Wednesday Open Thread

Comments

[neurodoc]

Has neurodoc, the illeist, arrived here today to start this open thread before Mr. Ed, the talking horse's behind, arrives on the scene with some hateful expression for the indefatigable David Nieporent to in turn answer and put Mr. Ed back in his proper place, that being his Augean Stables stall?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well put.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Has neurofraud managed to make it through a day without committing medical malpractice? Stranger things have happened.

And as to David DevNull, perhaps neurofraud can type out the definition of ODD as I don't feel like it. Acting like a mentally ill eight year old doesn't put anyone else anywhere...

The 3AM gravel train was late this morning, freight trains sometimes are...

[Frank Drackman]

Sometime in 3rd year med school you kill your first patient, it’s an important milestone (mine was a Coumadin dose that was umm a little too high (in my defense it was before we had the INR and you had todo the PT/PTT yourself, don’t think it happens as much now as med schools turned into a 4 yr Encounter Session, you’re not a real Doc until you’ve killed a few (might want to avoid the Surgeon who’s nickname is “007”

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, one of the reasons I refused to go to med school, even though I never met a biology course I didn't ace.

[Frank Drackman]

But where else can you prescribe Rat Poison!?

[Brett Bellmore]

Ace Hardware?

[Krayt]

The 3AM gravel train was late this morning, freight trains sometimes are...

When moving to three-a-weeks, they had seemed to move Wednesday's Open Thread to noon on Wednesday, I guess trying to split the halfway point between midnight Monday and Friday. Earlier than noon is better IMO, though just after midnight Tuseday eve migh be a bit much.

Since it can be set to an automatic release moment, I submit 6 AM Wed to catch the early birds. Go to effin' sleep, self-appointed Guardians of the Haxacy!

[Dr. Ed 2]

You realize we are talking at least a half dozen different time zones, Zulo -0800 to Zulu +0900.

[tylertusta]

A lot of words just to say "First."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"First" is so 2024.

[Armchair]

Question for the forum.

It's 2028, and President Democrats has taken office. As her advisor, do you suggest she direct the FBI and DoJ to investigate and/or prosecute Trump and any of his supporters for suspected criminal activity during the previous 4 years. For example, investigate Elon Musk for his actions with DOGE, and look to see if there's anything he can be prosecuted for?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can't believe that 47 would leave office, having lost to a Democrat, without issuing a blanket pardon to absolutely everyone including the church sexton. Not after what happened to 45...

Second, I doubt the FBI circa 2029 will be anything like what it was in 2015. For better or worse, and much like Congress did to the CIA in the 1970s, there will be bi-partisan Congressional oversight of the FBI that is intended to preclude this sort of thing.

Third, maybe -- just maybe -- people in DC will start understanding the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction and stop these lynch mobs. One can at least hope...

[santamonica811]

Answer to your question: No.
a. At least, not on Musk's actions so far. They are, of course, monumentally stupid and destructive. But those do not a crime make.
b. Most Dems and Republicans are not steaming sacks of shit like Trump. Almost no potential candidate--D or R--wants to weaponize things in that way. I expect that, regardless of who actually gets the D nomination in '28, he/she will say some version of, "Hey, American needs to put the poison of Trump behind us."
c. What will happen in 2029, in regards to Trump's attempted destruction of evidence (etc etc) re the kept Mar-a-Lago documents??? My guess is that (and this assumes Trump lives out his full presidency, which I expect) Trump will pardon himself for everything, going out the door, and that will be the end of all potential federal prosecutions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Most Dems and Republicans are not steaming sacks of shit like Trump"

Oh, really?!?

Trump's brash, he is textbook NYC Developer (which *is* what he is), but don't think that everyone else in DC is a blushing virgin.

Seventy years ago, Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) told a constituent that "if people really knew what was going on in Washington, there'd be a revolution." And that was back when everyone went to church every Sunday, I doubt the city is any more honest or ethical today....

It's not what the Dems might do but what they DID do under Coma Joe. And after 45, I think that every outgoing POTUS, of either party, is going to issue a blanket January 19th pardon -- IANAA but that sounds like very good legal advice...

[Mr. Bumble]

I think it was a typo and santa...meant to type "hot" steaming bags of shit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What will happen in 2029, in regards to Trump's attempted destruction of evidence (etc etc) re the kept Mar-a-Lago documents???

The statute of limitations will have expired by then, so hopefully nothing.

[tylertusta]

An enterprising judge in a notional future case would find that the SoL was tolled from 2025-2029.

[David Nieporent]

As they should. (Setting aside the merits of prosecuting Trump.) Nobody should be able to hide behind "You can't prosecute me while I'm in office" and then "Ha! Statute ran out while I was in office, so you can't prosecute me now either."

That having been said, the statute on only some of the charges would've run; the Espionage Act charges are 10 years. (Obstruction is only 5, though.)

[tylertusta]

Since the government also alleging conspiracies, they may argue that the SoL has reset.

I'm on the fence about tolling the SoL, since part of the reason why we have SoLs is to give the defense a fair trial due to memories being fresh.

[not guilty]

"Since the government also alleging conspiracies, they may argue that the SoL has reset."

The limitation period for a conspiracy crime begins to run when the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As they should. (Setting aside the merits of prosecuting Trump.) Nobody should be able to hide behind "You can't prosecute me while I'm in office" and then "Ha! Statute ran out while I was in office, so you can't prosecute me now either."

If Congress wants to write that into law, that doesn’t seem unfair. (Obviously, it’s not going to happen absent some impossibly surprising midterm results.) Until they do, that’s kind of that.

[not guilty]

Per 18 U.S.C. § 3290, no statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice. I could argue (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that Donald Trump ran for his current term as President in order to evade or frustrate criminal prosecution, such that his current presidential tenure is flight from justice.

[Armchair]

There have been further stretches to prosecute Trump in the past....

[bernard11]

There have been further stretches to prosecute Trump in the past...

Not nearly as impressive as the stretches people like you do to defend him.

[David Nieporent]

If Congress wants to write that into law, that doesn’t seem unfair. (Obviously, it’s not going to happen absent some impossibly surprising midterm results.) Until they do, that’s kind of that.

There's surprisingly little precedent on equitable tolling of criminal statutes.

[Michael P]

There will be no bipartisan commission to investigate and root out FBI misconduct. Today's Democrat Party is solidly in favor of that misconduct, and that will not change this decade.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you see how you changed from misconduct generally to a 'that misconduct' particular partisan wank right after?

That's two different theses.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you see how he was just using ordinary English grammar?

[tylertusta]

It wouldn't be a Sarcastr0-style response if he wasn't attacking someone's grammar while implying the person was arguing in bad faith.

[Brett Bellmore]

What really made it a Sarcastr0ism was that he was attacking Michael for correct grammar.

[tylertusta]

I considered trying to classify his responses into types, but then I realized that he has essentially just one type of response.

[Commenter_XY]

He'll question the source, that is another category of response.

[tylertusta]

Indeed, but that's not unique to him.

[Mr. Bumble]

... being a Douche:
someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.

[not guilty]

"Do you see how he was just using ordinary English grammar?"

Uh, no one who kvetches about "the Democrat Party" is using ordinary English grammar. I surmise that for those folks the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh is irresistible.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I see one who kvetches about "Pam Bottle Blondi" and "Judge Loose Cannon" is now kvetching about someone referring to the "Democrat Party".

[tylertusta]

At least he isn't commenting about how Ashleigh Merchant's bosom indicates she is a liar in her professional life.

[neurodoc]

Are you her hairdresser? How do you know she isn't a natural blonde? Everything else about our Attorney General (e.g., sincerity, truthfulness, fidelity to the rule of law, sycophancy to Trump, etc.) is so utterly credible.

[not guilty]

The photographs with dark roots showing provide a clue.

[David Nieporent]

Do you see how he was just using ordinary English grammar?

Since he said "Democrat Party," he was not in fact using ordinary English grammar.

[Brett Bellmore]

Using the wrong proper name for an organization is distinct from the rules of grammar.

[not guilty]

No, Brett. "Democrat" is a noun, as is "Party". "Democratic" is an adjective. Rules of grammar do not permit nouns to modify nouns.

I understand the temptation to tweak the opposition party -- I used to refer frequently to "Rethuglicans." I stopped doing that when I realized it detracted from the substance of what I was saying.

The "Democrat Party" shtick is just annoying and stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Democratic party" does not use "Democratic" as an adjective, any more than "Republican party" uses "Republican" as an adjective. "Democratic party" is a proper name for your party.

[bernard11]

"Democratic party" is a proper name for your party.

Then why do so many RW assholes refuse to use it?

[Michael P]

Coming soon from Insane Clown Posse: "Demonstrative pronouns, how the fuck do they work?"

[tylertusta]

ChatGPT delivers:

(Verse 1)
Yo, this is a mic and that is a hat,
But these are my JNCOs, straight up fat!
And those over there? Man, I don’t even know,
Demonstrative pronouns got my mind blown, whoa!

[tylertusta]

If the GOP wanted to, they can build an equivalent to the J6 committee and cherry pick compliant Democrats to run it. In a House caucus of over 200 members surely we could find a couple that wouldn't gloss over the FBI's actions.

[Michael P]

Fetterman is in the Senate, not the House. I haven't seen signs that the lower, more populist chamber has Democrats that are willing to act sane.

[tylertusta]

We can start by looking at the Democrats who voted in favor of an amendment that would have prohibited searches of the 702 database.

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024114

Then we can narrow it down to exclude the House Progressive Caucus members, and from there narrow it again to those in districts that Trump carried.

[David Nieporent]

Which actions would those be? You'll notice the J6 committee was investigating an attack on the Capitol. Not imaginary offenses.

[tylertusta]

There are discrete allegations that can be investigated, such as the use of an off-the-books investigation against Trump. I'm personally in favor of Congress looking again into the FBI's lies that they told to the FISC.

Even without a discrete allegation, Congress has broad oversight authority. Congress doesn't need a specific event to exercise that authority over the FBI. Congress can just start digging.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, I can't believe that 47 would leave office either.

[Armchair]

Yeah, but you said that about 45 too.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

It should be criminal to treat someone as criminal on no basis in fact.

[Frank Drackman]

FBI’s gone to shit since they dropped the requirement to have a Law or Accounting degree and stopped carrying 357 magnums, now they’re just glorified beat Cops

[Mr. Bumble]

...glorified beat[down] cops.

[hobie]

Depends on what Vance does. A normal VP would be the natural candidate for 2028. But will the good little soldier Vance sacrifice his candidacy so Trump can entertain his fantasy of being a third termer? I see Trump got rid of that nasty woman running the the Archives. Purely coincidental. But there'll be no one there to snitch again on fake elector ballots or missing secrets. You rubes beginning to see the contours of the takeover plan?

[Brett Bellmore]

Some people just don't realize when they're being trolled. Not that Presidents should troll people in the first place.

[grb]

hobie : " ....Vance sacrifice his candidacy so Trump can entertain his fantasy of being a third termer?"

A couple of points:

1. Vance has sacrifice his candidacy by being Trump's stooge. By 2028, he'll reek of Trump's stench.

2. I keep seeing talk of Trump's "third term". Even allowing it an impossibility from a constitutional amendment perspective, it's more absurd still. Remember, if Trump can run again, so could Obama. And anyone who thinks DJT could beat BHO in an election is delusional in the extreme.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Heck, someone other than Mittens Romney could have beaten him in 2012...

[Brett Bellmore]

Depending on how the economy is going in the summer of 2028, maybe Trump could beat BHO. But I think all the talk of a third term IS just trolling.

[windycityattorney]

Brett I think you are seriously undermining how absolutely devastating Trump's economic plans are going to be to his core base. When the feds pull all that funding they are promising to pull from all sectors - but principally in healthcare - the State's will be forced to step into the gap. And red states don't have the money to do it without raising taxes. And red state legislators won't raise taxes because its hugely unpopular.

Something's gotta give. Throw in tariffs on most everything people buy and prices rise to accommodate said tariffs...its going to get pretty ugly. Or as the DOGE whisperer says "there will be some pain." And pray tell, in all the history of modern elections since the Great Depression...when the people feel 'pain' who does that hurt politically? Is it the incumbent party in power?

The only winner is going to be all the new fat leopards feasting on faces. "I voted for Trump but I didn't think he would take away MY medicaid." Pitiful tax cuts for the middle and lower class aren't going to make up for the 'pain' that is coming and that will be politically unpopular.

[Brett Bellmore]

It all comes down to whether Trump can clear away enough regulatory weight on the economy to cause a boom, doesn't it? And whether that boom comes before or after the 2026 elections.

The work on the regulatory front is absolutely critical.

[Sarcastr0]

No regulation has been touched.

Changing regulations is boring and slow and Trump tried it last time and didn't care for it.

Now it's all Musk-mediated flashy immiseration and destroying all our global good will.

You live in a fantasy.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "It all comes down to whether Trump...."

To be sure. It all comes down to whether magic rainbow-colored unicorns fill the sky, bringing a message of eternal joy!

Allowing for that, Trump's nihilistic orgy of brainless chaos and destruction will bring misery across the country and damage a very fragile economy. And the fat leopards will feast.

As someone noted : House Republicans just passed their budget resolution - the first step to enact a bill that will kick millions off Medicaid and cut SNAP down to just $1.60 per person per meal on average. This while cutting taxes for the top 0.1% by $278,000 and increasing the debt.

Of course I don't expect that debt business to bother Brett. He knew he was voting pro-federal-deficit when he pulled the lever for Trump. It's a safe bet he's voted pro-federal-deficit his entire life.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I know it's sort of central to left-wing ideology that government regulation is always and everywhere a boon, and so rolling it back can never have good consequences.

Republicans, it should be noted, do not operate on the basis of Democratic assumptions.

[Sarcastr0]

No regs have been rolled back, Brett.

What world do you live in that you think that's the objection here?

[bernard11]

As a deficit hawk, Brett, and someone who has expressed a lot of concern over inflation, what do you think of that tax cut?

[bernard11]

Crickets.

Brett is awaiting the talking points issued from on high.

[bernard11]

It all comes down to whether Trump can clear away enough regulatory weight on the economy to cause a boom, doesn't it?

No. Because even an intelligent reduction of regulation wouldn't cause a boom, and the chainsaw approach certainly won't.

[Riva]

No, first it should be noted that the President and DOGE have overwhelming public support. You have an absurd anti-DOGE gaslighting campaign. And another reason the President is so popular is that he and his administration are committed to reform and the dismantling of the weaponization of federal law enforcement. The dystopian nightmare you fantasize over will never happen, but if it did, the lawfare apparatus that the Biden regime obscenely exploited, will no longer exist.

[grb]

Riva : "... the President and DOGE have overwhelming public support."

Speaking of delusional, our resident bot spews out random counterfactual nonsense....

[Joe_dallas]

https://wsau.com/2025/02/24/new-harvard-harris-poll-nearly-80-of-respondents-support-doge-cutting-government-waste/

somewhere around 70-80% public support for DOGE

[Noscitur a sociis]

While that is (sort of) what the article says, it’s not what the poll it’s reporting on says:

https://harvardharrispoll.com/key-results-february-5/

The question that got 77% support (NB: not 76% as described in the article) was, “Do you think that we are in need of a full examination of all government expenditures, or should we not get in the way of current contracts and expenditures?”

When they start actually asking about DOGE (“Do (recte you) think the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk is helping make major cuts in government expenditures, or not?”, only 60% answer yes—which doesn’t mean much more than that 60% of people haven’t been paying attention. (Or, more precisely, that up to 60% of people think answering “yes” is a way of signaling support for Trump.)

[grb]

And remember : It wasn't an accident the first DOGE numbers were an incoherent mess :

"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/

Trump and Musk were only interested in putting on a smash-bang cartoon spectacular show coming out the gate. Substance was irrelevant. It was like when Trump tried to strong-arm Zelensky into announcing a Biden investigation before the '20 election. He wasn't interested in any actual investigation; he just wanted the announcement. Just like when Trump did Neville-Chamberlain-level appeasement to get a deal with the Taliban. He was only interested in a piece of paper to wave around, not what was on it.

We already see GOP congressmen wary of public town hall meetings. That's only gonna get worse. Much worse.

[Riva]

You do understand that anit-DOGE townhalls and demonstrations are astro-turfed events paid for and organized by democrats and their leftist supporters, don't you? I can understand the leftist spittle trying to gaslight (because they're leftist spittle) but even you couldn't be so idiotic as to actually believe that the anti-DOGE ranting actually represents the view of a majoritiy of the public. Whatever, I encouage you to continue on this stupid path, wouldn't want to see democrats actually back in the majority.

[David Nieporent]

I guess this is the latest fake talking point the bot has been programmed with.

[Riva]

Nos..., you don't seem to understand that the poll reflects majority support for DOGE, even after you try to stamp your own brand of TDS stupid on the results.

[Commenter_XY]

Arm, I would foresee preemptive pardons in that scenario since the standard for preemptive pardons was already set by the cauliflower. As for The Donald himself, he'd probably say 'Go ahead, prosecute the elderly, well meaning man on a fixed income' 😉

(I don't think a POTUS can pardon himself, can he?)

[Brett Bellmore]

No President has ever tried, so it hasn't been litigated, but nothing in the text of the Constitution suggests he couldn't.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What about the emanations from its penumbra?

[Noscitur a sociis]

(I don't think a POTUS can pardon himself, can he?)

The pardon was adopted from the royal prerogative. The king couldn’t pardon himself, but the king also wasn’t considered subject to prosecution, so the concept wouldn’t have made any real sense. For the last 250 years, our presidents and governors put some effort int9 comporting themselves in a way that made answering the question largely unnecessary. (What a bunch of cucks!)

[Kazinski]

Tell that to Charles 1, who had a trial and an execution.

But I don't know if he tried to pardon himself.

[Bob from Ohio]

" trial "

Illegal lynching. No court could lawfully try the sovereign.

[Voize of Reazon]

Beheading.
As was the practice for noble and royal traitors, he was spared the traditional method of execution for high treason which at the time was to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Beheading."

Yes, but lynching is not confined to hanging.

The sovereign cannot commit treason.

[Kazinski]

Well it was authorized by Parliament (the Rump Parliament).

[Bob from Ohio]

Only the Commons. Parliament included the House of Lords. the Lords did not agree. Of course all opponents were illegal purged by the military so it wasn't even the full Commons..

Needles to say, no royal assent to the Rump's decision.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Those proceedings were, I think it’s fair to say, somewhat irregular. And I don’t think a pardon would have helped.

[Brett Bellmore]

And for the past 50 years, there's been a corrupt bargain, that started with Nixon and Ford, where each President refrains from prosecuting any crimes the previous President might have committed, in return expecting the next President to afford him the same consideration. This even extended minions after your left office, as the perfunctory tape on the wrist Sandy Berger got after stealing (presumably embarrassing to Clinton, why else bother?) and apparently destroying documents from the National Archives demonstrates.

Well, I guess that bargain finally was ended by Biden, at least one good deed on his part.

[ducksalad]

There are conditions under which that corrupt bargain could be necessary best practice, and the US may be approaching that state.

Prosecuting ex-chief-executives is feasible in places where there's zero doubt that elections will be held, they will be generally accepted as legitimate, and will be accepted by the incumbent.

On the other hand, there are places that have democracy but everyone is looking at each other funny. They need to provide incentives for incumbents to step down peacefully and no-jail-no-execution is one of them.

I'm thinking we're at the stage where we should overlook anything short of major human rights violations or failure to step down when it's your time.

[Krayt]

It's 2028, and President Democrats has taken office. As her advisor, do you suggest she direct the FBI and DoJ to investigate and/or prosecute Trump and any of his supporters for suspected criminal activity during the previous 4 years.

You're several iterations too late to squeak tu coqueq. All this is predicable of previous of previous one upsmanship.

One should not direct the investigative resources against one's opponents qua opponents. This is such an ancient problem it was a central design principle of the Constitution, and several amendments even address it directly.

Sadly, the process is this:

1. Pull out everything you know, it's time to use it! Remember, the prohibition on fishing expeditions is to stop the tyrant king from looking for real things, which he knows exist because anybody whose anybody has so many fingers in pies something can be found.
2. Use the awesome power of faceting to claim disinterested concern for rule of law.
3. Exaggerate the infraction as needed, to activate removal from office, removal from ballots, removal of the estate to impoverish.
4. Oh noes! Power has changed, they're doing to us what we've been doing to them.

Invert the above and suddenly find concern in it.

I warned you about this possibility inevitability. This prediction was based on many historical cycles, which, and knowledge of which, was ancient news by the time of the Founding Fathers.

[David Nieporent]

It's 2028, and President Democrats has taken office.

As the resident pedant, I should point out that unless a series of massively unlikely events all occur, no Democrat is going to take office as president before 2029.

[Bwaaah]

LOL

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Prosecute? Try them by military tribunals presided over by transgender officers. Charges can be figured out later, after conviction.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Interesting scandal involving the FBI is breaking -- seems they violated a lot of their own internal rules in running a honey pot operation against the Trump campaign a decade ago.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/feb/25/fbi-looking-james-comeys-books-honeypot-operation-targeting-2016/

Seems that they had two attractive female agents, one they dumped in the CIA and the other got promoted to a high position in a regional office, and that someone tipped off the House Judiciary Committee on this. Rumor has it that quite a few FBI guys have come forward to that committee about stuff.

This is how Watergate started.

And a question for the criminal defense bench -- assume (for the sake of argument) that all of the allegations are true and constitute at least misconduct, *and* assume that the agents involved were also involved in unrelated criminal investigations. Could this throw out those convictions?

I'm thinking of something similar to the mess that Massachusetts had with its drug labs and two different chemists faking drug tests (one while high as a kite herself) with a whole lot of convictions then thrown out.

Might we see another Church commission?

[tylertusta]

It's not breaking- the Washington Times already reported about it months ago. I've even gotten into arguments with the usual suspects who automatically assumed it was a nothingburger.

What's new is that someone is actually investigating it.

[David Nieporent]

I think you got into argument with me, who assumed not that it was a nothingburger but that it was MAGA fan fiction.

[bernard11]

And if that "investigation" turns up bupkes, what will you say? Let me guess: that it was sabotaged by hidden Biden loyalists in DOJ or the FBI.

[Riva]

A little too early. The usual trolls here haven’t been yet been advised of their talking points. It’s tough for them these days with more of their leftist media hack sources getting shit canned every day.

[not guilty]

"And a question for the criminal defense bench -- assume (for the sake of argument) that all of the allegations are true and constitute at least misconduct, *and* assume that the agents involved were also involved in unrelated criminal investigations. Could this throw out those convictions?"

"The criminal defense bench"? WTF??

But the answer to your hypothetical question about throwing out unrelated convictions is no.

[tylertusta]

Unless it was proven that the federal agents lied under oath and their prior testimony was critical to obtain convictions.

However, we don't even know who the agents involved were, and none of them have lied under oath (that we know of).

[not guilty]

Uh, the key word in Dr. Ed's hypothetical is "unrelated".

[tylertusta]

I took the word "unrelated" to mean "unrelated to the Trump investigations" and not any other meaning of the word.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Unless it was proven that the federal agents lied under oath and their prior testimony was critical to obtain convictions.

Yes, if there are other, additional facts not suggested in the story Dr. Ed linked, it’s conceivable the answer could change.

But there is nothing he is suggesting happened (yet!) that would plausibly entitle any criminal defendant to relief.

[tylertusta]

Thanks!

[Riva]

So a guy who salivates over lawfare abuses now identifies with “criminal defense”? You might want to self-reflect a little on this.

[not guilty]

Riva, my career was as a criminal defense lawyer, with an emphasis on appellate advocacy. I have done scores of jury trials and hundreds of appeals. Analyzing strengths and weaknesses of the government's case is a critical skill there.

On these comment threads I am not advocating on behalf of a client, so I need not be as circumspect. I am free to say what's on my mind.

[Riva]

Which is as much to say as now you feel free to express your support of abusive government prosecutions.

[not guilty]

I have represented clients who are as vile as Donald Trump. One of them was convicted of assassinating an opposing political candidate in a state legislative contest just days before the general election -- too late to select a substitute nominee. (The decedent's widow was elected on write-in ballots.)

Like Justice Potter Stewart famously said of hard core pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring), I know evil when I see it.

[Riva]

And now you're just a party acolyte. Stalin would have appreciated your enthusiastic embrace of political prosecutions. Too late for him, but plenty of other communist/psdeudo-communist dictatorship hells out there for you to embrace.

[Riva]

And, regardless of whether your resume puffing is true, I would be remiss in not pointing out how insane it is to compare President Trump with a murder. Unhinged rants like this are grosssly irresponsible. Deranged in fact. I may have to mute you.

