrink a government.

[Martinned2]

One of the core tenets of fascism is Gleichschaltung, the entire point of which is that you don't need a big government. So no, your talking point is not right.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Is that a fundamental tenet of Leftism as defined by Marx?

That the social trajectory is to a stateless Communism?

[Krayt]

Interesting so much argumentation for months now on exacting definitions of fascism, for defense of its use as an epithet.

You guys!
No, you guys!

Words don't matter. Impulse to domination does. I hear a clever guy came up with a phrase for that.

[ThePublius]

"Is that a fundamental tenet of Leftism as defined by Marx?"

Groucho?

[Frank Drackman]

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception, a 5 yr old child could do this! go find me a 5 yr old child!

[ThePublius]

How can that be, if fascism came to be in Italy in 1922, and Gleichschaltung was a phenomenon of the 1930's?

[Michael P]

So which previous fascist(s) shrunk their government? In practice, not merely in theory.

[David Nieporent]

That's a really stupid and ignorant meme, then, for multiple reasons, including the fact that centralizing government in one man's hands is not "shrinking" it. (It may be shrinking the government workforce, but it's not shrinking the government.)

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Isn't the Executive Branch centralized under the President by design?

Or are we supposed have the Executive Branch or parts of it autonomously operating on it's own to shield it from the whims and accountability of politics?

[Martinned2]

Isn't the Executive Branch centralized under the President by design?

It is by the design of Project 2025, sure.

Or are we supposed have the Executive Branch or parts of it autonomously operating on it's own to shield it from the whims and accountability of politics?

Yes, according to the laws passed by Congress.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

What government functions do you think are too important to be accountable to the voters?

I'm looking for your principles. In my mind, it's abhorrent and counter to freedom and liberty to have governing institutions unaccountable to and insulated from voters.

How about you? Can you articulate any general rules that can help discern what you believe is too important to be accountable to the citizens and what isn't?

[apedad]

As SRG2 mentioned below, "Do not confuse a principle with its execution."

Accountability is definitely a responsibility.

Chain saw politics is irresponsible.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

I'm not confused. I'm talking about the principle behind having what's an essence a law-making institution insulted from the citizens.

What do you call a system where laws/regulations are made by people who don't answer to the citizens?

Historically, what labels do you think best describe that kind of institution?

[apedad]

That's a bad system.

Bad situations call for good medicine though, e.g., Congress can easily fix this.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Maybe reforming this system is too important to yield to the petty politics of today and an insulated Executive should use whatever powers they can lawfully use to fix it.

[apedad]

I love it when you guys show your true intentions.

Save everybody's time and just get to the point, mKay?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Obviously it's a rhetorical device.

My apologies if that nuance ended up hurting your feelings.

[ducksalad]

All it says is that the executive power is vested in the president. It doesn't say what that executive power is.

Here's the interpretation I'd favor:

The executive power is the power to faithfully execute laws passed by Congress, in the sense that a subordinate military officer executes orders. Any discretion the officer has is granted at the pleasure of his superiors, can be overruled them. They can micromanage him to the extent they see fit, overrule how he manages the enlisted men under him, order him to reverse himself, or even order him to do nothing at all.

It would be counterproductive to micromanage, but that is up to Congress. The president has no right or entitlement to not be micromanaged, no matter how wasteful, frustrating, or even damaging he thinks it us.

The exceptions to the above would be the other enumerated powers. He can veto or pardon, and Congress can't limit that. He gets to receive ambassadors. He gets to ask the heads of departments - but no one else - for their opinions in writing. He can't even ask an Assistant Secretary for his opinion unless Congress decides to allow it.

I think this interpretation would solve many problems. But just to make sure, I'd prefer an amendment saying any Congressional grant of authority to the president automatically expires after two years. No more of this business where the president vetoes an attempt by Congress to take back the authority he is abusing.

[Martinned2]

That sounds right to me. In practice, the discretion that Congress has given the President is wild, and probably unwise, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

[David Nieporent]

In practice, the discretion that Congress has given the President is wild, and probably unwise,

As I've been saying for years, Congress grants a ton of discretion to the president because it assumes that the president will basically operate in good faith. Sure, push the envelope one way or the other here or there, but generally not just making shit up. Until Trump. For whom good faith is like his kryptonite.

[Martinned2]

In England they call that the "good chaps theory of government", which broke down in a big way when Boris Johnson and the other Brexiteers took over.

[ThePublius]

We'll see if he follows through on shutting down some big agencies, like Education, Energy, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

He can't follow through with doing that; the President is not a king.

[SykesFive]

Why on earth would a president who knew what the Department of Energy did then go and shut it down?

[Frank Drackman]

Why should the President know what DOE does? they don't.

[Sarcastr0]

“[DOGE] are profoundly aware that they MUST act fast and with some degree of ferocity, even recklessness, else we will default back to the status quo of leaders who pretend to be in charge while the embedded system runs things behind the scenes.”

[Commenter_XY]

Fascism seems overstated. If this were true, why are international investors like SoftBank and US companies like Apple committing hundreds of billions to invest here. It makes no logical sense, or business sense.

It probably feels fascist b/c gov't bureaucrats haven't really been RIF'ed in big numbers since the Clinton presidency. So for them, the sky is falling. Somehow, the country survived the 'fascism' of that time (the 1990's - also a great time to invest, btw).

[Martinned2]

Crony capitalism can be quite lucrative...

[Mr. Bumble]

That was a European invention, wasn't it?

[Sarcastr0]

It probably feels fascist

"I can't believe it's not fascism!"

Commenter, read what Randy said.

Your comparison the Clinton only underscores how different this is.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Only in bizarro land like DC is reform considered "fascism".

It's not worth saving.

[David Nieporent]

100% of the population supports reform. Calling something "reform" doesn't mean it is reform.

[Commenter_XY]

Well you're right, it is different...Pres Clinton RIF'ed about 400K Fed bureaucrats. POTUS Trump has RIF'ed only 225K or so, YTD.

But don't worry, Sarcastr0, POTUS Trump will catch up to Pres Clinton. Give him another month or so.

[SRG2]

Krasnov lying about how much the US has spent in Ukraine. He claiimed, $350bn - to make his attempt to extort $500bn in minerals seem not so unreasonable, perhaps.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pentagon-refutes-trump-s-claim-of-350-billion-spent-on-ukraine/ar-AA1zBOiA

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the US Congress has allocated approximately $183 billion to support Ukraine. From this amount, the Pentagon confirmed that $65.9 billion has been directed toward military aid for Kyiv, with an additional $3.9 billion remaining unspent.

Of the $183 billion, around $58 billion has been spent in the US to develop the defense industry, specifically to replace weapons provided to Ukraine with new American-made equipment.

[Krayt]

"It's too much" is the kind of hot air oppositional state trolling would anonymously say. Did it work?

"Thanks, Gramps!", v1

"Thanks, Gramps!", v2

Now abandonment in favor of dictatorial tanks, blame the victim on top of it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If we give them our ammo, we have to buy more...

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

The Pentagon, famously, can't account for trillions and fail audit after audit.

But somehow they know where every penny of this went?

[apedad]

And yet Trump knows?!?

[Sarcastr0]

Is this a retread or a new instamute?

I can't tell.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

There is a safe-space for you over on Bluesky. I promise you over there no one will share with you an illegal opinion or view.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I wish they would have called it something else. The Allman Bros. song is one of the greatest ever recorded.

[Joe_dallas]

AP report on Shiri Bibas:
:A body released by Palestinian militants overnight was confirmed by the family to be of Shiri Bibas, the Israeli mother whose sons also died in captivity."

Typical dishonesty for the msm

[David Nieporent]

Um, those statements are true.

[Commenter_XY]

David, I think the objection is to the AP phrasing of 'died in captivity' (you know, like an olive tree fell on them) instead of 'murdered by hamas' (as in, strangled to death, and then decapitated to obscure the cause of death).

AP has a checkered history in covering this war.

[John F. Carr]

AP has disputed claims: killed by an airstrike or killed by hand. Neither is inherently incredible. Israeli airstrikes do kill people other than targets and Hamas does murder people. In reporting on the release of a body it's not important to decide who is right about the cause of death.

[Commenter_XY]

That is a fair point = In reporting on the release of a body it's not important to decide who is right about the cause of death

[Brett Bellmore]

But neither is it important to deliberately obscure the cause of death, which in this case was murder.

[Commenter_XY]

My feelings on hamas are known; they are human animals by their own acts, to whom no quarter can be given.

The point JFC was making, I think, is timing. The initial reports of their deaths was before any autopsy. That is a fair point.

Still though, AP has a checkered history in covering this war.

[Joe_dallas]

Two points
A) The AP knowing distorted and/or withheld the complete facts
B) DN like most leftists willing accepts and/or promotes the distortion

[David Nieporent]

Bookkeeper_joe continues to be too stupid to know what a leftist is.

[Joe_dallas]

You have repeatedly outed yourself as a leftist, maybe not a far out leftist, but you are still very much a leftists.

virtually every response and comment today shows you to be a leftists

[David Nieporent]

Thinking Donald Trump is a criminal who should be thrown into the cracks of Mount Doom just makes me intelligent and principled, not a "leftist."

[Joe_dallas]

on some occasions you do show some principled moral ethics , however, most of the time you show the typical lefts beliefs. Kinda hard to continue to deny it when you have outed yourself so frequently

[Mr. Bumble]

So it's not important whether George Floyd was murdered or died from a drug overdose while in police custody?

[John F. Carr]

If you're reporting on his funeral arrangements, it isn't important. If you're writing about the 2020 protests it isn't important because what people think happened was driving the protests. If you're writing a history book and you need to decide who is the victim and who is the villain, then it is important.

[David Nieporent]

1) Your analogy is flawed, in that it compares a truth — Floyd was murdered — to a lie — that Floyd died of a drug overdose — whereas the AP's claim is indisputably true. The appropriate analogy would have been saying that Floyd was murdered vs. saying that Floyd died.

2) In some contexts, how Floyd died would be very important. In some contexts, it would not be very important. If we're talking about Chauvin's punishment, it's the former. If we're mentioning Floyd's death in passing while talking about something else, it's the latter.

"Riots broke out after Floyd died in police custody" would be incomplete, but not "dishonest."

[Joe_dallas]

True but highly distorted

DN - like always you push a false narrative

The full truth is that they were brutally murdered by their capitors.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So they died...in captivity.

Tell us who you really are, Joe_dipshit. Let's see if you have the balls to be a lying piece of shit with your real name attached.

[Joe_dallas]

cut the crap prick

The AP intentionally distorted the facts.
DN likewise showed his approval of the deception and distortion,

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Their statement is entirely truthful.

You on the other hand, are known for being a lying, craven fuck who's too afraid to post his bullshit under his own name, and even has at least one sock-puppet account because you're such a coward that you need an alter-ego for your lies.

Fuck off and die.

[David Nieporent]

Even though the AP's statement was actually accurate, they didn't just distort the facts, but they "intentionally" did so!

[Frank Drackman]

Todays Birthdays, Dominic Chianese(funny, doesn't look Chianese) AKA "Uncle June Soprano" 94 (Tony never had the makings of a Nonagenarian) Brad (Asshole!) from "Rocky Horror Picture Show" is 80, George Thorogood is 75, (Everbody 75, now he 75 too) and Slugger Eddie Murray is 69 (How many HR would he have had with todays juiced Ball? 800? 900? and all Au Naturale) Don't believe me? He was a lifetime .438 against Nolan Ryan with an OPS of 1.069(!) OK, he was 7 for 16 with a "Tater" and 6 RBI, that was his problem, he couldn't just bat against the "Express" every game

Frank

[apedad]

Agencies push back on Musk email, including FBI, Pentagon, State, Intel

Several federal agencies have advised employees not to respond to Elon Musk’s email demanding federal workers list five accomplishments from the past week or risk losing their jobs.

The email instructs federal workers to respond to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) by 11:59 p.m. EST Monday. But a growing list of agencies, including the Pentagon, FBI, State Department and intelligence community, on Sunday had told their employees to hold off.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5160128-federal-agencies-elon-musk-email/

These are Trump's handpicked people (Patel, Gabbard, Rubio, etc.), saying no to Musk.

Good to see some level of 'process' being adhered to.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't think we've ever seen so much put in the hands of such incompetence. I was going to mention some Roman Emperors, but often they did have competent subordinates, and at least the civil service was allowed to rumble on. Not true here.

[Commenter_XY]

Pres Biden left office, Dan = I don't think we've ever seen so much put in the hands of such incompetence.

😉

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

It is suspected that there are people on the payroll drawing checks that don't exist and/or are not doing any work.

What's wrong with verifying that the people getting federal paychecks a.) exist and b.) work?

[SRG2]

Do not confuse a principle with its execution

[Dan Schiavetta]

1) their suspicions are not based on any actual evidence
2) what they are doing is not related to rooting out nonexistent or lazy employees

[David Nieporent]

It is suspected that there are people on the payroll drawing checks that don't exist

This is why, when you get to 7th grade English, your teacher will caution you against using the passive voice. "It is suspected?" Who suspects that? What is the basis for such speculation? How would such a scam be carried out? And if it were being carried out — I mean, out of 3 million employees, it's not impossible that this has happened once or twice — why wouldn't the perpetrator simply respond to Musk's email to keep the charade going?

[Noscitur a sociis]

why wouldn't the perpetrator simply respond to Musk's email to keep the charade going?

The key to the plan is to tweet about it and make sure that the email becomes a national news story and there’s no chance that the fraudsters would miss it.

[ducksalad]

All the e-mail responses would verify is someone's ability to make up five bullet points. It's an exercise that rewards those willing to lie and people with an inflated sense of their own importance.

It doesn't even validate existence. It just validates that there is an e-mail and someone - not necessarily the person named - is accessing it.

No one thinks it's a good way to evaluate people. Musk doesn't think that, and neither do you. Therefore we know with certainty that he and his fans have some other motivation. The best guess is that it's just to scare people and show who is boss.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it's just to scare people and show who is boss"

Maybe.

I say it's to get them to quit.

[ducksalad]

Could be, but since the administration claims every single executive branch employee (except the president himself) is an at-will employee and that status is mandated by Article III, it seems unnecessary to "get them" to quit.

And by the way, the "show who is boss" part is meant at least in part to let employees know their boss is not the chain of command shown in the org chart. The boss is DOGE.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it seems unnecessary to "get them" to quit."

Its easier if they do, No civil service nonsense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My IMMEDIATE thought was security leak -- other than emailing a copy of my job description, I'd ask for the OMB number verifying the right to collect this information.

I'm starting to have concerns about the Muskrats.

[Bob from Ohio]

"These are Trump's handpicked people (Patel, Gabbard, Rubio, etc.), saying no to Musk."

Turf battles in government! Incredible!

[ducksalad]

In the long run, Patel, Gabbard and Rubio are much better at kissing backsides than Musk. So I predict they'll win.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Is it acceptable for a Federal Judge to mock a lawyer's faith that is arguing before them?

And to also assert that graduates from the lawyer's law school are "liar's and lack integrity"?

[David Nieporent]

Is it acceptable for a Federal Judge to mock a lawyer's faith that is arguing before them?

No. Who mocked anyone's faith?

And to also assert that graduates from the lawyer's law school are "liar's and lack integrity"?

If you think anyone did that, you would benefit from 8th grade English as well.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-issues-complaint-about-federal-judges-misconduct-while-presiding-over-military-trans-ban-court-case

>The letter says Judge Reyes asked DOJ attorney Jason Lynch, "What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless … that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, 'Sounds right to me?' Or do you think Jesus would say, 'WTF? Of course, let them in?'"

>During the rhetorical exercise, Reyes told the attorney that she changed the rules in her courtroom to bar graduates of the University of Virginia law school from appearing before her because they are all “liars and lack integrity.” She instructed the government attorney, a graduate of the school, to sit down

I expect one of the following three reactions from you:
1.) You'll deny it happened and call or suggest the government lawyers are liars.
2.) You won't deny those claims happened, you'll deny they mean what they obviously mean.
3.) You'll vanish.

Oh, and if you do comment, it won't be without some other childish insult.

[ducksalad]

You first comment mischaracterized what she said. Your second one is deliberately misleading.

In the first statement she's not mocking his faith, she's pointing out that he's being inconsistent in it. However, she shouldn't have brought up religion at all.

In the second statement, you neglected - I have to assume intentionally - to mention that the statement was part of hypothetical explaining what she thought was wrong with the government's argument. She was saying - very obviously - that it would be wrong to exclude UVA graduates based on a generalization that they are liars and lack integrity.

Score:
Point 1 - she loses, but not for the reason you state.
Point 2 - she wins, and you made a false accusation.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>2.) You won't deny those claims happened, you'll deny they mean what they obviously mean.

BINGO!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"In the first statement she's not mocking his faith, she's pointing out that he's being inconsistent in it."

How so? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that he believes that Jesus would want men to share intimate spaces with women in homeless shelters, how does that affect the legal arguments he makes for the government?

[ducksalad]

I said she had no business bringing up religion. The whole conversation was inappropriate.

However, I see no indication that she was "mocking" anyone's religion. That's the part Magnus made up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You also said she was pointing out that he's being inconsistent in his faith.

[ducksalad]

Yes. I mentioned it to show that she was not "mocking" anything, she was doing something else. It isn't relevant to the legal argument, so she shouldn't have brought it up.

Again, Magnus had two separate and distinct complaints, and I (as well as DN) had two separate responses. Don't conflate the two.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Why do you think that "she's pointing out that he's being inconsistent in [his faith]?"

[ducksalad]

Why do I think that's what she said? It seems to be the best interpretation - she's asking WWJD.

Why do I think she decided to say it? Poor judgment and/or heat of the moment.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

His next take is going to be that the judge was cleverly using his faith to mock him, but not his faith...

[TwelveInchPianist]

She has no idea what his faith is. It sounds like she's expressing her own beliefs about what Jesus would do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She should be impeached.
She also should be disbarred.

WHY hasn't someone filed a motion to impeach her?

[David Nieporent]

Because they're not quite as incredibly moronic and immature as you are.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

She argued that there are over 30+ human biological sexes, and that this was a scientific fact.

Where do you stand on that claim?

[David Nieporent]

She was referring to the various types of intersex conditions, IIRC. Not about various genders people claim to have. While the percentage of the population that is intersex is much smaller than activists claim, those conditions do exist and are biological, not social or psychological.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Reyes: "You understand, as a matter of biology, it's just incorrect that there are only two sexes, right?

That's what preceded her argument on intersex.

There is nothing in the EO about intersex not existing.

[David Nieporent]

There is nothing in the EO about intersex not existing.

Sec. 2. Policy and Definitions. It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality. Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:

[Brett Bellmore]

Followed by,

"(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell."