[ThePublius]

It was the top story on the Fox News website for a while this morning. Here's the story, published today:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-investigating-claims-comey-era-honeypot-operation-against-trump-2016-campaign-report

[windycityattorney]

FBI investigates the FBI - this should turn out great. Quick somebody put Bongino on the case. He has Q clearance.

[Riva]

And, on other matters, won't it be hilarious to learn the identity of the DC non-bomber? And the Epstein logs? Can't wait for your asinine jokes then.

[Commenter_XY]

Things are getting spicy in TX. We may be going to war, secretly.

https://texasagriculture.gov/News-Events/Article/10306/STATEMENT-FROM-TEXAS-AGRICULTURE-COMMISSIONER-SID-MILLER-ON-CARTEL-VIOLENCE-NEA

An IED killed a TX rancher in the border area near Brownsville, ground zero for the MX Gulf Cartel. This come on the heels of US troops coming under fire from MX in the Rio Grande area near Brownsville.

Would it be legal for a POTUS Trump to authorize retaliation kinetically against the MX Gulf Cartel, using the US military? It appears to be coming soon.

[Armchair]

"Would it be legal for a POTUS Trump to authorize retaliation kinetically against the MX Gulf Cartel, using the US military? "

Sure.

The more interesting question is that the POTUS has declared an invasion at the southern border, thus potentially giving the state the right to defend themselves. Would it be legal for TEXAS to authorize retaliation kinetically against the MX Gulf Cartel, using the Texas National Guard, as a means to defend Texas?

[Commenter_XY]

MX Pres Sheinbaum to US: Tough noogies if MX cartels kill your citizens on American soil....

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/20/mexico-constitutional-reform-us-terrorism-00205359

Armchair...I think TX could respond if they're under fire, and pursue (hot pursuit), but not plan and execute kinetic retaliation inside MX. I don't think a state can legally initiate actions like that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Article 1, Section 10,

No state shall... or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

If actually invaded, they can "engage in War". I don't see how that doesn't extend as far as retaliatory strikes, it's a pretty general statement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"If actually invaded, they can "engage in War". I don't see how that doesn't extend as far as retaliatory strikes, it's a pretty general statement."

What I'd actually worry about would be extra-legal Texas vigilantes executing random illegals. The shooting of trespassers, etc...

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not just hot pursuit -- if I remember my International Law, if Mexico doesn't do anything, the US has the right to go into Mexico, arrest those responsible for the dead American, and bring them back for a trial in the US.

On a simpler level, Trump could impose a 100% tariff on all Mexican goods, or close the border outright. Even something like enhanced inspections would be devastating to Mexican vegetable exports -- imagine what shape that stuff would be after sitting in the hot sun for a week without the reefer units being refueled.

This, of course, would bring down Sheinbaum's government....

[Noscitur a sociis]

if I remember my International Law

L, as they say, OL.

[Armchair]

As Brett points out, "engage in war" certainly extends to retaliatory strikes.

[Commenter_XY]

Gotta be honest...I don't think I want Greg Abbott or Katie Hobbs or Gavin Numbnuts deciding what retaliatory strikes inside MX are appropriate in response to cartel violence.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't want people who blow off Mexican cartels setting IEDs in US territory as just ordinary criminality making that call.

The cartels have largely taken over large parts of Mexico at this point, in all but name. They would very much like to do the same here. This really is a military threat, not a law enforcement one.

[Commenter_XY]

MX drug cartels setting off IEDs on US soil, and killing US citizens, merits a kinetic response, courtesy of the US military. I don't doubt that.

Pres Sheinbaum doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it (cartels setting off IEDs here in America).

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would be interesting if Sheinbaum's nonchalance was defined as an act of war.

But couldn't this become a counterclaim in the Mexican suit over guns?

[ducksalad]

Brett, XY:

What's this talk of "people who blow off Mexican cartels setting IEDs in US territory" and "MX drug cartels setting off IEDs on US soil" and "Sheinbaum doesn't seem to have a problem"?

You're getting all enraged over a hypothetical bomb and a hypothetical Sheinbaum failure to be against it?

[bernard11]

That's not what the article says.

And how is a drug cartel a terrorist organization? They are particularly nasty criminals, true, but not terrorists.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Terrorist:: one who uses violence and the related terror to influence public policy.

Public policy can include non prosecution.

[Commenter_XY]

They have been declared terror orgs by EO. This could get pretty spicy pretty quickly. It is why I am asking now, and not after the fact.

[bernard11]

Which, in the case of the executive issuing the order, means less than nothing.

[Krayt]

Interesting. However, a state that cannot control its terrorists has one foot solidly in "failed state" status, defined as not controlling regions of your own land.

Secondly, a former US president once said to the legitimate government of another such country, "Turn over bin Laden and his lieutenants, or suffer their fate."

The brash temerity of defending your sovereignity, while being incapable and unwilling to do what it takes to bring your terrorists under control is amazing.

[Krayt]

"So you're a war hawk?"

No. I throw in with nobody on this. The correct solution is for Mexico to do more. Whether they can or not is sketchy.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

IT certainly is moral "--and government exists to protect those rights"
I am fairly certain that thousands of miilitary esp married with children are itching to get those bastards. Let the dogs hunt.

[ducksalad]

Your post is in need of a fisking.

Things are getting spicy in TX

In reality, the explosion was in Mexico, not in Texas.

AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER SID MILLER

In reality, major anti-crime initiatives here in Texas are not announced by the agriculture commissioner.

An IED killed a TX rancher in the border area near Brownsville,

In reality, San Fernando, Tamps, MX is more than 100 miles away from Brownsville. This is about like saying a bank robbery in Prague happened "near Vienna".

Brownsville, ground zero for the MX Gulf Cartel

In reality, Brownsville is a normal American city with a below average rate of violent crime. The main attractions are SpaceX and the beach. My wife and I routinely go there on weekends for some mild enjoyment.

This come on the heels of US troops coming under fire from MX in the Rio Grande area near Brownsville.

In reality, it was Border Patrol Agents, who are LEOs, not "troops".
In additional reality, the incident was in Fronton, more than 100 miles from Brownsville.

using the US military?

In reality, the incident was handled by the CBP with some assistance from DPS (TX highway patrol) who happened to be nearby. Future incidents would not need any more than that.

It appears to be coming soon.

In reality, our local newspapers treated it like the minor incident it was: some criminals under pursuit took a shot at some LEOs, with no injuries reported. This was all several weeks ago and I'd forgotten it, like everyone else here.

If a US citizen had done the same thing, neither you, nor Sid Miller, nor the "news" sources you read would have taken notice.

[Sarcastr0]

Brutal.

[Nelson]

So other than virtually every detail, the story is true? Right-wing political propaganda masquerading as news was ridiculous before Trump won. Now the right is eschewing even the smallest effort to prove anything they say.

[BrotherMovesOn]

But it "could've" happened Nelson
Why aren't you outraged?

[not guilty]

"Would it be legal for a POTUS Trump to authorize retaliation kinetically against the MX Gulf Cartel, using the US military? It appears to be coming soon."

On this side of the border the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, would prohibit the use of military forces:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

[tylertusta]

It would cue up another fight over Congress's authority to regulate the Executive. That's something that Trump would probably welcome.

[Bob from Ohio]

"kinetically"

They wouldn't be enforcing the law, just killing armed enemies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That too....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not Guilty -- what does the Insurrection Act say?

[not guilty]

If you are referring to 10 U.S.C. § 253, it states:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

We are not in a situation of any such insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.

[David Nieporent]

An IED killed a TX rancher in the border area near Brownsville,

Sure it did. And this is being reported not by local police, or the Texas Rangers, or ATF or DHS or the FBI, but by the Texas Agriculture Commissioner.

[Frank Drackman]

But how many have been killed by “Legal” IED’s ???? Still can’t believe Parkinsonian Joe 1: getting Laken Riley’s name wrong (“Lincoln Riley”) 2: minimizing her murder by an Illegal Alien because “Legal” Aliens kill people also

[nonluddite]

Look up the Barbary Wars vis a vis the Ottoman Empire and see what Jefferson did.

[Commenter_XY]

deleted

[A Japanese Student]

Court-watching high schooler witnesses one of the rare decisions a judge can make in Japanese criminal cases: dismissal (without prejudice) of the indictment. https://x.com/shimi_court/status/1894265308908823018

The indictment listed the defendant's prior conviction, which is not allowed under Article 256, Clause 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "No documents or other articles which may cause the judge to be prejudiced are to be attached or referred to in the charging sheet." Supreme Court precedent clearly states that criminal history can only be included when it is an element of the offense charged (such as habitual theft statute) or when it is necessary to describe the present offense.

Any information which could prejudice the judge must be excluded from the indictment and instead be admitted as evidence. Describing a prior conviction is a textbook example of prejudicing the judge, and is a structural error requiring dismissal. (I believe this rule also forbids indictments with "backgrounds" or "introductions" seen in high-profile cases in the US.)

(The precedent - decided March 5, 1952 - also noted that because generic recidivism enhancement is not an element of the offense, indictments cannot include it under Article 256. Very different from how the US operates - defense attorneys have argued that the Constitution requires listing them in the indictment. What a difference a sandwich-prosecutor makes.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

If a FBI agent transfers to the CIA, can she be subpoenaed relative for something she did working for the FBI?

[David Nieporent]

Subpoenaed by whom for what?

[Michael P]

https://nypost.com/2025/02/25/us-news/irs-admits-anti-trump-taxman-leaked-data-on-405k-filers-six-times-more-than-previously-known/

The Biden prosecutors who secured the incredibly light punishment for this guy should be sent to prison because they made it impossible to punish him for his full set of offenses.

[Commenter_XY]

There definitely was not a double standard of justice. No way! /sarc

[Michael P]

Also, when I become benevolent dictator for life I will require anyone who misuses "___ times more" in that way to be sent to math re-education camp. This number is (without) six times as many as previously discussed. Six times as many is five times more.

[SRG2]

Agreed. Commercials are particularly bad about that. (They also seem to prefer "two times" to "twice" even when it's correct.)

[nonluddite]

Colloquially, two times more than is 2x (twice) and two times less is 1/2 x (half). Mathematically, it would be 3x and -1x, I guess.

[SRG2]

There's a plausible grammatical argument that two times less is negative the initial amont. Each "times" adds (more) or subtracts (less) one of the initial amount. Two times less than say 1lb? -1lb 🙂

[David Nieporent]

https://volokh.com/2009/09/25/times-less-than/

[not guilty]

"The Biden prosecutors who secured the incredibly light punishment for this guy should be sent to prison because they made it impossible to punish him for his full set of offenses."

What federal criminal statute(s) do you posit that prosecutors violated? Please cite by number.

[Krayt]

It can be a wish, agitating for change, a feature in a democracy with free speech, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, heretofore described.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P.

What federal criminal statute(s) do you posit that prosecutors violated?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P.

What federal criminal statute(s) do you posit that prosecutors violated?

If you have no clue, then man up and say so. I promise that it won't break your keyboard.

[tylertusta]

It was the Biden DOJ's decision to only bring one count, something that Judge Reyes was critical of at the time.

I believe he got the maximum possible under what he was actually charged with.

[David Nieporent]

He did, which the DOJ argued for. Guidelines sentence was 10-18 months; he got the 5 year max.

Do people imagine that if he was charged with multiple counts that there would be sentences running concurrently and so he'd be in prison for a million years?

[DixieTune]

Ehh, I have a hard time considering a 5 year sentence to be "incredibly light" for something that was outrageous, but ultimately, not violent.

That's not to say that I don't think Biden played games, and of course, the 20 year "seditious conspiracy" 1/6 sentences were outrageous.

[David Nieporent]

According to the article, he got 5 years in prison. How is that "incredibly light"?

[Nelson]

Consider the source.

[Absaroka]

Business finance is not my strong suit of mine, so I'm curious what the knowledgeable think about this (click thru to open the PDF or whatever):

"among public companies founded within the last fifty years, VC-backed companies account for half in number, three quarters by value, and more than 92% of R&D spending and patent value. The US did not spawn top public companies at a higher rate than other large, developed countries prior to 1970s ERISA reforms, but produced twice as many after it."

tl;dr - the referenced ERISA reforms were allowing pension managers to invest in less stodgy things, like VC. If I'm reading it right, it seems like allowing that capital to flow into innovation has been a big win, but like I said, I'm kinda in over my head with high finance.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

I can only apply CMA knowledge...Three things seem involved
1) as a public company is this behavior known to stockholders? and to they have full stockholder power?
2) Government interference , like Biden's CHIPS BS, is counter-productive. First of all, I go with the Gary Becker speculation that Biden failed because he bound small and midsize companies with so many regulations no stimulus was going to help
THIS IS FROM REASON :
TSMC May Acquire Fellow CHIPS Act Beneficiary Intel
Collectively, the two companies were promised more than $14 billion in government grants. Now, one is failing and may be partially acquired by the other.
3) Peter Drucker was on this years ago but the environment has changed so that govt nannyism has caused the loss of tens of millions of pension-producing jobs
50 YEARS AGO....

The Unseen Revolution: How Pension Fund Socialism Came to America 1976
by Peter Ferdinand Drucker

[Armchair]

Seems accurate. Not sure about how much ERISA helped, but VC (as opposed to other ways of funding startups) allows for failure, and thus higher risk projects.

To give an example, take a company model that has a $1,000,000 start up cost, may end up yielding a company worth $100,000,000, but has a 50% failure rate.

Using 10 companies, it makes no sense to fund these from a bank's perspective via traditional loans. 5 of the companies fail to repay their 1,000,000 loan. The other 5 repay it, but the bank will be unlikely to cover costs (in interest) for that loan, without an extreme interest rate.

But from a VC perspective, this is a great deal. Because they share in the value of the company being made. Even if they only have 20% of the company, the five 100-million dollar companies easily make up for the lost 5-million dollar investment.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Then consider the most brilliant part of it all. If any of the startups delivers externalities with catastrophic economic costs, that downside to the method just gets written off as expense to be borne by the public at large. No need to account such losses against the purported cumulative successes. Sweet assurance for the VCs, all the time. Equivocal results for the public.

And, as we now see, along with gigantic profits, the VCs get social status to boost them to heights of political influence inaccessible to ordinary Americans.

Before that scheme gets touted as public virtue, it will need considerable adjustment. Too bad those enhanced political prerogatives make adjustments so hard to come by.

[Krayt]

Then consider the even more brilliant part: the benefit to the public is another vibrant company producing things they, the public, want to buy.

It's a perfect use of democracy to decide how much environmental damage is acceptable as trade off for progress and increased quality of life.

Keep in mind the most pristine environment was hunter gatherer societies, with 5'6" adult males and infecfion and death from many causes.

Some people have a congenital need to be able to fumble with business well beyond any rational concern. The only explanation under the hood is corruption. You may not even realize it. But your betters who pass laws, amd have mysteriously fat accounts do.

This is why you scream "democracy!" until you're purple, then choose to bypass democracy and run to the courts.

[Nelson]

“ It's a perfect use of democracy to decide how much environmental damage is acceptable as trade off for progress and increased quality of life.”

That’s not at all how democracy works. Google “the tragedy of the commons” to see where your theory leads.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Then consider the most brilliant part of it all. If any of the startups delivers externalities with catastrophic economic costs, that downside to the method just gets written off as expense to be borne by the public at large.

SL - explain has that cost is borne by the public at large?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean, that’s literally the definition of an externality.

[Joe_dallas]

NS - his comment makes no logical sense - I was hoping he could clarify his thoughts.

Especially the comment on how the public bears the cost. Further, The US an income tax based on net income not based on gross revenue.

[David Nieporent]

Bookkeepers are not microbiologists, virologists, climatologists, lawyers, or, apparently, economists.

[Nelson]

Joe, take this scenario: a chemical company is situated on a river that supplies drinking water. They neglect their maintenance and safety to maximize profits. A container fails due to their neglect, dumping a tons of chemicals into the river, killing wildlife and fouling the drinking water. The company declares bankruptcy and because they were negligent, their insurance doesn’t pay.

Who pays to clean up and treat the contaminated water? Us. Who takes their profits and walks away with no obligation to clean up their mess? The investors. Remember, you can’t sue a company that has no money and profits, once taken by investors, can almost never be recouped. We’re the ones on the hook.

That’s just one example of privatizing profits and socializing losses (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatizing-profits-and-socializing-losses.asp). Society pays, one way or another, for failed businesses because government doesn’t have the option of walking away.

Capitalism is the best way to advance society and drive innovation. But if you think that companies are the ones who pay for their failures, you’re fooling yourself.

PS, the chemical company example is a frequent one. Water and air pollution are the most prevalent examples of the tragedy of the commons.

[bernard11]

What this amounts to is saying, correctly, that lending to startups is not a good idea from the POV of risk and return. Equity investments are much better.

If you lend you are taking the same risk as an equityholder - if the company goes belly-up you lose your money, just like the equityholder. But if it succeeds your gain is limited - you'll get your interest and loan repayment, but no more. The euityholder will share in the value of the company.

[Ridgeway]

Sorta -- but banks and other conventional lenders offset that risk w personal guarantees, collateral etc.

But that is a red herring anyway. Bank loans may be a viable way to expand your restaurant, but they are not going to get you from start up to public company. For that sort of financing (other than in unicorn situations) you need VC/PE type equity financing.

Honestly, if they had reframed their analysis to look at public companies that began as startups in the last 30 years or so, I'd bet that north of 95% had VC or other third-party equity financing.

[bernard11]

I agree, though I will note that personal guarantees are sometimes more symbolic than real.

[Ridgeway]

Wasn't that DJT's defense?

[bernard11]

I don't know.

My experience is limited to relatively small, local, deals. There the bank is often reluctant to enforce guarantees against prominent local individuals (and major customers) for fear of bad public relations and whatnot.

I doubt that applies to multi-million dollar loans.

[Armchair]

It really depends on the startup.

Something with a solid basis, immediate revenue streams, but limited upside (ie, gonna start a restaurant) is not unreasonable via loans.

Something with higher risk, revenue streams only anticipated >5 years after start, but much higher potential upside (ie, gonna start a pharma company) is hard to do via loans.

[Commenter_XY]

Abs, if you dump money into something (e.g. innovation), you'll get more of it. That is the long and short of it.

There are many, many misfires to get a golden ticket (like AAPL, TSLA, Uber, and a host of others). Those investments earn a lot of money for the institutions who hold the securities for pension funds (VG, Fidelity, State Street, Black Rock, Schwab, etc), since they typically receive preferred equity stakes in the companies they invest in.

Not worried about my 401K going belly up from VC investment.

[Armchair]

Interesting question with regards to TROs and Preliminary Injunctions.

Point c of Rule 65 requires security

"(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

What security costs are the movants giving? DOGE is looking for large scale financial issues within the Treasury Department. If an injunction against DOGE results in DOGE not finding a $50 million charge in time, will the movants be responsible for that dollar amount? Will they be required to pay it to the US Government?

[Sarcastr0]

Asked and answered a couple of weeks ago:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/12/wednesday-open-thread-3/?comments=true#comment-10913753

[Armchair]

An 854 comment post.......really...

[Armchair]

That doesn't actually answer the question. That's Sarcastr0 for you.

"What security costs are the movants giving?"

No answer there. Only links he gives don't answer the question while forcing the person to sort through a bunch of information that isn't relevant.

[Michael P]

Was that where the usual suspects claimed that a $0 bond was within reasonable discretion for a judge, and that the judge isn't required to show his work in determining that?

[Armchair]

I don't remember seeing that, but it was a long post.

And that doesn't actually say what the bond was, but just what the usual suspects said would be reasonable discretion.

[Armchair]

Actually, $0 is illogical and absurd...

DOGE is effectively doing an external audit of the US Treasury for erroneous payments. The US Treasury is big. A massive organization, with a massive number of payments in dollars and amounts. The concept that an external organization would find "$0" in mispayments in an audit, in so large an organization beggars belief, and is of a vanishingly small probability.

If I was the US government, I would bring in multiple auditors from multiple different auditing firms. I would ask them "In your audits of large corporations, what was the average rate of mispayments or erroneous payments. In a large organization, did you ever find nothing? Absolutely zero in terms of mispayments." The answer is of course that they always find "something" in a large enough organization.

Putting those facts in front of a judge, the argument would be that DOGE will find "something". And even if the mis-payment rate is extremely low...0.01% for example...in an organization as large as the US Treasury, that still equates to millions of dollars. This TRO means that millions of dollars may be lost, and the movants should need to put up a bond in at least that range.

A "zero" dollar is value being found is so improbable as to effectively have zero chance. And using one's discretion to set the bond to $0 is an abuse of discretion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Playing devil's advocate, I suppose you could argue that there are also mistaken under-payments, so the net mis-payment could in theory be zero...

[Armchair]

You could...but as a private company, one notes the under-payments, and requests corrections.

Overpayments? Well, that's their mistake.

[Krayt]

Like phone company inaccurate charges, and supermarket prices on ths shelves vs. what's in the computer, they seem to be 90% in favor of the company. Curious that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was exploring the sort of sophistry you could resort to in order to justify $0 damages, not suggesting that it was realistic.

[Sarcastr0]

DOGE is effectively doing an external audit of the US Treasury for erroneous payments

DOGE's claims of what it's doing and it's results have been shown over and over to be lying, mistaken, and oftentimes counterproductive. I don't know if they've put out an accurate quantitative claim yet.

There's a near consensus of judges that they're breaking the law.

Audits don't look anything like what DOGE is doing. GAO has plenty of legit audits you're ignoring, if you want to go after actually erroneous payments.

No, DOGE is just putting on a show. And you're just their kinda sucker.

[Bob from Ohio]

There's a near consensus of Biden and Obama judges that they're breaking the law.

Fixed it for you.

If you think off DOGE as an effort to run off federal workers, you will still hate it but understand it better.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, it's all partisan bias until a judge agrees with you.

[Michael P]

The thread I was thinking of was here: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/14/friday-open-thread-7/?comments=true#comment-10915999

After the claim that two remanded cases, one specifically to correct a missing bond, constituted precedent that $0 was a legitimate bond amount, I didn't check the next citations offered with even less description of what they supposedly said.

[Commenter_XY]

DN explained to me in that thread, helpfully, that even though the Fed govt is out the labor cost, tough luck. I am paraphrasing, but that was the upshot. It would be unreasonable to require plaintiffs to post an injunction bond that covers Fed litigation labor cost.

It seems so odd that we see so much $0 injunction bonding, of late. The judges basically said, it is a freebie from me, and go forth with your unappealable and unreviewable TRO (for up to a month).

[Michael P]

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/14/friday-open-thread-7/?comments=true#comment-10916340 is specifically about legal costs, not labor costs to comply with a TRO or preliminary injunction more generally. Your question there was about the wrong costs.

[Armchair]

It's not really the labor cost of the trial that is the potential risk.

It's the audit (and missed events itself) via the TRO.

Let's hypothetize that despite the TRO, the government wins the case. And DOGE is able to do its audit....but 6 months later. Then DOGE finds $1 billion in missed payments and overpayments. The interest alone on that comes in the range of $25 million. Then, of those $1 Billion, DOGE finds that 5% can't be recovered, where they could've been 6 months ago. That's another $50 million.

Those are all lost dollars, and specifically due to the TRO which prevented the audit. A fiscal harm was done to the government...that should be recoverable from the moving parties who made the TRO.

[David Nieporent]

DOGE isn't doing audits and the TRO — which of course couldn't last 6 months — did not prevent the government from doing audits.

[Martinned2]

You don't think it would be better to use auditors who understand how computer programming works?

https://www.fastcompany.com/91278597/elon-musk-doge-cobol-language

[Michael P]

I think it would be better if you bothered to read and try to understand the articles you link to, including without limitation the fact that they are based on multiple layers of speculation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem I have is that Musk is not paying his help.

So what is he promising them???

[bernard11]

DOGE is effectively doing an external audit of the US Treasury for erroneous payments.

Well, they are pretending to, anyway. A real audit would require a lot of CPA's and others, not Musk and a few teenagers who know nothing of accounting, and who probably stupidly fired people who could help with such an audit. Don't be so damn gullible.

The US Treasury is big. A massive organization, with a massive number of payments in dollars and amounts. The concept that an external organization would find "$0" in mispayments in an audit, in so large an organization beggars belief, and is of a vanishingly small probability.

Likewise, the chance that DOGE can conduct an accurate audit, and have any idea which payments are erroneous, "beggars belief, and is of a vanishingly small probability."

[David Nieporent]

DOGE is effectively doing an external audit of the US Treasury for erroneous payments.

It is not. How would DOGE do that when none of the people involved are auditors? DOGE is simply doing database searches to find keywords that it can tweet misleadingly about government spending that MAGA doesn't like.

[Armchair]

Argument failure one. Appeal to authority.

"Only auditors can do audits".

[Sarcastr0]

Expertise != authority.

Is 'only heart surgeons can do heart surgery' also an appeal to authority?

[David Nieporent]

Argument failure one. Appeal to authority.

"Only auditors can do audits".

That is not an appeal to authority. That is an appeal to actual knowledge. Yes, auditors do audits, surgeons do surgery, engineers design bridges.

[not guilty]

"Was that where the usual suspects claimed that a $0 bond was within reasonable discretion for a judge, and that the judge isn't required to show his work in determining that?"

The bond requirement is waivable, but the judge is required to state his reasons for waiver.

[Commenter_XY]

Can the Appeals Court look at that (assuming it was litigated), and say the judges reasoning was insufficient to waive the injunction bond?

Or is it an unreviewable thing like a TRO?

[not guilty]

The appellate court theoretically could do so, but a district court has boatloads of discretion.

[David Nieporent]

nd that the judge isn't required to show his work in determining that?

The judge is required to explain his reasoning; he is not required to attach a spreadsheet to his opinion.

[David Nieporent]

An 854 comment post.......really...

You know he linked to a specific comment of those 854, not just the comment section, right?

[hobie]

Audits usually require auditors. It's kinda a profession. You can have a group like FTX that didn't know nor care how to audit and went to prison. You can be professional auditors with corrupt intent like Arthur Anderson and go bankrupt as well as to prison.

Or you can be Elon and his teenagers...who are both.

Trust me, I ain't asking you assholes to stop any of this. I want you to continue

[Armchair]

"Audits usually require auditors."

Appeal to authority.

[Sarcastr0]

You really need to learn what 'appeal to authority' actually means.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, he's using the phrase where it doesn't apply and he's using it wrong.

[apedad]

New White Paper on FOIA Data from Chief FOIA Officer Council Technology Committee’s Working Group

Conclusion

The most successful FOIA programs use meaningful metrics to make informed managerial decisions. Additionally, agencies can mitigate the challenges associated with processing data in response to a FOIA request by developing good relationships with subject matter experts and leveraging proactive disclosures. Ultimately, agencies that invested the time in gathering and analyzing FOIA data reported positive outcomes across the board. And while that idea itself might be unsurprising, gathering and analyzing data can sound daunting or like an endeavor that requires hiring someone with specialized experience. With advancements in technology, the barrier to entry is surprisingly low. Starting a more robust data practice at your FOIA program doesn’t have to be expensive or time-consuming. Even within the generally available Microsoft ecosystem, there are options available that your agency may already have at its disposal. Consider examining your program’s data gathering practices, your program’s proactive disclosure practices, and establishing a relationship with your agency’s CDO. All of these steps will help you provide an illuminating lens on agency operations.

https://www.foia.gov/chief-foia-officers-council/leveraging-foia-data

Good to see that this part of govt is still working and that FOIA officials are taking their jobs seriously and are being proactive.

Obviously it's better to have official govt data available to the public than relying on sound bites from X.

[Brett Bellmore]

Brings back memories of a time when I did a FOIA to the FDA a few decades ago.

They came back basically saying, "We can't be bothered to find the responsive document, you find it." accompanied by a half pound of microfiche. Fascinating stuff, but I never did find what I'd been looking for. (Don't even recall what I was looking for anymore.)

AND I had to pay for all that microfiche, too!

[John F. Carr]

Sometimes a criminal sentence is strikingly high not because the crime was bad, but because the defendant's other crime was bad and the judge can't impose a long sentence for that crime. For example, a man got nine years in prison for grabbing a boy's butt. He allegedly did a lot worse – accused pedophile priest – but the statute of limitations had run out. He was sentenced based on his reputation.

Yesterday the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a 40 year sentence for a 14 year old boy who robbed a woman's underwear. But really the sentence was for mudering her. Thanks to modern precedent about life sentences for juveniles he has to be parole eligible after 25 years on the murder charge. That precedent hasn't trickled down to non-life sentences. He can't be paroled on the underwear charge until he has served 40 years. The only difference between 40 years for robbery and not guilty is that he put the underwear in his backpack when he was done instead of leaving the underwear on the ground.

In this high profile case there was a lot of anger over the possibility of parole in 25 years on the murder charge.

The decision also discusses admission of mental health evidence about a juvenile who is crazy enough to murder his teacher but not crazy enough to be not guilty by reason of insanity. There is a bit about community caretaking. Police found him walking along the road at night and took him in without a warrant.

Commonwealth v. Chism. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/02/25/q13161.pdf

The case also shows a quirk of Massachusetts practice. Procedurally an indeterminate sentence may be called for, like 10 to 15 years. Judges often want to impose a fixed sentence. The defendant was sentenced to 40 years to 40 years and 1 day on the robbery charge. If he wins parole he gets out a day earlier.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Signs of incipient collapse in the courts for the MAGA executive order blitz. Questions from judges about exactly what happened, and at whose initiative, are getting walked back in case after case with refusals to answer, and subsequent withdrawals or modifications of the executive orders in question. More of that will come into sharp focus today.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is there something specific you’re referring to?

[Kazinski]

Even if there are some minor setbacks in the lower courts, most of which are likely to be squelched if they are not allowed to expire, Congress has started the authorization process to allow the administration to cut at least 800 million in discretionary spending, and recession of funds already authorized.

There is no place to hide.

[Kazinski]

The Supreme Court was a little late, but looks lime the party is over:

The Supreme Court halted a lower court's order for Trump to release USAID funds.

Chief Justice John Roberts granted the stay but provided no reason for the decision in the ruling.
This stay gives the Supreme Court time to evaluate the case and decide whether the Trump administration must release funds.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Wednesday night that halted a lower court's order for President Donald Trump to release funding for the US Agency for International Development."

Roberts acting on his own, but I bet this was discussed when they decided not to act on the expiring adminstrative on the OSC stay earlier this week.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-supreme-court-just-handed-the-trump-administration-a-win-on-usaid/ar-AA1zSuLp?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[hobie]

$TSLA down from $480 (Dec 18th) to $300 (Today)

[Commenter_XY]

TSLA has a 5 year CAGR of ~40%, and a 10-year CAGR of ~35%. That is astounding. By way of comparison, it is more than 2X the S&P 500 CAGR in the same time period.

Tech growth stocks are a wild ride (consider AAPL). Elon has created a prodigious amount of shareholder value during his tenure. He is worth every penny of that compensation package, and more.

This is normal market variation. That said, the EV market is now much tougher than it was in 2010.

[Martinned2]

That kind of YTD drop is not normal market variation.

[Commenter_XY]

M2, it most certainly is for a growth stock in tech. You will see significantly more volatility. Compare AAPL to TSLA; both are tech LC growth stocks. It isn't all that unusual for AAPL to have a 30%-50% swing within a year.

So yes, normal market variation.

[Ridgeway]

Why not just compare TSLA to TSLA? They dropped over 70% in 2022. Heck they just dropped 40% from Summer 2023 to Spring 2024. And in between they have had some massive gains. TSLA is not for the risk-averse.

I have long thought TSLA was highly overvalued, but the market has disagreed with me.

[Commenter_XY]

I generally look at 10+ year performance. Year to year data is too little, and as you can see, too noisy.

The CAGR I cited was looking at just TSLA.

[Kazinski]

This time last year it was 199.73, that's a 45% annual gain.

Its not quite NVDIA but its better than rest of the magnificent 7:

Portfolio components, not including todays results:
TSLA 51.86%
Amazon.com, Inc. 21.79%
Alphabet Inc. 27.98℅
Apple Inc 37.01%
Meta Platforms, Inc. 36.86%
Microsoft Corporation -1.62%
NVIDIA Corporation 60.14%

I'm sure investors are outraged.

[Brett Bellmore]

And it's down from $213 (Oct 24) to $303 (Today).

Oh, wait, that's up. I guess you would be unhappy if you'd bought at the market peak, though.

[hobie]

"Tesla shares fell 8.4% to $302.80 on Tuesday as news reports noted that registrations of Tesla vehicles in Europe were down 45% in January to just 9,945. "

[Brett Bellmore]

As Commenter_XY says, the long run performance of Tesla has been phenomenal. It would have to be genuinely supernatural to never go down at times.

Tesla's market share here in the US is about 75%, with multiple competitors dropping out of the market now that the EV mandate is no longer forcing them into it. So it's hard to see much chance of them hurting here.

Their market share in Europe is, of course, much lower, and I suppose politically motivated boycotts are hurting the company more than a little, but the effect of this on their bottom line isn't going to be huge.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, they don't know crap about the market. They're into financial porn.

[bernard11]

Brett, they don't know crap about the market. They're into financial porn.

XY - Big Wall Street expert.

[Commenter_XY]

Not at all = wall street expert

But I am smart enough to know that trying to pick individual stocks is a losers game in the long run. I invest pretty exclusively in low cost index funds, and eschew individual stocks.

Buffet is not wrong when he says the overwhelming majority (like more than 98%) of investors need only buy a S&P 500 index fund, and a bond index fund. It is a small pool of people who need to do individual stocks.

[bernard11]

But I am smart enough to know that trying to pick individual stocks is a losers game in the long run. I invest pretty exclusively in low cost index funds, and eschew individual stocks.

Buffet is not wrong when he says the overwhelming majority (like more than 98%) of investors need only buy a S&P 500 index fund, and a bond index fund. It is a small pool of people who need to do individual stocks.

With. this I agree totally.

[bernard11]

the long run performance of Tesla has been phenomenal.

Yes it has. But that was before Musk became a destructive Trump stooge and public asshole.

Events move markets, and Musk's behavior has certainly moved Tesla. Not long ago I thought I might buy a Tesla if I got a new car. I wouldn't touch one today. I doubt I'm the only one.

And BTW Tesla's market share was 44% in Q4 2024, not 75%.

Meanwhile, GM and Ford had a combined 21%, up from 5% in Q1 2022, at which time Tesla did indeed have 75%, which rapidly dropped to 66% the following quarter.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Tesla's market share here in the US is about 75%, with multiple competitors dropping out of the market now that the EV mandate is no longer forcing them into it.

You keep saying that so I decided to actually look, and it doesn’t seem to be true. It looks like its market share fell below 50% over the summer (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62924) and has been steadily declining, to 44% by last quarter. I’m also not sure what the basis is for your “exiting the market” claim, since it looks like the major manufacturers (GM, Ford, and Hyundai) are all selling more cars in addition to increasing their market share.

[Commenter_XY]

https://carbuzz.com/all-the-automakers-that-have-pushed-back-ev-production/

https://www.slashgear.com/1644650/ev-startups-that-filed-for-bankruptcy/

[Noscitur a sociis]

That article says that those companies are scaling back their plans, not that they’re “dropping out of the market” as Brett claimed.

[Commenter_XY]

That is why I included the bankruptcies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh, you're right, things have changed lately. I guess it really is true that most Teslas were being bought by Democrats...

[Martinned2]

Particularly if that market peak coincided with the CEO running his company into the ground.

[ThePublius]

Wait a minute - are you saying Trump ran Tesla into the ground?

[ThePublius]

Make that Musk

[Moderation4ever]

The very recent resignation of 21 DOGE staffer shows the bloom is fading. DOGE's charter was to make government more efficient, but it ends up looking like a wrecking ball. Agency heads, Trump appointees, telling employees to ignore Elon Musk's edicts. A wall of receipts that when examined shows little more than talk and bluster. DOGE is not a bad idea but maybe putting a narcissistic egomaniac as it head was a bad move. Rand Paul has talked about a Congressional package to do the same thing and that might well be a smarter way to go. President Trump is making the same bad move he made in his first administration, putting people who flatter him in position where he needs people who can get the job done.

[Commenter_XY]

Let's see, 21 bureaucritter holdovers from Pres Obama's third administration resigned. Yawn. They join a long exodus (250K and counting) of departed DC-based non-essential federal government bureaucrats.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you actually think that 250,000 people in DC have left the government?

[Kazinski]

Don't worry, will get there, and if they aren't all leaving government, a lot of them are going to Huntsville.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How many federal employees do you think there were in DC on January 19?

[Kazinski]

Too many.

But I looked it up, Googles AI says 280k in the greater DC area, so 250k would be a good start.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not like Musk doesn't have a history of successfully accomplishing difficult things, so the idea that he's just a flatterer is absurd. But I'll grant that "move fast and break things" might not be a good fit for government, even if it does tend to get you where you want to be pretty fast.

Got a relative working for the US geological service. They can't refuel their trucks because the department Visa got canceled. How much this is stupid orders, and how much it's malicious compliance, I don't know, but on first principles I'd assume there's at least some of each.

[Commenter_XY]

But I'll grant that "move fast and break things" might not be a good fit for government, even if it does tend to get you where you want to be pretty fast.

It is 23 months until the next Congress is sworn in. POTUS Trump does not have a lot of time. Something like 270 legislative days, at this point.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I agree, and I've said before I'm willing to wait until at least then until I evaluate things. But there's going to be a LOT of negative news reports.

Mind, that the President's initials are DJT was enough to guarantee THAT, regardless of events or policy. So maybe they're right to not give a damn.

[Martinned2]

Why would Trump care about the midterms? He's ignoring Congress anyway. He won't even need the Senate to confirm his nominees by then.

[grb]

Martinned2 : "He won't even need the Senate to confirm his nominees by then"

In theory, yes. But remember : Trump's Cabinet is full of freaks, leeches, whack-jobs and loons. I would expect a lower percentage of them than normal go the distance.

[David Nieporent]

In theory, yes. But remember : Trump's Cabinet is full of freaks, leeches, whack-jobs and loons. I would expect a lower percentage of them than normal go the distance.

Yes, but barring something like a 1929-style economic collapse, or Kari Lake becoming the GOP nominee in about six different states simultaneously, he (the GOP) is guaranteed to keep control of the senate after the midterms, anyway.

[grb]

David Nieporent : " .... or Kari Lake becoming the GOP nominee in about six different states simultaneously ..."

I'm not 100% that's true, but it probably is.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're discounting that he may get another SC pick.

[Commenter_XY]

Replacement for Sotomayor, and not Thomas, one hopes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd be happy with a replacement for Roberts, frankly.

[Commenter_XY]

NO WAY.

You could get a 'sure thing' like Earl Warren as a replacement. No thank you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Elevate Thomas to Chief.

[MoreCurious]

I'm not so sure that Thomas would want it. As Chief it might be more difficult for him to hide the luxury vacations, the private jet rides, and other expensive "gifts."

[Absaroka]

If the American people find Trump's changes to be beneficial, then he won't lose support in the mid-terms.

'I need to do everything fast before the voters can stop me' seems like it contains a clue you are doing something wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

More like, "I need to do everything fast so that the benefits materialize before the next election", OTOH, is perfectly sensible.

[Kazinski]

Often the voters just decide 'you've done enough for now, lets see how it works out before we let you do anything more'.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But I'll grant that "move fast and break things" might not be a good fit for government, even if it does tend to get you where you want to be pretty fast.

If what you break is a tie rod, you may get somewhere pretty fast, but it won't be where you wanted to be.

[DixieTune]

Probably malicious compliance. Recall that in the past, during one of the government shutdowns, the National Park Service closed certain parks that had no employees normally patrolling or anything like that. In other words, it took more effort to rope the park off than it did to do nothing.

That was obvious malicious compliance.

[Brett Bellmore]

I recall that; The facilities were actually being run by private contractors who, rather than being paid by the government, were paying the government for the opportunity. Campground stores, boat rentals, that sort of thing.

They actually sacrificed revenue rather than reducing expenditures, it was purely an exercise in maximizing pain.

[David Nieporent]

But I'll grant that "move fast and break things" might not be a good fit for government,

Elon Musk: "We will make mistakes. We won't be perfect ... so for example, with USAID, one of the things we accidentally canceled very briefly was ebola prevention."

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1894793659809144864

[David Nieporent]

it's malicious compliance,

The Soviet Union and other communist regimes always blamed "counter-revolutionaries" or "wreckers" whenever their plans didn't go as envisioned. This is just the MAGA version of that excuse.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk has started talking about impeachments of judges that are getting in his way.

We'll see if he leans in or if it's just another set of shitposts.

[Moderation4ever]

The House passed the budget bill. To paraphrase Whimpy, "the House will gladly give us spending cuts on Tuesday for tax cut today"

[Kazinski]

There were 4.5 trillion in "tax cuts", which actually is not quite sufficient to extend the 2017 tax cuts.

I'm not sure you can really consider those tax cuts.

We do need to reduce spending by about 800 billion a year just to reduce spending to its long term average of 20% of GDP. Last year spending was 23.1% of GDP which was extraordinary for a non-recession year.

Here is the spending/GDP ratio since 2014 for context:, from the St Louis Fed:

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

[Armchair]

Finally, in other news...the ignored war.

Rwanda is effectively invading the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N34UFbWpFk

[Brett Bellmore]

And the Democratic Republic of the Congo has asked if they can get a Ukraine style "minerals for security" deal, too.

Congo offers US, Europe minerals in exchange for peace

[Commenter_XY]

And you don't think we'll become modern day Gurkhas. 😛 (just teasing)

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, again, just because you insist on being paid for what you do, doesn't imply that you'll do anything somebody is willing to pay you for. It just means you're not eager to go broke.

[Martinned2]

I can see why they would say that, given what it actually says in the agreement.

https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/articles/2025/02/26/7205922/

[SRG2]

This is the best analysis I have read on Trump's second term: One Word Describes Trump

Today, it is clear that what has happened since January 20 is not just a change of administration but a change of regime—a change, that is, in our system of government. But a change to what?

There is an answer, and it is not classic authoritarianism—nor is it autocracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. Trump is installing what scholars call patrimonialism.

Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.

The full article is too long to post, but it is superb.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not just too long, it's also wildly premature. He's only been President for 5 weeks.

[grb]

You haven't seen enough mindless chaos, lunatic gibberish, and raw incompetence yet? I think we've been given a very complete preview of this long-term shitshow.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've seen plenty of chaos, I am not yet convinced that it's mindless chaos.

[Super Scary]

"You haven't seen enough mindless chaos, lunatic gibberish, and raw incompetence yet?"

I have, but not from the people you're thinking of.

[SRG2]

4 years plus 5 weeks. And it's not as though he remained silent between terms.

FWIW it took 18 days from the time of Hitler's re-election to the passage of the Enabling Act. Would a 1930s Brett have said 18 days is too short to judge?

[Bob from Ohio]

Hitler!

[SRG2]

Irony is, you're the kind of person who would have voted for Hitler and then a few years later wondered why you were being shipped off to Dachau.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sure, sure. And you would be the one person bravely picketing in front of Dachau.

By the way, Hitler did not have a "re-election" or even an "election" to become chancellor.

[SRG2]

I may not have picketed outside Dachau but I wouldn't have voted for Hitler in the first place.

Not re-elected chancellor - but he led the Nazi party in the 1932 elections when they became the largest party in Germany.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I wouldn't have voted for Hitler in the first place."

Sure, sure. You are very brave 90 years after the fact.

"1932 elections when they became the largest party in Germany"

The July or November election?

[SRG2]

Given that I am Jewish and not suicidal what makes you think that I'd vote for Hitler in any election? No bravery required. But I doubt I'd have waited as long as my maternal grandfather to get out.

Some German Jews did indeed vote for Hitler, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I would say is that any comparison between Trump and Hitler is utterly fatuous at this point.

He's actually trying to emulate Javier Milei, not Hitler.

[SRG2]

I did not compare Krasnov to Hitler. I showed that it can take a very short time from election to complete control, hence your argument that a 5-week judgment is premature is bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it can take a very short time to take complete control, if you're effectively executing a military takeover of government.

While all Trump is trying to do is get the bureaucracy back under elective control.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I did not compare Krasnov to Hitler."

Who is Krasnov?

And save us the BS, nobody uses a Hitler analogy unless they intend to make a Hitler comparison.

[Brett Bellmore]

Near as I can tell, "Krasnov" is what he inexplicably insists on calling Trump, I guess to imply that he's working for Putin.

[Commenter_XY]

It is the color red in Russian = Krasnov

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump is not "America's Hitler", as Shady Vance put it, but what he is doing echoes what has occurred in the past. Sorry!

[SRG2]

Krasnov is allegedly Trump's KGB handle when he became a Soviet agent, according to some Kazakh "spymaster". I already said that I think it unlikely that the story is true, but AFAIC Krasnov is so obviously Putin's stooge at this stage of the Ukraine war that he might just as well have been a Soviet agent, and I will continue to call him Krasnov as long he continues to support Russia in their war of aggression.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I will continue to call him Krasnov"

Whenever I use a nickname for a politician, libs here chastise me. None yet for you, weird.

[SRG2]

CMAFR. By all means chastise me. it would be like being attacked by a dead sheep.

[DixieTune]

Hopefully he tries to emulate Pinochet and sends the worst of the left's agitators to where the belong, to graveyards

[SRG2]

Who in the US are the worst of the left's agitators? Name names.

[Commenter_XY]

All that psychoanalysis, based on just 5 weeks (of 208 total). 😉

[SRG2]

It's not psychoanalysis, it's political analysis. And it certainly fits observations not just from those 5 weeks but even before his first election.

[Commenter_XY]

Please. Its motivated psychoanalysis. One might as well say POTUS Trump is afflicted with narcissistic personality disorder, and suffers from delusions of grandeur. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be a safe assumption: He ran for President, didn't he? Does anybody at all run for President in the modern era of whom that wouldn't be true?

[SRG2]

Patrimonialism is a political description not a diagnosis. Duh. If I had claimed that being a patrimonialist meant that you had a number of DSM conditions, different matter, but I didn't.

There are people who insist that certain political positions or theories indicate mental disorders - (There was some clown who claimed that liberalism was a mental disorder, and the Soviets invented creeping schizophrenia as a diagnosis applied to political dissidents.) I do not. You obviously do, else you wouldn't have made such a stupid error.

[Kazinski]

That very worrisome.

I think the only hope we have is when we fire the people that Trump doesn't think will inflict his will upon us, is to not replace them.

Just abolish the positions, then we don't have to worry about Trump replacing them with sycophants.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Very bad tidings for American news gathering. MSNBC has gone on some kind of management jag—apparently reminiscent of the destructive withdrawal of management support for network broadcast news which took place in the mid-60s.

Symptoms this time around include ditching MSNBC host Joy Reid, and stripping Rachel Maddow of much of her production staff, perhaps in retaliation for Maddow's public objection to the Reid firing.

In my judgment, Reid's show was not quite a standout, but typically solid, and almost invariably visually mismanaged—which except for outlandish taste in outfits, was not Reid's fault. One thing apparent after following Reid for a while was that her show format did not help much to put prodigious talents to full use. When she was not under constraint while hosting a largely scripted show, Reid appeared in other venues, where she showed a gift for incisive replies to nonsense, and an outstanding ability to think on her feet. MSNBC would have been better advised to re-tailor the show, to better match Reid's talents.

The Maddow action will turn out to be a blunder of another order of magnitude altogether. Prior to Maddow's decision to take a break from a grind so intense it was a wonder anyone could continue it, two things became apparent.

First, Maddow had assembled a news staff superior to any other in American broadcast news. Night after night Maddow broke important news on air, sometimes on the basis of news breaks happening in real time, while the show was being broadcast. Many of those were big stories, such as Trump's fake electors scheme. It was greatly to Maddow's credit that she understood instantly the full import of an obscure and complicated story it took other media months to catch up with. Others were stories which started out almost obscure, with some deep dive into history, almost tediously described, before an abrupt transition to today's major headline, already pre-cast in full context. Some folks did not like that method. I loved it.

Second, Maddow did something on air which broadcast journalism had regarded as impossible, but she succeeded at it. She learned how to advance a complicated long-form story step by step, with repetitions and recursions, while generating just enough moment-by-moment progress to sustain audience interest. That kept on until she had finally presented a broadcast story bigger and more complicated than anyone in her profession had ever attempted to do, except in print. Given the parlous state of print media today, that talent and method from Maddow remain invaluable. Nobody else has ever shown ability to do it.

But it looks now like MSNBC has decided, like broadcast executives did in the 60s, to piss off or fire the wrong people. I doubt Maddow will stick around long, given how she has been treated. It is hard to imagine how she could find a comparable opportunity to deliver insight elsewhere.

MSNBC would be better advised to fire the executive unknowns behind the bad decisions. Problem is, they may be right at the top, just like they were in the 60s.