And, as a matter of fundamental biology, almost nobody falls outside this. You have the "true hermorphodites" as the only exception. They are few enough to get individual exceptions to the general policy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

She was talking about the number of sexes. There would be no reason to talk about number of intersex conditions if she wasn't conflating that with the number of sexes.

[not guilty]

That is untrue. I quoted the judge's comment downthread, as set forth in footnote 1 of the misconduct complaint.

[Noscitur a sociis]

She argued that there are over 30+ human biological sexes, and that this was a scientific fact.

No, she said that “not everyone has an XX or an XY chromosome” and that “there are over 30 different intersex examples”.

(As far as I can tell the policy doesn’t purport to define sex in terms of chromosomes so Judge Reyes’s observation seems a little beside the point. But that’s what she said.)

[Bob from Ohio]

" “not everyone has an XX or an XY chromosome” "

Not everyone is born with two arms either but we define humans as having two arms.

Intersex is a birth defect affecting a tiny, tiny number of people. Almost no "trans" people are actually intersex either, so its a red herring.

[Sarcastr0]

If someone asks you if everyone has two arms, would you answer yes?

As is often the case, you have a judge being kind of cringey pedantic in service of what seems to be a liberal PoV, and the right senses weakness and overplays their hand, seizing the cringe throne once again.

[Absaroka]

"If someone asks you if everyone has two arms, would you answer yes?"

Sure.

When someone says 'do you want to come over for dinner Friday night', I say 'I'd love too', not 'I'd love too, if there isn't a curfew and the car doesn't break down and none of us are sick and Yellowstone doesn't erupt and ...". It's not really practical to always list every edge case.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If someone asks you if everyone has two arms, would you answer yes?"

Phrased that way, the answer is no of course. But ask "How any arms does a human have?", pepole are going to say 2

Reminds me of this:

"How many legs would a dog have, if we called the dog’s tail, a leg. “Five,” the questioner responds confident in his mathematical ability to do simple addition.

“No,” Lincoln says. “Calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.”

You'd answer 5 too.

[Sarcastr0]

So when the judge said "not everyone has an XX or an XY chromosome" to disagree would be incorrect.

Performative ideology.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Almost no "trans" people are actually intersex either, so its a red herring.

I agree, and as I noted I think it’s doubly irrelevant since that’s not the definition of sex that the order implements.

However, I think criticism should be based on what the judge actually said, not on something she didn’t say. And she didn’t say that “there are over 30+ human biological sexes”, much less it “was a scientific fact.”

[not guilty]

"Intersex is a birth defect affecting a tiny, tiny number of people."

Some courts have opined that about "two percent of all babies are born 'intersex,' or with 'a wide range of natural variations in physical traits—including external genitals, internal sex organs, chromosomes, and hormones—that do not fit typical binary notions of male and female bodies.'" Doe v. Horne, 115 F.4th 1083, 1093 n.2 (9th Cir. 2024), quoting Hecox v. Little, 104 F.4th 1061, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 11, 2024) (No. 24-38).

That is comparable to the percentage of the world population that has naturally red hair.

[Bob from Ohio]

Well, if a court opines, it must be true.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Just think once they get to grade school, there will be nearly 30% identifying as intersex, if the grooming trends hold.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, that does not make any sense = 2% of all babies are born intersex or with 'a wide range of natural variations in physical traits—including external genitals, internal sex organs, chromosomes, and hormones—that do not fit typical binary notions of male and female bodies.

Let's do some quick math.
350MM people * 2% = 7MM intersex people walking around the USA who do not fit typical binary notions of male and female bodies.

Seven million, just in the USA. NFW.

[Life of Brian]

Seven million, just in the USA. NFW.

I suspect the rather unsubtle inclusion of hormones in that list of "wide range of natural variations" is what drives most of that number. Most/all sex hormones have been long understood to be on a bimodal distribution between males and females, so I'd imagine this just involves some arbitrary cutoffs and relabeling: for example, yesterday's male with slightly elevated estradiol (e.g., X% above the generally recognized male reference range) is today's intersex.

[not guilty]

Intersex characteristics are often not obvious at birth and may manifest later in life. https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-intersex And nonbinary persons may not be eager to put such characteristics on public display.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, my point is that 2% figure is bullshit. We don't have 7 million intersex people walking around the US.

And, the judge was simply wrong on a matter of biology.

[Brett Bellmore]

"NG, my point is that 2% figure is bullshit. We don't have 7 million intersex people walking around the US."

Or if we do, we've got a public health disaster of unparalleled proportions going on, and people shouldn't have laughed off talk of "gay frogs".

[David Nieporent]

My understanding from an article I read several years ago is that the 2% comes from including a few chromosomal disorders that most do not actually consider to be intersex. Can't find it now.

[David Nieporent]

My understanding from an article I read several years ago is that the 2% comes from including a few chromosomal disorders that most do not actually consider to be intersex. Can't find it now.

Or, I could've just checked Wikipedia:

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

The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported differently depending on who reports and which definition of intersex is used. Anne Fausto-Sterling and her book co-authors claim the prevalence of "nondimorphic sexual development" in humans might be as high as 1.7%.[8][9] However, a response published by Leonard Sax reports this figure includes conditions such as late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Klinefelter syndrome, which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex; Sax states, "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", stating the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% (one in 5,500 births), about 100 times less than Fausto-Sterling's estimate.[4][10][11]

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Reyes: "You understand, as a matter of biology, it's just incorrect that there are only two sexes, right?

That's what preceded her argument on intersex.

If you say "as a matter of biology it's incorrect that there are only two sexes" and then proceed to say "not everyone has an XX or XY chromosome" and "there are over 30 different intersex examples" are you arguing there are over 30 human biological sexes?

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you say "as a matter of biology it's incorrect that there are only two sexes" and then proceed to say "not everyone has an XX or XY chromosome" and "there are over 30 different intersex examples" are you arguing there are over 30 human biological sexes?

No.

Thanks for subbing in on this installment of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions. I’m we’ll have our regular, Dr. Ed, back on by the end of the day!

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

I think we found DN's sock puppet account.

Except your denialism is *chef's kiss*.

[Life of Brian]

I'll bite. Given those statements, how many human biological sexes do you think the speaker believes there are? I'm sure we agree the answer must be more than two given the first quote.

After that, it seems like a rather slippery slope between three and 30+ (and really no point in the extended judgesplaining about the 30+ if she was just angling for three).

[Sarcastr0]

Why do you assume that's a question with an answer?

Isn't the thing about intersex that it becomes fuzzy so once you include them in the set nailing down an exact number is not a casual question?

[Life of Brian]

I presume that's the work the "+" is supposed to do in "30+."

But Noscitur said it was "stupid" to take her statements at face value, so apparently he must see a clear rationale somewhere in her diatribe for something less than 30+ despite her going out of her way to mention that number and grind through a litany of examples.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No."

Why bring it up then?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'll bite. Given those statements, how many human biological sexes do you think the speaker believes there are? I'm sure we agree the answer must be more than two given the first quote.

I think that Judge Reyes, like most proponents of gender ideology, has a pretty muddled idea of the whole thing, and I doubt she has a clear answer. But in this portion of the hearing, she doesn’t say anything remotely implying that each of her “intersex examples” is a different sex. Rather, her logic is:

1. The order claims everyone is either male or female;
2. Intersex people are neither male or female;
3. There are a lot of different conditions that make someone intersex, so it’s not just a weird edge case; and therefore
4. The order is based on a flawed premise.

There are some problems with the logic and the conclusion, but none of it suggests anything about 30 sexes. And thinking it does is, well, stupid.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The gymnastics that some people are willing to do to avoid the clear import of the judge's claim -- that the judge thinks there are 30+ sexes-- is impressive.

I mean, she also said that the order literally erases trans people, so it's not like we should be crediting her with any form of rationality.

[David Nieporent]

The "gymnastics" consisting of… looking at her actual words.

[not guilty]

The complaint at footnote 1 quotes the hearing transcript:

“[T]his executive order is premised on an assertion that’s not biologically correct. There are anywhere near about 30 different intersex examples. So, someone who does not have just an XX or XY chromosome is not just male or female; they're intersex. And there are over 30 potential different intersex examples.”

https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/misconduct_complaint_final_2.pdf

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

So she is an idiot. Just like I suggested.

[Commenter_XY]

The judge was simply incorrect on a matter of biology.

Every living human being will have XX or XY, but a very, very small number (way less than 2%) will have XX+? or XY+?. Life is incompatible with X or Y alone, or YY.

[Brett Bellmore]

And an even tinier proportion have XX with a tiny bit of the Y chromosome translocated onto another chromosome.

But every rule has edge cases. Doesn't mean you can't have a rule that actually is accurate for well over 99% of the population. Has the judge never heard of "close enough for government work"?

[Noscitur a sociis]

WHY hasn't someone filed a motion to impeach her?

Well for one thing, judges can only be impeached by Congress, so filing a motion doesn’t seem terribly productive.

[David Nieporent]

I'll take door #2.

A) Nothing in there is mocking anyone's faith. (I am still mystified as to how anyone here knows what Lynch's faith even is, but in any case, she wasn't insulting Christianity.)

B) Reyes was making a point! Lynch was in the process of claiming that Trump's order to discharge all trans soldiers because they're liars was not a display of animus. So Reyes was illustrating how ludicrous such a claim was. Like I said, if you don't understand that it was a rhetorical example, you need to learn English. (There is another possibility, which I neglected to mention but which is highly likely: you have no idea what actually happened in the courtroom and were just told to be outraged by some MAGA twitter account.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So Reyes was illustrating how ludicrous such a claim was."

No she wasn't.

Do you seriously think she that in order to attempt to make that claim, she somehow had to throw personal religious views about homeless people into the mix?

The hoops you guys will jump through to defend this is amazing.

[David Nieporent]

Do you seriously think she that in order to attempt to make that claim, she somehow had to throw personal religious views about homeless people into the mix?

No, I don't seriously think that. Please try to keep up. This discussion is about two separate things she said.

#1 was the thing about Jesus.

#2 was the thing about UVa grads.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you seriously think she that in order to attempt to make that claim, she somehow had to throw personal religious views about homeless people into the mix?

That’s not the part that David Nieporent is talking about. He’s talking about the stuff the judge said about UVA law graduates. And he is obviously correct that the judge’a comments were clearly in service of a rhetorical point about animus, not an expression of her actual views.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fair enough. It would be nice to have a consistent referencing system around here.

[David Nieporent]

in service of a rhetorical point about animus

And I just want to emphasize that this is a self-inflicted wound… from a legal perspective. Trump could have justified his no-trans-in-the-military order by talking about it being disruptive to accommodate in the context of the military. But Trump wasn't trying to win a legal argument; he was trying to win applause on Fox and Twitter. So he had to say that trans people were all crazy liars, because that's what his MAGA base wants. ("The cruelty is the point.") So the issue of animus comes to the fore.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, I don't have strong views on the UVA portion, although it seems a little over the top.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Who mocked anyone's faith?"

Me. I mocked the judge's belief that Trump's EO was literally erasing trans people, and her belief that there are 30 sexes.

But I believe the mockery was justified.

[hobie]

Looks like Zelenski is willing to fall on his sword for his people. He's also summoning a European coalition separate from the Trump/Putin axis.

You know what I see here? I see a leader and a people who have shown over and over in behavior and battle that they are tougher than the two superpowers. Perhaps they can lead Europe

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when the Bundeswehr deploys troops.

[hobie]

Frankie 'Wounded Warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran, given a chance where ALL things are equal except the people, which army would you rather face: Ukraine, Russia, America, or Germany?

[Bob from Ohio]

Germany. Not even a close call.

180,000 in all branches, unionized, pathetic spending level.

[hobie]

Let me rephrase...which army would you least want to face?

[Bob from Ohio]

US of course.

[Frank Drackman]

None of them, I've been in a Wah, have you?

[hobie]

'America's neediest veteran'. I'm getting that trademarked, BTW. So don't use it without permission

[Frank Drackman]

I know, I know, you'll sick one of your Niggers on me

[hobie]

Nobody here does a thing to help anyone unless money is involved. I ain't proud of it. The upshot is you're safe

[Commenter_XY]

Zelenskyy wants NATO membership in exchange for stepping down, which is not happening.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ukraine now needs NATO membership because Trump is willing to withdraw and let Putin have his way.

[Commenter_XY]

Dan, UKR is not even an EU member. EU membership comes with certain known obligations and regulatory structures....which UKR has consciously rejected for years and years. Maybe you can tell me the NATO members in continental europe who aren't EU members.

If the EU refuses to grant UKR membership, why on earth should NATO?

The time for UKR NATO membership came and went.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The ONLY reason Turkey is in it is because we needed their mountains as electronic listening posts.

[hobie]

Ukraine has shown they're the fiercest army on the continent and, unlike many of the Eastern Bloc members and the US, not quasi-loyal to Putin. Why wouldn't NATO be beating down the door to recruit them?

[Frank Drackman]

Wow! think how'd fierce they'd be if they drafted 18-25yr olds!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Albania, Montenegro . . . there are a few others, who are in NATO but not the EU. And of course Turkey. These are all geographically close to Ukraine.

If NATO wants Ukraine to join the EU as a condition of joining NATO, conditions having changed so much in recent years, I don't think they would refuse.

[Josh R]

Ukraine was invited to apply for EU membership shortly after Russia invaded. In mid-2024, the EU started membership negotiations which continue as of now.

If Ukraine gains EU membership, do you have an objection to NATO membership?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I would = objection to UKR NATO membership

But it is an objection that could be addressed and overcome in time. I would need to see how UKR actually performs within EU's regulatory framework over time.

[Josh R]

And the meantime, how would you keep Putin from taking over Ukraine (by invasion or puppet government)?

[Commenter_XY]

You make RUS a part of the security guarantee when an armistice is negotiated. That involves compromise, Josh R, not capitulation. The Abraham Accords are a useful framework to have in mind, as we think of ways to incent RUS to be a guarantor of UKR security.

[Josh R]

Russia will guarantee Ukraine's security ... from Russia. WTF?

How does the framework of the Abraham Accords apply to Russia being incented to guarantee Ukraine's security?

[Absaroka]

"You make RUS a part of the security guarantee"

That's old news; Russia (and the US!) gave security guarantees to Ukraine in 1994, as an incentive for Ukraine to give up being a nuclear power.

Speaking of things that didn't work out very well.

Aren't you fond of the adage about doing the same thing and expecting different results being the definition of insanity? Why should Ukraine believe Russian guarantees now?

(strictly speaking, Russia, America, and the UK agreed to not use force against Ukraine. America and the UK haven't.)

[David Nieporent]

You make RUS a part of the security guarantee

What language is this, because it's not English? Russia will agree to defend Ukraine against Russia if Russia attacks Ukraine?

(Note that Russia already agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity when Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons it possessed.)

[David Nieporent]

UKR has consciously rejected for years and years.

Ukraine has been working towards EU membership for years and years, and was on a direct path towards joining until their Russian puppet government sabotaged that in 2014, leading to the Revolution of Dignity.

Maybe you can tell me the NATO members in continental europe who aren't EU members.

The UK, Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, and Turkey.

If the EU refuses to grant UKR membership, why on earth should NATO?

The EU has not refused to grant Ukraine membership, and indeed has accelerated that process after the Russian invasion. And also, NATO and the EU are entirely unrelated with entirely different missions, so even if your premise were correct — which it isn't — your question wouldn't make any sense.

[Commenter_XY]

UKR has had years, Dan. Since the 90's. They did not meet EU requirements, chiefly b/c of corruption, and an unwillingness to impose any fiscal discipline. UKR political leadership made bad choices over the years.

It is lunacy to even entertain the idea of NATO membership for UKR. America has already stated it isn't happening. So until 2028, the discussion is off the table.

UKR is not worth a single American life. Not even one.

[David Nieporent]

1) I'm David, not Dan.

2) You're just repeating talking points at this point. You made a series of claims, I responded to/rebutted them — whatever happened in the past, Ukraine is on a short path to EU membership now — and you've just reverted to the previous talking points.

[Commenter_XY]

My apologies Dan David.

You rebutted nothing. You confirmed that UKR is not an EU member, hasn't been able to obtain EU membership for many years, and is not a NATO member (and won't be).

[David Nieporent]

You rebutted nothing.

You contended that Ukraine should not be a member of NATO because (a) it couldn't qualify for EU membership; and (b) countries that aren't in the EU shouldn't be in NATO. Your first claim was wrong, and your second claim (besides being a non-sequitur) ignored reality.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"UKR is not worth a single American life. Not even one."

Does that include scum with no value whatsoever, like you?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, it does. 🙂

[hobie]

Why should you care? You and Trump have made plain you want USA out of NATO, so why should you care who gets to join?

[Dr. Ed 2]

John Bolton made a point once -- many world leaders expect to die in office, either from natural causes or not.

Zelenski fully expects to die in office and has nothing left to lose -- he probably is corrupt to extents unimaginable and knows that, at best, he'd be facing some Nuremburg-style trial.

Look at Saddam Hussain. Enough said?

[David Nieporent]

Zelenski fully expects to die in office and has nothing left to lose -- he probably is corrupt to extents unimaginable and knows that, at best, he'd be facing some Nuremburg-style trial.

I don't know who "Zelenski" is, but Zelensky, also spelled Zelenskyy, is not expecting to die in office, has plenty to lose, there's no reason to think he's corrupt, and he would not be facing a Nuremberg-style trial.

Look at Saddam Hussain. Enough said?

I'm torn in responding to that. It's not enough said to make anything resembling a coherent point, but it's way too much said by someone who knows nothing about nothing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't know who "Zelenski" is"

I note you didn't correct Hobie, who made the same small error.

Have you ever tried not being a pedantic a-hole?

[hobie]

I invoke creative license. His name in English is actually spelled Zelenskyy (in Russian 'Зеленський). But the Ukrainians distinguish their language from Russian with different uses of 'i' instead of 'y' when translating the letter 'yota' (й). It helps if you speak both languages.

[Bob from Ohio]

It is a trivial error, only gleefully pedantic a-holes would even comment on it.

[David Nieporent]

Have you ever tried not being a pedantic a-hole?

Yes. But it's not as much fun. Also, Dr. Ed spells people's names wrong all the time. (He can't even get a simple one like Mark Levin correct!)

[Bob from Ohio]

So what? Everybody knew who he was talking about.

Ukraine uses the Cyrillic alphabet so technically you spelled it wrong too.

[hobie]

Nobody spelled it right...technically

[John F. Carr]

Today marks three years of full scale war in Ukraine. Trump's people are right to say there is no sign Ukraine can get back to its internationally recognized borders. If Trump cuts off American aid it is still possible for Russia to reach Kiev.