[Commenter_XY]

MSNBC joins CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS in getting rid of the dead wood. 😉

[Martinned2]

Here is the full text of the US-Ukraine deal: https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/articles/2025/02/26/7205922/

Am I missing something, or does this in no way resemble anything Trump has said about it? It basically reads like the US giving Ukraine money, instead of the other way around.

[Commenter_XY]

European Pravda? LOL. Let's see the executed copy. That is the only one that matters.

[Brett Bellmore]

It in no way resembles the way what Trump has been saying has been characterized by hostile accounts, but it very much matches my understanding of the negotiations.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Well, relying on what Trump says is rarely advisable.

It also appears that there will be further negotiations so we don't have the true final terms.

I would appreciate a third party to analyze the terms and discuss how it affects both sides.

[Josh R]

Fund contributions come from Ukrainian sources, so I don't think you can say the US is giving Ukraine money.

It's a broad outline where the details will matter in the Fund Agreement. It could be good deal for Ukraine's security in the end, or not. I can see why Zelensky held out for this type of ambiguous language at this point just to give Trump something to tout and get him off Ukraine's back.

[Brett Bellmore]

The key line, I think, is this:

"The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement."

As I understand it, (I may, of course, be wrong.) the deal is really that the US gets preferred status in terms of extracting/trading minerals, and the contracts for rebuilding the country, and in return puts enough people on the ground around the mines (Which tend to be in the border region.) that Putin can't invade again without directly ending up in a state of war with the US.

[David Nieporent]

and in return puts enough people on the ground around the mines (Which tend to be in the border region.) that Putin can't invade again without directly ending up in a state of war with the US.

And your "understanding" in this regard is based on absolutely nothing of any sort.

[Josh R]

There is no common understanding. That's what is it be hammered out in the Fund Agreement.

[Kazinski]

Of course it meant money for Ukraine, you don't seem to understand how commerce works.

Ukraine has minerals we want to buy, but they are in the ground and need investment to extract, so we* need to provide the investment funds. Private companies that are not controlled by China and Russia will extract the minerals and sell them mostly to US and European manufacturers that need them.

Minerals are not money, but can be converted to money on the world market after capital investment is made and the risk of war and invasion is low enough to make that investment prudent.

The royalties from the mineral extraction will go to a jointly administered fund which will then be used to repay the needed investment, and then be split between Ukraine and the US.

And will likely result in significant revenues to Ukraine in terms of jobs, investments, and royalties.

Win Win.

*probably mostly Wall Street

[Mr. Bumble]

Waste, fraud and abuse:
"A Minneapolis woman has pleaded guilty for her role in the $250 million fraud scheme that exploited a federally funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Lisa D. Kirkpatrick."
More at Powerline:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/02/feeding-our-fraud-a-multicultural-moment.php
And at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding_Our_Future

[David Nieporent]

Thank god DOGE uncovered this!

[Mr. Bumble]

Who said it did? It is just an example that "waste, fraud and abuse" exist.

[apedad]

Trump will give the State of the Union address next Tuesday.

Over/Under on number of Nazi salutes during the 60 - 75 minute speech: 25

(including all attendees)

[Michael P]

Excluding Democrat plants: 0

[SRG2]

Steve Bannon, famous Democratic plant...

[Krayt]

Will this be happening half an hour before, to guests? "Now remember, no Nazi salutes. Claims it's purely accidental and coincidental are getting tired."

[Bob from Ohio]

Nazi !

[Commenter_XY]

Attention Hamas supporting foreign college students here on a visa...who thought picking on Jews was penalty-free.

https://www.jns.org/head-of-doj-antisemitism-task-force-well-put-hamas-supporters-in-jail-for-years/

What was, will no longer be. Better be careful.

[Satchmo_Lives]

“You see all these disorderly demonstrations, supporting Hamas and trying to intimidate Jews? We are going to put these people in jail—not for 24 hours, but for years [emphasis added]”--Leo Terrell.

Sounds a lot like Biden about Jan 6 protestors around the capital or even trespassing. Disorderly demonstrations/trespassing =/= years in prison.

When does free speech, absent specific and credible threats (which is illegal), become illegal intimidation? Even though Jews may find them intimidating, shouting slogans such as "river to the sea..." shouldn't be cause for incarceration for years.

I want this BS stopped, not turned into "do unto others as they have done unto you." If it can proved someone violated a civil right by not allowing another person to cross public spaces, then I am all for revoking visas and maybe fines and community service for citizens. But years in prison?

[SRG2]

I despise the pro-Hamas protestors, but in terms of violence and disruption they cannot be compared with the Jan 6 rioters.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, it's a mixed bag. The pro-Hamas protests have been all over the map. And the J-6 protesters were all over the map, too.

Certainly some of the pro-Hamas protests have cleared any reasonable bar for being treated as criminal riots. While most of the J-6 protesters actually were not violent at all, just in the wrong place.

But, really, you're comparing multiple disparate protests to one particular protest. And the most shocking thing about the J-6 protest was learning that conservatives could actually riot. While nobody was shocked to find that Hamas supporters could, which kind of takes the edge off reactions to them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Big distinction: Team Hamas is being warned.
Jan 6th never was.

[SRG2]

Yeah, how could the Ja 6 rioters have known they were doing something wrong without being warned?

[Dr. Ed 2]

In addition to being Pelosi's false-flag effort to avoid a Congressional vote that would raise real issues about the integrity of the election, the Jan 6th protesters did Ciongress a favor by showing just how incredibly soft a target the Capitol was.

I suspect (hope) that:

The remaining breakable glass windows have been replaced.

There has been a little bit of tactical planning that involves more than just a piece of yellow barrier tape draped across the back lawn.

There has been some actual training to practice these plans -- maybe even a mockup of the Capitol and a few Red Team exercises.

If this hasn't happened by now, there is criminal incompetence....

[Satchmo_Lives]

How many people were killed on Jan 6? What side were they on?

How many people were injured on Jan 6?

I am going to expand the data set. How many people were killed during the "Summer of Love"? How many people injured during the "mostly peaceful protests?"

Now, let's take a look who who was prosecuted.

...violence and disruption they cannot be compared with the Jan 6 rioters.

Weeks vs 6 hours. Ok.

[tylertusta]

That people continue to insist that J6 was somehow especially bad in the American experience amuses me to no end.

[Commenter_XY]

It was worser than the damned Civil War, and WW2 put together! = said by uber-libs far and wide across our fruited plain 🙂

[tylertusta]

Since WW2, we've had an actual bombing of Congress (the culprits' sentences were commuted by Clinton) and an attempted mass murder of House Republicans by a Bernie Sanders supporter.

[Brett Bellmore]

And multiple break ins at the Capitol with people confronting and threatening members of Congress, and disrupting proceedings, too.

[Bob from Ohio]

Puerto Rican terrorists shooting in the House chamber. Also eventually commuted by a democrat president.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Before I get Sacrastroed.

capital=Capitol

[Josh R]

We shall see how much is for "supporting Hamas" (protected by the First Amendment and how much for intimidation (not protected if a true threat).

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

After 15 years of the ACA, why is our healthcare system worse than before it?

Is it because Democrat policies suck?
Did they create this pain and suffering on purpose to instigate calls for banning healthcare freedom?

[Satchmo_Lives]

Rhetorical, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

There certainly was an element of that last being openly discussed, but it was primarily intended to convert the health insurance companies into what amounted to government regulated utilities, which would sell exactly the product the government ordered, at the price the government ordered, to whoever the government ordered.

Converting the private healthcare market into as close to a government program as could be managed without it ending up on budget, which would have exposed how expensive the undertaking was.

It's a stealth entitlement program, IOW. Some favored groups ended up with cheaper insurance, or insurance at all when they were rationally uninsurable, but it had to be paid for by making everybody else's insurance worse and more expensive.

[tylertusta]

In the past I've seen arguments from leftists saying that the ACA was supposed to be just a mere a stepping-stone to their true goal of single-payer healthcare.

[bernard11]

You ever try to buy individual insurance before ACA?

I did, and there wasn't a lot of halfway decent stuff on offer.

That is, until I moved to MA, which had a sort of ACA-like system before ACA (Thanks, Mitt).

The notion that before ACA you could buy whatever policy you wanted is false. No, the government didn't stop you, but the insurance companies wouldn't sell it to you.

[Brett Bellmore]

They wouldn't sell it to you at a price you liked, anyway. It's true that post-ACA some people can get insurance below cost, and that's great for them. But the only reason they can get it is that most people are being over-charged for their insurance, with the insurance companies mandated to handle this system of subsidies and anti-subsidies for the government, off budget.

It's a zero or even negative sum game.

It's like mandating that grocery stores rip off most people in order to give cheap food to the poor, instead of having "food stamps" to directly subsidize the poor's food.

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

>You ever try to buy individual insurance before ACA?

>I did, and there wasn't a lot of halfway decent stuff on offer.

So like every other product that's for sale?

[hobie]

Why do millions sign up for it if they hate it so much?

[tylertusta]

Because they have no alternative.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not legally permitted to have an alternative!

[tylertusta]

Yes- the federal government makes the insurance they'd want to buy illegal.

[Magister]

The mandate only lasted a few years, and the insurance plans that were grandfathered could still be offered - insurance companies who wanted the ACA subsidies chose to stop offering them to consolidate their marketing. So people have the legal alternative to have no insurance, which is what some of the old denial-heavy plans were equivalent to; without the ACA, a very large number of Americans would have no health insurance at all, also with a no alternative complaint.

[tylertusta]

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

[Commenter_XY]

If you like your doctor, you may keep your doctor. Another lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and the insurance plans that were grandfathered could still be offered"

Oh, right, Politifacts' "Lie of the year" for 2013 rears its head again.

A policy could only remain grandfathered in if it did not change in any way. We have admissions from figures in the administration that they knew quite well that wasn't realistic, and in a fairly short time, the 'grandfathered' policies would go away.

Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance

"Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today."

[Magister]

It was a stupid thing to say, but it implicitly depended on "if your insurance company continues to offer it" which might not have happened if the government had done absolutely nothing. Health insurance companies are so notorious for doing evil stuff that the guy who murdered one of their executives got a lot of sympathy.

[Kazinski]

No, its actually not permitted to sell non ACA compliant health insurance with a term longer than 4 months, and renewal is not permitted.

Sure there is no federal mandate, but many states still enforce their own mandate, but they have also outlawed alternatives, leaving no real choice except no insurance.

[hobie]

So what you're implying is that before ACA there was no alternative

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

Because Democrats banned all other healthcare choices?

[tylertusta]

And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling conservatives.

[SRG2]

Do you recall Trump promising to set up a cheaper and better healthcare plan before his first term? Or hast that been memory-holed?

The GOP has had plenty of time - since the early 90s - to come up with a fix. They have never done so.

[Brett Bellmore]

I remember the Republican Congress being close to useless, mainly because McConnell killed any conservative legislation the House sent his way. He's finally going to retire, but not soon enough to get anything done before the midterms.

[Magister]

I remember Trump last summer having no more than concepts of a plan. But he promised an Obamacare replacement, always just weeks away, repeatedly in his first term.

I recall Mitch McConnell allowing a vote to repeal the ACA which failed because of John McCain. Why wouldn't McConnell have allowed an actual plan to come to a vote?

[Brett Bellmore]

Typically he'd kill votes on conservative legislation because he had a handful of RINOs he was protecting; If a vote would cause they to out themselves by voting against legislation popular on the right, he'd make sure no vote would happen.

[Magister]

So, he really didn't represent a majority then. It would be easier to sell your nonsense if there had ever actually been a conservative plan.

[Ridgeway]

What conservative legislation passed by the House did McConnell kill?

[David Nieporent]

What conservative legislation did McConnell kill?

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

That's an answer to a different question.

But thanks for the effort.

[Krayt]

There's a difference between a socialist, central planning committee takeover, forcing any competition out of business, and just saying this, this, and this need coverage, and letting capitalism deal with the new situation.

The latter may be suboptimal, but isn't the destroyer of worlds.

[Moderation4ever]

By what metric are you judging that the healthcare system is worse than before. We know that more people are covered and have health care access since the ACA passed. We know that medical care has improved in the time since the passage of the ACA. Newer treatments both procedural and as medications. Costs have risen but this was to be expected with inflation, an aging population requiring more healthcare and new medications that are generally more expensive that the treatments they replace. So please what is your metric to say healthcare is worse?

[ThePublius]

Obamacare Has Doubled the Cost of Individual Health Insurance

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA), known as Obamacare, produced major dislocations in the individual (non-group) health insurance market by imposing a raft of new mandates and regulations, coupled with new income-related coverage subsidies. The results have been not only reduced insurer choice and competition, but also much higher health insurance premiums for millions of Americans."

https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/obamacare-has-doubled-the-cost-individual-health-insurance

[Moderation4ever]

First is ironic that you cited Heritage as the ACA is based on ideas develop by Heritage. They abandoned those ideas because Democrats used them as the basis of the ACA. Health care has gone up but that is not simply a result of the ACA. As I noted, inflation, an aging population, and new treatments all contributed. What costs the ACA did add came with the benefit of wider access, especially important for people with preexisting conditions. I don't think your metric correctly supports that health care has gotten worse.

[ThePublius]

There are many drivers of higher costs due to ACA. The development of the medical coder industrial complex is a major one; another financial drain on the system that adds little value to the patient. Also, subsidizing care for many raises the premiums of people who pay. It's pretty simple.

Health care cost increases far outpace inflation. Inflation is not the primary driver.

[Sarcastr0]

Health care costs have outpaced inflation for a very long time.
We know the drivers of this inflation, and they well predate the ACA. (aging pop, higher price of end-of-life care, shitty preventative care infrastructure...)
Which makes sense since the trend also well predates the ACA so the causes will as well.

Your 'many drivers' is 2 of them just with a semicolon oddly placed.
The first is about an issue that again well predates the ACA - blame HMOs for coders being a big thing.
The second was expected and debated and is not some emergent evil due to the ACA.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0: 'nothing to see hee, move along....'

O.K., multiple choice for you:

1. ACA didn't increase health care costs;
2. ACA did increase health care costs;
3. ACA has nothing to do with health care costs.

Which is it?

[Sarcastr0]

Health care costs? Or health insurance costs?

Because distributed across our population, health care costs and health outcomes have absolutely gone down just due to the many more people who are insured.

But assuming you mean insurance costs (it's a mistake I make too), then again it lowered them by expanding the marketplace.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/entering-their-second-decade-affordable-care-act-coverage-expansions-have-helped
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded eligibility for affordable health coverage in two main ways: by creating health insurance marketplaces with federal financial assistance that reduces premiums and deductibles and by allowing states to expand Medicaid to adults with household incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level"

[Satchmo_Lives]

Insuring millions of illegal immigrants with tax payer dollars may very well expand the number of people insured. I don't think it is a winning argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is it time for my, "Once you add the shit, it's a shit sandwhich, no matter what else might be in it." lecture? Anyway, here's what the Heritage Foundation says about it.

Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate

[Moderation4ever]

LOL, The Heritage response, yes we did talk and suggest a mandate to have health insurance but don't blame us for the mandate. The fact is that the idea has roots at the Heritage Foundation and they should just admit it and move on. Maybe the Heritage Foundation should be like Guiliani and Powell and just say that anyone who believes what they, Guiliani, Powell, and Heritage, say is not too bright.

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

Well, my lived experience for one:

Before the ACA I could get a high deductible catastrophic plan ($10,000) for about $300 a month for a family of four. My policy was risk-rated.

After the ACA my high deductible catastrophic plan ($10,000) costs nearly $1100 a month and I have a 25% coinsurance. Now my policy is community-rated. But I also get one free physical a year, so I guess spending the extra $800/mo saves me the $95 a year for my physical. Which, I guess, makes economic sense to a Democrat.

Before the ACA, there were no targeted shootings of insurance exec's AFAIK.
After the ACA, there was at least one targeted shooting of an insurance exec.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was an element of keeping it nominally private: The hate would all be directed at the insurance companies, not politicians.

[bernard11]

Have you gotten any older since ACA passed? Has there been any inflation?

Have medical costs risen?

And what kind of physical costs $95?

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

Do you genuinely believe the ACA hasn't influenced the rise in premiums to a greater extent than those factors?

Do you even understand the economic impact of changing the pools from risk rating to community ratings?

Or the economic cost of requiring "essential services" be covered regardless of the plan?

I mean why do you even buy insurance? Do you buy it to protect yourself from risk? Or do you buy it so you can chip in on everyone's healthcare cost in your community?

[Moderation4ever]

First the reality is that people pay for everyone healthcare one way or another. If an uninsured person goes to the ER for treatment and cannot pay the community pays. BTW - that applies whether the uninsured person is a citizen, documented or undocumented person. Our society benefits from having a healthy population. Healthy people work more and work better. I have never been a person who says healthcare is a right. Healthcare is not a right, it is a benefit first world countries provide to their population.
Because a health population is happier and more productive. Paying for healthcare benefits everyone. If you don't like that find an island to live on by yourself.

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

> First the reality is that people pay for everyone healthcare one way or another.

That's not true for the entirety of healthcare. Maybe for catastrophic care, but not for trivial and routine care.

>Our society benefits from having a healthy population. Healthy people work more and work better.

What's that have to do with community rated health insurance with "minimal essential benefits" that aren't even universal?

>I have never been a person who says healthcare is a right. Healthcare is not a right, it is a benefit first world countries provide to their population.

If it was so important to society, then you wouldn't want the the least efficient mechanism for allocating the scarce resources to be the dominant means of healthcare.

If healthcare is critically important to society, what's the best way humans have come up with to allocate scarce resources? Any idea?

if you reply, keep separate the concepts of catastrophic care and all other forms.

>Because a health population is happier and more productive. Paying for healthcare benefits everyone. If you don't like that find an island to live on by yourself.

Why not also food, clothing and shelter? Surely those are equally or more important.

[bernard11]

Do you understand anything about insurance at all?

Do you have any evidence for your claims?

No and no.

[Moderation4ever]

So, we are not judging the ACA by some metric like access, quality of care, or cost, but by how you were affected. Is that correct?

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't that how we judge cable services or gas stations? Individually, according to our own experiences?

The problem is that you want to treat health care like it's not just another commodity in the market.

[Sarcastr0]

We got together and decided that health care was not handled particularly well by the market. It's demand curve is negligible until it is infinite.
And we as a society didn't like openly just letting rich people get to live longer. We still do that some, but we like to make an effort.

You, a market worshiper, don't understand the idea of somethings not being well handled by the market. But you got outvoted.

Maybe Trump will cancel the ACA. But the GOP has never ever come up with a better plan, so I don't expect your ignorant zealotry will be satisfied on this one.

[Mr. Bumble]

"We"? I didn't realize you were a Democrat member of Congress when ACA was passed on a strict party line vote.

[David Nieporent]

Is this poster the latest incarnation of Voltage guy?

[John F. Carr]

Greenpeace is on trial in North Dakota state court for its role in violent anti-pipeline protests in 2016. The plaintiff energy company wants $300 million in damages. Greenpeace doesn't have deep enough pockets to pay the plaintiff to go away and might not survive a judgment for the amount demanded.

Greenpeace is upset because North Dakota has no anti-SLAPP law and the organization feels that it is being sued over constitutionally protected speech. But there were criminal acts in the protests. Somebody went beyond the protections of the First Amendment. The question is how much liability attaches to Greenpeace. Was Greenpeace like Donald Trump on January 6, 2021, merely encouraging peaceful protests without calling for criminal activity? Or was Greenpeace like Donald Trump on January 6, 2021, going beyond the protections of the First Amendment by inciting a violent mob?

According to the New York Times,

The latest version of the lawsuit accuses the defendants of trespass, defamation, conspiracy and tortious interference with business. It says that Greenpeace spread misinformation that incited the protests and severely damaged its ability to run its business.

A federal judge previously ruled that the plaintiffs did not have a claim under RICO.

[hobie]

Peaceful political discourse

[tylertusta]

A mostly peaceful protest.

[hobie]

All they have to do is run for office. Then it's lawfare. Case dismissed

[tylertusta]

Objection! There was insufficient combustion, and we need to turn it into a fiery but mostly peaceful protest.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Interesting comment on the Toronto crash -- stronger seats saved lives.

In 1979, a de Havilland Canada DHC-6-200 Twin Otter went into what was then woods 1.2 miles short of the Owl's Head (ME) airport. All the seats broke loose and piled up in front, everyone but the passenger in the back suffocated before the plane could be found.

The passenger in the back was flying back from cancer treatments in Boston.

Seats didn't break loose in Toronto.

[Commenter_XY]

You should have taken the deal....there might not be another one.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-directs-agency-heads-prep-large-scale-reductions-force-reorganization-march-13

The DC-based, non-essential federal bureaucrat body count goes up in 3 weeks.

[Josh R]

My impression is the chainsaw approach cuts out essential personnel along with non-essentials. There could be something very good here, but Musk's personality isn't well suited for it.

And, it's not going to make much difference in the bottom line debt figures (while acknowledging that making government work more efficiently is a good thing).

[Commenter_XY]

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real numbers = savings from RIFs

We seem to be deporting more non-essential DC-based bureaucrats than illegal aliens. 😉

[Josh R]

A billion here and there does not add up to much in an economy that is over $27 trillion. A 20% cut in the total federal labor force (5 million, civil plus military) will save about 100 billion, or 0.3% of GDP. The debt problem lies elsewhere.

You have no idea who is essential or not. Neither does Musk.

[bernard11]

You have no idea who is essential or not. Neither does Musk.

Exactly.

And if you think you can walk into an organization where you don't understand either what they do or they do it and make it more efficient by firing random people you're crazy.

All this essential/non-essential stuff is bullshit. Whether someone is essential or not depends on what the organization is trying to do.

If you don't understand these things you are as likely to reduce efficiency as improve it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real numbers

Humans don’t have a great intuitive grasp of large numbers and how they scale. The entire non-defense discretionary budget is about $800 billion. The deficit last year was $1.8 trillion (and of course the House budget just proposed massively increases that). You can’t close that gap by firing some probationary park rangers.

We seem to be deporting more non-essential DC-based bureaucrats than illegal aliens.

Speaking of innumeracy:

1. How many civilian federal employees do you think there are?
2. How many of them do you think are based in the DC area?

[Commenter_XY]

Nas, why do you keep leaving out Defense? They are on the table and will get cuts too. NGO funding will get eliminated, knocking out still more bureaucrats.

North of 2MM, and roughly 500K (outside of military) at start of year.

You're not laughing anymore about non-essential bureaucrats getting whacked. We'll pass 1MM RIF'ed before EOY 2026.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Nas, why do you keep leaving out Defense?

Because Trump promised he wasn’t going to cut defense spending (or social security or Medicare). You’re not suggesting he wasn’t telling the truth, are you?

But go ahead and add it in, and it’s still not enough to cover the deficit, even if you literally got rid of everything.

You're not laughing anymore about non-essential bureaucrats getting whacked.

I’m pretty sure you’re the only one who has ever been laughing about this. And since you don’t seem to have any interest in discussing it, I’m not sure why it’s worth my effort to keep trying.

[Commenter_XY]

Defense and SSA are on the block for reductions (Defense) and WFA (Defense, SSA). POTUS Trump has been pretty clear about that. SSA Benefit reductions? Not happening.

I'll know it is serious when defense contractors get RIF'ed, meaning we'll see even larger reductions.

Nobody ever contended whacking non-essential bureaucrats alone was going to close the entire deficit. It is a jolly good start. It does go some of the way, Nas. It is just one piece of the puzzle. There are asset sales, tariff revenue, increased tax revenue on higher energy production; many pieces have to fit together to eliminate the deficit, and pay down debt. But it starts with slashing the federal bureaucracy by half (at least). And defunding every NGO we can possibly identify.

This slow-mo RIF will provoke a lot of good questions....as in, should we be funding this. On odd occasion, the answer will be yes. But for most everything else, the answer is no.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're an ignorant dipshit cheering on the violation of our Constitution and the destruction of our system of government and economy.

Trump will be solved the old-fashioned way, then it will be time to deal with the traitors who cheered him on.

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

>Trump will be solved the old-fashioned way, then it will be time to deal with the traitors who cheered him on.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you illiterate?

[Josh R]

Slashing the federal bureaucracy by half goes for beyond efficiency. It will impact services that people want. Trump wants you to believe otherwise so he can make all the cuts.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The entire non-defense discretionary budget is about $800 billion."

The problem is pretending that any part of the budget isn't discretionary. In the big picture, it's ALL discretionary, and constitutionally? The only non-discretionary part constitutionally is paying interest on the debt.

You don't get out of debt by declaring more of your monthly budget than your income to be untouchable.

[tylertusta]

Even paying off interest on the debt is discretionary (I'm using the layman's definition here, not Congress's classification).

That's not to say that it's a good idea.

Not paying off the interest for the debt has significant consequences as does cutting other spending like Social Security.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't get out of debt by declaring more of your monthly budget than your income to be untouchable.

Now do taxes.

Or quit pretending you care about the debt.

[bernard11]

The House just passed a bill calling for $4.5 trillion, with a "t" in tax cuts.

Where do you stand, oh great deficit hawk and inflation worrywart Bellmore?

[Ridgeway]

Not exactly, although I agree that the "budget" passed last night is a joke in terms of actual fiscal discipline.

First off, the $4.5T is over 10 years.

Second, according the NYT, $4.0T of that is just continuing the current tax system that was set to expire this year (or next, I forget which). So we are not going to be substantially reducing revenues from current levels.

Of course, the massive GOP "spending cuts" will also do nearly nothing to the deficit -- they total only $200B per year (and only in the idea of a framework of a budget passed last night). And it is unclear to me whether they are net cuts from 2025 spending, or just $200,000,000 less spending in each year that was projected to have been spent. My money is on the latter.

[Hugh]

Interesting article on the NYT. Influenced a rethink on my stance re: immigration. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigration-policy-progressives.html

[tylertusta]

Alternative link:

https://archive.ph/wI4fM

[tylertusta]

Thanks for posting this!

In a conversation from Monday's thread, I brought up my position that had Democrats not been bad at handling on the two biggest issues (immigration & inflation), they would have handily won in November- even with the wonderfully uninspiring Harris at the top of the ticket. It's nice to see my position supported, at least in part.

Out of curiosity, I checked on English-speaking news stories on Denmark and how they handled inflation. It appears that the government implemented several economic packages to try to mitigate inflation, which is markedly different from how Democrats in the US handled the issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the Democrats being bad on inflation and immigration is over-determined; They view the forced demographic transformation of America as an existential necessity for their party's future, and if they can't spend ever increasing amounts of money, what point do they have in even contesting elections?

[tylertusta]

They view the forced demographic transformation of America as an existential necessity for their party's future

I don't recall that 2024 Democrats were still hopped up on the "we are inevitable due to demographics" hopium. As I remember, they were banking on beating Trump because he's obnoxious and by J6 making him toxic to voters.

if they can't spend ever increasing amounts of money, what point do they have in even contesting elections?

I partially agree with this statement. Democrats were heedless of inflation concerns when they passed the American Rescue Plan in 2021. What I don't agree with was their motive: it wasn't because they felt unconstrained by any limits on spending, but rather because they felt like they neededto "go big" in an overcorrection from their perceived mistake in handling Obama's stimulus law.

The failure of the Democratic Party here was in that they- in conjunction with their media lackeys- pretended that inflation was just a right wing talking point and thus could be ignored.

The result was an administration that was about six months behind public sentiment on the issue.

[Sarcastr0]

"The Great Replacement (French: grand remplacement), also known as replacement theory or great replacement theory, is a debunked white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory

[tylertusta]

A related line of thinking (one that actually existed and can't be brushed aside as a conspiracy theory) was "Emerging Democratic Majority", the thesis of which was that growing populations of minorities would remake the political landscape and ensure Democratic dominance in national politics.

[Sarcastr0]

Note how the thesis you put forth here is purely descriptive, versus Brett's thesis of Democrats pushing 'forced demographic transformation.'

[Brett Bellmore]

Note how, if you think demographic changes will benefit you, AND you pursue policies that conspicuously accelerate that change, the claim that the latter has nothing to do with the former may, in a purely theoretical sense, be capable of being true, (It would not violate any law of physics...) but it deserves not the tiniest bit of credit.

[Sarcastr0]

"The Great Replacement (French: grand remplacement), also known as replacement theory or great replacement theory, is a debunked white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory"

You're wrong about Dems immigration policy. Your paranoid delusions of telepathy do you no favors.

Oh, and don't forget your prediction about the coming Camps after the Great Gun Grab.

You think you live in a political thriller.
And it's a white nationalist one like Camp of Saints or something.

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

Great source! Very trustworthy. Especially on hot-button political topics.

That reminds me of a joke:

What do Reddit mods, Wikipedia editors, and CIA chatroom participants have in common?

[David Nieporent]

The authors of that article gloss over the fact that most of the "foreign born" people in the statistics they cite are not refugees from Syria or migrants from Africa, but are simply people from other parts of the EU.

[tylertusta]

Sometimes perception is reality.

[Senor Wolf]

Trump recently signed an executive order directing agencies to revoke the security clearance for Jack Smith's lawyer for no apparent reason other than that he represents Jack Smith. As I understand it, defense lawyers can themselves get security clearances if necessary to represent a client.

This seems clearly illegal, but under what basis? Sixth Amendment right to counsel? Arbitrary and capricious under the APA? It can't be that Trump can disqualify any defense counsel Jack Smith retains.

[tylertusta]

Security clearances are not granted out of a right to possess it, but rather out of privilege based on a need-to-know.

[Senor Wolf]

Requiring access to be able to review records relevant to your clients case seems pretty clearly to be need-to-know.

[Mr. Bumble]

What case?

[tylertusta]

Is there a case against Jack Smith?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're right: this could be even less rational than it appears!

[tylertusta]

Is there a case against Jack Smith?

[apedad]

Security clearances are also revoked or denied based on these criteria.

Point out which of the conditions the lawyers failed on.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-32/subtitle-A/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-147

[tylertusta]

This process and the criteria for revocation are from an executive order, not any law.

The way to amend the conditions for revocation is to write a new executive order, which the President has done.

[David Nieporent]

Senor Wolf left out the Rest of The Story™ that makes it clear that Trump's order had nothing to do with getting rid of unnecessary security clearances for lack of need to know and everything to do with punishing his enemies.

First, if it were actually about need-to-know, he would've ordered a systematic review of clearances to decide which to revoke. Instead, he specifically targeted the lawyers who worked with Smith.

Second, the EO also directed the government to cease using the services of Covington & Burling (which is where these lawyers work) wherever possible. It's pure fascist shit on Trump's part.

[John F. Carr]

If Jack Smith is unreasonably denied access to classified information necessary to defend himself from criminal charges, the charges should be dismissed. The Classified Information Procedures Act applies.

[tylertusta]

Is there a case out there?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why attack his lawyers if they're not going to make one?

[tylertusta]

Maybe they don't need clearances?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why attack his lawyers if they're not going to make one?"

The Admiral Byng lesson

[Noscitur a sociis]

As is his wont, John F. Carr is using “should” to mean “my gut reaction for what is fair”. There are of course many cases where the issue arises, and CIPA contains procedures to safeguard or withhold the information while allowing prosecution.

All of which is a bit academic, since 1. Smith hasn’t been charged with anything; 2. It’s not clear whether any putative charges would involve classified information; and 3. It’s not clear whether this revocation would prevent his attorney from having access to it.

[John F. Carr]

Not that I know of. I assume revocation of security clearances is vindictive, not strategic.

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

What does it suggest about the quality & skills of our IC, if they can't even keep their on-the-job tranny porn, mutilation chat rooms secret?

[Commenter_XY]

Does anyone think this is the only chat room with clearly inappropriate material?

If that guy Big Balls has some time, maybe he could write a routine to loop through all chat rooms looking for certain phrases. If the IT-Soviets haven't already started doing that.

[Sarcastr0]

Truly the amount of money spent by speculative transgender chat rooms is the main driver of government waste debt.

[tylertusta]

Speaking from personal experience, are you?

[Commenter_XY]

Did you miss your 1159pm deadline? You get one mulligan.

Don't miss next Monday.

[Sarcastr0]

Not many that tell specific commenters to drink draino, or revel in professional harm coming to specific commenters.

Even among the fools and trolls, you stand out.

[Commenter_XY]

So you sent your note in. Good doggie.

[hobie]

Sounds like government suppression of free speech. And if any of them were running for office, you can add lawfare to boot!

I'm really starting to cotton to this reality-free MAGA thinking. I can say any damn thing I want and not feel stupid. Fellow hillbillies, I present myself for induction

[grb]

"President Donald Trump has moved to strip security clearances from lawyers at the storied international law firm of Covington & Burling to punish it for providing legal assistance to former special counsel Jack Smith, who led the federal prosecution of Trump over Jan. 6, the New York Times reports. The move is an extraordinary attack on the independence of the bar and bids to chill the willingness of many lawyers to take on as clients and zealously advocate for the interests of those Trump considers his enemies."

"The directive ordered the administration to revoke any security clearance held by Peter Koski, the Covington lawyer representing Mr. Smith, and any other members of the firm who may have participated in such work."

https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-punishes-large-law-firm-representing-adversary

All the Right-types in this forum long ago sold their souls and abandoned any regard for right-vs-wrong or true-vs-false. That's what being a Trump supporter requires. But it's never too late to reclaim ethical standards, so let's see:

What about it, Trump supporters? Any sense of shame left?

[tylertusta]

What is the rationale for any law firm- one that is not representing parties in active cases necessitating security clearances- to maintain their security clearances?

(Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh. You think the Trump Administration will just hand them back as soon as the lawfare begins. I see.

[tylertusta]

Assuming that Smith is the target of lawfare, do you think that Trump will use classified materials against him in court?

Which materials could that conceivably be?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

True, we know the lawfare will begin, but we don't yet know what form it will take.

So why strip the clearances now?

Perhaps they know...

[tylertusta]

I don't know who "they" is here.

So I asked ChatGPT. My favorite is: "THEY - The Health & Education Yeomen"

I wouldn't want to cross an organization with "yeoman" in their name!

[Satchmo_Lives]

Hmm. People mentioned were given clearances to work on a case against Trump. The investigation is over. Give me the rationale for leaving the clearances in place.

[hobie]

"Assuming that Smith is the target of lawfare"

I don't know. Is the government going after him? Or would he need to be running for office for it to be lawfare?

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

Is that the law firm that had secret access to that FBI terminal that was used to make several hundred thousand illegal searches of the FISA database?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is it? Let's see...

"Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts
February 25, 2025
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT

SUBJECT: Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation
of Government Contracts

I hereby direct the Attorney General and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by Peter Koski and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel, pending a review and determination of their roles and responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization of the judicial process. I also direct the Attorney General and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with the memorandum that shall be issued by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Additionally, if any of the covered Covington & Burling LLP members, partners, and employees referenced in this memorandum obtained a security clearance from an agency not included as an addressee of this memorandum, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall provide this memorandum to the appropriate clearance-granting agency to ensure compliance.

I further direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue a memorandum to all agencies to review all Government contracts with Covington & Burling LLP. To the extent permitted by applicable law, heads of agencies shall align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government); and as heads of agencies deem appropriate.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

Nope. Not a peep about that.

[tylertusta]

You're probably thinking of Perkins Coie. They have a SCIF in their offices.

[Commenter_XY]

I think that was Perkins Coie. Wouldn't be sad to see them lose clearance, either.

[grb]

Michelle Goldberg in today's NYT:

"In writing about our country’s rapid self-immolation, I try to ration Hannah Arendt references, lest every column be about the ways “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” published in 1951, foreshadows the waking nightmare that is this government. But contemplating Bongino’s ascension, it’s hard to avoid the famous Arendt quote:

“Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.”

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

That explains the degenerate CIA chat rooms then.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

https://archive.org/details/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/page/n21/mode/2up

[grb]

Thomas L. Friedman in today's NYT:

"The drama going on between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine raises one of the most disturbing questions I’ve ever had to ask about my own country: Are we being led by a dupe for Vladimir Putin — by someone ready to swallow whole the Russian president’s warped view of who started the war in Ukraine and how it must end? Or are we being led by a Mafia godfather, looking to carve up territory with Russia the way the heads of crime families operate? “I’ll take Greenland, and you can take Crimea. I’ll take Panama, and you can have the oil in the Arctic. And we’ll split the rare earths of Ukraine. It’s only fair.”

Either way, my fellow Americans and our friends abroad, for the next four years at least, the America you knew is over. The bedrock values, allies and truths America could always be counted upon to defend are now all in doubt — or for sale."

What about it, Trump supporters? Any sense of shame left?

[Mr. Bumble]

Friedman, nuff said.

[hobie]

Instead of extorting Ukraine for its assets, why not extort Putin for the $300B we (Biden) seized? It's just sitting right there for the taking

[grb]

Because Putin is Trump's Daddy. In their intimate moments, Putin is the one who pulls the hair & slaps the ass.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, I believe most of it is "sitting right there" in Europe, rather than in the USA.

[Commenter_XY]

Does Friedman have any shame, left? He has been wrong about so much.

[Roger S]

I cannot remember Friedman ever being right on anything. Ukraine is run by gangsters, and we need to get out.

[David Nieporent]

Schlafly doesn't like Ukraine because it has a Jewish president.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's like you're completely unaware of your own reputation (and ignorant of history). LOL.

[grb]

If you've read Suetonius or Gibbon, you're familiar with the spectacle of mentally-ill emperors in power. Please keep that in mind while you watch this freakish post from the President of the United States:

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1894616074861130182?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1894616074861130182%7Ctwgr%5E9876071495b67007e0d7a5abdf517de75387ad79%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigbysblog.net%2F

[Noscitur a sociis]

Tip: When you’re posting (or following!) twitter links, you can (and should) take out the question mark and everything after it.

[grb]

Thanks! Does anything similar apply with other links? Last night I sent someone a Travelocity link that was War-and-Peace long.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Depends on the site. On twitter and most other social media, all that junk is tracking info. On some it can be functional. Best general tip is try to pare it down to something that seems to identify a specific page, and try it yourself in a new tab to check if it works.

[Michael P]

It varies by site. Sometimes you should delete everything from an octothorpe (#) onwards instead of a ?, but other times you need the whole URL. For Twitter, everything after the ? is for tracking who shares the link.

[grb]

I sometimes use a url shrinking website : https://tinyurl.com/

[hobie]

Remember when Biden posted a picture of him and Kamala sunbathing in front of a destroyed trailer park in North Carolina? It was a joke after all. But everyone just had to clutch their pearls at the time. Snowflakes

[hobie]

Just slap some green crescent patches on 'em all and line up some rail cars. There's plenty of ghettos in Warsaw to house them in

[grb]

COVID-19 vaccines cut the risk of long COVID by between 57–73 percent in kids and teens, according to a study published today in JAMA Network Open. And there's more good news: A second study published today in the journal offered more data that the now-annual shots are not linked to sudden cardiac arrest or sudden cardiac death in young athletes—a claim that gained traction on social media and among anti-vaccine groups during the acute phase of the pandemic.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2830556#google_vignette

Someone tell RFK Jr!

[hobie]

"How to Die Like a Middle Ages Peasant"

by R. Kennedy

[Frank Drackman]

When you take out the much higher infant mortality of the Middle Ages, Plagues, Crusades, their life expectancy wasn’t much less than present day, with all of our “Advances”

[hobie]

Frankie, it must have been tough for you these past few years having to tow the MAGA line and either keep your yap shut or join in that medicines contain nano trackers an so forth

[grb]

Yeah, but is Frank's whole medical shtick true? I tend to classify it with all the rest of his Walter Mitty fantasies.

[Magister]

Taking out higher infant mortality and Plagues (including a large number of infectious diseases) would be among our advances.

[Ska]

We had two 50 year old guys die a month apart from sudden heart attacks. One was athletic, one... not so much, but not a total train wreck of a physique. The conspiracy theories coming from attorneys and CPAs kind of caught me off guard. I'm usually the ace number one tin foil guy.

[Frank Drackman]

How were their teeth? Lot of evidence linking the bacteria that causes Dental Caries to CAD

[Frank Drackman]

If you were a real Doctor you’d know “JAMA” has been a fucking joke for 30+ years

[ThePublius]

Change:

WaPo Editor Quits After Bezos Orders Opinion Page to Defend Free Markets, Personal Liberty

"Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley resigned Tuesday after the paper’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, announced that, going forward, on the opinion pages, “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.”"

Why would Shipley find this so offensive as to quit?

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2025/02/26/nolte-wapo-editor-quits-after-bezos-orders-opinion-page-to-defend-free-markets-personal-liberty/

[grb]

Duh. Because every editor or every newspaper demands substantial autonomy from the owner in doing his job. Not complete autonomy to be sure. No one expects that. But I bet the editor of every major newspaper in the country ask for some degree of freedom in his day to day operations before taking the position, Shipley included. And I bet Bezos made promises he's now breaks in his eagerness to whore- up to Trump.

Besides, have you thought to imagine what "writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.” would look like? Probably it would be as formulaic as commie agitprop inside Pravda back in the day. Principles (however noble) tend to become flat and stale when imposed by fiat from above.

That said, Bezos is destroying the WaPo (my print subscription was canceled fifteen minutes after hearing of the endorsement fiasco). Shipley is probably fleeing the proverbial sinking ship.

[Kazinski]

Wait, I thought Trump was a Nazi. Promoting free markets and free expression are the resistance to a totalitarian government.

As for the Washington post sinking, well they announced last May they had annual losses of 77 million, and had lost half their subscribers from 2020-24 well before the endorsement decision.

Bezos probably just decided he'd rather lose money saying what thinks rather than lose money paying people who hate him and his success and are trying to make everyone else hate billionaires too.

[Martinned2]

When I talk about Gleichschaltung, this is what I mean: A billionaire cozies up to the administration by ordering a newspaper he owns to only print opinion pieces that the administration will like.

[Mr. Bumble]

Boycott Amazon.

[Absaroka]

When the Grahams, who weren't exactly poor, owned and ran the Post, do you suppose they controlled the editorial slant?

The Hearst, Pulitzer, and Ochs-Sulzberger families also steer the editorial directions of their media outlets, as does Murdoch.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, that's so outrageous: Directing the editorial page (Of the paper he OWNS.) to defend freedom! Why, the stuff of totalitarian states.

You know what we're seeing? The first indications that the long march through the institutions can be turned around and set to marching right back.

[Martinned2]

"defend freedom"

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

I'm sure we'll see an opinion article against those new import tariffs any day now.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's the owner of the paper. Telling your employees what they must do on the job in order to draw a paycheck is not, conventionally, considered a violation of freedom.

[Sarcastr0]

Hypocrite. You call Facebook's decisions 'censorship' you can't ask why this is an issue.

A paper's owner telling it's employees what to report on when they were hands off is absolutely coming at freedom of the press.

Not with a constitutional moment, but in terms of the culture of a free press.

Which those of us without outcome-oriented principles care about.

[Brett Bellmore]

I call FB's decisions "censorship" because they literally were censoring users based on pressure from the government, not telling their own employees what job related speech they could engage in. But I'd have called it censorship even if the'd done it on their own initiative, because they were not censoring employees engaged in work related speech, they were censoring users.

"A paper's owner telling it's employees what to report on when they were hands off is absolutely coming at freedom of the press."

Freedom of the press belongs to the owners of presses, not the people they pay to run them. You don't like that, get yourself a printing press.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, liberty doesn't care about journalists, only Facebook users.

Your attempt to make a distinction only shows how outcome-oriented you are.

Freedom of the press belongs to the owners of presses
You are the worst libertarian.

[Absaroka]

"when they were hands off"

Katherine Graham didn't make editorial decisions???

[Sarcastr0]

Not with a broad 'thou shalt not' blanket order like this.

By all accounts (mostly from my reading about Watergate) she acted more as a publisher than an owner.

This is an owner move.

[Bwaaah]

"A paper's owner telling it's employees what to report on when they were hands off is absolutely coming at freedom of the press."

He's not telling employees "what to report." He's telling opinion page employees some of the essential leaning he wants his paper to represent. (You do know that media outlets lean, don't you?)

Did you think that newspaper opinion pages represent all points of view? They don't. And the WP no longer endorses viewpoints that oppose free markets or personal liberties.

Nothing is changing except the prevailing opinion angle. Of course you're upset, because it doesn't comport with yours. Personal liberties and free markets...no wonder you're upset.

[Sarcastr0]

the long march through the institutions

Solving problems you made up by top-down authoritarianism.

The Brett Bellmore Way!

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess that's not actually "gaslighting" because you're not making any effort to persuade me that I'm crazy to notice that March. You're just flatly denying it happened in the face of widespread evidence.

Call it Nieporenting, then.

Of course the march through the institutions has been a real thing. Even you wouldn't pretend that university faculties haven't become dramatically more left wing over the last few decades. You'd just claim it was spontaneous.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I am not trying to persuade you that your political thriller worldview is wrong, I'm just pointing out how crazy you are to others.

I applaud your decorum, but your worldview is basically childish underdog fiction, where you take very item you don't like and decide it's part of a vast concerted liberal plot.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Probably it would be as formulaic as commie agitprop inside Pravda back in the day.

You know what looks more like commie agitprop? Actual commie agitprop coming from the pages of WaPo daily. Ya know, defense of censorship for wrong think. Defense of Obama admin investigating a presidential candidate with trumped up FISA warrants. Defense of ridiculous charges that have never been filed, or would have never been filed if the defendant wasn't running for president. Defense of an obviously diminished president. I still want to know who the hell was running the country the last four years. Moderate Joe, the entire reason he was picked for VP, became the most far left radical to ever hold office. WaPo is right democracy dies in the dark. Too bad they left the blinds closed as the roaches ran amok.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If you have to ask...

[grb]

Bezos just sent this to WaPo employees:

"There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job."

Makes my comment above pretty prescient, huh? So the Post should now abandon "a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views" in favor of a pious sermon every day on the glories of the free market?

[ThePublius]

He sent that yesterday.

[grb]

I stand corrected on that point.

Your turn.....

[Satchmo_Lives]

So essentially, do what they have done for decades. Just not for your side anymore. Got it.

Was it WaPo or NYT times that fired the editor for daring to publish a Tom Cotton editorial?

[grb]

Recently, the CIA changed its position on the origin of Covid and Right-wing-world had a joyous freakout. It was all very comical: The CIA had said they didn't have enough evidence to determine a cause right up until a new Director was appointed. He was a well-known lab-leaker, and publicly demanded the agency take a stance. So they dusted-off their old report, added the finding their new boss wanted, and added the note there was no new evidence and their new conclusion was very inconclusive.

Thus politics. Meanwhile, in the world of science, the evidence has always pointed to a natural origin. The journal Nature just published a longish piece suggesting we've probably found the intermediate host:

"Today, mounting evidence from more than a dozen studies point to a person, or people, catching the virus from a wild animal.... And the animal at the top of the list is the raccoon dog. ....One of the reasons raccoon dogs were suggested as a prime candidate early on is because they were probably involved in passing another, related, virus to people. In 2003, researchers isolated close matches of the virus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in several civets and a raccoon dog at a live-animal market in Guangdong, China.

This finding prompted researchers in Germany to investigate these animals’ susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. They found that raccoon dogs can be infected by SARS-CoV-2, and — despite not getting that sick themselves — can pass on the infection to other animals.

....Further evidence to support the raccoon-dog theory came in 2023. Chinese researchers published genomic data of swabs taken at the Huanan market in January 2020, after it was shut down, including of stalls, rubbish bins and sewage. Studies found mitochondrial DNA of raccoon dogs in several swabs, including those that also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

....Most researchers agree that SARS-CoV-2 probably originated in Rhinolophus bats living in Yunnan, southern China.... That’s why it is important to consider the geographic ranges of suspect intermediate animals to see whether they overlap with those bats.... Among the animals at the Huanan market, the ranges of wild raccoon dogs...overlap with that of the bats. Fitting with this hypothesis, the mitochondrial DNA from raccoon dogs at the Huanan market did not match those from farmed animals in northeastern China, and were instead closer to wild-caught animals in central and southern China."

https://jabberwocking.com/are-raccoon-dogs-the-key-origin-of-the-covid-virus/

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The infamous "raccoon dog" Chinese (or was it American?) bioweapon, you mean...

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

Why is it politics now, but not politics then?

[tylertusta]

It's not politics when my side does it. It's politics when the other side does it.

[David Nieporent]

That is a question you should be asking yourself, yes.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Perhaps in four years we will get a look into the pressure campaigns by Trump and the heads of NIH, CDC, Infectious Disease etc directed by Blauci to have them change the science like we have with Biden's team.

[ThePublius]

Michael Moore: Trump Might Be Deporting Illegals Who Could ‘Cure Cancer’

Wait a minute, wasn't Joe Biden supposed to do that?

[Bored Lawyer]

And we might be aborting fetuses who, if born, would grow up and cure cancer. Just saying.

[hobie]

Nah. We were responsible for bringing in all the brown oncologists. You're the guys kicking them out

[ThePublius]

So you're saying oncologists are swimming across the Rio Grande?