If Jake Sullivan had been less afraid of the big bad bear in late 2021 Ukraine would be in a much better state.

[Dan Schiavetta]

status quo = Putin is rewarded for aggression and will try it again, perhaps elsewhere, knowing that thus far Trump has not made any demands on him, while heaping demands and insults on Ukraine

[Brett Bellmore]

It is painfully obvious that any settlement needs some mechanism to deter future Russian aggression, or it's just a pause for Putin to catch his breath before the next invasion. There needs to be some trigger present for a larger conflict than Putin has an appetite for.

It is also painfully obvious that we can no longer afford to extend expensive and risky security guarantees without compensation. Actually, we haven't been able to afford to for some time now, which is why we've got the national debt we do.

So, the deal Trump offered was the trigger of US troops being on the ground in border areas, in return for financial concessions to make up for the cost and risk.

I'm fine with that because, as I've said before, we're about tapped out, and can no longer afford to give security guarantees away for free.

Apparently Zelensky isn't objecting to the mineral deal in principle, he just wants to make sure the security guarantee is expressly part of it, rather than it just representing a payment for services already rendered.

They're just haggling over the terms now.

[John F. Carr]

Somebody needs to be volunteered to play the role of speed bump, like the armored cavalry regiment in the Fulda Gap during the late Cold War.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "It is also painfully obvious that we can no longer afford to extend expensive and risky security guarantees without compensation. Actually, we haven't been able to afford to for some time now, which is why we've got the national debt we do"

Two Points:

1. We've all seen you be a strong supporter of Ukraine's fight against Russia. But the minute Dear Leader tries to shake-down Ukraine on the way to betraying it, you fall in line to perform your Cult duties. There's nothing "painfully obvious" about needing "compensation" to continue supporting Ukraine. It's made-up nonsense.

2. Please, Brett - For the sake of us all, stop your hypocritical play-acting on the "national debt". On that subject at least, cut everyone some slack. Doge & Trump & Musk are going to crudely hack a few score billion from the budget while the the GOP passes a 4.5 trillion dollar tax cut bill. The debt will explode. You must know this. You've voted pro-federal-deficit every election your entire life (see note below). Even you must concede how empty and hollow your every word on the subject is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/us/politics/republican-tax-cuts-trump.html

Note : Assertion based on the assumption Brett's politics have remained consistently GOP over the decades.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the decades in THIS millennium. Up until '98 I consistently voted Libertarian.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dan, I don't think that Putin (personally) will pull another one of these -- I am surprised he is still alive.

Even more than Afghanistan, this has become Russia's Vietnam, and it was 30 years and a massive terrorist attack before we went into Afghanistan ourselves.

And Russia doesn't have the economy we do.

[bernard11]

And if this is Russia's Vietnam, why are letting them off the hook?

Why not up the support for Ukraine until the Russian Army just collapses? Why snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Is a major degradation of Russian military strength worthless to us?

Ah. But Trump says so, so the cultists fall in line.

[Martinned2]

The Russians can't keep up this level of fighting indefinitely. I've seen reliable commentators estimating that they'll run out of steam by the end of the year. So I don't see why Ukraine wouldn't be able to kick the Russians out of its territory by the autumn of next year.

[Brett Bellmore]

They might be able to, with continued support. But then what? As soon as the support ends, the Russians come back.

[Martinned2]

That depends on who recovers from the war more quickly. And I don't see why that should be Russia, particularly since Ukraine will still have the backing of the entire Western world minus the US.

[Absaroka]

'the Russians' != 'Putin'. Putin isn't immortal, and I doubt his successor would look at at the Special Military Action as something to emulate. TBH, if Putin could get in a time machine and go back in time, I dunno if he would have started it either. I doubt 'become a client state of North Korea' was one of his 2022 New Year's resolutions.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Russia does withdraw from occupying neighboring areas if the drain becomes too much. They withdrew from Afghanistan, for example.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Russia invades with what soldiers?

[Bob from Ohio]

"They might be able to"

Doubtful. Western weapons can only do so much. Where are they getting the manpower? A meat grinder for another 20 months and then victory! Its delusional.

[Commenter_XY]

We heard that a year ago. And two years ago. = The Russians can't keep up this level of fighting indefinitely.

Why is the third time a charm?
What has changed, aside from UKR losing territory?

[Martinned2]

UKR gaining territory?

[Absaroka]

"What has changed, aside from UKR losing territory?"

Dunno how closely you have been tracking things, but Russia has been able to sustain it's burn rate by refurbing stored USSR era equipment and recruiting older and older men. The USSR era storage parks aren't empty, but at current burn rates will be towards the end of 2025[1]. The average age of recruits keeps going up - I think it's pushing 50 - and it can't go up forever. It's kind of mindboggling to field an army of 50 year olds, but sending out 70 year olds seems even less practical. The payments used to attract recruits are increasing exponentially, which hints that the manpower pool is thinning out.

Now, Putin could go all Great Patriotic War and start drafting 18 year old Muscovites (to date the cannon fodder has mostly been rural). The fact that he hasn't indicates he thinks doing so is politically risky. I tend to think he probably has an accurate feel for that.

(and to once again repeat: the Ukrs are also stretched thin. My position is not 'the Ukrs will definitely win'; it is that without inside knowledge from both countries no one can accurately predict the outcome at this point)

[1]that's a squishy number, of course. It's easy to say 'tank storage base #57 has shipped 2/3 of it's pre-war inventory', because they are parked in the open. It's hard to know how many of the remaining 1/3 can be shipped, in what time frame, and with how much effort. From the overheads, it's not like they just work from one side to the other of the parking lot. I'd guess they pulled the ones that are closest to running first, but it's hard to know if they will eventually fix all of them, or if some are so broken or have been so cannibalized they aren't salvageable.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The payments used to attract recruits are increasing exponentially,"

And are already so high that you'd have to be both desperate AND gullible to believe they'll actually be paid in full.

The key question is munitions, actually, and the limits we've been putting on their use. In order to win the war, Ukraine really has to take the war home to Russia to a degree they haven't previously.

[Absaroka]

"And are already so high that you'd have to be both desperate AND gullible to believe they'll actually be paid in full."

Could you share your source that that aren't being paid as promised? These are enlistment bonuses, not pensions or something. If they aren't being paid promptly, two years in, I don't think they would be much of an incentive.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd seen some crazy high number somewhere. I just now did a search and, while the bonus has been rising dramatically as time goes by, it's apparently only up to $30K American, so I withdraw my incredulity.

[Absaroka]

IIUC, it varies dramatically over time and region. I'm not sure of the dynamic. My sense is that perhaps the regional 'governors' feel they have to cough up X many warm bodies, and pay whatever that takes however they can, lest they suffer one of the fenestral accidents plaguing Russia these days.

[Commenter_XY]

A, I go by the battlefield reality.

Reality: RUS has taken Crimea, and an additional ~20% of UKR.
Reality: UKR does not have the manpower RUS have.
Reality: RUS have the political will to continue the meat grinder

It is time for everyone to cut their losses, which are substantial.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So I don't see why Ukraine wouldn't be able to kick the Russians out of its territory by the autumn of next year."

You don't see a lot of things.

You want them to fight for another 20+ months. Glad to see you are willing to fight to the last Ukranian.

[Martinned2]

I wouldn't mind them fighting to the last American too. World domination has its price and all that.

[Bob from Ohio]

Of course.

I hope all Dutch aren't like you, otherwise we wasted some brave GIs in 1944.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck, dude.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

"I wouldn't mind them fighting to the last American too."

This didn't trigger Sarcastr0, but somehow this did:

"I hope all Dutch aren't like you, otherwise we wasted some brave GIs in 1944."

[Commenter_XY]

I know, I know....that outlook is precisely why he is stunned with what's happening in DC.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

None of your many ostensible degrees involved recognizing sarcasm, apparently.

[Martinned2]

If you want to stop punishing countries for defending their freedom and democracy, go right ahead. But as long as the US insists on telling other countries what to do, and punishing them if they don't listen, you can expect to be called out on it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its only because of the US that people in Europe have "freedom and democracy". You could try being a tiny bit grateful.

[ducksalad]

You could say that, leaving out the "only", for the parts of Europe from France eastward to the Iron Curtain.

Eastern Europe, Spain, Portugal, not so much.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Eastern Europe, Spain, Portugal, not so much."

Absolutely true for Eastern Europe. We stood up to the Soviet Union for 40 years until they broke.

[ducksalad]

Bit rich to claim that after FDR quite deliberately gave Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union at Yalta. He may not have had realsitic alternatives, but he did smile and agree to it.

And I'm of the opinion that Soviet communism inherently doomed them to fall behind. We put pressure on them, perhaps making it fail sooner, but I don't think communism would have done great if not for us wrecking it. I would hope you agree.

[bernard11]

We stood up to the Soviet Union for 40 years until they broke.

I'd say the many weaknesses of their system had a lot to do with it. The whole thing was a house of cards, and could only last until the wind blew in.

[Martinned2]

It's only because of the Europe that people in the US have freedom and democracy. Everything you have you borrowed from us. If you're going to go back in history, why stop at World War II?

[bernard11]

Glad to see you are willing to fight to the last Ukranian.

Wouldn't the question whether Ukraine is willing to fight to the last Ukrainian, given American support?

[Frank Drackman]

You mean the light at the end of the tunnel???

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I've seen reliable commentators estimating that they'll run out of steam by the end of the year."

We've been seeing that every year.

[ThePublius]

I think Putin is more interested in Odessa than Kiev.

[Krayt]

"It's too much" is the kind of hot air oppositional state trolling would anonymously say. You guys, I mean we, are spending too much!

Did it work?

"Thanks, Gramps!"

"Thanks, Gramps!", 2.0

Now abandonment in favor of dictatorial tanks, blame the victim on top of it.

[Krayt]

Rats! Accidental back and forward severed this response from its post.

Lemme see which of many in here I was responding to.

Uhhhh. All of them.

[Martinned2]

Maybe someone here can answer my question about this case: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2025/02/court-das-witchcraft-accusations-were-a-bit-over-the-line.html

Obviously this story is all sorts of amazing, and the decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico is quite correct, but I just wonder why it is that the supreme court had to get involved in the first place. How is it possible that this behaviour from the prosecutor didn't lead to a) the trial court throwing the case out, or b) the jury acquitting?

[John F. Carr]

New Mexico is the state where a woman got a restraining order against David Letterman to stop him from thinking about her.

[Martinned2]

Ooh, that's amazing! (In a bad way, obviously.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/letterman-restraining-order-tossed/

(Although again I wonder why Letterman/CBS bothered to hire lawyers and get that restraining order thrown out. I'd have thought ignoring it would be the most sensible response.)

[hobie]

Get with the progrom, Martin. The state is now called New America.

[Magister]

Program or pogrom?

[hobie]

My little play on spelling: pogrom

[Frank Drackman]

Did you say your wife was a Nagger? or is she White?

[Magister]

I found it ambiguous enough to ask; sorry if you preferred to leave only subtle ambiguity.

[Martinned2]

Another TRO against DOGE: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.576070/gov.uscourts.mdd.576070.38.0.pdf

[hobie]

US Tesla orders have dropped 11% since December

[Martinned2]

11%? That's peanuts compared to Europe, where Volkswagen is now the biggest selling EV manufacturer.

https://www.motor1.com/news/749660/tesla-sales-results-january-2025/

https://x.com/ton_aarts/status/1893557553688162435

[Brett Bellmore]

EV sales in general tanked when the EV mandate was canceled, they were largely being driven by mandates and subsidies. Tesla's sales will tank the least.

[Martinned2]

The former is definitely an example of what happens elsewhere too:

German EV sales increased more than 40% on an annual basis in January, but French EV sales dropped 15% year-on-year. This was mainly because of a weight tax being implemented on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) from January onwards, which prompted consumers to buy more of such vehicles in December, to avoid the tax.

https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/02/12/global-electric-vehicle-sales-for-january-reveal-us-driven-spurt

As for whether Elon Musk setting the Federal government on fire will play well with the sorts of people who buy electric vehicles, let's wait and see.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you don't reach 75% market share on the basis of people picking you for ideological reasons, but it is a fair point that EV buyers are not representative of the nation in terms of their politics.

The thing is, a lot of the single digit manufacturers who were already players in the ICE vehicle market were driven to produce EVs for sale due to those mandates, so it's going to be hard to remain an EV buyer AND boycott Musk at the same time, as they drop out of the market.

It's funny, people accused Trump of running for President in order to cash in, when what really happened is that it cost him easily half his net worth, and predictably so.

Now people are repeating that claim with Musk. The big difference is that Musk's economic strength is on a completely different scale from Trump's, so while he might take a hit on the basis of political boycotts and idiots defacing Teslas, it's unlikely to be enough to disturb the general trajectory.

[Martinned2]

It's funny, people accused Trump of running for President in order to cash in, when what really happened is that it cost him easily half his net worth, and predictably so.

Unrelated to EVs, but how do you figure? It kept him out of jail, for one. And it allowed him to receive lots of money from Saudis and who knows who else for hotel rooms, golf courses, NFTs, shares in DJT, etc. The grift must be running in the billions by now.

[bernard11]

Yes. As Martin asks, "how do you figure?"

Given that nothing Trump says should be believed, I'm going to ask for some statements prepared by actual independent accountants before I buy that BS.

[hobie]

What are you talking about? Trump didn't spend a dime. And Musk's payola of $277B got him his junior VP position. If you ever abhorred bought-and-payed-for politicians, you should feel so now. The criminality of all this stinks to high hell

[grb]

And let's not forget how Jared Kushner has cashed-in. The Saudis led off with a two billion dollar investment. The Saudi investment fund managers rejected his proposal, finding Kushner's firm as risky/under-performing and his fees too high. No matter, Prince Mohammad bin Salman intervened to complete the payoff.

And then Qatar and the UAE ponied-up another 1.5 billion after Trump's victory. They understandably decided you can't be a shrinking violet when it comes to bribing this White House. We've come a long way from being shocked (shocked!) at little Hunter leeching off his daddy's name, haven't we?

And let's not forget Trump. After his first election, Mar-a-Lago doubled its membership fees and anyone who paid could play - making his or her pitch directly to Trump. But that's small potatoes next to DJT's memecoin scam. He is selling an absolutely worthless product that allows anyone to hand-over any amount of cash with total anonymity if they desire.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/chinese-entrepreneur-sued-fraud-invests-30-million-trump/story?id=116499146

[hobie]

I think the long-form subtitle of the Abraham Accords (now shattered to pieces, BTW) is the Abraham/Affinity Partners (Kushner) Accords

[Martinned2]

This could get unpleasant:

Vertical Stare Decisis
Vasan Kesavan
Yale Law School

Abstract
The subject of stare decisis has occupied considerable scholarly attention over the years, so much so that one could fill a small log cabin with its pages. Yet one massively understudied aspect of stare decisis is its "vertical" application in a judicial hierarchy. Nearly everyone assumes or believes that the Constitution requires inferior federal courts to obey Supreme Court precedents no matter what. This is what a constitutional rule of "vertical stare decisis" entails. The Supreme Court certainly thinks so. But is that right?

This Article challenges the conventional view and upends it. Based on a careful review of the Constitution's text, structure, and history, it concludes that the Constitution does not prescribe a rule of vertical stare decisis for inferior federal courts and never has. Inferior federal courts must therefore avoid blind obedience to Supreme Court precedents; they are not the agents of the Supreme Court, as the President's subordinates are the agents of the President. Inferior federal courts have not merely the power, but the general duty, to disobey Supreme Court precedents that are demonstrably erroneous and conflict with positive law, especially the Constitution which is the nation's supreme, paramount, and fundamental law. That said, Congress retains considerable power to fashion some rules of vertical stare decisis for statutory cases.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5149331

[Brett Bellmore]

That could indeed get really ugly if some of the lower courts start an open rebellion against following Supreme court precedent. Especially if the circuit courts got into the act.

I think they've got no legal case at all, it's just sophistry to avoid having to accept they've lost these legal arguments. But at the same time the usual mechanisms for bringing them to heel are lacking. Reinhardt was notorious for saying that "They can't catch 'em all." by which he meant that the Supreme court simply lacked the time to deal with a judge who refused to follow it's precedents, that he could violate their precedents faster than they could reverse him.

That's exponentially truer if 'Reinhardtism' catches on.

And the Senate supermajority to impeach will obviously be lacking, too, so long as the rebel judges are doing the left's will.

The Court, however, is not lacking in weapons. If I were one of those judges, I'd be very concerned about the phrase, "under the color of law". While judges are not ordinarily worried about title 18, section 242, the Supreme court could easily put the fear of it into them, acting in concert with the DOJ.

"TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. "

Facially, judges are not immune to this law.

[ducksalad]

Facially, that law means a police officer who makes an arrest when he knows his valid suspicion doesn't really quite rise to the level of probable cause, while openly carrying his usual firearm, is subject to a 10-year sentence. Not very likely to happen.

In the unlikely event Paula Bondi and Kash Patel got to the point where they started wholesale indicting and arresting judges, I doubt it would hinge on whether the judges followed SC precedent.

But (the lawyers can help me out here) between indictment and arrest, isn't there still an intermediate step of getting an arrest warrant signed by a federal judge?

[Noscitur a sociis]

But (the lawyers can help me out here) between indictment and arrest, isn't there still an intermediate step of getting an arrest warrant signed by a federal judge?

Yes, but it’s ministerial. When an indictment is returned, Fed. R. Crim. P. 9(a) requires the judge to issue a warrant if the prosecutor asks for one.

[ducksalad]

Well, that sucks, and to a layman seems to defeat the purpose of having a judge sign. But thanks for the information.

[David Nieporent]

But thanks for the information.

Speaking of information, what NaS describes applies only after an indictment. If it's an information instead of an indictment, then Fed. R. Crim. P. 9 does require the judge to scrutinize to make sure there's probable cause.

[Commenter_XY]

David, do you think this vertical stare decisis has legs? Will it gain traction, enough that a judge just might try it?

[David Nieporent]

No. As John Roberts said, law reviews contain plenty of articles on the Influence of Immanuel Kant on Evidentiary Approaches in Eighteenth Century Bulgaria.

[not guilty]

Brett, due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope. This fair warning requirement specifically applies to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242. United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). "The principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed." Id., at 265, quoting >i?Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 351 (1964), and United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954).

A prosecution under section 242 requires the government to show that prior judicial decisions gave reasonable warning that the conduct at issue violated constitutional rights. Lanier, 520 U.S. at 269. Can you cite any precedent whereby a federal judge deciding a case wrongly on the merits is a criminal offense?

[Brett Bellmore]

"The principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed."

And the Court, (In the context of the sort of judicial rebellion here suggested.) could rule that judges are expected to reasonably understand that deliberately violating Supreme court precedents is proscribed, and so such violations which deny people their rights are properly subject to prosecution under this section.

I'm saying that this provides the Court with a very serious weapon they could use, if the proposed rebellion against vertical stare decisis actually started happening.

[John F. Carr]

Vertical stare decisis is not going away in any of our common law jurisdictions, nor will the Supreme Court allow the civil law jurisdictions to openly refuse to accept Supreme Court precedent. They can disrespect their own highest courts if they like.

[Don Nico]

Interesting statistics about Russia's economy:
There was a robust increase in Russia’s federal budget revenues during 2024 of 28 per cent year-on-year (y-o-y) in ruble terms on the back of continued economic growth of about 4 per cent. Due to the ruble depreciation, revenues were up by 18 per cent y-o-y in US dollar terms.

[Commenter_XY]

RUS is not hurting, they have energy sales out the wazoo.

[bernard11]

That's nominal. What was the ruble inflation rate? That is, what was the real increase?

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is one thing the previous German gov ernment had in common with the AfD.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-online-hate-speech-prosecution-60-minutes/

[apedad]

Jeffries urges full Dem attendance for GOP budget vote: ‘Pivotal’

The package features a crackdown on immigration, an increase in domestic energy production and $4.5 trillion in tax cuts to be partially offset by $2 trillion in cuts to other federal programs. It would also increase spending for the military and border security, while hiking the debt limit by $4 trillion.

Republican leaders have very little room with which to play. With their current majority of 218-215 they can afford one GOP defection. Two would sink the bill.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5161008-jeffries-urges-full-dem-attendance-for-gop-budget-vote-pivotal/

" . . . while hiking the debt limit by $4 trillion."

It must suck so bad to be a Republican right now.

[ducksalad]

It must suck so bad to be a Republican right now.

Does anyone else notice that Mike Johnson looks terrified almost every time he appears in public, but especially when he's standing in back while Trump is speaking?

He looks like an innocent high school freshman who agreed to go out for a ride with some seniors, and now realizes he's trapped in a car heading to a rumble.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It must suck so bad to be a Republican right now.

Somehow, they will survive with their control of three branches of government.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

O'Keefe and the patriots at OMG uncovered a coup plot between Pentagon leadership and retired generals.

Over the weekend, listening devices were discovered hidden in the Resolute Desk.

Is this normal and tolerable?

[Commenter_XY]

more likely explanation vis a vis Resolute Desk (I had to laugh when I read it).

https://nypost.com/2025/02/20/us-news/trump-swaps-out-resolute-desk-in-the-oval-office-days-after-elon-musks-son-x-appeared-to-wipe-booger-on-it/

[Brett Bellmore]

That kid's pretty impressive if he's producing boogers that can force the desk to be reconditioned outside the office, rather than cleaned. Well, maybe the straw that broke the camel's back.

[ducksalad]

Or maybe we've found Trump's secret weakness.

Panama can keep the canal, simply by posting some videos where they flick boogers onto the locks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not so much of a secret weakness, he's a notorious germophobe.

[Brett Bellmore]

For now at least, these stories are unconfirmed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Note for new readers: when Bret Bellmore calls a crazy story “unconfirmed”, you can take it as “obviously and immediately revealed as fake”.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Except for the confession on video, you mean.

[grb]

So DOGE has released its first documentation and multiple reviews have shown the numbers replete with massive errors:

"The math that could back up those checks is marred with accounting errors, incorrect assumptions, outdated data and other mistakes.... Some contracts the group claims credit for were double- or triple-counted. Another initially contained an error that inflated the totals by billions of dollars. In at least one instance, the group claimed an entire contract had been canceled when only part of the work had been halted."

https://jabberwocking.com/doge-has-saved-taxpayers-about-0-33-of-the-federal-budget/

But it's hardly surprising that numbers from Trump and Musk are dishonest and/or incompetent bungling. But here's something that is :

"A month into Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s much-hyped efforts to root out fraudulent and wasteful spending by government agencies, not a single instance of fraud or waste has been discovered."

As Kevin Drum notes :

"Fraud as a percentage of federal spending is pretty small, but it still amounts to a lot of dollars. If you wanted to highlight fraud, it wouldn't be hard to find. There are new real cases of Medicare and Medicaid fraud all the time, along with some lesser known programs, and it wouldn't take much to dig them up and flog them hard on Fox News. You only need two or three to make it look like we're drowning in fraud. So why not do it? First off, Trump and Musk probably don't really care. Second, it does require actual work to root out real fraud. And third, even the MAGA crowd might be a little cynical these days about "waste fraud 'n abuse." Maybe it's just been overused."

https://jabberwocking.com/wheres-the-fraud/

[Commenter_XY]

Baruch Dayan Ha'Emet: Roberta Flack

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/24/roberta-flack-grammy-winning-singer-of-killing-me-softly-with-his-song-dies-at-88.html

I remember listening to that song so many times on the radio. Great song.

[grb]

Great song indeed.

[hobie]

Second song I learned on the piano. The first being The Rainbow Connection. Loves me some Kermit

[bernard11]

Amen to these comments, and RIP, Roberta Flack.

[Martinned2]

Wait, what? Trump has sued a judge of the Brazilian supreme court in his official capacity in US federal court in Florida? Have his lawyers completely lost their minds? I mean, sure, I get why he would disagree with the Brazilian court judgments, but surely someone in Trump's crack legal team must understand that this won't work.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69650977/trump-media-technology-group-corp-v-de-moraes/?order_by=desc

[hobie]

Well now, wait a minute. Exactly which federal court in Florida?

[David Nieporent]

It's not assigned to Judge Cannon, if that's what you're suggesting. (It's not even the SDFL; it's the MDFL.)

It's not as outrageous as it sounds. Trump — it's not him personally, it's his fake TruthSocial company, along with Rumble — is not seeking damages; he/they are seeking a declaratory judgment that a Brazilian court order is not enforceable in the U.S. I don't know anything at all about the case, but on its face it might have merit.

[Martinned2]

Quite possibly, but with that defendant??? Wouldn't they have to sue the original plaintiff, or whoever else might seek to enforce the Brazilian court order in the US? My precedent here is that Chevron in Ecuador saga.

[David Nieporent]

Wouldn't they have to sue the original plaintiff, or whoever else might seek to enforce the Brazilian court order in the US?

Quite possibly, right back at you. I haven't looked into or put any thought into the procedural aspects of the case. I was just examining the substance of the request, because trying to get damages from a foreign judge because the judge ruled against him would be insane and thus not surprising from Trump. But trying to stop a foreign court order from being enforced is not inherently crazy.

[Martinned2]

I was reminded that all the retirees on this blog seem to have glossed over this little gem pretty quickly too:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday said his administration was examining U.S. Treasury debt payments for possible fraud and suggested that the country's $36 trillion debt load might not be that high.
(...)
"It could be that a lot of those things don't count. In other words, that some of that stuff that we're finding is very fraudulent, therefore maybe we have less debt than we thought."

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/trump-says-us-might-have-less-debt-than-thought-2025-02-09/

[ThePublius]

What does that havve to do with retirees?

[Ed Grinberg]

In addition to detesting you for being an American, he also detests you for being old. A real swell guy!

[Martinned2]

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

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I can assure you that this federal annuitant is well aware. The DOGEbags are surely coming for my pension, and probably the money I stupidly continue to leave in the Thrift Savings Plan.

[Commenter_XY]

The TSP is an amazing plan, AWD. Stay invested.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Major League was on yesterday. RIP Bob Uecker.

The film is a classic sports film with a wonderful cast.

Meanwhile, another starting Mets pitcher got hurt. The manager announced he is reassured by the depth of the team's pitching pool. I didn't know he was such a comedian.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh Those Bases on Balls!

[bernard11]

"Just a bit outside."

"What league did you play in last year?"
"California penal."

[Commenter_XY]

Fellow Tribe Members who refuse to eat jarred gefilte fish, and are looking for an EZ recipe. VC Conspirator Bored Lawyer casually remarked to me some time ago his spouse made gefilte fish, using loaves. Well, that got Commenter_XY busy in his kitchen for the many months.

And I found an awesome recipe for gefilte fish loaf (I use Ungar's, and AB sweet is great, if you can get it). This is Za'atar crusted gefilte fish with wasabi aioli. It is easy AF to make, and hard to screw up. The wasabi aioli really, really makes this. I didn't think za'atar would pair well, but it sure did.

https://jamiegeller.com/recipes/zaatar-crusted-gefilte-fish/

Prep time is 15 minutes, and cook time is about 1.25 hours. If you're near a wegmans, look for NY souk spices za'atar. It will be there. Otherwise, it is amazon or a shop rite with a Kosher Experience section. Make sure it (za'atar) is well mixed.

Enjoy!

[ThePublius]

Oy. I'm a BIC (Bronx Irish Catholic) and as such was exposed to much Jewish culture. But I've never had gefilte fish. Is this an acquired taste, or would an adult newbie find it delicious?

Is it considered peasant food, or a delicacy?

Thanks!

p.s. I'm having lox and bagels as we speak. Lox, cream cheese, red onion, tomato, capers, on an everything bagel, with a mimosa. Retired life!

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, just found this on the wikipedia page:

"Gefilte fish has been described as "an acquired taste"."

[Commenter_XY]

Whatever you do, do not buy gefilte fish in a jar.

it is both = peasant food, and delicacy.

If you do a lox bagel, you can definitely handle gefilte fish.

I am debating retirement, presently.

[ThePublius]

Thanks. I can eat lox all by itself! I was never fond of the pickled pigs knuckles my mother craved, nor the pickled herring my ex craves.

Good luck with your retirement decision.

[Commenter_XY]

How many monte carlo analyses does one have to do, and how much agonizing over withdrawal rates, and methodology?

I am a little young to call it quits; cannot access my retirement accounts without penalty until next year.

[ThePublius]

Ah, I see. Well, wait. No sense in paying the penalties. Also, if you can wait on the social security, do that, too.

[Commenter_XY]

I know = SSA

I don't have something to go to = retirement

Golf, synagogue and horticulture aren't enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm curious: Is it anything like creamed herring? I've been addicted to that stuff ever since running into it at a Sweden House decades ago.

[bernard11]

Nothing like creamed herring.

It's usually ground carp.

[Mr. Bumble]

Carp or crap?

[grb]

Re the latter, I offer this advice : Never eat chitterlings from an Army mess hall.

[bernard11]

Carp.

I recall coming home from school and finding a live carp swimming in the bathtub.

I don't remember whether it ended up as gefilte fish or something else.

[David Nieporent]

I recall reading the classic book.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've actually never tasted carp; My father said it was too boney to bother with, so if we caught any we either threw it back or traded it for perch with one of the locals.

They seemed to be happy enough to get it, though.

[ThePublius]

Speaking of being a BIC, one of the funniest things I've seen a long time is Modi Rosenfeld's special "Know Your Audience." The entire thing is available free on youtube.

https://youtu.be/iPF3GkKuPVc?si=DN9crSswv1A6ekPe

[Bored Lawyer]

Gefilte fish is an acquired taste. If its made well, there is a decent chance you will like it.

Jarred gefilte fish, OTOH, is foul. Stay away, far away.

[DixieTune]

Jarred gefilte fish is fine as long as you wash off the jelly.

[Commenter_XY]

No way = Jarred gefilte fish is fine. Bored Lawyer is right.

I used to think that way. Now, after dozens of recipes, I will never go back to jarred gefilte fish.

[ThePublius]

With my newfound interest in cooking, I will probably prepare my own (starting with a frozen loaf).

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

All of it is just a vehicle for getting horse radish into the mouth. The hotter the better.

[Ska]

In that case I'll take roast beef.

[Brett Bellmore]

Finally looked it up. So it's just fish quenelles, or more traditionally, cooked in a fish skin? Gosh, I've made it without even knowing!

[ThePublius]

Google AI:

"[W]hile both are essentially fish balls, fish quenelles are considered a more refined version of gefilte fish, typically containing cream and herbs, and originating from French cuisine, while gefilte fish is a traditional Jewish dish with a heavier texture and often includes matzah meal as an ingredient; they are similar in concept but differ in taste and presentation."

Also, gefilte isn't always balls, it can be a loaf that's sliced.

[Commenter_XY]

That is correct and it is delicious = loaf (so try the recipe!)

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so more of a fish scrapple.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Before Biden took office, there were only 70,000 civil servants that were millionaires. Now there are over 168,000.

That's odd and unexpected.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, in nominal dollars the SP500 has almost doubled since 20Jan2020. A fed employee with 500K in the SP500 in whatever the feds call their 401k would now be a millionaire, and that's not counting contributions. If you're including the value of houses in net worth, they have gone up about 57%, etc.

[DixieTune]

Amazing that printing money makes the nominal price of assets rise, isn't it?

[grb]

Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 : "That's odd and unexpected"

But is it even true? My brief search discovered this factoid originated with Musk quoting something called "Amuse on X" - and nowhere else. Now:

1. Musk is a habitual liar. Nothing he says is worth a red cent unless you check behind him. He lies & trolls for sport.

2. "Amuse on X" could well be serious; it's hard to tell one way or another. But I did find a fact check that demolished one of their claims (a lie also hyped by Musk) as well as an "Amuse" post whining about fact checks in general. That (of course) is now part of the Right's regular snowflake victimhood songbook since they turned their political fortunes over to pathological liars. Back before they sold their souls, they used to be kinda pro-honesty - but those days are long past. Now facts & honesty are the enemy.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-ukraine-psychological-warfare-unit-140-million-usaid-2034584

3. So is the claim true? Who knows? More (and better) sources would help settle the issue.

[myself]

At this point Musk does not count as anything close to a reliable source.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You're going to have to document that wild claim. But I wonder if that includes money civil servants have in the Thrift Savings Plan.

[not guilty]

A federal district judge in Maryland has partially enjoined enforcement of President Trump's executive orders which purport to deprive federal funding from programs that incorporate diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575287/gov.uscourts.mdd.575287.45.0_2.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575287/gov.uscourts.mdd.575287.44.0_2.pdf

The Court ruled that the plaintiffs had shown that they are likely to succeed on their claims of unconstitutional vagueness, that the orders violate the First Amendment because on the face thereof it constitutes a content-based restriction on the speech rights of federal contractors and grantees, that the orders operate as a facially viewpoint-discriminatory order, and that that the Enforcement Threat Provision violates the First Amendment, because it threatens to initiate enforcement actions against Plaintiffs (in the form of civil compliance investigations) for engaging in protected speech.

Because the plaintiffs had shown their likelihood of success on their other claims, the Court did not address the likelihood of success on the plaintiffs' claims that President Trump's purporting to unilaterally terminate equity-related grants and contracts without express statutory authority is ultra vires and violates the constitutional separation of powers.

It seems to me that the ultra vires and separation of powers issues actually present the plaintiffs' strongest claims. The Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 (Appropriations Clause); U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1 (Spending Clause). As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has opined:

Congress's power to spend is directly linked to its power to legislate. "Incident to the spending power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power ‘to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives.’ " South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206–07, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (quoting Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 474, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980) ).

On the other hand, as the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]here is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes." Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998). Aside from the power of veto, the President is without authority to thwart congressional will by canceling appropriations passed by Congress. Simply put, "the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds." In re Aiken County, 725 F.3d 255, 261 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2013). And, "the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections." Id. at 259.

City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1231-1232 (9th Cir. 2018).

[DixieTune]

A young Jewish lawyer appointed by Biden. Color me shocked!

[David Nieporent]

You forgot to call him gay!

[David Nieporent]

Welp. The U.S. just sided with — not even abstained, but actually actively sided with — Russia in voting against Ukraine at the UN.

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/24/ukraine-russia-un-resolution-trump

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yep. As long as our National Disgrace continues to live, betrayals such as this one will continue to happen.

[Michael Ejercito]

Please explain how the Ukraine has more strategic importance than South Vietnam.

[Josh R]

Please explain how your question is relevant to the UN resolution we voted against?

[grb]

David Nieporent : " ... not even abstained, but actually actively sided with — Russia ..."

Please remember, Trump is a tough demanding leader and hard-nosed negotiator on the world stage - but only with countries like Panama, Canada, and Denmark.

When facing dictators, thugs, and enemies, he becomes a simpering coquettish tart, always compliant and panting eager to please.

[Commenter_XY]

Sudan and Andorra were with us all the way...

[Armchair]

A UN resolution that meant nothing...except possibly damaging negotiations.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump thought it meant enough to vote and not abstain, apparently.

Your attempt to minimize is noted. I guess you don't have a lot to say in actual defense.

[David Nieporent]

Note that even fucking China, which is Russia's ally, abstained rather than voting in favor of Russia. Trump is more pro-Russia than China is.

[DixieTune]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/24/sport/arizona-byu-chant-mens-basketball-spt-intl/index.html

I don't know why they're apologizing. It's okay to be bigoted towards white Christians, as they're the oppressors. It's only a problem to insult blacks, Muslims, homosexuals, transgenders, Jews, and Hispanics. But if it's a black insulting a homosexual, then the homosexual takes priority. Confused yet?

[David Nieporent]

I don't know why they're apologizing.

Yes, that's on brand for you.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

White Christians are all DEI hires.

[grb]

DixieTune : "I don't know why they're apologizing"

Uh ..... because it's the decent sportsmanship thing to do? As a general observation, it's amazing how often/easily the whole "anti-woke" hysteria devolves into semi-mature boys getting petulant and whiny because people object to their rudeness..

[myself]

What is the actual legal justification for tariffs against Canada? He's not even mentioning the national security pretext anymore.

Does the US Constitution simply give the President to tariff whatever he wants or it is just assumed that he'll say "national security" and the courts will ignore everything else.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Legal justification...how quaint.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The Power to lay and collect Taxes was given to Congress.

So the answer to your question is: There isn't any.

[myself]

Though I'd expect to hear more about legal challenges to the proposed tariffs in that case.

I know he'd drag it out in court, and possibly benefit from a Bruen level bad ruling, but there's got to be something, especially since there are free trade deals in place.

[Brett Bellmore]

So the answer to his question is, "Congress stupidly delegated a lot of power to the President."

[Martinned2]

For sure. And not too long ago there was a post here on VC that listed all the relevant delegations and their respective limitations.

(Which suggests that the courts have dropped the ball too, because if Congress says "if X occurs the President can impose tariffs Y", it's probably the courts' job to do some kind of check that X actually occurred, if/when a plaintiff with standing turns up.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Kinda depends on whether the law says, "If X occurs", or it says, "If the President determines that X has occurred". In the latter case, the statute instructs the courts who gets to make that call, and it's not them.