[hobie]

Sure. Why not. Along with all the trans, rapists, anesthesiologists.

I'm MAGA now. I say what I want. Prove me wrong

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump Might Be Deporting Illegals Who Could ‘Cure Cancer’"

Can't they do that in their home countries? Does crossing the US border apply some special intelligence or skill to people?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A bit lack of self-awareness here:

I hereby direct the Attorney General and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by Peter Koski and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel, pending a review and determination of their roles and responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization of the judicial process. I also direct the Attorney General and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with the memorandum that shall be issued by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Additionally, if any of the covered Covington & Burling LLP members, partners, and employees referenced in this memorandum obtained a security clearance from an agency not included as an addressee of this memorandum, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall provide this memorandum to the appropriate clearance-granting agency to ensure compliance.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/suspension-of-security-clearances-and-evaluation-of-government-contracts/

[Roger S]

With all talk about how Jack Smith was not a real federal prosecutor, I did not know that he was being assisted by pro bono Trump-hater private law firms. Maybe those lawyers should be prosecuted for something.

[not guilty]

"Maybe those lawyers should be prosecuted for something."

What federal criminal statute(s) do you posit that such lawyers have violated? Please cite by number.

[Satchmo_Lives]

They were brought on by Smith for an investigation. The investigation is kaput. What logical reason is there to keep the clearances?

Let me guess. The lawyers have "institutional knowledge" that would be lost forever on how to prosecute ex-presidents.

[Martinned2]

What logical reason is there to keep the clearances?

You mean other than all the other government contracts that a firm like this would be doing if it wasn't being punished for advising someone who is unpopular with the current administration?

[Mr. Bumble]

What contracts? You have some special knowledge of what these lawyers and firms are doing?

[Satchmo_Lives]

Didn't answer my question...AT ALL. It is not the least bit surprising.

If they had a contract to work on this case, the case is over. Period. End of story!

Are you suggesting they had some carte blanche contract that allows for access beyond the scope of the investigation? Go ahead and make the argument of propriety, if you wish. Keep in mind Trump can do the same. Do you really want Bondi to give carte blanche access to orgs for investigative purposes?

[Moderation4ever]

I child has died in Texas from measles. Sad, but remember he might also have had a very minor vaccine reaction and his parents saved him from that fate.

[Commenter_XY]

How did the child contract it in the first place?

[hobie]

It started in a religious sect in Gaines county tx

[Roger S]

All measles cases come from overseas. Measles was eradicated from the USA, but foreigners keep bringing it back in.

[hobie]

Most of the rest of the world is far more vaccinated. The US is the world's breeding ground now. Why do you think we lost 1.2 million to COVID, and no other country came close?

[ThePublius]

Where did it come from? It came from illegal immigrants, who weren't screened for disease, as they would have been had they entered legally.

Did you know there's no rabies in the UK? How do they do that? By quarantining animals before they are admitted to the country.

Duh!

[Moderation4ever]

Measles is not rabies. Measles is a respiratory virus that can spread from air exposure. Borders don't stop the measles virus, people stop it by vaccinating the unexposed. That is why we have program to provide healthcare to poorer countries. Because if people in other countries don't get measles our own risk is less.

[ThePublius]

It's an analogy! Geez! Do I have to spell it out for you? Measles is back in the U.S. because people came here with measles. If we had secure borders that would not have happened.

[David Nieporent]

Do you think that "secure borders" mean that people don't travel from one country to the other for business or vacation?

[Armchair]

Secure borders means people are screened for vaccination status when legally visiting the united states.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/vaccinations.html

[Martinned2]

Tell me you've never travelled abroad without telling me you've never travelled abroad.

Travelling to the US as a non-citizen is a pain in the back mostly because it involves standing in line for ages while everyone is cavity searched one by one, but it doesn't involve anyone having to prove their vaccination status.

[Absaroka]

Just to make sure I understand, are you advocating that e.g. an an American citizen should have to provide proof of vaccination for some list of diseases (measles, covid, ...) before re-entering after traveling abroad?

My sense of the epidemiological reality is that national borders aren't much of an impediment to diseases, even with no illegal crossings, and travel rates much, much less than today.

[Brett Bellmore]

Normally the government does not require citizens to provide proof of anything save citizenship to reenter the country, because citizens have an actual, enforceable right to be in the country.

Non-citizens are a different matter, of course. I'm only familiar with the immigrant visa process, having helped my wife through it, but the medical requirements for that were quite stringent.

Looking it up, for tourist visas it depends on where you're leaving from, and what's going on at the time.

[Absaroka]

"Normally the government does not require citizens to provide proof of anything save citizenship to reenter the country..."

Which means that the plague will be carried across the border by unvaccinated citizens[1] (whether or not it is carried by legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, smugglers, wild birds, or what have you).

I'm not arguing some general point about the merits of immigration; I am arguing that the amount[2] of cross border travel today renders the notion of stopping disease at the border infeasible.

[1]or, depending on the disease, vaccinated people.
[2]and speed; a sailing ship crossing the ocean sort of self quarantines in a way that 747's don't.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'd argue that, while you can't keep from getting wet occasionally, you don't have to volunteer to drown.

[Absaroka]

"And I'd argue that, while you can't keep from getting wet occasionally, you don't have to volunteer to drown."

Not a great analogy. I am by no means an open borders type, for lots of reasons, but epidemiology isn't of them. It doesn't matter if one bacterium or a billion cross the border; once the singleton gets across the epidemic is now inside your border.

Trying to hermetically seal borders has a historical success rate that rounds to zero, despite being tried often enough, and that was when travel was accomplished at single digit speeds.

Lotsa good arguments for border controls, but this isn't one of them.

[Brett Bellmore]

" It doesn't matter if one bacterium or a billion cross the border; once the singleton gets across the epidemic is now inside your border."

No, actually it DOES matter, quite a bit.

You can distinguish two different circumstances:

1. Sanitation and vaccination are inadequate, and so each case of measles is transmitted and causes more than 1 new case of measles.
2. Sanitation and vaccination ARE adequate, and so each case of measles is transmitted and causes LESS than 1 new case of measles.

In situation 1, the introduction of even 1 carrier will cause a nation-wide outbreak, deaths are not a function of the number of carriers introduced, the number of carriers only changes how fast a start the epidemic gets, not the end point. You're a nation just waiting for that one bacterium for everything to go to hell.

In situation 2, each carrier produces a localized outbreak which self-extinguishes, and the deaths ARE a function of the number of carriers introduced.

We are unambiguously in situation 2, as you can tell by the absence of a raging measles epidemic. In fact, being in situation 2 is the point of vaccination programs!

And because we ARE in situation 2, we don't need to be hermetically sealed, but every carrier we can block saves more lives.

[ThePublius]

Secure borders could mean requiring vaccines in the case that disease presence cannot be otherwise verified.

No, we can't protect ourselves by fixing the world! We can by securing the border.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Why not something like a measles passport? You don't get to come into the country if you are not vaccinated. Of course it wouldn't apply if you came from undeveloped countries through our southern border.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no other country came close?"

You believe Chinese stats? Interesting. Dumb but interesting.

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

Because Democrat governors were shipping COVID patients to senior citizen homes?

Because the Federal and State government institutions are incompetent?

Because the Federal government incentivized high-risk, unnecessary procedures like intubating patients?

All sorts of reasons that provide better explanations than your insinuation.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Hmm, because we are the most populated developed country that wasn't locking people in their homes from the outside if they got sick?

I don't know. Why did a country of 320,000,000 million have more people die than a country of 66,000,000?

[Life of Brian]

Why do you think we lost 1.2 million to COVID, and no other country came close?

Absolute numbers? Mainly because a) China lies; b) EU member states report individually; and c) the US had a variety of perverse incentives in place in the 20-21 time frame for aggressively counting COVID cases.

Per capita? US is barely in the top 20, even taking the overcounting at face value.

[David Nieporent]

My wife is a government employee. They're having an all-day department meeting where they ordered in food, so they ordered breakfast and lunch to be delivered to my wife as well, even though she works from home, roughly 20 feet from our kitchen. That's the kind of waste the private sector would never tolerate.
​.
​.
​.
​.
Oh, wait, I mistyped. Actually, she works in the private, for-profit sector. But it's exactly the sort of thing Musk/DOGE/MAGA would be hyping as "waste, fraud, and abuse" if they found that happening.

[Bored Lawyer]

What's that supposed to prove? It's a waste. Whoever pays for it is entitled to complain. For a government office, that's the taxpayer. For a private one, it's the owners or shareholders.

[Sarcastr0]

I guess BL hasn't been hearing all the discussions about government inefficiency being nigh infinite due to being so unaccountable to market forces.

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

I guess you don't understand basic human truism of the relationship between incentives & behavior.

There's still hope for you yet. They say reading books helps people get smart, have you tried reading one?

[David Nieporent]

Another possible conclusion is that it isn't waste, that doing things for employees can be good for morale which can help productivity, and that flyspecking to find the 1 or 2% of employees who don't "need" some particular benefit can be more trouble than it's actually worth.

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

Buying unnecessary food to throw away is good for morale?

Are you a serious person or just some comedy skit?

[David Nieporent]

I suppose it's possible that my writing was 5% ambiguous, but I suspect you're just deliberately pretending you didn’t understand. They ordered meals delivered to our house for my wife. That food was not "thrown away." My wife ate it. For breakfast, and lunch, respectively.

[Bored Lawyer]

I also understood that they ordered for your wife for delivery to the office. If it was delivered to home, I don't see the waste. The free food is for morale, not because they think your wife would starve otherwise. She got a free breakfast and lunch, and that made her feel good about her employer. Which was the whole point.

Now explain how that is comparable to sending social security checks to 120 year olds.

[David Nieporent]

The food was "for morale," yes, but the logic was not, "Employees like getting free stuff, so that'll help morale." The logic was, "We're not taking time off from these meetings for everyone to go out to get lunch, and having starving employees is bad for morale, so we need to have food here for them to eat while working." My wife, as noted, works 20 feet from our kitchen, and thus already has food and does not need to take more than 5 minutes to get lunch. And my point wasn't that this was actually waste; my point was that Elon would've spun it as such, sneering about government employees getting free lunches delivered to their homes at taxpayer expense.
​
​
Also, you know that they didn't find any 120 year olds getting Social Security checks, right? They didn't even claim to find that. They only claimed to find 120 year olds (150 year olds, even) who weren't flagged as being deceased, thus creating the theoretical possibility they could be getting Social Security checks.

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

Man, hypothetical Elon sure does a bunch of evil hypothetical stuff!

[ThePublius]

So friggin' what? Private company delivers food to your wife; therefore Trump/Musk/MAGA suck. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

[Absaroka]

"Another possible conclusion is that it isn't waste, that doing things for employees can be good for morale which can help productivity,..."

I'm not sure that the rules for public and private sector are the same. I had a college roomie who was finishing a masters in whatever part of geology made money for oil companies, during an oil boom. They were sending their private jets to whisk him away for a weekend of interviewing, and sending high class hookers to his hotel room after the interviews. I'm libertarianish enough to think that's just fine for the private sector, but prudish enough I don't want governments recruiting that way.

As a company owner, spend your money as you like. But when you are spending public money, you have to consider how it looks to *all* the people who provided the money you are spending.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is arguing that elected officials don't have to be good stewards of the federal dollar.

You're getting arguments that the government is *inherently bad* because it doesn't have the saving grace of the market keeping it accountable.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I'd like more details.

How many people received a free delivered breakfast and lunch? Was it 5 or 150? Was it two separate deliveries? My point is were they paying delivery fees and tips for five trips or 300?

Was it Taco Bell breakfast burritos and chalupas for lunch? Or was it breakfast from the Waldorf and Ruth Chris surf and turf for lunch?

And WTF with govt employee morale. They have cushy jobs with benefits and pensions not seen in the private sector. If you aren't happy with that, fucking quit.

[David Nieporent]

For my wife it was Dunkin in the morning and some chain (I forget which) for lunch. And yes, it was two separate deliveries, done through doordash (or the equivalent; could've been grubhub or uber eats, I suppose). I don't know the exact number; I didn't take my wife's deposition. But just knowing what I know about her department at wok, it was likely a few dozen employees.

As for govt employees, you can't pay them less and say, "But that's okay because they have good benefits" and then reduce the benefits and say, "That's okay because they have a good job." I mean, you can, but it's contradictory.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I appreciate the response. It does not, however, assuage my disgust if a govt agency decided to use my tax dollars to deliver a few dozen meals TWICE to govt employees instead of making them come to work for catered meals. Just how big of a burden is it to require govt workers to actually come to work to get a paycheck?

I get you were trying to be cute and your wife works in the private sector. I might find your example worthy of serious consideration if the govt acted like and treated its customers (taxpayers) like an entity whose livelihood depended on the customers satisfaction.

When has any govt employee union allowed reduced benefits?

[David Nieporent]

"Allowed"? At least at the federal level, government employees don't get to collectively bargain over wages or benefits, and cannot strike.

As for how big of a burden it is to come into the office, some people who work from home — like my wife — don't live anywhere near the office. (And by that I don't mean that they have an hour commute (that's pretty normal in this area); I mean many states away.) But again, we're seeing the bait-and-switch: federal workers (at least of the professional variety, as discussed elsewhere in this thread) are told when they start out that their lower pay is in exchange for benefits and job security. And then they're told they don't deserve and are not getting the benefits or job security either.

[Ska]

Are you the partner who doesn't realize that buying $100 worth of coffee for ten people who charge $400 an hour is a good investment as long as you get more than one additional minute of billable time from them?

[ThePublius]

"Oh, wait, I mistyped. Actually, she works in the private, for-profit sector. But it's exactly the sort of thing Musk/DOGE/MAGA would be hyping as "waste, fraud, and abuse" if they found that happening."

You're just making stuff up. Private sector companies can do what they please. But your statement about Musk/DOGE/MAGA is pure speculation, cynical speculation, at that. You're smearing a group for something they haven't done.

I repeat: you're saying they'd do this if they found that. How do you know???

[David Nieporent]

Because they keep claiming that lots of other things are WFA that aren't!

[Kazinski]

I certainly hope so DOGE would come down on that.

When I worked.for.the government we didn't even get coffee.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Give me the details of the hypothetical. It certainly is WFA if they sent two deliveries to 150 locations with tips and delivery fees instead of catering one location. And what was delivered? Burger King or Ruth Chis?

I don't give a shit if it is a private company. If my tax dollars are paying for it, I care.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Washington Post: Michelle Trachtenberg, star of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Harriet the Spy,” has passed away at age 39, according to the New York Police Department.

I saw her in the film Ice Princess, which I thought was very good. Kim Cattrall plays a mom and coach in a role somewhat a departure from those people is familiar with her playing.

Checking, the actress appeared to have had health problems, with recent pictures which she posted online concerning many fans.

[ThePublius]

TULSI GABBARD ANNOUNCES SHE HAS TERMINATED ALL 100+ NSA EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN TRANSGENDER SEX CHATS.

Good.

https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1894640243598315912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1894640243598315912%7Ctwgr%5Effab83df45e05bbcd552da4b2ed9a7858632f1d8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F705061%2F

[Sarcastr0]

You have no idea if it's good.

You only like the show.

Digging further might change that.

[ThePublius]

It's pretty obvious, given what has been reported. Not only using agency resources in violation of policy and agreements they signed, but unprofessionally sharing often obscene content.

So, YES, I do have an idea that it's good they were fired.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: not in violation of policy, except retroactively.

[ThePublius]

Not so.

[ThePublius]

I posted this yesterday:

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]

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but the key phrase there is "non-mission related." From that same article, several paragraphs down:

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."

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

If what those chatrooms were filled with were critical to the mission of the NSA, the entire NSA needs to be burned the ground.

[ThePublius]

What does that disgusting content have to do with DEI? Are you kidding me? Being penetrated, laser hair removal, estrogen injections, polyamory, group sex, gang bangs? If you think so, you are part of the problem.

[David Nieporent]

As I said either Monday or Tuesday in one of the threads were this was discussed, some of the stuff described seems totally unnecessary (though I suspect some much of it is out of context). But that's their managers' call to make.

And the we're-so-pro-free-speech-anti-cancel-culture-you-can't-fire-a-guy-just-because-he's-an-open-racist crowd have no standing here.

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

Well, good news, their did manager call and they said that the filthy degenerate content was harmful and against policy and fired the participants, one and all.

[ThePublius]

That's the classic lib/prog excuse, 'out of context.' Ha, ha.

You are in denial.

[Sarcastr0]

This was you, losing the argument.

DMN pointed out your standard of 'violation of policy and agreements' was not met.

And you just disengaged and called him a lib/prog.

Might as well have waived a white flag.

Aren't you the guy who was lamenting the tone around here yesterday?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You guys were a lot more skeptical when the FEMA lady made the same claim.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But that's their managers' call to make."

No it's not. Most people receive training that their managers can't, inter alia, tell them to take unreported time off. It would be interesting to see how all this time got recorded.

But in any event, common sense tells you when your manager is going outside of their discretion. "My manager said it was OK" when it's clearly not OK never goes over.

[Absaroka]

"Most people receive training that their managers can't, inter alia, tell them to take unreported time off."

Are you talking hourly, or salaried? I remember, as a teen, that people would line up by the time clock for fear they would punch in a minute early or late, but the rest of my (salaried) career wasn't like that. I may be unusual, as a computer nerd I got called in at 0200 a lot, or came in on 0300 on a Sunday to minimize the impact of downtime, but OTOH no one cared if I left at 3PM either. It was about getting the job done, not keeping a seat warm during specific hours.

Ditto for when I was running teams ... if you were putting up good code on deadline, I could not care less when or how you did it, or how many hours it took.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. I too did risky releases at 0300 Sunday to minimize impact of downtime. It drives me nuts to see others do releases at "more convenient times." By my view, that doesn't even qualify as a mediocre level of service (or reflect a basic inclination toward value).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I may be unusual, as a computer nerd I got called in at 0200 a lot, or came in on 0300 on a Sunday to minimize the impact of downtime, but OTOH no one cared if I left at 3PM either. "

Many companies might not care how much you actually work, but most places require you to submit something saying you worked 40 hours, and how much time you spent on which projects.

And anything associated with the government or government projects purports to take this very seriously. Organizations like to track their spending, and they have to justify what they bill the government.

And of course, they track things like PTO.

[Absaroka]

"And anything associated with the government or government projects purports to take this very seriously. Organizations like to track their spending, and they have to justify what they bill the government."

That may be current practice, but (years ago) when I worked for a Beltway Bandit doing a DoD contract, they cared about delivering the goods (software) on time. Whether we worked 1 hour a week or 100 hours didn't matter; the only thing DoD cared about was delivering the software on time.

I agree there are contracts that bill by the hour, but ours wasn't - it was deliver such-n-such a software system by a given date for $X. How my company met that date was up to us.

Similarly, you can contract for a kitchen remodel on a cost plus basis, in which case you care a lot about hours and invoices, or you can contract to get a new roof for $X, in which case you don't care whether it takes 1 or 1000 man hours.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Somehow you think that is better?

What kind of allies, that fit their particular kink, were they trying to cultivate? Sounds like informants or hook ups to me. Is there some particular national security issue we should be aware of? Kind of like the vast number of white supremacists in the armed forces?

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

Did you read the messages?

Those people shouldn't be anywhere near a paid position.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We love cancel culture!

[Commenter_XY]

There is no professional business setting where the content of that chat room would be considered appropriate or acceptable. None.

Out here in the real world, the world outside of DC, not only would these people be immediately termed for cause, any of their supervisors who were aware of the chat room and said nothing would be termed, and for sure IT admin people would be termed. Quite probably the CIO.

[David Nieporent]

Least self-aware person in the history of ever?

"Those are not real jobs producing federal revenue. Federal employees do not deserve their jobs. Federal employees do not deserve their paycheck."
​ --- Marjorie Taylor Greene

https://x.com/Acyn/status/1894477067497930785

[Frank Drackman]

I wouldn’t say you’re the least self-aware person in history, but you’re up there

[Bwaaah]

That's downright moderate of you, Frank. Magnanimous, even.

[Martinned2]

There's also Musk and his $38bn of government subsidies calling people who receive government subsidies parasites...

[Michael P]

... in which a supposed economist (or economics-adjacent lawyer) claims that competitive contracts are subsidies.

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/elon-musk-business-government-contracts-funding/ :

Government contracts to SpaceX from NASA and the Defense Department make up the majority of [the $38 billion in] funds.

[apedad]

Supreme Court rules against drivers in case some say could make civil-rights claims harder

The Supreme Court said Tuesday that people who win early rulings in civil rights cases won't necessarily be able to recover their legal fees, a finding that both conservative and liberal groups had argued could make it harder to fight for people's rights in court.

The high court ruled 7-2 against Virginia drivers who sued after their licenses were suspended under a law they argued was unconstitutional. The drivers won an early court order blocking enforcement of the law, but then Virginia repealed the measure and the case ended before the judge reached a final determination.

Advocacy groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Second Amendment-supporting Firearms Policy Coalition had weighed in on the side of the drivers.

“A plaintiff who secures a preliminary injunction has achieved only temporary success at an intermediary 'stage of the suit,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rules-against-drivers-in-case-some-say-could-make-civil-rights-claims-harder/ar-AA1zPFN3?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=77e18857379e495f87e0a2913b5a9f7a&ei=56

Tough call especially when both Right and Left are on the side with the plaintiffs.

[David Nieporent]

I absolutely think that Jackson's dissent was right on this one. The majority portrayed themselves as constrained by statute to rule this way, but in fact nothing in the statute required them to interpret "prevailing party" as parsimoniously as they did. The ball is now in Congress's court, and it should fix this. (But I'm betting that this Congress never will.)

[DixieTune]

The courts are a branch of government that looks to protect itself.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't even make sense in the context of this discussion. The courts are not affected one way or the other by this.

[Bob from Ohio]

They buried the Bibas family yesterday, the boys in same coffin as their mother.

Just a reminder, 38 children were murdered in the massacre of October 7th. Three were between birth and age 3, and four were between ages 3-6.
20 children were orphaned from both parents. 96 children were orphaned from one parent. Of course over a 1000 all together were murdered, both by Hamas and "civilians" like the ones who kidnapped the Bibas family.

May their memory be a blessing. May HaShem's vengeance know no bounds.

[ThePublius]

Israel should just take over Gaza completely, and apply Israeli residency and citizenship laws there. The only issue is if they want to deport someone, where do they send them? No one else in the world wants the Gazans.

[DixieTune]

They should go to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim shithole and tell them "If you don't take these people, you permanently forfeit the right to have any comment about anything we do here."

[Frank Drackman]

I hear the Mediterranean has vacancies

[CountmontyC]

There have to be some islands in the Indian Ocean far away from anyone else. Put them there until they learn to behave in a civilized manner.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've already addressed that: No, not with enough land area to fit the people. Uninhabited islands tend to be quite small.

[grb]

ThePublius : "Israel should just take over Gaza completely, and apply Israeli residency and citizenship laws there"

You kinda miss the point. Israel wants the land bur doesn't want to give the people who've always lived there citizenship. If they did, the Jewish state would be 40% Palestinian and probably have an Arab majority long-term. There are plenty of people who propose that, but they usually aren't Israel's friend. So what are the other options?

1. You can go the ethnic-cleansing / war criminal route, like Trump. Or maybe just load all five-plus million in boxcars and send them to be murdered. Israel's fake supporters (like Trump and many commentators here) seem willing to entertain all kinds of criminal and bloodthirsty fantasies if its all "rah rah team".

2. You can go with the status quo, as the Israel government has done for decades now. But that has made them brutally-ugly vicious and cruel oppressors, often in an Orwellian & totalitarian manner. And to what end? As stop-gap to a negotiated resolution it might be understandable, because only the fake Palestinian supporters (mirror opposite to the fake Israeli supporters) see the Palestinians as pure victims. But everyone knows the current Israeli position: They'll never be any negotiations or resolution.

So what is their plan? Answer : They have none. Steal more and more Palestinian's land. Oppress with more and more totalitarian zeal. Whine whenever anyone brings up the definition of "apartheid". Pretend the whole issue will someday vanish without cost or compromise to them.

3. What would a real supporter of Israel propose? Not any sudden peace deal. The leadership of both sides are too corrupt and blind to make that tenable. But small measures to build trust towards a Two-State solution. Not just for the Palestinian's sake, but for Israel's as well. Because the road they're on isn't a road at all. It leads nowhere. The land they want to steal isn't worth the cost of permanently making Israel a criminal state.

Want an example? The Palestinian Authority has cooperated with Israeli security for twenty years now. Why not let them into Gaza? But Netanyahu would rather see Hamas remain in charge than let that happen. After all, he supported and nurtured Hamas behind the scenes before 07Oct. His security service escorted Qatar agents carrying millions in cash across the border to prop up the thug regime. This was to maintain the boogeyman of Hamas as a go-to excuse against talks, and keep the Palestinians divided. Even now - even after 07Oct - that's still more important than Palestinian rule in the Strip that would cooperate with Israel, not terrorize it. What does that tell you?

[ThePublius]

So, what are you saying? The Israelis are evil oppressors and the Gazan Palestinians are innocents?

[ThePublius]

By the way, Palestinians in Israel have many more rights than Israelis in Gaza. Palestinians in Israel can be citizens, can vote, and can buy and own real estate. In Gaza, it's a death penalty offense to sell real estate to an Israeli. Nice people, there.

[Commenter_XY]

Incentivized, voluntary immigration. That is the ultimate answer.

[David Nieporent]

The Palestinian Authority has cooperated with Israeli security for twenty years now. Why not let them into Gaza?

Um, they were in Gaza. And then Hamas threw them out.

[Frank Drackman]

Israel should release every Palestinian prisoner.
Just their heads, keep the rest of the corpses for bargaining chips

[SRG2]

Apparently being a criminal involved with Jan 6 means your other crimes are covered by the blanket pardon.

Prosecutors conclude Army veteran’s Capitol riot pardon also covers a separate weapons case

Could be a case of chickenshittery from DoJ. Disgusting, in any case.

[Frank Drackman]

Must suck to be so invested in hoping other peoples get fucked over

[Kazinski]

Sounds like they are considering the evidence collected from searching his home as fruit of a poisoned tree.

I don't think there is much doubt a court would find that when they searched his house the warrant was valid and based on sufficient probable cause, but if your lstarting point is that the Jan.6 proscutions were unjust, then its not a big leap to decide that using evidence gathered in unnecessary raids was also unjust.

The AP article cites two other cases where other prosecutions were left untouched when the evidence was developed completely independently of the Jan 6 prosecutions, and another case where a felon in possession charge was considered pardoned when it did come from the Jan 6 investigation.

"The Justice Department has said the pardons don’t apply for at least two Jan. 6 defendants charged with other crimes.

Prosecutors have said they will continue prosecuting a man who had guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in his van when he was arrested in June 2023 near former President Barack Obama’s Washington home. Prosecutors moved to dismiss Taylor Taranto’s charges stemming from his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, in light of the pardon. But prosecutors say the firearms offenses he faces are “wholly unrelated to the pardon.”

The Justice Department has also said the pardon doesn’t apply in the case of a man who was awaiting trial on Jan. 6 charges when prosecutors say he developed a plan to kill law enforcement, including FBI agents. Edward Kelley was convicted in November of charges including conspiracy to murder federal employees and is sentenced to be scheduled in May."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That's a convenient excuse, but a pardon has nothing to do with the process of investigating a crime and does not taint any evidence obtained of other crimes.

It's nothing more than more partisan bullshit for idiot Trump supporters (read: all) to gobble up and agree with.

[Kazinski]

Kazinski 4 seconds ago
I can't believe this is happening in the EU too:

"Recent reports from the “Brussels Morning” newspaper said that the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf had uncovered findings that are now shaking the entire European Union. They discovered that the European Commission had been financing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) lobbying for the policies of former EU Commissioner Frans Timmermans and influencing politicians to push through his “Green Deal.” It has now come to light that the EU commission gave €1 billion of public funds to green NGOs and lobbyists to promote the policies of the EU Commission.

The Report says, “We demand transparency from green NGOs. The European Commission must not use taxpayers’ money to fund studies from affiliated NGOs that conveniently produce results tailored to the Commission’s agenda. That is simply wrong. Studies must be professional and independent. European funds should never be used to serve a political faction or ideology, nor to manipulate MEPs or the public.”

I think someone wrote a book about "Manufacturing Consent", but I didn't think it was supposed to be a how to manual.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/02/25/the-european-commission-faces-its-biggest-scandal-in-20-years/

[Martinned2]

You would prefer it if NGOs get subsidised without telling anyone what they're using that money for?

[Mr. Bumble]

No. Prefer that they get their money the old fashioned way by earning it.

[David Nieporent]

Do you know what an NGO is? It's just a fancy term for non-profit. If they earned money, they'd be for-profit businesses.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A NYT article entitled "Gabbard Says More Than 100 Intelligence Officers Fired for Chat Messages" tells half the story.

My concern generally is twofold. (1) What amount of knowledge and know-how is being lost here (2) Is there going to be a general firing of people who use it for "sexual themes"? What about racist conversations? Other non-work related conversations? This comes off as an anti-trans measure.

As noted here, the chats "are commonplace in workplaces across the United States, including within federal agencies." This explains why so many felt free to do it. This is reflected in some of the pushback -- complaints this was part of DEI policies. If so, that reinforces the idea that it wasn't some blatant violation.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/the-new-mccarthyism-lgbtq-purges

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nsa-investigates-secret-sex-chats-dei-agency-message-board

I truly doubt over 100 people, and only trans people at that blithely broke the rules without having some grounds to think what they were doing was acceptable. Beyond that, it is just a bad call to fire such useful personnel on this ground.

The Administration can have a new consistent policy regarding what sort of chats are allowed. Violations can then be addressed. I still think you should be careful before firing useful personnel. But, it still would be different than what is being done here.

[ThePublius]

Who said they were only trans?

[Satchmo_Lives]

Because if there is one thing we need, it is more NSA agents spying on Americans. Hell, I want the most competent fired and the least competent kept. Fits my narrative that people go into government because they couldn't make it in the real world with expectations.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Fit the narrative. That's an honest statement.

I do wonder what the "real world" is. A sanitation worker or whatnot seems as real as any number of people in the private sector.

[Satchmo_Lives]

And what do they get paid? What benefits? What pension?

I promise all three are well above the average private sector worker doing menial unskilled labor.

That is govmint for ya.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sanitation work can take skill. Depends on what type.

Government jobs regularly pay less than what the person can get in the private sector.

They do in various cases provide opportunities as they did for people in the past who were often discriminated against elsewhere.

As do other jobs in various cases. Some bias against government jobs as not truly "real" is a bit silly.

[Satchmo_Lives]

"Sanitation work can take skill. Depends on what type."

Yes, I can see by your list how wrong I was. Maybe a landfill engineer. That's all I got.

"Government jobs regularly pay less than what the person can get in the private sector."

I seriously doubt that unless you are talking highly skilled jobs or jobs that require a high degree of education. DOJ lawyers, some scientists (certainly not Fauci and his ilk), doctors etc I can see as getting less. All the mid level and lower, the vast bulk of the bureaucracy, is much better compensated than the private sector. My grandfather's second wife (they married in their 80s) had a pension over $80k a year for being a secretary for Judge Sam B. Hall jr at the US Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

"They do in various cases provide opportunities as they did for people in the past who were often discriminated against elsewhere."

Translation, jobs for people nobody else would hire. By discrimination you don't mean preferring some people based on immutable characteristics or sexual orientation? I think Trump stopped that on or near Jan 20.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

jobs for people nobody else would hire

No, I meant that particularly "in the past," people were discriminated against while the government did not discriminate as much, especially in various areas.

The reference was to "government" jobs, which provide a broad range of opportunities. Lots of people, for instance, are not in the government long enough to get a pension. Also, the government is local, state, and federal.

Many government jobs involve skilled positions. Since your comment was not specific, the alleged 'non-real world' covered a whole lot of ground.

[ThePublius]

"Government jobs regularly pay less than what the person can get in the private sector."

That's not quite so.

"Comparison of Total Compensation
As with its components (wages and benefits), total compensation for workers in both sectors differed by varying degrees in 2022 depending on those workers’ educational attainment.

Among workers with a high school diploma or less education, total compensation costs averaged 40 percent more for federal employees than for their private-sector counterparts.
Among workers whose education culminated in a bachelor’s degree, the cost of total compensation averaged 5 percent more for federal workers than for similar workers in the private sector.
Among workers with a professional degree or doctorate, by contrast, total compensation costs were 22 percent lower for federal employees than for similar private-sector employees, on average."

From the congressional budget office.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235

[David Nieporent]

This does not appear to adjust for locale. Federal workers tend to be in higher cost of living areas than average. That's not going to make up the difference for the high-school-or-less group, but likely does for the bachelor's degree group.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'll add -- and I looked at multiple articles -- it is somewhat hard to parse exactly what was involved here. The articles repeatedly came off as reporting the official line without full context.

They were rather one-sided. Moving past the clickbait, we have people talking about personal issues which is regularly done in workplaces. Even if the specific conversations seem "icky" to some people.

[Satchmo_Lives]

No HR concerns here. They weren't white straight males telling coworkers their sexual fantasies. Gays and trans can't sexually harass people because they aren't in the oppressor class. Same as people like Joy Reid and Rev AL can't be racists because they are the oppressed. Ibrahim X told me and my kids were taught it in school.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Nifty trolling.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As noted here, the chats 'are commonplace in workplaces across the United States, including within federal agencies.'"

Usually such chats are about your boss suddenly reigning in your authority.

[ThePublius]

It's funny, when I was a kid it was a common expression to ask "what does that have to do with the price of eggs" when someone said something that was a non-sequitor or tangential argument.

I went to the store today, South Coast of Massachusetts. My favorite market, Shaw's, had a large variety available, 'though no extra large that I could find. I bought a dozen grade A large for $5.49.

Wow. Four years ago this month the average price was $1.59.

What's going to happen? Are prices up forever now, or will they come back down?

[ThePublius]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000708111

[Kazinski]

Well they killed 100 million chickens, who are laying almost 1 egg a day, up to 250 a year.

So i would expect they are breeding a lot of egg bearing hens now, and we will start to see prices coming down in 2-3 months.

The egg crunch started a few months ago and it takes about 4 months to get a laying hen.

Or at least thats what I would do, others would call for throwing chicken farmers in jail until prices come down.

[bernard11]

Well, it looks like the big issue is bird flu.

Not Trump's fault, or Biden's, but nature's. When and if it runs its course egg prices will drop.

[Life of Brian]

I question whether it can ever truly "run its course" as long as we continue preemptive mass cullings that stymie the natural selection process. Until that changes, they're just perpetually breeding the next round of cannon fodder.

[Frank Drackman]

I think it was "What does that have to do with the price of Tea in China", back when anything Chinese was automatically funny, you thought regular Algebra was hard? wait until you see the "Chinese" Algebra! Even in Med School we'd joke about the "Chinese VD" (OK, joke is guy goes to Amurican Docs, they all say they have to amputate his Penis, he finally goes to a Chinese Doc who says (whole joke depends on doing it in a pidgin Chinese accent)
"No need to cut penis off, in 2 weeks it fall off!"
OK, not as funny as the "Unga Bunga" joke

Frank

[David Nieporent]

It's funny, when I was a kid it was a common expression to ask "what does that have to do with the price of eggs" when someone said something that was a non-sequitor or tangential argument.

My parents used the phrase "…with the price of tea in China?"

[ThePublius]

My sous vide topic.

I did an entire meal sous vide: USDA Prime sirloin steak, butter poached yellow gold potatoes, asparagus, and broccoli. Everything came out great!

The really cool thing that I hadn't anticipated was that when dinner was done, the unused portions except the steak were already in bags, so I just zipped them closed and threw them in the fridge. Just the plates and silver to wash, no pots and pans to clean.

Now I'm looking at sous vide hollandaise and poached eggs. 🙂

[ThePublius]

Oh, yea, and I bought a vacuum sealed package of Jones Canadian Bacon for the eggs Benedict. I read that one can cook this, right in it's package, overnight at 145º, to make it "buttery soft." Can't wait to try that.

I'm also, for the first time in my life, going to try store-brand English muffins instead of Thomas', since they seem as though they will produce two more symmetrical halves when split.

[Krayt]

Does that term even really apply outside eggs? It's raising the temperature of eggs so the protein or whatever reaction occurs, solidifying the egg, but not warm enough to initiate cooking, a separate chemical reaction.

Honestly, sous vide eggs seems like an Emperor's New Clothes thing of how great it is.

[ThePublius]

I haven't tried it yet, but it's really just 'boiled' eggs, 167º F for 13 minutes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Doesn’t sound like much of an advantage versus a pot. The whole advantage (only advantage, really) of sous vide cooking is that you can’t overcook things and don’t have to worry about precise timing. Try cooking the eggs for a couple of hours at 145-147 (depending on how runny you like them), then keep them in the fridge. Crack them into a bowl of hot water for a few minutes before you’re ready to eat.

[SRG2]

I counsel against using sous vide on fish. It really doesn't work well. It is amazing though for meat particularly where with normal cooking there can be a risk of overcooking, e.g., pork tenderloin

[Satchmo_Lives]

Hard no. Sirloin is one of the least flavorful, but tender, cuts you can buy and you didn't grill it or put a sear on it. I have never tried sous vide method. My girlfriend asked once, but I said I wasn't into that. (I am here all night).

Seriously, why use a slow cook method that doesn't add flavor to an already tender meat that lacks in flavor? Seems the best beef to boil-in-a-bag would be a cut you would braise or smoke and let all the collagen turn to butter.

I might try it someday with duck, salmon, organ meat or other meat that is delicate or will turn to leather in a heartbeat.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The point of a sous vide steak isn’t to change the texture like a slow cooker or braising (and you’re certainly not boiling it!): you put the water bath at the desired internal temperature, then sear it briefly with your desired spice and aromatics, either on a hot pan or with a torch.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Boil-in-a-bag was a joke. He literally said he wants to put canadian bacon in a sous vide to change the texture. He also said nothing about searing it off.

I guess if you are a novice griller or hot pan/oven cook you need to make sure you don't overcook the meat, but what does it add?

Like I said I can see it for difficult or delicate meats like salmon or organ meat where 20 seconds over and you can throw it in the trash.

[Brett Bellmore]

What sous vide adds if you're doing steak, is that you can cook it long enough to make chuck tender, while still serving it medium rare except for the char.

I mean, I'll use the defrost setting on my microwave to bring my steaks up to a temperature of maybe 120 internally without any part getting cooked, to get something like that "All medium rare except the char" effect on thick steaks after the grill, but it won't do anything for a tough cut, and sous vide will.

[Satchmo_Lives]

That is my whole point. Why sous vide an already tender cut like sirloin? I am looking for a reason to sous vide anything beyond having the ability to say "sous vide." I get making a tough cut (flank, skirt, brisket) more tender, but smoking or braising does the same thing and can add a lot of flavor.

[Brett Bellmore]

"An already tender cut like sirloin"

Actually, how tender sirloin is depends on the meat grade. Think of sous vide as moving your meat grade up, so you can get expensive steak house results with corner grocery store meat.

And that expensive steak house? They probably use sous vide. Because they can just keep a tank of bagged steaks at rare but cooked, they're not going to spoil at 130 because in 2 hours they're pasteurized, and then when some guy orders his steak you pull it out of the bag, sear it, and done.

The only reason I haven't been doing sous vide regularly is that I haven't got the kitchen space for another one jobber. Happily, the electric glass top that came with the house finally got bad enough we could justify pitching it, and I am SO looking forward to this baby showing up tomorrow.

It can do sous vide!

[ThePublius]

I did sear it. I thought I mentioned that.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Better, but not quite enough for me. What does the method actually ADD to the steak? Grilling adds something. I will take grilled bacon-wrapped asparagus. Yeah, the potatoes are awesome, but only slightly better than my garlic and rosemary roasted potatoes. Broccoli is interesting. I like broccoli raw as a snack or slightly steamed with a little butter and garlic with a meal. I WANT that crunch--same with cauliflower. What would be different using sous vide?

[ThePublius]

"Better, but not quite enough for me."

I don't get that. I have been grilling steaks for 50+ years, and I can assure you, a sous vide steak then seared is far superior. It's medium rare all the way out to the crust. Plus, since the sous vide temp is tightly controlled, +/- 0.2º F, the cook time is not critical, so you can just leave it in there until people are ready to eat, then take it out, sear it about a minute on each side, and it's ready.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Lawyers for President Trump in line to take top jobs at the Justice Department sparred with Democrats on Wednesday over whether the administration could simply ignore some court orders — an early skirmish in a larger fight over the White House’s efforts to claim more sweeping presidential powers."

No wonder they think the Justice Department is just a bunch of lawyers for Trump. Is there a full list of former Trump lawyers, up to and including the Attorney General, who are now or will be in top positions in the Justice Department?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/us/politics/trump-lawyers-court-orders-hearing.html

[ThePublius]

More on eggs.

How do you like yours? If not runny yolks, is it because of concern for disease, or just preference.

I like over-easy, soft boiled, and poached with runny yolks.

I just saw this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/19/well/runny-egg-yolk-salmonella-bird-flu-safety.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"More on eggs.

How do you like yours? "

Any way you can make them including as the base for other food (French toast, custards ...)

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends. If it's on hash? Runny!

By themselves or in Ramen? Just a bit shy of goey.

[Satchmo_Lives]

No burger comment?

Ain't nothin', and I mean nothin', better than a runny bacon fat fried egg on a bacon cheeseburger.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of fried eggs on burgers. Got nothing against them, it's just not my thing.

[Frank Drackman]

You haven't lived until you've had Moco Loco, much better in Maui, I think it's the Chickens

[Brett Bellmore]

If a burger has room for a fried egg, I'd much rather stack bacon on it. Best burger I've had lately was the BBQ Bacon Char with cheese at Burger Habit.

Alas, I'm on the keto diet right now, (Lost about 12 pounds so far!) and buns are off the menu, along with ketchup. It's not quite the same eating a burger with a fork and knife, though it still tastes good.

[Satchmo_Lives]

"If a burger has room for a fried egg, I'd much rather stack bacon on it."

Are you suggesting it can't be both?

"Best burger I've had lately was the BBQ Bacon Char with cheese at Burger Habit."

It depends on the BBQ sauce. Any sweetness peeking through and I am out. Give me smokey and spicy and I am ok.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it can't be both, because if you've got room for an egg, you can just stack more bacon on it, instead. 😉

OK, technically it could be both, but you'd be cheating yourself of some bacon.

[Satchmo_Lives]

The rather high esteem I held regarding you has dropped considerably--a shame, a pity to be sure. 🙂

[ThePublius]

I should have mentioned that hard boiled have their place, too, on salads, for example.

[Satchmo_Lives]

My favorite is fried in bacon fat spooning the grease over the yolk till it goes from bright yellow to almost white on higher heat so I get crispy bits around the edges with a runny yolk. I buy fresh eggs from farms and not grocery stores where egg producers need to jump through absurd hoops like wash the natural protective coating off the egg. Which I don't think they do in many parts of Europe. It is, however, an egg in 45 seconds.

I mostly have soft boiled with fresh cracked black pepper or a microwaved egg that gets slathered in Yellow Bird habanero hot sauce. If you haven't seen the gadget, it is a shallow silicon square you crack an egg into and nuke it for 45 seconds. Out comes a flavorless open faced hard boiled egg--essentially. Hence the need for the hot sauce.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I added "It is, however, an egg in 45 seconds" to the end of the wrong paragraph. DOH!

[ThePublius]

I have a jar of bacon fat next to the range. Best stuff in the world.

I don't have a microwave oven.

I do have an egg cooker - a really cool, inexpensive device that works remarkably well. I use it for soft boiled eggs.

https://www.target.com/p/dash-3-in-1-everyday-7-egg-cooker-with-omelet-maker-and-poaching-black/-/A-53731036?afid=google&TCID=OGS&CPNG=Appliances&adgroup=72-4&gStoreCode=2167S&gQT=1

[Satchmo_Lives]

I saw a five gallon paint bucket of bacon at the store. I almost bought it. I love bacon, but I only go through the hassle pf cooking it to get the fat.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Basted eggs"; I make those occasionally.

Now, what turned out good in a way I seriously had not anticipated? We were camping, and had fried some freshly caught catfish dusted with seasoned cornmeal for breakfast, and when it came time to fry the eggs, I used the same pan and oil, and made basted eggs.

And the corn meal stuck to the eggs, which turned out runny inside and crispy on the outside. I could not have planned that in a thousand years, but everyone loved it. I've tried replicating it since, and had no luck.

[bernard11]

I'm an over easy guy, especially with good sausage to soak up the yolk.

Lacking that, an omelet or good scramble is fine, though the latter is harder than it sounds.

(Mark Twain on Wagner: His music is much better than it sounds.)

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, I like that Twain quote.

[Satchmo_Lives]

The Gordon Ramsey method is scramble the eggs in the pan with butter (which I have always done because I didn't see the need to get another dish dirty), and add a little cream and vigorously work it in just as bits are beginning to solidify.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That was Graham Kerr (the Galloping Gourmet).

[Satchmo_Lives]

OK. My bad. Gordon didn't say it was his method. I attached his name because I haven't seen it before he did it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The way I heard it (Twain on Wagner): “He’s not as bad as he sounds.”

[SRG2]

Then there was Rossini on Wagner - "Great moments, but dreadful quarter-hours". And on Lohengrin, "this is not a work that can be judged on a first listening, and I have no intention of listening to it again."

[Armchair]

An interesting chart is linked.

Basically Harris lost ground with almost every single group in 2024 compared to Biden in 2020. No college degree...Harris lost ground. College Women...Harris lost ground. Those making under $50K...Harris lost ground. Urban voters...Harris lost Ground. Non-white college educated...Harris lost ground.

But Harris did gain compared to Biden in one area. White College Educated Men.

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/why-did-democrats-lose-their-edge

Makes you think...

[Satchmo_Lives]

Makes me think all the talking heads screaming racism and blaming white men don't really know what they are talking about.

Of course they may have a point as Harris may have picked up a higher percentage, but have fewer in the demographic. The gains of women over the last 40 years, and minorities over the last 20 or so, means a decrease in white males. A few years ago of those with a college degree among whites 55% were women and 45% were men. Maybe that has gone down even further?

I remember the study because of how utterly clueless people citing the study were--mainly black females touting how wonderful black females are doing compared to everybody else. (Completely made up numbers to follow because I don't want to look them up, but true in relation to each other.)

Asian men had a slight lead over Asian women for bachelors 51-49

White women had 10 percentage point advantage over white men (that is true).

Black women had something like a 50 percentage point advantage over black men. Let's say 75-25.

They completely misunderstood the study that stated more black women graduate college compared to black men. No comparison to black women was made to any group other than black men.

[bernard11]

Meanwhile, we have a measles death in Texas.

Thank you, RFK. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you, GOP Senators.

[ThePublius]

It has nothing to do with RFK, Trump, or Rep. Senators.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes, it does you dumb fuck.

Vaccine hesitancy didn't just increase out of fucking nowhere. It came from dipshits like you and your fellow traitors disparaging science and truth. Idiots like RFK Jr. pushing discredited bullshit about vaccines causing autism.

I hope the parents are devastated, and I wish them misery for the rest of their lives for killing their child with stupidity.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I hope the parents are devastated, and I wish them misery for the rest of their lives for killing their child with stupidity.

Ah, those compassionate tolerant libs. Such a beacon of light and example to follow. Now do parents who groom their 2nd grader to be trans. True case of the Washington trans basketball player as told by his/her dad.

Now get mad at the people who gave her measles. I am betting it is all those engineers and computer scientist from Guatemala and Venezuela.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Unfortunately for you, I'm not a 'lib,' so your entire remark is nullified.

Hopefully it was their only child, and their family tree of stupidity will end.

[Frank Drackman]

Hopefully you get Cancer, the slow painful kind, and your reign of stupidity will end.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The fact is, those parents were responsible for their child’s death. Put it as mildly or as crassly as you like.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Sorry, but "I hope the parents are devastated, and I wish them misery for the rest of their lives..." goes far beyond stating facts crassly or otherwise.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A simple vaccine would have prevented this. Their stupidity, and the anti-science, anti-vaccine views of other dipshits, is directly responsible for a completely needless death.

Their child will never 'get over it,' so neither should they. As far as I'm concerned, they're murderers.

Clutch your pearls elsewhere about my tone. Or don't, I really don't care whether you like it or not.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Just for my own curiosity, how do you feel about abortions? This couple made a horribly bad decision based on ill-informed opinions. They believed their daughter would be fine.

They didn't go to an abortion clinic knowing they would be killing their child. IANAL, but an evaluation of mens rea seems applicable here. They certainly didn't "murder" their child ( an intentional act resulting in a homicide).

I am guessing, and could be mistaken, but I tend to believe you are far more concerned about a couple who loved their child and made bad decisions that resulted in a child's death than people who made informed decisions about killing a child around 700,000 times year. You do you.