[Sarcastr0]

Your take here requires is that Trump is very bad. That he is the first President so far who cannot be trusted with any delegated authority, since he'll use it to fuck with our allies needlessly.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think a lot of Presidents have been very bad, and could not be trusted with any delegated authority, and that you pretend otherwise because you approved of their abuses.

[John F. Carr]

The cities of Chelsea and Somerville, Massachusetts sued Donald Trump and his cabinet over sanctuary city policies. Some of the demands are by now routine claims that they are entitled to injunctions giving them money. Everybody else is doing it, often successfully, so why not these cities? One part is new. The cities seek declaratory judgments that their future acts will not be crimes. Kind of like an anticipatory pardon. Strictly speaking the complaint requests a declaration that the two plaintiff cities will not commit crimes. The judge may take that as a request to protect all city employees or residents.

Chelsea v. Trump, case 1:25-cv-10442 in the District of Massachusetts.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/02/24/sanctuary-cities-suing-trump-administration-somerville-chelsea/

[grb]

While flying back to Washington aboard Air Force One on Wednesday night, a reporter asked President Donald Trump whether Elon Musk would pursue budget cuts at the Pentagon. His response might be confusing to anyone who hasn’t spent the last several days monitoring Musk’s account on X.

Trump said Musk would be looking at Fort Knox, the legendary depository for American gold reserves in Kentucky. Why? “To make sure the gold is there,” Trump said. Another reporter seemed puzzled. Where would the gold have gone?

“If the gold isn’t there, we’re going to be very upset,” Trump said.

https://apnews.com/article/fort-knox-gold-elon-musk-trump-f84f9f473d0551e7b055363e58f85759

It's now obvious just how mentally ill Trump has become. His brain has rotted down to mush. His mind is broken. He's gone completely around the bend. He's certifiably sick in the head.

Nobody wants the 25th Amendment or Vance, but four years is a long time. And Trump is already a freakish basket case, right here and now.

[Magister]

Donald Trump so strongly resembles Auric Goldfinger that he would certainly obsess over the gold in Fort Knox.

[Josh R]

Trump does have a Chu-Chi Face.

[grb]

Magister : "Donald Trump so strongly resembles Auric Goldfinger"

Does that make Musk Oddjob?

[Estragon]

Musk is clearly the most drug addled Bond villain: Max Zorin

[grb]

Whew! That saves me from determining who in Trump's Cabinet of wack-jobs, loons, leeches, and charlatans is Ms. Galore.

[David Nieporent]

It's now obvious just how mentally ill Trump has become. His brain has rotted down to mush. His mind is broken. He's gone completely around the bend. He's certifiably sick in the head.

Everyone remembers that Trump's first impeachment was based on him trying to extort them to announce an investigation of Biden, but what fewer seem to recall about his Perfect Phone Call™ is that he was also demanding that Zelensky help him find an imaginary "server" that had been hidden in Ukraine that proved that Hillary was trying to steal the 2016 election. It was an insane conspiracy theory floating around the dark MAGA corners of the Internet, and he appeared to believe it.

[Armchair]

Seems like auditing government assets is a reasonable idea.

When is the last time the gold reserves at Fort Knox were audited?

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.nydailynews.com/2018/05/18/photos-show-steve-mnuchin-mitch-mcconnell-grinning-with-gold-during-controversial-2017-fort-knox-trip/

[ducksalad]

Audited by who?

Audit typically implies someone outside the organization who is independent and can't be fired by the auditee. If one is a believer in the unitary executive, then Fort Knox and it's employees are merely extensions of himself.

[grb]

Armchair : "Seems like auditing government assets is a reasonable idea"

Every time Trump's diseased mind excretes another lunatic statement, the Cultists roll out as a group to sanewash it. Their efforts seem to be aimed at salving their own embarrassment, not convincing others, but are all the more desperate for that reason.

Take this case: An audit of the holdings of Fort Knox is probably performed regularly at several levels, the intervals differing with the audit's independence and remove. They are probably performed by teams of experts and takes days/weeks of serious work.

Absolutely nothing about that conforms to mush-brain Trump's paranoia the gold has been "stolen" or Musk's smirking PR stunt. In fact, the people who would typically supervise a real audit at the highest level are precisely those government officials Trump has been targeting specifically, as opposed to his piñata-style cuts swinging wildly blindfolded.

A very dependable rule : When Trump talks like a patient institutionalized in a mental hospital, it's because his mind is half-gone. When he rants about declaring war on Canada or his 70% approval ratings, it's because his brain is diseased and he can no longer distinguish reality and fantasy. When he talks at the level of a fifth-grader (and not a very accomplished one at that) it's because that's the highest level he functions at now.

There's no 11th-dimensional chess involved here. The sanewashing attempts by cultists prove that with their flailing sweaty efforts. We have a president who displays evidence of advanced mental illness, day after day, week after week.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you don't want the American people to see for themselves that the gold is actually there. You want them to have to take it on faith.

Sure, it's a PR stunt. It's a reassuring PR stunt, the sort of PR stunt you only get on your high horse to oppose if you think the gold isn't really there, and people shouldn't know that. People with nothing to hide don't insist on hiding stuff.

A very dependable rule: When somebody asks you to take their honesty on faith, you'd better either be married to them, or stop trusting them.

[Commenter_XY]

It isn't just the gold. It is what the government pisses away too. = So, you don't want the American people to see for themselves...

That is the truly sad part. Everyone should be satisfied we are a) identifying fraud, waste, abuse and addressing it, and b) verifying the gold is there.

The TDS now has a new comorbidity...ED (Elon Derangement)

[Sarcastr0]

You're too disengaged to actually be sad that other people don't buy the dog and pony show that you're brainlessly all in on.

You're just cheerleading still.

[Commenter_XY]

You seem to labor under this misperception that I actually give a shit if you buy into the dog and pony show, or carnival, or whatever you'd like to call it.

Hope you got your email in by 1159pm last night.

[Magister]

A comment that makes no sense.

Sarcastr0: "You're too disengaged to actually be sad that other people don't buy the dog and pony show"

Commenter_XY: "You seem to labor under this misperception that I actually give a shit if you buy into the dog and pony show"

Does Commenter_XY think that "too disengaged" means caring what other people think? And claims not to care after saying what people should be satisfied about. Even Dr. Ed 2 makes more sense than this.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I keep saying, maybe you didn't stack the deck, but good luck convincing anybody of that once you object to cutting the cards.

[Commenter_XY]

For years I warned...Be careful, the shoe will be on the other foot. Some VC Conspirators laughed at that.

The shoe is on the other foot. Nobody is laughing anymore.

[Sarcastr0]

Psychotic.

[David Nieporent]

the sort of PR stunt you only get on your high horse to oppose if you think the gold isn't really there,

Yet another conspiracy theory from our resident conspiracy theorist. It's the sort of PR stunt you oppose (note: nobody actually "opposes" this) if you think PR stunts are stupid.

People with nothing to hide don't insist on hiding stuff.

So, can the police come in and search your house without a warrant? Can I?

You are so terrible at understanding human psychology. (Barack Obama doesn't release a "long form" birth certificate. Brett: "Oh, he must have something to hide." Barack Obama does release a "long form" birth certificate that shows nothing to hide. Brett: "Oh, well, then, it must have been part of a strategy to distract his opponents.")

[Brett Bellmore]

"So, can the police come in and search your house without a warrant? Can I?"

It's more like, "Can the home owner come in and search his own house?" It's not like the Trump administration is some hostile outside party.

[Sarcastr0]

Your argument was "People with nothing to hide don't insist on hiding stuff."

That argument is agnostic of who owns what. Don't change the goalposts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was done in 1974 so what's wrong with doing it now?
https://www.usmint.gov/learn/history/historical-documents/inspection-of-gold-at-fort-knox

[Magister]

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says there is an audit every year and that “all the gold is present and accounted for.”

Given what would happen to him if that turns out to be wrong, and that he's contradicting the cult leader anyway, I'd think he has to be pretty sure that the gold is all there.

Live video walkthrough of Fort Knox seems a great way to enhance its security..

[Mr. Bumble]

"Live video walkthrough of Fort Knox seems a great way to enhance its security.."
Are you concerned about a Die Hard 3 scenario?

[Brett Bellmore]

It should probably be preceded by some science popularizer explaining just how freaking dense gold is, just so people don't react with, "Is that all there is???"

[hobie]

Dan Bongino? So now two non-law enforcement insurrectionists who have avowed over and over they want to dismantle the FBI...are in charge of the FBI? Like two rapists in charge of a womans shelter.

What's stopping them from passing on intel to the Red Hats and other militia groups? Groups they've sworn to back? Several of the men who beat beat Mike Fanone (capitol policeman) unconscious have already started sending him death threats and one threw a bag of feces at his mother on her front lawn.

The other day Fanone said he had sought an order of protection from the feds but was denied.

I know this shit excites you hayseeds, but do you in any way see a down side?

[ThePublius]

"Dan Bongino? So now two non-law enforcement insurrectionists..."

You are sorely mistaken.

"Daniel John Bongino (born December 4, 1974) is an American conservative political commentator, radio host, author, and former law enforcement officer who will serve as the 20th deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) beginning in 2025. " [emphasis mine]

"Bongino began his career as a New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer from 1995 to 1999 before serving as a U.S. Secret Service agent from 1999 to 2011."

[hobie]

Did you not hear me? The men who beat cops unconscious are now threatening the cops they beat unconscious. They were released. You know, really, if you think that is okay then fuck you

[ThePublius]

You are unhinged.

[grb]

Bongino celebrated rioters beating police officers who were just doing their duty. He's now one of the highest officials at the FBI. hobie finds that grotesquely bizarre and offensive.

You make sniveling excuses, ThePublius, and refuse to confront Bongino's statements and actions. So who's unhinged?

[ThePublius]

I was only responding to hobie's statement that Patel and Bongino were not law enforcement. That statement is false. Patel was a federal prosecutor. Bongino was a cop and SS agent. Period. I didn't say anything else about the matter.

[SRG2]

So insufficient relevant experience then. But he's a celeb and a loyalist, which trumps all other qualifications.

[Dr. Ed 2]

17 years as a cop, 12 at USSS -- that's respectable...

[Estragon]

“17 years as a cop”

Oh?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The NYPD is a police department
He first investigated crimes for the USSS -- that's law enforcement.
Then he was on the Presidential Detail -- that's law enforcement.

QED 17 years as a cop.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I am re-reading, after read Nicole Maines' autobiography, Becoming Nicole: The Transformation of an American Family by Amy Ellis Nutt.* Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has nationalized the war against trans people.

It is helpful to read personal stories (with some scientific analysis included in this case) to understand the issues.

One thing lacking in the current climate in many cases is empathy. This was noted recently regarding the gratuitous nature of Trump's actions. Not that they are correct on the merits if they acted a bit more nicely. But "the cruelty is the point" is a well-earned epithet.

==

* The fact that we are at the current state of affairs nearly a decade after the writing of the book is appalling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ought to be locked up to get help in the mental hospital, as they once were.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Coming in late with breaking news. The U.S. Army Choir, entertaining the Governors' Ball, at the White House, performed from Les Misérables the anthem, "Can you hear the people sing?"

Discussion about it is slowing internet browsers world-wide.

[Dr. Ed 2]

????

[grb]

The Financial Times is the very opposite of left-wing, but here's their view

"Winston Churchill is credited with saying that America does the right thing after exhausting the alternatives. Donald Trump has turned that aphorism on its head. In the past 10 days, he has all but incinerated 80 years of postwar American leadership. Those who thought America was a friend or ally, notably Ukraine and Nato, are dropping once safe assumptions to cope with a world in which America is an unabashed predator. Countries that were treated by Washington as adversaries, notably Vladimir Putin’s Russia, are suddenly America’s friend.

There were hinge moments in history when the US displayed its character as global leader, such as Dwight Eisenhower’s repudiation of Anglo-French imperialism in the 1956 Suez crisis, or Ronald Reagan’s 1987 exhortation to the Soviet Union to tear down the Berlin Wall. They defined the world’s idea of America. Trump’s assertion this week that Ukraine “should have never started” the war is the dark version of those. His account of Russia being provoked to invade Ukraine came straight from Putin’s talking points. So too was JD Vance’s Valentine’s Day speech in Munich in which the US vice-president identified liberal democracy as Europe’s real threat from within"

Isn't it sadly ironic that "Make America Great Again" means abandoning the United State's position as leader of the free world? MAGA means turning the U.S. into a grubby thug state scrambling to steal or hustle from weaker nations who are our long-time allies.

Of course no "Great" can be found anywhere in that - only the shame and disgrace future History will highlight as central to the Trump years. But still the Cultists roll out to support the malignant whims of Dear Leader, as if they're automatons without free will. In many cases they're abandoning positions long-held in this forum. Just to tongue-polish Dear Leader's shoe leather....

[Brett Bellmore]

"Isn't it sadly ironic that "Make America Great Again" means abandoning the United State's position as leader of the free world? "

It's Make America Great, not Make The World Great. I've said this many times over the years: Being 'the leader of the free world', being the world's policeman and guardian, has been warping us away from being a great and free country in our own right. We've been bleeding ourselves dry for the sake of the rest of the world.

I don't want the US to be the leader of the free world, save by example. I want us to work to be the best darned country possible at home, and leave it to other countries to do the same for themselves.

Hasn't Trump repeatedly expressed his opinion that it's the job of governments to tend to the interests of their own citizens, and leave the interests of the citizens of other countries to the tending of THEIR governments?

Full text: Trump’s 2017 U.N. speech transcript

"We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is foundation for cooperation and success."

"In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens -- to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.

As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first."

"The United States will forever be a great friend to the world, and especially to its allies. But we can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return. As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else."

This I can wholly agree with. I've said this many times: Government is force and violence, and the first victim of any government is its own citizenry. The only way, the ONLY way, you can justify government being imposed on a people is that it is working for their own interest, and is the only feasible way to advance it. The interests and rights of others are properly just a side constraint.

Being subject to government for somebody else's interest is being a conquered people, not a free people!

So I wholly endorse Trump's position that we own nothing to the world but respecting their rights, and the only proper pursuit of our government is advancing the interest of Americans. If along the way we find that advancing our own interests helps others, great!

But that doesn't mean being the world's protector, unless the world is going to pay us for that protection. You want something from us?

Pay for it.

[Martinned2]

Trump's position that we own nothing to the world but respecting their rights

That's what you think Trump's position is? The guy who's busy giving away parts of Ukraine to his buddy Vlad?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what he has said his position is, and his actions have been consistent with it.

He hasn't given one inch of Ukraine to Putin. He's told Ukraine on what terms we'd help them, and if they don't like the terms, he can just walk away, because we don't owe them a single thing. Indeed, they are deeply in debt to us, instead.

If he ever lifts a finger to take even a little territory from Ukraine and give it to Putin, let me know. Nothing of the sort is happening so far as I can see. He's just telling them that the free trial is over, and if they want more they can pay for it, and on our terms.

But I do understand that it's easy to make outrageous claims about people you don't like if you can be wildly imprecise about how you describe them.

[Martinned2]

Oh, that's fine then. He's not the stick-up man, he's just the guy who makes sure the stick-up man doesn't suffer any consequences from robbing people. That's definitely a great example of respecting people's rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he's the guy the stickup victim is appealing to for help, who's saying, "I'm not going to risk my life to get your wallet back, but I'm game for helping you get out of this alley alive."

[grb]

Martinned2 : "Oh, that's fine then"

Brett has been a consistent supporter of Ukraine's fight to be free in this forum. But when Dear Leader tells his cultist Brett to change everything he believed before, Brett lowers his eyes, mutters "yes master", and immediate produces the diametrically opposite talking points. Sorry, but I can't understand that degree of abject slavery.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am still a supporter of Ukraine's right to be free. As opposed to Ukraine's nonexistent right to have anybody else spend blood and treasure helping them.

It's the old positive vs negative rights dichotomy. I have a right to eat, which is to say you wrong me if you take my rightfully possessed food away, but that doesn't mean the grocery has to give me food for free if I can't afford to pay him.

Ukraine has the right to be free, Putin wronged them by attacking. But that doesn't mean anybody is obligated to help free them. It's a negative right, not a positive one.

I have been, figuratively speaking, banging the "we should stop being the world's policeman, or at least get paid for it" gong for decades now. It's nice to have a President who agrees with me about that.

[grb]

Uh huh. Who do you think you're fooling? Here was your one chance to show Brett Bellmore is still a thinking rational being with his own core beliefs. Instead we're in Jonestown, Guyana, and you wait patiently in line to get your Kool-Aid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently in order to have my own core beliefs, I must have instead YOUR core beliefs. At least, so far as you're concerned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, it was BIDEN who said that UKE needed to give territory to Putin -- before the war even started.

[David Nieporent]

It's in his dissertation, folks!

[David Nieporent]

If he ever lifts a finger to take even a little territory from Ukraine and give it to Putin, let me know

He lifted a finger to support Russia yesterday.

[Commenter_XY]

It is what he has done = "In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens -- to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.

As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first."

"The United States will forever be a great friend to the world, and especially to its allies. But we can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return. As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else."

I know, disconcerting for the globalists in the EU.

[Martinned2]

The United States will forever be a great friend to the world

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

[Brett Bellmore]

I have plenty of friends, I don't particularly expect many of them would throw themselves in the way of a bullet headed my way, and we trade off picking up the check, it's not the same guy every time.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The only way, the ONLY way, you can justify government being imposed on a people is that it is working for their own interest, and is the only feasible way to advance it.

Alas, no. That framing leaves unaddressed the core question in every foundational critique regarding government: By implementation of what structures, by practice of what activities, in obedience to the pleasure of what sovereign, will this government enable process to determine public interest, to further it, and to endure change? That—and not every rag-tag, evanescent, private notion to posit a particular interest—expresses the genius which lies at the core of American constitutionalism.

To seize the power of government, with an eye to corrupt it permanently to impose a particular interest, is the essence of authoritarianism, and invites worse. To attempt that is MAGA and Trumpism in a nutshell.

As you so often do, Bellmore, you beg the question. You approach near to the answer. But you do not arrive at it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I appreciate the word salad, because I'm on a diet, but could you reframe that in terms somebody else might understand?

"To seize the power of government, with an eye to corrupt it permanently to impose a particular interest, is the essence of authoritarianism, and invites worse. "

The particular interest being that of the American people, rather than Ukrainians? It's authoritarian to announce that you, as President, will pursue the interests of Americans, and not, say, Lithuanians?

[Commenter_XY]

Like the steady dripping of rain from a gutter, the word salads of Kamala and lathrop sound like.

[Brett Bellmore]

After chewing on the verbal lettuce for a while, I think I understand what you're getting at in your first paragraph.

But these are separate questions: What the aim of government should be, and how government should be structured to advance that aim, or even how government should be structured so as to decide what its aims should be.

In the latter regard, we already have that structure, and we followed it in selecting Trump to declare that aim, after he ran for President telling us exactly what aim he thought it appropriate to advance. How is it, then, illegitimate for him to do as he ran on doing?

And what alternative structure do you propose to replace the current one with?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Which current structure? The one from more than two centuries prior to Trump, or Trump's structure?

[Brett Bellmore]

Obviously Trump became President by the former structure.

[Absaroka]

"In the latter regard, we already have that structure, and we followed it in selecting Trump to declare that aim, after he ran for President telling us exactly what aim he thought it appropriate to advance. How is it, then, illegitimate for him to do as he ran on doing?"

That depends on what a president promises. yes? For example if President Absaroka runs in 2028 with a campaign saying 'if elected, I will cancel future elections and transform the country into a hereditary absolute monarchy by presidential^h^h^h^h royal decree', then IMHO that's illegitimate even if I win a landslide victory.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, sure, but that's not really what Lathrop is talking about. He's talking about legal stuff that his imaginary sovereign people might not like, even if every process for finding out what the people think says otherwise.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, reread what you called word salad. Note one key difference beween what I wrote, and what you demand. There is nothing in anything I wrote to prescribe any particular governmental outcome. Every possibility is left open, to assure ongoing liberty of future Americans to choose at will.

Your advocacy risks foreclosing everything. That's a big difference. And if you let political opponents practice your style of constitutionalism, you and your ilk could be the long-suffering victims.

[hobie]

I was shocked this morning. In the comments section of National Review's UN article, nearly 100% of all commentors (pretty much all hayseeds) were disgusted by our UN vote. Haven't seen that in decades there.

[grb]

Sure; they were at least. But our right-types are busy whoring for Dear Leader. No degree of self-abasing prostitution is too humiliating or mean for their cult service. The Fort Knox gibberish? That's Donald Trump, "guardian of the people's trust". Betraying the Ukrainians? Brett has developed a whole new position on that overnight. Just to bring him into obedient alignment with Dear Leader. Everything he believed before was flushed away.

Our hayseeds seem a little more rubbery, spine-wise, than NR's hayseeds.

[Michael Ejercito]

Since when was the Ukraine an ally?

Of course, I do know that Congress refused to provide aid to South Vietnam even as the North was invading in violation of the treaty.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, I do know that Congress refused to provide aid to South Vietnam even as the North was invading in violation of the treaty.

Do you think if you repeat that 50 more times it will somehow become relevant?

[hobie]

Why can't our hillbillies be more like their hillbillies?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why can't we have the hillbillies we used to have? As recently as the 1950s social norms in West Virginia were coherent, largely progressive, aggressively small "d" democratic, and self-reliant. You go back now—or just listen to Vance—and its like, Holy Crap, what hit this place?

It was not for nothing that Tom's Wolf's novel, The Right Stuff, preferred West Virginia's non-astronaut Chuck Yeager to the entire spam-in-a-can astronaut lineup. The movie by the same name was worth watching too. Humorously, the getting-on-in years real Yeager played to perfection a satirical part, as a menial bar assistant, getting ordered around by presumptuous rocket bureaucrats.

[ThePublius]

"The Financial Times is the very opposite of left-wing...."

Based on what? According to Ad Fontes Media FT is "middle" for bias, and actually has a slightly left bias score of -3.86.

I personally have always found them to be left biased, and certainly strongly anti-Trump.

https://adfontesmedia.com/financial-times-bias-and-reliability/

[Martinned2]

I personally have always found them to be left biased

That says more about you than about the FT.

[ThePublius]

What does that mean, Martin. And independent media monitoring company even found the FT to be slightly left. I would appreciate a response backed up by something rather than a meaningless snide remark.

[Martinned2]

Leaving to one side the merits of Ad Fontes, you wrote you found the FT "left biased", which is a separate observation. No one could find the FT left biased unless they were themselves substantially to the right of centre, as indeed you are.

It's like complaining George W. Bush was a leftist. It says more about the speaker than about Bush.

[ThePublius]

"No one could find the FT left biased unless they were themselves substantially to the right of centre"

Ad Fontes found them marginally left of center. You can dismiss that out of hand, or you can bring a contrary source.

Other than that I don't get your supposed point.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside who and what "Ad Fontes" is and what its methodology is and why we should accept it, do you not see a big difference between "marginally left of center" and "left biased"?

[ThePublius]

I provided a link to Ad Fontes. You can go there and read all about who they are, what their methodology is, and so forth.

My point about "marginally left of center" is to counter the statement "The Financial Times is the very opposite of left-wing."

That's all.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yeah. And then you threw in a remark about non-support for Trump, as if that were an independent measure of right-wing or left-wing political valence. Got news or you. Trump has no place on that axis.

[ThePublius]

Yea, so what? It's true. Take a look at the FT online, search for Trump, and gather your own impression of their stance.

[ThePublius]

The Trump derangement syndrome is running hot in this thread, and lately in general. It has taken over the Open Threads.

Those TDS contributors are so strident and so often insulting, attacking those who disagree with them, that it makes meaningful, reasoned discussion and debate impossible. It has become a TDS echo chamber. And it's anything but civil. [1]

Don't these people realize that their strong bias, their virulent hatred of Trump, and those who support or approve of Trump, colors their view such that they may not be able to see the truth when it exists, let alone appreciate the others' point of view?

It is terrible. I was even met with an epithet after pointing out a clear error of fact. And I didn't point it out by saying "you lied" or "you're a liar" or (as was even said to me once) "you're a lying sack of shit." I simply, politely said "you are sorely mistaken."

I really wish we could return to the civil, productive, and enjoyable forum that the Volokh Conspiracy once was.

[1] We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic.

[Martinned2]

I think that the only sane response to a nuclear state being taken over by an authoritarian far-right regime is extreme anger. But you do you.

[ThePublius]

How does anger and insult help in this forum? Isn't it better to discuss civilly, and maybe make our views know, and, heaven forbid, maybe even convince someone?

[Mr. Bumble]

"How does anger and insult help in this forum? "
How does it "help" anywhere?

[Martinned2]

What do you think I've been doing for the last 20 years?

But with every passing year more sane conservatives abandon the VC comments section, while ever more trolls and cultists turn up. The number of Trumpists on this blog who might actually be convinced by any sort of civil discourse about anything is basically zero, so what's left is some kind of desparate attempt to make sure the cultists don't mistake their bubble for the world.

[Brett Bellmore]

We are, IMO, on the ramp up to a civil war. Things were similarly bad in the few years prior to the Civil war.

We just, like then, have developed diametrically opposed visions of the public good, so that each side comes to be seen as irremediably evil by the other. And the nation cannot go on half woke and half based, or some such crap.

I look at the conversations above, and I see people who are not responding to what is said to them, but instead to what their internal models of the opposition would have said. And no amount of repetition and clarification can beat its way past that.

Couple that with a moral arms race where anybody who characterizes the opposition in less Manichean terms than the other guy automatically gets reassigned to the opposing team, (Even if they don't want him!) and it's just spiraling out of control.

I think that the internet has gotten just too good at sorting people out and putting them into bubbles, where they come to believe their own viewpoint is the unchallenged majority viewpoint. So they automatically treat anybody who disagrees with them as an uppity outlier who has the cast iron gall to act like THEY are the majority.

Even on topics where, if you take a survey, the country is split right down the middle.

[Mr. Bumble]

Somehow I can't see SarcastrO, David Notsoimportant and the other usual subject leading the charge.

[apedad]

"I really wish we could return to the civil, productive, and enjoyable forum that the Volokh Conspiracy once was" . . . but you'll still reserve the right to call other commentors 'unhinged.'

[ThePublius]

Yea, that was a pretty mild response to the guy saying to me "You know, really, if you think that is okay then fuck you." And given the context, I think my response was a fairly objective assessment, using the vernacular to express it.

[apedad]

So now you're the assessor of commentors.

Nice.

You're like Musk for Eugene.

(Given the context, I think that's a fairly objective assessment.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Says someone who won't put salt and pepper shakers on his table.

[apedad]

LOL! You got me there.

[ThePublius]

If we were capable of thoughtful, reasoned, and civil debate on any topic here we might ask these two related questions:

1. Why did the U.S. vote NO on resolution one at the UN the other day (there were two other resolutions)?

2. Why did Trump say he wants 50% of the mineral rights in exchange for what the US has done supporting Ukraine's war effort?

I have thoughts on both. First, despite the press' uniform spin that the U.S. sided with Russia on the resolution, the U.S. simply voted NO, as did 17 other countries. [1]. Surely, the only "major" countries voting NO were the U.S., Russia, and Israel. Be that as it may, one must consider that we are currently in negotiations with Russia to end the war, and voting YES would potentially set back those negotiations significantly, indeed, even harming the perception of the U.S.'s sincerity and our bargaining position. Remember, one definition of diplomacy is the ability to say "good dog" as you're looking for a rock.

Second, we generally don't want to put U.S. troops on the ground to protect Ukraine's Eastern border, and end up with another post-Korean War like situation. But know, these mineral resources are concentrated along the Eastern border, and even into Donbas, which, by the way, is a Russian speaking statelet that craves independence. Putting U.S. industry by way of private companies and contractors in the East to extract minerals would give the U.S. a plausible reason to have close-by U.S. troops, to protect those mining assets and personnel.

So, that's my take. Maybe not so crazy or criminal after all.

[1] Against (18)
B: Belarus, Burkina Faso, Burundi
C: Central Africa Republic
E: Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea
H: Haiti, Hungary
I: Israel
M: Mali, Marshall Islands
N: Nicaragua, Niger, North Korea
P: Palau
R: Russia
S: Sudan
U: United States

[Martinned2]

Like I said in the other thread, the common denominator here, other than the US and Israel, is that they're all Russian puppet states or states that want to flatter Russia for some reason. Particularly countries like Niger, Mali, and CAR have military juntas that are being propped up by Russian mercenaries. They're not going to vote against Putin.

But yes, it's an excellent question why Trump would want to be a part of that club.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, as as said above, when you're negotiating with somebody, you flatter them. Doesn't mean you actually think the doggy is nice.

[Martinned2]

When has Donald Trump ever used that approach?

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2126704/donald-trump-is-trying-to-humiliate-justin-trudeau-with-canada-jokes-ex-trump-adviser-says

[ThePublius]

He's using it right now.

I think with Canada he's trying to signal he supports the concept of a more conservative government there, one that will secure the border, and so on.

I think the idea of Wayne Gretzky as PM is brilliant! 🙂

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Really?

He's busy calling Zelenskyy a dictator, but won't call Putin one.
He's negotiating with Ukraine, but treating them poorly.
He's negotiating with Russia, but treating them well.
He's lying about financial aid to Ukraine.
He's lying about who started the war.
We sided with the Axis of Evil with that UN vote. Even abstaining would've been disgraceful, but instead we actively chose to vote against truth.
We're turning our backs on the democracies we've aligned ourselves with for ~80 years and instead getting cozy with dictators.

You dumb fucks will excuse anything, no matter how contradictory or stupid it is.

[Martinned2]

If that's what he's trying to do, he's achieving the opposite. Every since Trump started insulting Canada, the conservatives there have started sliding in the polls.

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/

[ThePublius]

"they're all Russian puppet states or states that want to flatter Russia for some reason"

I don't think that's generally true. But I don't think it's an important observation.
Certainly it is with Belarus, but take the example of the Marshall Islands:

"Politically, the Marshall Islands is a parliamentary republic with an executive presidency in free association with the United States, with the U.S. providing defense, subsidies, and access to U.S.-based agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the United States Postal Service. With few natural resources, the islands' wealth is based on a service economy, as well as fishing and agriculture; aid from the United States represents a large percentage of the islands' gross domestic product, and although most financial aid from the Compact of Free Association was set to expire in 2023,[12] it was extended for another 20 years that same year.[13] The country uses the United States dollar as its currency. In 2018, it also announced plans for a new cryptocurrency to be used as legal tender.[14][15]"

[Martinned2]

True. The Marshall Islands are navigating between the Scylla of the US and the Charybdis of China, and seem to have opted for flattering Trump in this instance.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/28/hilda-heine-us-congress-relations-marshall-islands-palau-fsm

[David Nieporent]

Like I said in the other thread, the common denominator here, other than the US and Israel, is that they're all Russian puppet states

I am not clear what you mean by "other than the US" in that sentence.

[ThePublius]

Are you saying the U.S. is a Russian puppet state?

[Martinned2]

I don't think that's right. The US and Russia share an authoritarian ideology that is antagonistic to Western values. Neither one is necessarily the puppet of the other.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, for instance, look at the administration's hostility towards online censorship. Authoritarian to the core!

[David Nieporent]

The administration has no hostility towards online censorship. It has hostility towards perceived "censorship" [sic - once again, a private business moderating its own site isn't censorship] of MAGA supporters. An administration that is retaliating against a wire service for not using a fake name for an international body of water is not anti-censorship.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course that's what they've been claiming, for years: That Trump is a Putin puppet.

[David Nieporent]

Are you saying the U.S. is a Russian puppet state?

No; I'm merely insinuating that.

[apedad]

" . . . one must consider that we are currently in negotiations with Russia to end the war . . . . "

Any chance we get UKE involved in those negotiations?

And an ultimatum is NOT a negotiation.

[ThePublius]

Who says Trump is not negotiating with Zelenskyy? Because he is. They are on the phone, and will soon have a face-to-face. I don't think it would be prudent or productive to try to have both Russia and Ukraine in the same room with the U.S. to hammer out a deal. And Trump's negotiations with Putin isn't the only negotiation taking place.

I also don't think Zelenskyy was presented with ultimatum. If he was, can you please detail it?

[Martinned2]

Of course. Zelenskyy can't afford not to negotiate with the mob.

I also don't think Zelenskyy was presented with ultimatum. If he was, can you please detail it?

"That's a pretty country you've got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."

[David Nieporent]

I also don't think Zelenskyy was presented with ultimatum. If he was, can you please detail it?

"Give us all your mineral wealth, and maybe we'll consider letting you keep part of your country."

[Brett Bellmore]

Axios: Inside the proposed U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal

"The draft agreement calls for the establishment of a "Reconstruction Investment Fund" that will be co-managed by the U.S. and Ukraine."

" It adds that the fund will be designed "so as to invest in projects in Ukraine and attract investments to increase development," including in areas like mining and ports.
But it also suggests the U.S. will recoup some of its expenditures related to "defending, reconstructing, and returning Ukraine" to its pre-war GDP."

"The draft seen by Axios expresses a desire that Ukraine remain free, but does not specify any U.S. military commitment.

It also stipulates that Ukraine must contribute $500 billion to the fund — and that Ukraine's contributions must be double the U.S contributions — but it does not call for that sum to be paid to the U.S.
The draft calls for 50% of Ukraine's revenues (minus operating expenses) from "extractable materials" — including minerals, oil and gas — be paid into the fund."

"Much of Ukraine's mineral wealth is in the war-torn east."

So, if I'm understanding the proposed deal right, (Not just from this source, but other accounts, too.)

1. A fund is created for rebuilding Ukraine, which will mostly be funded by the mineral revenues, but we will contribute towards it.
2. Some of this money is going to go to the US for expenses related to defending and helping rebuild Ukraine. FUTURE expenses. IOW, we become the preferred contractor for the rebuilding, rather than getting actual tribute, as has been reported.
3. We get preferred access to the minerals in the border regions, NOT ownership.
4. In return, we will have troops present to defend those resources and the mining, which will provide a trip wire deterring Russian attacks.

So, we profit, but by doing business going forward as Ukraine's preferred partner. Ukraine profits by security guarantees which we have an actual material interest in making good on.

Actually seems like an equitable deal.

The downside is that buying off Russian to reach peace apparently involves ceding them at least some of the territory they've already captured. But in return Ukraine gets a safe and prosperous smaller country.

[David Nieporent]

So, we profit, but by doing business going forward as Ukraine's preferred partner. Ukraine profits by security guarantees which we have an actual material interest in making good on.

The thing you quoted literally says that there are no security guarantees.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I literally said this wasn't my sole source.

[ThePublius]

To David, Martinned2, and others. Do you know where the idea of a U.S. - Ukraine deal on minerals first came from? Did this just spring from Trump's supposedly insane and thuggish mind?

It was Zelensky's idea. It was in his "victory plan," presented to then candidate Trump in September of 2024.

"Zelensky first included the offer of an agreement on minerals in the so-called "victory plan" that he presented to Trump last September.

The idea was to offer the then presidential candidate a tangible reason for the US to continue supporting Ukraine.

On Monday former UK prime minister Boris Johnson told the BBC in Kyiv that such a deal was "the great prize" because it would secure "a United States commitment under Donald Trump to a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine"." [1]

So Trump is hardly "shaking down" Zelensky, or acting as the "mafia" or any such thing. He is simply negotiating what the terms of such a deal might be.

Does that change your thinking on this topic?

[1] BBC: Why is Ukraine negotiating a minerals deal with the US?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's about my take: Trump is offering a tripline that would put the stakes too high for Putin to invade again, but only in return for concessions that make it worthwhile for us.

[Martinned2]

Putin has already offered Trump a better deal: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gdx7488g5o

(Or maybe they're just trolling...)

[ThePublius]

Brett, I think you are simply rephrasing what I said.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you.

[David Nieporent]

1) How would voting yes set back negotiations? What's the mechanism there?
2) What exactly is so wrong with a post-Korean War like situation? It has kept peace for over 70 years.

[Commenter_XY]

The Donald has a titanic ego. You know that. Guess what? So does Putin. If you want to get something, antagonism isn't the way to do it. You know that.

[grb]

Once again, look at Trump's first term. He wanted a deal with the Taliban, so got down on his knees and told them they could have anything they want. Anything & everything. They weren't required to make any concessions in return. It was Christmas Time for the mullahs and there was no limits to Trump's appeasement.

The Afghans weren't even allowed in the negotiations - which sounds very familiar, doesn't it? So Trump got his piece of paper to wave in the air. He got his headline, which was all he ever wanted.

And that's what will happen to Ukraine. I don't suppose Trump even liked the Taliban - aside from his usual obsequence and simpering passivity to thugs, tyrants, and enemies of this country. But Putin is Trump's Daddy. He'll betray Ukraine twice as fast to get Daddy's approval.

[ThePublius]

Trump is currently negotiating with Zelensky and Putin, simultaneously but separately. That's a fact.

[Martinned2]

Sure, in the same way that the stick-up man negotiates with his victim. Isn't the English language marvellous?

[David Nieporent]

But said stickup man is also negotiating with a rival stickup man over the victim, so it's all okay!