But yeah, I guess I am clutching my pearls if the idiom means I am dismayed at one human wishing eternal misery on another for being duped by social media. I. Am. Guilty.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Being a man, I'd say my opinion on the matter is largely irrelevant. However my general outlook is that a woman should have time after becoming pregnant to make a decision about whether to stay that way or not. It seems reasonable to me that 'viability' be a standard for such a decision.

I don't agree with your premise that every abortion is 'killing a child,' so cry about that all you want.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Typical.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

By all means, run away like a bitch. LOL.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Yes because RFK was a national figure cultist in Texas were listening to 6 years ago.

[Armchair]

Actually, the more likely culprit is Biden's illegal immigration policies. Measles doesn't just pop out of nowhere. It most likely was brought in from immigrants from another country who didn't bother to stop at customs.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, only illegals come across our borders.

From the meaning of 'appeal to authority' to this nugget, you shouldn't just make things up because they're convenient.

[Moderation4ever]

What a stupid response. Measles is a respiratory infection spread by air exposure. Texas is a border state that has people crossing between the US and Mexico every day. The majority of those crossings are completely legal. People cross going to work, for shopping, for social events with family on the other side of the border. Truck drivers going between the two countries with products. Anyone of those persons could have been the vector in this case. People need to be vaccinated because you never know who is a vector.

[ThePublius]

Measles was eradicated in Mexico. It was re-introduced by 'migrants.'

"With the implementation of a series of vaccination strategies, as part of public policy, measles was eliminated from our country.7 The commitment, vision and an enormous effort of authorities and health workers positioned the Mexican vaccination program as one of the best and most recognized in the world."

"In 2016, region of the Americas was declared measles-free by the World Health Organization.9 However, the occurrence of measles outbreaks in several regions of the world, and the movement of infected people in countries where transmission continues, represents a latent risk for countries with low vaccination coverage. Anti-vaccination groups, unwise decisions regarding public health policies in some countries, in addition to disorderly migration and other social determinants threaten almost three decades of coordinated effort in our region."

So, it's not so simple. And, yes, it's due to unconstrained migration.

https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0016-38132019000500421#:~:text=With%20the%20implementation%20of%20a,was%20eliminated%20from%20our%20country.&text=The%20commitment%2C%20vision%20and%20an,most%20recognized%20in%20the%20world.

[Armchair]

" Measles is a respiratory infection spread by air exposure."

True. And the only known host is human beings. The air exposure isn't worldwide. One needs to be in reasonable proximity to the carrier.

"Texas is a border state that has people crossing between the US and Mexico every day. The majority of those crossings are completely legal."

Also true. But for those crossings, an (non-US citizen) individual needs to be vaccinated, by law, against measles. Mexico had similar provisions in place and Measles had actually been eradicated in both countries.

But, countries with far lower Measles vaccination rates have been immigrating illegally through Mexico and into the US. And one of the benefits of illegally immigrating, is those questions about "vaccine status"...well, don't get asked.

Haiti comes to mind... As does Venezuela. Both with Measles vaccination rates under 70%. And if you're playing the probabilities correctly...

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.IMM.MEAS?most_recent_value_desc=false

[ThePublius]

Despite what the RFK, Jr. haters are saying, it's not so simple (as usual).

There's a measles outbreak in Texas now, that has spread to New Mexico. 130+ cases. Even children who are vaccinated are becoming quite sick, requiring oxygen and high-flow oxygen.

About three out of 100 people who get two doses of the measles vaccine will still get measles if exposed to the virus, according to the CDC.

So, no, 'a simple vaccine' might not have prevented this. We don't know.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oscar-winning actor Gene Hackman and his wife and dog found dead in their New Mexico home

I'm going to call it right now: Carbon Monoxide poisoning.

If you've got any sort of combustion based heat, a CO detector, installed near the floor, is an absolute must. I installed one for my mother and sister when they moved, and it was only a couple years later that it went off in the middle of the night. They evacuated and called the fire department.

Somebody went in with protective gear and a detector, and confirmed: They'd have been dead by morning if not for that CO detector.

Instead, they spent a few days in a hotel while they had their gas furnace repaired: The heat exchanger had rusted through.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which reminds me: It's time to replace the one I installed when we moved into our current home; They do have a limited life, after all.

[Frank Drackman]

Gene was a pretty sharp cookie, maybe it was Youth-in-Asia.
Sucks for the Dog though

[Commenter_XY]

Baruch Dayan Ha'Emet - Gene Hackman (and wife).

Great actor.

[ThePublius]

R.I.P. Popeye Doyle. (My favorite role he played.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Time to watch "The French Connection", again.

[ThePublius]

Great movie. It was cool for me as I lived in NYC at the time, and recognized a lot of the scenes.

I just watched the car chase scene, under the El. Yikes!

[Brett Bellmore]

It is fun recognizing scenes from movies. We occasionally go rafting along the area where Harrison Ford's escape was filmed for the Fugitive; You can even see the crashed train, which they didn't bother removing after the filming.

Mind, that dam is about 60 miles from the bus...

[Martinned2]

My first thought was another, but given that the dog also died I think Carbon Monoxide poisoning is a plausible hypothesis.

[ThePublius]

Same here. My knee-jerk was murder/suicide, but then the dog - probably CO. Sad. That stuff is bad. if you ever get dosed and survive it can take a long time to recover.

[Brett Bellmore]

Usual treatment if it's bad enough they can't just let you recover on your own would be a blood transfusion: CO irreversibly binds with hemoglobin, rendering red blood cells incapable of carrying oxygen. Replace them, and most of the problem goes away. (You can't replace myoglobin with a transfusion, so you'll have reduced athletic performance for quite some time.)

[ThePublius]

"Thirteen years ago today, Trayvon Martin, at 17 years old, was wrongfully killed in an act of police brutality that shook the nation and brought vital awareness to the racially motivated violence that plagues our country. Today, and every day, let us continue the fight for racial equity and speak out against the hate that divides us. My love and prayers go out to his family.

— Ohio Congresswoman Joyce Beatty at X"

This woman is so blinded by the narrative of police killing innocent blacks that she posted this utter nonsense.

- it wasn't the police
- Martin wasn't wrongfully killed
- it wasn't racially motivated

(For those who don't recall, it was George Zimmerman (the "white Hispanic," per the NYTimes), found not guilty in shooting death of (thug mugger) Trayvon Martin.)

[Sarcastr0]

He was acquitted, and he should have been.

The prosecution not meeting their burden doesn't mean he didn't do it.
His subsequent history does him no favors on that front.

Do you think OJ Simpson was innocent?

[ThePublius]

It's certain the George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, that was never a question. George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin because the jury found he acted in self-defense.

You are distorting what really happened.

And, no, I don't think OJ was innocent, but that's beside the point.

[Sarcastr0]

We don't know what really happened for certain. But there was enough uncertainty that reasonable doubt was tricky to prove.

Zimmerman was not acquitted on the affirmative defense of self defense.

And that there is a difference between a court proceeding and what you believe is precisely the point.

[ThePublius]

I don't know what you're getting at. There was a ton of evidence, enough to piece together what happened, even including Zimmerman's and Martin's movements leading up to the encounter, and details of the encounter as well.

In order to prove Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder, the jury had to conclude that, beyond reasonable doubt, Zimmerman acted out of ill will and hatred, not self defense.

"A jury deliberated for more than 15 hours before finding George Zimmerman not guilty
The not guilty verdict means the jury of six women found Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense."

I think that says it all, no?

But that was not the point of the original post. It's that this congresswoman is racist idiot.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think that says it all, no?

It doesn’t say it all, no, because juries sometimes get things wrong and we’re allowed to disagree with their conclusions.

It is, however, a good place to start.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, you're distorting things. There was in fact enough evidence of what happened that only unreasonable people persist in thinking that it wasn't lawful self defense.

Just the fact that the only wounds Martin had were the fatal gun wound and scuffed up knuckles, while Zimmerman was beaten black and blue, was enough to establish that. Martin didn't get fatally shot and only then beat Zimmerman like a pinata. He beat Zimmerman to the point where Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of his life, and only then got shot.

Further, it was established that Martin had actually had to have turned around and returned in order to be at the point where the altercation happened, so it was not Zimmerman who confronted Martin, but instead Martin who confronted Zimmerman.

While technically an acquittal only means the charge wasn't proven, in reality the charge was affirmatively refuted in court.

And, let me emphasize this, because it bears it: Even if Zimmerman HAD confronted Martin, unless he'd done so in an illegal manner, he would have been legally entitled to use that lethal force in self defense once Martin started beating on him. And the idea that Zimmerman was threatening Martin with his gun, and Martin jumped the gun, was just a stupid rationalization to avoid admitting what all the evidence says: That Martin attacked Zimmerman.

[Estragon]

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. These people get the heroes they deserve. Did anyone here bid on the gun zimmerman used and then auctioned off?

[ThePublius]

"Not guilty is not the same as innocent."

Yea, and my dog's breath smells like dog food. So what?

Of course, because in our legal system juries deliberate and decide according to the charges. So a jury doesn't determine "he's innocent," they determine if the prosecution has met the standard for declaring him guilty or not. The strong, strong, implication here is that since that he acknowledges shooting Martin, and was judged not guilty, it must have been a shooting in self defense.

And no one here said anything about Zimmerman being a hero, that's coming out of your head.

[Estragon]

I am making a moral statement. I am familiar with the verdict returned. His subsequent conduct is instructive. That you and Bellmore would fall all over yourselves to defend this person is overdetermined.

Did you bid on the gun?

[ThePublius]

YOU are the one doing the exaggeration. No one is falling over themselves here, we're just stating the facts.

[Estragon]

“The strong, strong, implication here”

Facts!

[Brett Bellmore]

Innocent is a subset of not guilty, and Zimmerman was factually innocent, based on objective forensic evidence.

[Estragon]

“Innocent is a subset of not guilty”

No.

[David Nieporent]

Innocent is a subset of not guilty,

"Not guilty" is a legal finding that the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Innocent" is a factual claim that the person didn't violate the law.

They are overlapping, to be sure, but innocent is not a subset.

[not guilty]

And on some occasions defendants who are factually innocent are convicted nevertheless. That fact rebuts the "subset" characterization.

[Estragon]

I also have to say I’m a little disappointed nobody caught my BSG shout-out here

[Satchmo_Lives]

The uncertainty of what?? The uncertainty of Zimmerman having his head bashed on the sidewalk?

The only uncertainty that might have been would be who confronted who. Too bad Trayvon's own words to the idiot girl showed he wanted to be the aggressor because he thought Zimmerman was a pervert wanting to rape him. Not to mention Zimmerman telling dispatch he was returning to his truck

The most hilarious part was when the prosecution tried to show an eyewitness stated he saw the bigger person beating up the smaller person and the person doing the beating was Zimmerman. Then the witness stated he was showed a picture of Trayvon when he was 12 or 13 and thought he was the smaller person. The same picture you dupes latched onto to show Trayvon was some innocent little kid.

[not guilty]

"George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin because the jury found he acted in self-defense."

Uh, no. Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted because the jury had reasonable doubt as to whether he acted in self-defense.

A criminal trial is not a search for truth. It is a test of the prosecution's evidence.

[ThePublius]

You just like to argue. You don't like me, and you are a stalwart supported of the liberal, Democratic, progressive narrative, no matter what.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe, just don't feed the troll?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Whatever you might think about Zimmerman, you do agree that Rep. Beatty’s comment was very stupid, right?

[David Nieporent]

Well, at least ignorant, mindlessly repeating left-wing talking points.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think that Martin being shot by a cop was ever a left-wing talking point, for all that the case generated a lot of really stupid ones.

So she didn't even get the stupid talking points right.

[David Nieporent]

Right; I didn’t mean talking points about this case, but talking points generally. When someone gets killed in a context that's even possibly racial, they just automatically default to some combo of Racism+Police Brutality as a claim whether it's relevant or not.

Think Kyle Rittenhouse, where — even setting aside whether it was self-defense — dumb left wingers just treated it as black people being killed, even though the people he shot were all white. Or Daniel Perry and Jordan Neely, where White Supremacy was automatically the narrative on the left even though there's no evidence race played a role and even though the defense case was strong.

Of course, I in no way mean to suggest that this is a left wing disease; every day here at the VC we see right wingers trying to fit any incident into a right-wing narrative. I was just saying that this particular claim was left wing.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah. I think the police brutality bit alone makes it super dumb.

[Estragon]

In another episode of something I fear I will be saying a lot… you Trumpists truly get the heroes you deserve. I wonder who had Donald’s ear on this one? Jr?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/27/europe/andrew-tate-romania-us-intl-hnk/index.html

[ThePublius]

"Trumpists." What shall we call you, a Bidenite or a Kamalist?

[SRG2]

I think "Harrisite" would have been more effective, but you can't identify a supporter of Harris or Biden by their opposition to Krasnov. You can certainly identify a Trumpist or Trumpsucker or cultist or Krasnovite by their allegiance to Krasnov.

[Brett Bellmore]

Harrisite

The word's already in use.

[Estragon]

So which side are our resident Trumpists on?

"I certainly don't think that we should be using any influence in our government to try to get [Tate] out of what seemed to be extremely serious charges in Romania. So I would hope that we weren't involved in any way." (Side note: who is gonna tell him?)

-Josh Hawley

Or

“Nice to meet you. I’m a big fan”

-Alina Habba

[Brett Bellmore]

As I've said, I don't expect to like everything Trump does, just to like more of it than I would have with Harris.

Tate I don't know from chopped liver. No, worse than that, I do know chopped liver, and I like it.

So, looking it up, they're not necessarily in the clear, they just get to chill in the US waiting on their trial. If the prosecutors ever bother scheduling a trial, that is.

This looks like a case of "squat or get off the can", where Romania wasn't letting them leave, but wasn't bothering to actually try them for anything, either. So I'm not terribly outraged.

[Estragon]

“So I'm not terribly outraged.”

Unsurprising— but noted!

“… these are the basic moves of pimping”

-Andrew Tate

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would I be outraged over him being in the US prior to an eventual trial, rather than a foreign country? He's not getting out of a trial, he's just getting to come home until they bother actually holding one.

[Estragon]

“Why would I be outraged”

Well, that’s really up to you isn’t it? I certainly didn’t expect you— or any resident Trumpists— to be, given what we have witnessed from you over the years. I’m sure he’ll head right back to Romania when asked to!

Can I mark you down for Habba over Hawley, then?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I’m sure he’ll head right back to Romania when asked to!"

And at the point where he refuses to do that, you will have a case for outrage. Right now you're just being outraged over an unconvicted defendant, who thus is entitled to the presumption of innocence, getting to wait on an eventual trial in his own country.

That's the problem, isn't it? What you're really outraged over is people you don't like getting the presumption of innocence.

[Estragon]

“outraged over an unconvicted defendant”

Is that what you think Ron Desantis is upset by as well?

I am perfectly able to form moral judgements about people based on public comments without waiting for a Romanian adjudication on international sex-trafficking, rape and abuse accusations. Your insistence on letting Romanian legal process play out is interesting given your demonstrated enthusiastic predilection for mind-reading.

“… these are the basic moves of pimping”

Would you like me to complete that quote for you?

[Brett Bellmore]

In another context you'd be pissing and moaning about DeSantis being a demogoue who was ignoring the presumption of innocence. But because you don't like the defendant, you're cheering him on instead.

[Estragon]

Hypothetical hypocrisy? That’s what you’ve got? Pathetic.

Still not interested in the beginning of the quote?

Why are Trump’s people even talking to the Romanians about this guy anyways? Why weren’t THEY just letting the process play out? Maybe because they like him and agree with his views? I suspect Don Jr. does! Do you?

[Estragon]

“Florida is not a place where you are welcome, with that type of conduct”

The Tates may have lost Ron Desantis, but they still have Brett Bellmore!

[Satchmo_Lives]

You mean like the serious 34 felonies Trump was convicted of?

[Estragon]

If you’d like to draw parallels between Donald and Tate’s conduct, please be my guest.

I can see why you’d be suspicious of Hawley though— that guy ran away from the picture taking grannies on J6 faster than brave brave Sir Robin.

[ThePublius]

"Department of Government Efficiency
@DOGE
This audit was repeated at the Department of Labor. Initial results:

- 380 Microsoft 365 licenses with zero users
- 128 Microsoft Teams conference room licenses; only installed in 30 rooms
- 250 VSCode licenses; only using 33
- 129 Photoshop licenses; only using 22.
- 5 cybersecurity licenses, each with > 20k seats; DOL headcount is < 15k"

So much shelfware! There's got to be kickbacks involved.

https://x.com/DOGE/status/1894552374338834604?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1894552374338834604%7Ctwgr%5Efdc857f16d3d7946a32c4c2e94c0a390e88c5888%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F705140%2F

[Estragon]

You should really try to get the tracking info out of these links, not that it’s surprising you’re spending a lot of time on instapundit

[ThePublius]

Yes, I guess I should. Too lazy this a.m., and it really doesn't matter much. Thanks.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://x.com/doge/status/1894076196242985188
Better?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s a link to a different tweet, so… no.

[Mr. Bumble]

It has the same information that The Publius was trying to convey.

[Estragon]

Oh bumble… never change

[M L]

So much to look at there on DOGE twitter. Our government is corrupt. They have been impoverishing the American people for years with their profligate spending. And it goes toward (1) funding leftist propaganda and political influence that further harms the American people, and (2) lining their own pockets.

__________
US taxpayer dollars were going to be spent on the following items, all which have been cancelled:

- $60M for "Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Colombian empowerment"
- $74M for "inclusive justice" in Colombia
- $79M for "primary literacy" in Kenya
- $37M for "female empowerment" in Colombia
- $8M to "Reduce stigma, discrimination, and violence against LGBTQI+ communities" in Lesotho
- $3.3M for "being LGBTQI in the Caribbean"
- $25k to increase "Vegan Local Climate Action Innovation" in Zambia

https://x.com/DOGE/status/1895146204477981159

___________
A former ICE employee and Biden transition team member joined Family Endeavors in early 2021 and helped secure a sole-source HHS contract for overflow housing from licensed care facilities.

As a result, Family Endeavors’ cash and portfolio of investments grew from $8.3M in 2020 to $520.4M in 2023.

Since March 2024, HHS has paid ~$18M/month to keep the Pecos facility open despite sitting empty.

With national licensed facility occupancy now below 20%, HHS was able to terminate this contract, saving taxpayers over $215M annually.

https://x.com/DOGE/status/1894863651007537343

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I definitely believe the guy who's busy destroying our government, with specific emphasis on the areas where his companies were being investigated, so that he can steal money and get more contracts for his own businesses.

Inspectors General should be doing audits, but for some reason Trump fired many of those in the same areas Musk is now cleaning out.

You dumb fucks don't seem to be putting the dots together very well, but you're sure happy to believe authoritarian liars.

Musk and Trump both deserve death, as does the laundry-list of GOP members watching them both usurp the legislative branch with glee because their policy goals are being met illegally and unconstitutionally.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside that Musk lies all the time so there's no reason to believe this unless it's confirmed by real people, and setting aside that federal agencies also have contractors, so looking at "headcount" isn't the right comparison, did you ever consider that the federal government probably buys software licenses in bulk, rather than one-by-one as they hire someone who uses that software?

[Satchmo_Lives]

Buying 50x more than they need to get the $1 bulk discount is EXACTLY what I expect of government. Gotta use up that budget some way, right?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"did you ever consider"

To consider something is to think about it. Publius does not think.

I believe your question has been answered.

[ThePublius]

"did you ever consider"

I have purchased a lot of software at the corporate level, as a manager and senior manager in high tech for 40+ years, so I know how this works.

The numbers I quoted above are just irresponsible. Either lazy or corrupt. For example, how can you rationalize 380 Microsoft 365 licenses with zero users?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody would hire you to put toys in Cracker Jack boxes, lol.

David explained it to you. Somehow with your vast intellect you overlooked the simple explanation offered.

Perhaps this is all too complicated for you, and we should instead be discussing something along the lines of "Which Sesame Street character is coolest?" and "What's your favorite color?"

[David Nieporent]

The numbers I quoted above are just irresponsible. Either lazy or corrupt. For example, how can you rationalize 380 Microsoft 365 licenses with zero users?

I don't have the foggiest idea, because I don't know the facts. Even assuming the claim is true — something I'm not willing to do given DOGE's short but disreputable track record to date — without knowing why the decision to purchase those licenses was made, I can't know whether it's a govt employee getting kickbacks from Microsoft (probably not); or a purchaser not understanding what Microsoft 365 even was; or someone anticipating a need that never developed; or a change in strategic planning after the purchase was made; or perhaps they were scheduled to start using them in March before Musk bull-in-a-china-shopped his way around, or something else entirely. (Maybe these are the free versions of Microsoft 365!) The correct thing to do is ask the person who made the decision before taking any action. Don't make me quote Chesterton again.

[M L]

From what I have seen here, it seems like courts consistently hold that calling someone a "racist" or the like cannot be defamatory because it is opinion.

Suppose someone said "so and so is a racist, and this is not an opinion, it is a fact." In theory, would that potentially change the analysis?

Reason I thought about this is because I saw Don Lemon just said the following about Megyn Kelly. I'm not interested in whether Megyn Kelly is, in fact, a racist, or anything else about this particular situation. I just wondered about the defamation law issue.

Don Lemon: Megyn Kelly has "spent every day proving the point that she is a racist and not very supportive of women . . . When I said Donald Trump, the president of the United States, was racist, it wasn’t my opinion. This isn’t my opinion about Megyn Kelly. The evidence is there."

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think so, because the courts have decided that it's the sort of thing that's inherently an opinion, (Or at least that they're going to treat it that way!) so that saying it's a fact just doesn't carry any weight, you're just doubling down on your opinion.

If accusations of racism weren't so absurdly common, to the point where it's become just a content free epithet, maybe they'd treat it as a factual claim. But if they did treat it as such, they'd be totally flooded with defamation cases, so it's not happening.

[David Nieporent]

Just as labeling a fact as an opinion doesn't make it such — "My opinion is that Trump killed John Lennon" — labeling an opinion as a fact doesn't make it such. The fact/opinion distinction is whether something is capable of being objectively determined to be true or false. "Racist" isn't because the word means whatever the speaker wants it to mean; two people can look at the same facts and come to opposite good faith conclusions about whether they reflect racism.

[M L]

Brett and David -

That all makes sense to some degree. And yet, fact and opinion isn't necessarily so easily distinguished. Google offers this definition of the adjective "racist" :

- characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

Elsewhere in the law, "showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group" is very much considered something that is capable of being objectively determined to be true or false, that two people or a whole jury might look at, and such determination (in conjunction with other circumstances) can carry significant consequences.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think racist, properly defined, is an opinion.

I do think that it is seldom used in a properly defined sense.

Now, if you combine these two elements, the logical conclusion is that defamation is remarkably common.

But, the courts are not going to voluntarily increase their work load 100 times over, so they're not going to approach things that way.

[Sarcastr0]

that it is seldom used in a properly defined sense....defamation is remarkably common.

Some might say not properly defined creates an ambiguity meaning you shouldn't lean into defamation. On accounta the First Amendment.

Others will say that our speech is just too free right now when it comes to the wokesters and we gotta clamp down.

That second set would be awful libertarians. But so it goes.

[M L]

I think it could be opinion or fact, sort of a case by case basis thing.

But again, I have some trouble with the whole fact vs opinion distinction. It seems like there are two potential categories of opinion:

(1) probabilistic statements, where you say you think X is true, but it's implied that you don't know for sure, you're just going by what you've seen or heard or your gut or whatever; here X is a potential fact but you are giving your opinion about its potential veracity (yet the fact that you hold that opinion is a fact...)

(2) any value judgment or moral claim (which form the basis of all law and public policy) if the premise is accepted that there are no absolute moral truths (or none that are knowable); this would include mundane amoral value judgments or subjective preferences as well more meaningful claims.

Everything else has to be fact it seems.

[Sarcastr0]

I have some trouble with the whole fact vs opinion distinction

Courts don't have this same trouble - they've been addressing as a baseline part of defamation law for ages.

You went to law school. You took torts. Wasn't this covered?

[M L]

Courts do have this same trouble. For example, some justices dissented in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), and wiki says the decision "was regarded as having confused the issue." Here's an article that says "Lower courts have, correctly in our view, essentially ignored both holdings" and addresses this "complicated area of the law." https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol49/iss2/4/ In that case the court said the decision turned on whether the statement was "sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false" and this rule has been cited by courts as whether a statement is "factual enough to be proved true or false." As you can see the bolded language indicates a somewhat intractable line-drawing problem.