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump is negotiating with the stickup man to get Ukraine out of this alive, and is blowing off Ukraine's demand that they get their wallet back, too.

[Sarcastr0]

As others have said, this is a shameful reversal of position.

[Magister]

They weren't required to make any concessions in return. It was Christmas Time for the mullahs

Well, you can hardly expect to get Christmas presents in return from mullahs.

[grb]

Not if you wait for one on your knees, to be sure....

(and for the record, the incongruity of "mullahs" & "Xmas" was planned)

[Magister]

Oh, sorry to be the ten thousand spoons in your Chardonnay.

[hobie]

Even Putin bros South Africa and China didn't vote for this garbage.

All the US had to do was abstain. How hard would that have been?

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, the Trump/Musk administration's "burn it all down" strategy may well have accidentally (?) burned down the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, which is the current legal basis for the EC adequacy decision for llowing transfer of personal data from the EU to the US under GDPR. I assume Max Schrems and the people at La Quadrature du Net are already drafting their applications to get the adequacy decision annulled, thus grinding to a halt all sorts of workarounds for US tech companies that want to operate in Europe.

https://cdt.org/insights/what-the-pclob-firings-mean-for-the-eu-us-data-privacy-framework/

[Brett Bellmore]

US tech companies should probably spin off foreign divisions to do business in the EU, and stop trying to deal in both markets as unified firms.

[Martinned2]

That seems like a sensible suggestion.

(But note that part of the problem here is that the EU-US Data Privacy Framework is not a treaty ratified by the Senate, but an executive agreement that Biden implemented through EOs. In a post-hegemonic world the US cannot keep working like that. It is not in the US interest that it is structurally unable to make deals with other countries that are actually worth the paper they're written on.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Executive agreements are what Presidents do when they want to sorta kinda obligate the country, but they know the Senate doesn't actually have their back. I'd just as soon other countries accepted that, without Senate ratification, it doesn't have the force of law in the US, and is subject to repudiation any time the political winds change.

[Martinned2]

The Senate never has the President's back about anything more controversial than sliced bread. Under Biden it literally ratified one treaty (a double taxation treaty with Chile). This is not sustainable.

[Brett Bellmore]

How many times did Biden TRY to get them to ratify a treaty?

[John F. Carr]

Serbian politician Milorad Dodik will find out tomorrow if he is going to prison on charges of aggravated federalism. He is charged with disobeying the order of Christian Schmidt who is Emperor of Bosnia by right of the Dayton Accords. Or he might be a German tourist giving orders he has no right to give. Unreasonable minds definitely differ on this. At least, Eastern and Western minds differ.

This verdict might start a war. Or prevent one. Will anybody in America notice?

[Martinned2]

Literally the very first word in that comment is already wrong. Dodik is not Serbian, he's Bosnian. Which is why he is subject to the laws of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which include the weird role of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, as agreed at Dayton. And, pursuant to the Dayton Accords, the High Representative is appointed by a body called the Peace Implementation Council (which includes the US, of course). Schmidt, like all his predecessors, was so appointed.

I hope that clears things up.

[ThePublius]

I have what I think is an interesting idea.

First, "Sen. Mike Lee has proposed bringing back letters of marque in a thread on X, suggesting them as a tool for going after Mexican drug cartels. Erik Prince, who founded Blackwater, the private security company (it’s rude to call them “mercenaries”) has also weighed in in favor of this approach. My own Congressman, Tim Burchett (R-TN) has introduced legislation allowing the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal against cartels, the Cartel Marque and Reprisal Reauthorization Act of 2025, co-sponsored with Rep. Mark Messmer, (R-IN). (The full text of the bill is here.)" [1]

I then recalled that the U.S. Navy is decommissioning a bunch of ships, many of which are not that old, at all. Among them are several littoral combat ships that were built only 12 or 14 years ago.

What if the the U.S. Navy sold, leased, lent, or gave these to private companies for use in interdicting Mexican cartel trade at sea? They could make some kind of deal regarding maintenance, repairs, arms and ammunition, dockage, and so forth.

Wouldn't that be something?

Eventually, perhaps the privateers could even go after Somali pirates.

[1] https://instapundit.substack.com/p/lets-go-privateering

[Mr. Bumble]

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices First Series

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't even make sense. The point of letters of marque was that private ships were authorized to seize enemy vessels and keep their cargo as incentive/compensation for their efforts. Are we authorizing (e.g) Blackwater to go into the cocaine business?

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree. If you were going to have privateers, it would make far more sense to sic them on the Somolis; At least there identifying the foe is pretty straightforward, and you could just pay a bounty.

[grb]

ThePublius : "Wouldn't that be something?"

It would indeed - if practicable. I love a good Aubrey-Maturin book as well as the next guy, but doubt the relevance here. From the DOJ:

"The drugs are typically concealed in hidden compartments, commingled with legitimate goods, or couriered by passenger or crew members on maritime vessels. Traffickers also have increasingly used self-propelled semisubmersibles (SPSSs)a to transport cocaine from South America to Mexico."

https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs38/38661/movement.htm

That's not very conducive to bar shot into the rigging. It's not like there are cartel treasure ships our "letters of marque" can have heave to. They would have to stop scores of ships for lenghty exhaustive searches for every minuscule victory. It won't work.

Erik Prince probably understands that, but is hustling for new business. Mike Lee is a well-known idiot who was deeply involved in Trump's attempt to steal an election from the American voters. Maybe Lee has an angle - certainly his ethics are flexible enough. Or maybe he's just plain dumb. Could go either way....

[ThePublius]

I agree it's not very practical in fundamental terms, as the "prize" might not be large enough, or legally marketable, to make it worth the privateer's while.

But that would change that is if the U.S. put a bounty [1] on seizure of illicit substances, capture of the vessels carrying them, and apprehension of the criminals engaging in that trade.

That would certainly make it worth while for the privateer, and the U.S. government. In the case of the latter, there would be little to no investment speculatively in policing this trade, they would only pay for results.

[1] "an amount of money given to someone as a reward for catching a criminal"

[Commenter_XY]

Why would you assume a Privateer would 'catch' the boat. Easier to sink it or torpedo it.

[ThePublius]

Well, then there's little or no accounting for the "prize."

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember, almost all of this smuggling is taking place on ships that are mostly legit cargo, and is concealed.

You'd really be better off siccing any privateers on Somoli and Houthis pirates, where target identification is unambiguous and the potential for collateral damage is minimal.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Remember, almost all of this smuggling is taking place on ships that are mostly legit cargo, and is concealed."

Yep. You'd have to stop scores upon scores of legitimate ships, and then subject each to a incredibly long & extensive search. Maybe you'd get some minimal find every one-hundredth one.

It will not do. (a phrase commonly found in the Patrick O'Brian books)

[not guilty]

I didn't know that you are a fellow Tennessean, Publius. I'm glad to learn that.

[ThePublius]

I confess I don't get that.

[not guilty]

You identified yourself as a constituent of Rep. Tim Burchett, who represents a district in East Tennessee.

[David Nieporent]

You misread. He was quoting someone who did that.

[not guilty]

I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

[hobie]

Super idea hiring Dog The Bounty Hunter

[Mr. Bumble]

Re: Nationwide TROs and injunctions.
Does this make sense?
https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/25/republicans-should-fight-resistance-democrats-nationwide-injunctions/

[Martinned2]

Peter Navarro is trying to persuade Trump to kick Canada out of Five Eyes.

https://www.ft.com/content/2dfa3c11-64a7-49f6-83df-939b8d1cfb8e

Which raises the question: Does Canada want to be in Five Eyes if its sensitive intelligence might end up in Russia? It wouldn't be the first time that Trump spontaneously shares a classified intelligence briefing with the Russians.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39931012

[hobie]

Plus with pro-Putin, pro-militia, anti-US insurrectionists running the FBI, any cooperation Canada may have with the US involving organized crime or militia activity can credibly be considered disclosed as long as the criminals are sufficiently loyal.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Glossip gets a new trial. Paul Cassell might shift from defending Eric Adams to write a few posts to call out the 5.5-2.5 result.

(Barrett joined a large part of the majority but not the decision to grant him a new trial; Gorsuch recused, being involved as a lower court judge before coming on the Court.)

[ThePublius]

(I'm going to repeat a post here, as a fresh thread, as it applies to more than one discussion and comment here.)

To David, Martinned2, and others. Do you know where the idea of a U.S. - Ukraine deal on minerals first came from? Did this just spring from Trump's supposedly insane and thuggish mind?

It was Zelensky's idea. It was in his "victory plan," presented to then candidate Trump in September of 2024.

"Zelensky first included the offer of an agreement on minerals in the so-called "victory plan" that he presented to Trump last September.

The idea was to offer the then presidential candidate a tangible reason for the US to continue supporting Ukraine.

On Monday former UK prime minister Boris Johnson told the BBC in Kyiv that such a deal was "the great prize" because it would secure "a United States commitment under Donald Trump to a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine"." [1]

So Trump is hardly "shaking down" Zelensky, or acting as the "mafia" or any such thing. He is simply negotiating what the terms of such a deal might be.

Does that change your thinking on this topic?

[1] BBC: Why is Ukraine negotiating a minerals deal with the US?

[Martinned2]

Yes, everyone already understood that Trump needed to be bribed to not support Russia before he won the election. I'm not sure why you think that's some kind of vindication of Trump.

[ThePublius]

Because it is vindication for Trump. Your spin on it is based on nothing except hatred for and demonization of Trump. But not just vindication of Trump, repudiation of much, if not all of the haters have said about Trump and this deal.

I laid down some facts. You made up something.

[David Nieporent]

Does that change your thinking on this topic?

It doesn't, because your own link shows that what you're referring to is very different than what we have now. Pursuant to that article, Zelensky proposed, as part of a comprehensive plan for continued U.S. support for Ukraine against Russia, that the U.S. could have some form of 'access' to Ukraine's minerals. Whereas Trump is simply demanding those minerals — far more valuable than the aid provided by the U.S to date — in exchange for not much of anything at all.

While your link doesn't go into great detail, Ukraine published the outlines of its proposed "victory plan" last year. (Still not detail, of course.) In exchange for continued military support, including NATO membership, its supporters (not just the U.S.) would get the right to invest in Ukrainian resource development:

https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/plan-peremogi-skladayetsya-z-pyati-punktiv-i-troh-tayemnih-d-93857

[ThePublius]

Facts:

1. Mineral access was Zelensky's proposal;
2. Zelensky and Trump are negotiating and are close to a deal.

Negotiating doesn't mean just giving Zelensky everything he asked for, 'take it or leave it.'

I want Trump to make a good deal for the U.S., and I think that's what he's trying to do.

You didn't address the fact many here were wrong about how this came about. ANd you saying they weren't wrong, and putting some spin on it doesn't make them right.
But that's O.K., it really doesn't matter. That was a big part of my point, labeling Trump as a mafioso, a thug, a bully, a thief, and so forth, was simply incorrect.

[David Nieporent]

1. Mineral access was Zelensky's proposal;

That two proposals both have the word "minerals" in them does not somehow make them the same proposal. Mineral access in exchange for stuff was indeed Zelensky's proposal. Trump's proposal was just "gimme."

Negotiating doesn't mean just giving Zelensky everything he asked for, 'take it or leave it.'

Based on your own link, he's not giving Zelensky anything he asked for.

[ThePublius]

Do you have access to the three secret annexes to the plan?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whereas Trump is simply demanding those minerals "

Not according to accounts I've seen.

[David Nieporent]

That's right; you have an undisclosed source that talks about Trump providing military aid to Ukraine.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a perfectly disclosed source saying it's only "access".

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you share it? Because I’m genuinely not sure which one you’re referring to.

[Brett Bellmore]

A look at Ukraine's minerals and rare earth elements, which Trump wants as payback for wartime aid

"Exactly three years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion and under pressure from President Trump, a senior Ukrainian official said negotiations over a deal that would give Washington access to Ukraine's vast mineral reserves were "in the final stages." "

Putin offers to sell minerals to Trump, including from Russian-occupied Ukraine

"The offer came amid an attempt by the Trump administration to gain preferential access to hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Ukraine’s critical minerals as payback for previously supplied aid, while offering no clear security guarantees or prospects of future funds in return."

The idea that he's just demanding the minerals be handed over, rather that preferred status as a trading partner for them, is a political talking point, not an honest account of the negotiations.

[David Nieporent]

If I demand "access" to your wallet, do you think this means I'm not getting your money?

[Stella Link the dog]

When I first became aware of this thing it was because Trump was claiming that the US was going to acquire $500 billion in compensation for the cost of the aid that the US had already given. It is my understanding that the cost of that aid was about $180 billion and I'm unsure of how that figure was arrived at as much of the aid was in the form of equipment that was in the US inventory but outdated -- how as that valued, if so? Perhaps he was not trying to claim that the deal was compensation but was infact a forward looking, fair economic relationship, but if so, my interpretation, and that of many, was not unfair. You yourself in the VC comments opined that receiving comensation for previous expenditures was justified as we are "tapped out."

If, in fact, the deal agreed to (so it seems) is a straight forward economic transaction and that Ukraine is receiving fair compensation for its resources, who could compain about that?

"

[ThePublius]

"Whereas Trump is simply demanding those minerals — far more valuable than the aid provided by the U.S to date — in exchange for not much of anything at all."

That is a false statement, or at least wildly speculative and cynical, based on little or no knowledge of details the current negotiations. But we shall see, in time.

[David Nieporent]

That is a false statement, or at least wildly speculative and cynical, based on little or no knowledge of details the current negotiations.

You're arguing in bad faith. You can argue we don't know what the terms or status of the supposed negotiations are and so should hold off on discussing them, or you can argue that we can discuss the negotiations by relying on what's being reported. But you can't argue that you get to discuss the details of the negotiations based on what's supposedly being reported but nobody who disagrees with you does because we're just speculating.

[ThePublius]

Do you have a source for Trump supposedly "simply demanding those minerals?"

[ThePublius]

"The government of Ukraine confirmed on Monday that it is in the “final stages” of an agreement on selling rare earth minerals to America, a deal President Donald Trump floated as a way for America to get a return on its investment in supporting Kyiv against Russian invasion." [emphasis mine]

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/02/24/ukraine-says-rare-earths-deal-trump-final-stages/

[David Nieporent]

breitbart.com

LOL.

[ThePublius]

So, you don't like the data so you attack the source. Fallacious.

Look, I subscribe to the NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, etc. But you often see things on page on of Breitbart that either never appear or appear late in those sources.

Are you saying what I reported is not true?

Here:

NYTimes, yesterday: Ukraine Nears a Deal to Give U.S. a Share of Its Mineral Wealth

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/world/europe/ukraine-us-mineral-wealth-deal.html?searchResultPosition=2

[David Nieporent]

Look, I subscribe to the NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, etc. But you often see things on page on of Breitbart that either never appear

Um, yeah. That's kind of why I LOLed.

Are you saying what I reported is not true?

Here:

NYTimes, yesterday: Ukraine Nears a Deal to Give U.S. a Share of Its Mineral Wealth

See how that actually is not at all what you quoted Breitbart as saying? (You even boldfaced a word.) And if you read the NYT piece, Ukraine doesn't appear to be getting anything out of this "deal."

[ThePublius]

Check again. There's now a deal.

https://www.ft.com/content/1890d104-1395-4393-a71d-d299aed448e6

[ThePublius]

"Ukraine doesn't appear to be getting anything out of this "deal.""

Except that they already got about $200Bn in support, and will not likely get protection at their Eastern border. If Zelensky is inking a deal, he must think he's getting something out of it, no?

[Stella Link the dog]

Looking at the site that you cited earlier: Breitbart is to the right of Russia Today and most of the sites with a lower reliability rating are pretty much cracked: Megyn Kelly, OAN, Newsmax, Heritage and the like. Breitbart shows to be about as biased as MSNBC but less reliable.

So, I understand that, according to the genetic fallacy, it is a fallacy to judge a presented argument based on the argument's proponent. But, even if so, is David incorrect to devalue that which is published by Breitbart considering that Breitbart is biased way to the right and is known to be unreliable?

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem here, of course, is the usual demand that information be cited only from sources that have no motive to provide it. Left wing sites can be reliable in the sense of not often pushing total fabrications, but still be highly biased in terms of what they think is worth reporting.

Anyway, breaking news:

Ukraine agrees minerals deal after Washington drops toughest demands

[Stella Link the dog]

I had a discussion with a family member today who claimed that the airplane crash in Philadelphia was the result of a conspiracy (by the great unknown) designed to create something for the news media to cover so that something important, which remains unidentified, could be ignored. I thought of you.

[ThePublius]

Look, I sought out a measure of bias and reliability of news sources and came upon Ad Fontes. Have you done anything similar?

They have Breitbart 'strong right' at +13.51
NYTimes 'skews left' at -8.05
Washington Post 'skews left'' at -6.92

No one is in the middle. But then, I think these are judged on only what they report. It's important to know what they choose to report and not report.

What quantitative measure do you use?

[Stella Link the dog]

I'm relying on your recommendation.

"Look, I sought out a measure of bias and reliability of news sources and came upon Ad Fontes. Have you done anything similar?"

I don't understand the tenor which I perceive in your comment. You referred to a site with ratings. I followed your implied recommendation and cited to it as well. You seem to perceive some sort of untoward intent -- if so, your perception is wrong.

If you truly wish that there were less acrimony around here. . .

[ThePublius]

Perhaps I misinterpreted your comment. Sorry.

[Stella Link the dog]

sounds good to me.

[not guilty]

"Look, I subscribe to the NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, etc. But you often see things on page on [sic] of Breitbart that either never appear or appear late in those sources."

Gee Willikers! I wonder why that is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because they deal in disinformation by commission and omission?

[Brett Bellmore]

Mostly omission, in practice, though commission hasn't historically been off the table. And who knows how many of those 'anonymous sources' actually exist?

[Sarcastr0]

If you're going to complain about ze liberal media, and your example by comparison is Breitbart?

You're not going to convince anyone not already rabidly right-wing of your case.

Breitbart is a propaganda organization. It has credibility issues beyond any ad hominem.

It covers stuff no one else does because it's not afraid to push misinformation in service of its ideology.

Remember it's the 'black crime' tag website. Race-baiting trash.

If that's your alternate example, you're just gonna make NYT and WaPo look good.

[Commenter_XY]

RE: The taxpayer paid for sex chat room for NSA and CIA employees.

And you seriously question why DOGE exists. Read some chat room excerpts. Hard to see how the graphic description of electrical stimulation of one's anus relates to catching spies.

BTW, did you know that DOGE was being renamed? Yes, it will now be know as the Federal Agency Funding Organization. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

I always liked O.W.C.A., from Phineas and Ferb. (Organization Without a Cool Acronym)

[David Nieporent]

From a quick google, that sounds like yet another typical DOGE distortion. There was no "sex chat room" that the taxpayer "paid for." Rather, there were chat rooms for employees to use, and some trans employees used one of them to discuss stuff including sex.

[ThePublius]

Oh, that makes all the difference in the world! 🙂

These chat rooms were for official business use only. That they violated that policy is a fact. The content they provided during that violation is perhaps scandalous, but that's not the main point.

[David Nieporent]

These chat rooms were for official business use only. That they violated that policy is a fact.

Is it a fact? Because I've now traced it back to the Rufo story that seems to have sparked this, and it implies that this use was authorized at the time it took place. That the current administration doesn't agree is not retroactive.

That having been said, the description of the material does in fact seem scandalous and inappropriate.

But that wasn't really what I was reacting to; I was reacting to the clickbait about "taxpayer paid for." DOGE saves taxpayers exactly zero dollars by banning such discussions.

[ThePublius]

Did you ever work for the federal government, or a federal contractor, or even a private or public company that had a policy regarding use of company resources, including email, internet access, chat apps (like Slack, irc, google chat)? They almost never allow for non-business related stuff, and certainly not on company time.

From City Journal:

"We have cultivated sources within the National Security Agency—one current employee and one former employee—who have provided chat logs from the NSA’s Intelink messaging program. According to an NSA press official, “All NSA employees sign agreements stating that publishing non-mission related material on Intelink is a usage violation and will result in disciplinary action.” Nonetheless, these logs, dating back two years, are lurid, featuring wide-ranging discussions of sex, kink, polyamory, and castration." [emphasis mine]

However,
"According to our sources, the sex chats were legitimized as part of the NSA’s commitment to “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Activists within the agency used LGBTQ+ “employee resource groups” to turn their kinks and pathologies into official work duties. According to the current NSA employee, these groups “spent all day" recruiting activists and holding meetings with titles such as “Privilege,” “Ally Awareness,” “Pride,” and “Transgender Community Inclusion.” And they did so with the full support of NSA leadership, which declared that DEI was “not only mission critical, but mission imperative.”"

THIS is why we have to rid our goverment of DEI and wokeness, in general.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/national-security-agency-internal-chatroom-transgender-surgeries-polyamory

[Sarcastr0]

"According to the current NSA employee" and then meetings with titles he didn't like.

As DMN noted, that doesn't show it wasn't considered mission related.

And it's not saving taxpayer money.

So take your 'DEI must die because this chatroom is bad' and stuff it.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh David, I'm sorry. I did not realize that taxpayers did not pay the salary of said employees, or pay for their equipment, or the platform. Nah. It was free, amirite?

Look, this would result in immediate dismissals for a boatload of people, in the real world. Starting with every employee who utilized the sex chat room, the IT people who should have monitored it (and how do you allow it, seriously? IT people are proto-soviets when it comes to 'their' system), and quite probably the immediate supervisors of the employees, and assorted compliance staff for sure.

There is NO defense to anything like this.

[Stella Link the dog]

"RE: The taxpayer paid for sex chat room for NSA and CIA employees.

And you seriously question why DOGE exists."

I read this and I inferred that the claim was that there were commercial sex chat rooms and that "taxpayers" paid for subscriptions for NSA and CIA employees and that this malfeasance was discovered by DOGE. Sort of like if the government was paying for subscriptions to only fans or adult friend finder. Perhaps that was not the idea you were trying to convey, but my inference was not borne of ill intent and was a reasonable interpretation.

Now, poking around on the world-wide inter tubes I find this from November 2000 (oy):
" The CIA is investigating some senior managers who were involved in running a “secret” chat room on some of the agency’s most highly classified computer systems, officials told ABCNEWS.

"More than 160 agency officials and contractors are under investigation for participating in the chat room, which ran for more than a year before CIA investigators found the it during a routine security check of computer systems some months ago."

Is that the scandal you're referring to or is there something recent that DOGE uncovered?

To address the question: "And you seriously question why DOGE exists."

DOGE as it exists, yes I do. I doubt that there are many here who don't believe that the federal government is wasteful and that reforms are in order. Should there be more thorough audits and tighter controls and better supervision? I doubt that many would say no. Should federal spending be more closely scrutinized for corruption and fraud? Yes. But, DOGE? No.

[David Nieporent]

I read this and I inferred that the claim was that there were commercial sex chat rooms and that "taxpayers" paid for subscriptions for NSA and CIA employees and that this malfeasance was discovered by DOGE. Sort of like if the government was paying for subscriptions to only fans or adult friend finder. Perhaps that was not the idea you were trying to convey, but my inference was not borne of ill intent and was a reasonable interpretation.

By the way, that's exactly what I assumed too.

And then I did a bit of searching and found out that this was more the equivalent of DOGE announcing that they discovered a couple of federal workers having sex in a file room. (Sorry, a "taxpayer funded file room.") Except then it turned out that it wasn't even that; it was more like a few federal workers discussing smutty stuff in the break room. With permission.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And you seriously question why DOGE exists.

Since it doesn’t appear that DOGE discovered these cartoons nor that it’s involved in the response I’m not sure that the story provides much support for its existence.

(Original story, as best I can tell, here: https://www.city-journal.org/article/national-security-agency-internal-chatroom-transgender-surgeries-polyamory)

[ThePublius]

(Wow, crickets on both instances of my post revealing that the US/Ukraine mineral deal was Zelensky's idea, presented before Trump even won the election. Here's another interesting complicating factor):

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he is open to offering the US access to rare minerals, including from Russian-occupied Ukraine.

This comes after US President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed for Ukraine to give up some of its minerals in exchange for support, in a deal which is currently being finalised, according to a Ukrainian minister.

"Russian President Vladimir Putin said he is open to offering the US access to rare minerals, including from Russian-occupied Ukraine.

This comes after US President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed for Ukraine to give up some of its minerals in exchange for support, in a deal which is currently being finalised, according to a Ukrainian minister.

In a state TV interview on Monday, Putin said he was ready to "offer" resources to American partners in joint projects, including mining in Russia's "new territories" - a reference to parts of eastern Ukraine that Russia has occupied since launching a full-scale invasion three years ago." [1]

So Trump is in the interesting position of having offers of access to the same mineral resources from the warring parties. How will this play out?

The approach Solomon would take would be to draw a line and tell both parties that the U.S. will access the resources on both sides of the line, offering security guarantees to both. So we would have access to minerals in Eastern Ukraine, Donbas, Luhansk, and even parts of Russia, in return for keeping the peace. [2] That would be brilliant.

[1] BBC: Putin offers Russian and Ukrainian rare minerals to US

[2] I assume we'd put together an international coalition to do so.

[ThePublius]

This is brilliant:

"Federal judge rejects AP's bid to overturn White House ban on outlet's access to key areas"

"The best part about the AP's lawsuit is that the judge openly questioned today why the White House Correspondents Association—a self-appointed, fake organization with no statutory or legitimate authority, that exists solely to project an air of official status and wield influence it was never granted—should have any say over “who can and cannot come into the Oval Office.” He even suggested, “Seems to me the White House could decide to throw out the White House Correspondents Association altogether.”

https://x.com/HansMahncke/status/1894203513963487659?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1894203513963487659%7Ctwgr%5Eb7623c83687bad4dce20ca1b64fa7b565911046c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F704783%2F

[ThePublius]

I hope Trump takes this cue and throws out the White House Correspondents Association, and encourages the formation of a new group, based strongly on new media.

[ThePublius]

Prayer answered!

NYTimes: White House Moves to Pick the Pool Reporters Who Cover Trump

Of course, liberal heads are exploding, and reports are loaded with "unprecedented," and so on.

"“This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States,” Eugene Daniels, the president of the [WHCA], wrote. “It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”"

AP is upset, too. I'm sure there will be lawsuits. Screw them, I say. There's no legal issue here. The White House gets to choose who enters the Oval Office and Air Force One. Maybe even the WH briefing room. Period.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh noes, the humanity!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Go fuck yourself, fascist. Midnight is soon approaching.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s like a free ride when all you need is a knife.

[tylertusta]

*when you've already paid.

[not guilty]

Yesterday's order denies only the AP request for a temporary restraining order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277682/gov.uscourts.dcd.277682.18.0.pdf There is no substitute for original source materials.

The District Court had already scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for March 20, 2025, with expedited briefing in the meantime. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69662918/the-associated-press-v-budowich/

That having been said, the AP faces an uphill struggle, IMO.

[ThePublius]

What's going on in the UK? They appear to me to becoming a totalitarian, oppressive state, especially with regard to speech. In addition to arresting people for silently praying, and even praying in their own homes in proximity to abortion sites, there's this:

"Two police officers were caught on camera paying a visit to a grandmother simply for criticising Labour politicians on Facebook.

Detectives have been accused of acting like East Germany’s Stasi secret police for quizzing Helen Jones over her calls for the resignation of local councillors embroiled in the WhatsApp scandal exposed by The Mail on Sunday.

Police conceded that the 54-year-old had committed no crime – yet Mrs Jones said she has effectively been silenced by the officers, as she was intimidated by them calling at her door and is too terrified to post on social media again.

Voters have rallied to her defence and blasted the ‘shocking’ incident as a waste of police time and accused the Government for alleged ‘abuse of power’.

Former Tory Cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg called the behaviour ‘extraordinary’.

It is the latest in a string of incidents in which police have investigated people for social media posts, including newspaper columnist Allison Pearson, feminist writer Julie Bindel, and former policeman Harry Miller, whose name was added to a database for his ‘non-crime hate incident’.

Greater Manchester Police has one of the highest crime rates in Britain and fails to solve almost three out of four shoplifting incidents." [1]

Can you imagine? For criticizing a politician, you get a police visit? If that happened here in the U.S. there's not telling what would happen. If they knocked on my door with this I'd tell them to f' off, come back with a warrant. Then again, in the U.K., there are any number of thought crimes they could charge you with. George Orwell predicted the current state of the UK.

And, UK politicians have said they will enforce this kind of thing everywhere in the world - 'we will come for you.' Thank goodness Apple didn't give them the back door they wanted to view encrypted messages world wide, which is what they wanted.

Why they remain a U.S. ally I do not know.

[1] Telegram: Fury deepens over 'sinister' Thought Police targeting of a grandmother who criticised Labour as voters call for Starmer to go over 'abuse of power'

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember, 1984 was, after all, about England. "IngSoc" stood for "English Socialism" in Newspeak. "Oceana" is the UK.

[Magister]

The United States was a substantial part of Oceania, which included the Americas, Australia, part of Africa and its smallest part, the United Kingdom. "Airstrip One" on the edge of Eurasia seems more vulnerable and less likely to have the resources or defensive geography to control Oceania.

(Of course, it might be that all of the information in 1984 was made up by the Party. Maybe there were no other powers and no war.)

[ThePublius]

"Throughout his nearly 20-minute remarks, Vance gave a full-throated defense of free speech. While acknowledging the Biden administration’s censorship practices, Vance eloquently explained the importance of maintaining open discourse in civil society and lambasted self-professed “democratic” European states for deploying authoritarian tactics to silence their own peoples."

https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/24/by-defending-free-speech-worldwide-team-trump-reclaims-americas-global-moral-high-ground/

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s like rain on your cigarette break.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to know why the UK is still a US ally?

[ThePublius]

Well, yes, since they've clearly deviated from the principles of a free nation.

[Sarcastr0]

If that's the new criteria, maybe start with Saudi Arabia and work your way up to the UK.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Hamilton, Madison, and Jay have lost something off their fastball.

[SRG2]

Glossip wins his SC appeal and probably gets freed.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/22-7466_5h25.pdf

Thomas, naturally, being a murderous POS - and equally naturally, joined by Alito - would have denied the appeal on the grounds, basically, that he doesn't give a shit about innocence - process is all that matters - and that anyway Glossip must be a murderer because he was convicted.

Glossip was convicted of murder for hire. Sneed, the confessed murderer testified against Glossip in return for no DP. The prosecution hid tons of documents and some key evidence from the defence, and later argued that it was up to the defence to have found out about some of this concealment. Glossip did himself no favours originally by inconsistent statements and initially covering up for Sneed (oh, irony!) but aside from Sneed's testimony there was no evidence of Glossip's guilt. Eventually the AG admitted error, but the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, being as concerned about innocence as Texas's CCA and Thomas, wouldn't accept the admission, hence the appeal to SC.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd note that initially covering up for Sneed actually does look vaguely like evidence of Gossip's guilt. It's hard to see why else he'd have covered up for a murderer.

That said, prosecutorial misconduct seems like a reasonable justification for overturning the verdict.

[Stella Link the dog]

"It's hard to see why else he'd have covered up for a murderer."
Money, extortion, bribery, general bad character and refusal to cooperate with authorities(eg omerta) and many, many, other motivations. In any event, his refusal to cooperate ("covering up" for the killer) is evidence of criminal behavior, but not evidence of committing murder.

[David Nieporent]

Those are abstract reasons why one might cover up for a murderer; it's hard to see why this specific person would have covered up for this particular murderer in this specific situation.

As I noted above, it wasn't mere passive "refusal to cooperate." He actively concealed the murder, including tricking people into thinking that Van Treese was still alive even after he knew the guy was already dead.

In any case, you're right that this might not be enough to prove murder — but that plus Sneed's testimony is. (To be sure, one can disbelieve Sneed, but one can also believe him. And that is sufficient evidence.)

[Stella Link the dog]

"In any case, you're right that this might not be enough to prove murder — but that plus Sneed's testimony is."
Sure, I can see that.

[David Nieporent]

I'm always up for a story about prosecutorial misconduct, and I express no opinions about whether Brady or the like was violated, but I cannot see any argument for Glossip's innocence, based on his own post-homicide conduct. If that doesn't scream "consciousness of guilt," nothing does. He didn't merely keep silent about Sneed; he actively concealed the crime and — knowing that Van Treese had been murdered — led people on a wild goose chase to make them think the guy was still alive.

[not guilty]

"Glossip wins his SC appeal and probably gets freed."

The remedy ordered by SCOTUS was a new trial. Oklahoma prosecuting authorities can now independently exercise discretion as to whether to try the case again. Given the history of this case, however, putting the lying, murdering scumbag Justin Sneed before a jury for the third time would be a fool's errand.

The opinion of the Court reflects a sordid history of eliciting and failing to correct false testimony and withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense. The offending prosecuting attorney appears to be now teaching at University of Oklahoma College of Law. https://law.ou.edu/node/505 That reflects poorly on that institution.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He has been in prison for over 25 years. That is suitable punishment even if he is guilty.

[ThePublius]

This is pretty good:

https://yiddishacademy.com/schtick-yiddish-culture/yiddish-slang/

I grew up in the Bronx when there were still a lot of Yiddish speakers there, and you'd find discarded Yiddish newspapers next to the trash cans at the subway stations (to pass along).

I recall Colin Powell spoke some Yiddish as a result of working at a Jewish-owned store in the Bronx as a teenager. He also helped Orthodox families on the Sabbath.

My mother in law worked for a Jewish family on the Sabbath. She was a German WWII surviver as a child, and I think was conflicted, as she never really got over her anti-Jew indoctrination as a child in Nazi Germany. But she has several long relationships with a few Jewish families and loved them. The world is strange.

[tylertusta]

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

[ThePublius]

Whoops, I edited out my original post, having thought better of posting it. Sorry!

[tylertusta]

No worries. I was just having fun with your original post. 🙂

[SRG2]

I think nowadays most of those are more known than spoken.

FWIW a few years back the USATF masters outdoor championships was held at the North Florida SU track and I had just met another Jewish athlete. As we walked up to the starting line, and we were chatting, I uttered some Yiddish phrase (I forget what) and my new friend observed, that's probably the first time Yiddish has ever been spoken on this track.

[ThePublius]

I wish you could recall what you said!

My older brother is quite funny, and can do an unbelievably good and funny Yiddish/English spiel on almost any topic. He worked much more with Jewish people in NYC, having had several stores with Kosher kitchens.

[ThePublius]

Have I brought this topic up before? Sorry if this is redundant, I can't remember.

I''m going to try to cook an entire meal using the sous vide technique ('under vacuum').

My friend gave me a sous vide motor, or engine, or whatever it's called. I then bought a purpose-made container for water with a rack and a thermal glove. I already have on hand those neat Zip-loc vacuum bags and the little hand pump, and also a vacuum packaging machine and bag stock.

The only issue is that different foods require different temperatures and times. I still haven't figured out how to orchestrate it all.

Steak: 2 hrs. at 130º for medium rare, then sear on a smokin' hot cast iron skillet, 30 seconds a side;
Potatoes: 1 hr. at 190º (butter poached golden potatoes);
Broccoli: 45 minutes at 185º;
Asparagus: 12 minutes at 185º.

Here's an idea:

I'm thinking start with the highest temp, and, for example, when the potatoes are done, chill the bag and let the sous vide cooker slide down to 185º, do the broc and asparagus, also chilling when done, then the steak when it's down to 130º (ice might speed the slide to 130º), and after searing, while the steak is resting, dunk the veg bags to warm them up for eating, and voilà!

Since all the veg are pretty close in temp, maybe just adjust the time instead of temp?

I've never done this before. Anyone here experienced?

[Jmaie]

Whole meal, is this for science?

Steak just need to be in long enough to get the meat to temperature, unlike tougher cuts that need longer soaks. If one inch thick it should be ready to sear in 45 minutes or so, assuming from room temp. There's no harm to leaving it two hours, although more than that could start to damage the texture. Under no circumstances exceed four hours.

Your green veggies just need to reach temperature, they won't need nearly as long as you've planned unless the broccoli is a whole head ;<)

No idea on the potatoes...

[ThePublius]

Thank you!

I'm following the time and temperature recommendations from Anova, the maker of my sous vide motor.

I'll let you know how it works out.

[Brett Bellmore]

The other point is that if you sous vide the steak long enough you've pasteurized it; pasteurization is a time vs temp thing. So do the steak first, and until you open the bag it's safe just sitting on your counter.
https://stefangourmet.com/2018/04/01/how-to-choose-time-and-temperature-to-cook-meat-sous-vide/
Three hours isn't going to turn your steak to mush. Especially if it's a tougher cut to begin with.

[ThePublius]

Wow! Everything came out great! Great dinner. I had done the steak a couple of days ago, 2 hours at 130º aiming for rare to medium rare. Tonight I did the veg at 187.5º, 1 hour for the potatoes, 45 min. for the broccoli, and 12 minutes for the asparagus. Then I seared the steak, both sides and edges, on a 500ºF cast iron skillet. It was longer than I thought it would be, perhaps a minute of more on each side. It came out perfect!

[Jmaie]

[Kazinski]

----