Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome to the latest edition of "Semantics Antics".

[NvEric]

Nailed it !

It's time for ending the position of Pope.

[not guilty]

President Trump has signed a memorandum suspending the security clearances of lawyers and other personnel at the law firm Covington & Burling LLP who were involved in representing Jack Smith during his tenure as Special Counsel. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/suspension-of-security-clearances-and-evaluation-of-government-contracts/ The memo also directs federal agencies to “terminate any engagement of” Covington & Burling and to assess existing government contracts with the firm to align “funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States.” With the suspension of security clearances, the firm may find it difficult to engage in sensitive government-related work.

The firm is reportedly serving as defense counsel to Mr. Smith in his personal, individual capacity. The notion that Mr. Smith will actually be criminally prosecuted for his work as Special Counsel is risible. Hypothetically however, if he had to obtain other counsel and were to be indicted and convicted, this boneheaded move could give him a virtual get out of jail card on appeal.

A criminal defendant has the Sixth Amendment right to employ retained counsel of his choosing. Erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice is structural error requiring reversal of a conviction, not subject to harmless error review. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148-150 (2006).

Of course Jack Smith may not be the only Covington & Burling client affected by the suspension of security clearances necessary to afford effective assistance. Who knows how many future convictions will thereby be tainted?

[Mr. Bumble]

Has Jack Smith been indicted or charged by the feds?

[not guilty]

No he has not, as I suspect you know.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then much ado about nothing, at least for now.

By the way, how is Miss Fanny fairing?

[Commenter_XY]

The Smasher had a bad day yesterday.

[Lee Moore]

Can you clarify your theory ?

Is it your position that if AN Other wishes to hire Mo Galoshes to represent him, and his case requires, or might be assisted by, access to classified information the government is obliged to grant Mo a security clearance ? Or if the government is not so obliged, the refusal to grant a security clearance necessarily requires the court to award Mo the win ?

Wouldn't this be a simple get out of jail free card for anyone ? Just hire the sleaziest lawyer you can and sit back with your feet up ?

[not guilty]

"Is it your position that if AN Other wishes to hire Mo Galoshes to represent him, and his case requires, or might be assisted by, access to classified information the government is obliged to grant Mo a security clearance ? Or if the government is not so obliged, the refusal to grant a security clearance necessarily requires the court to award Mo the win ?"

No, that is not my position. If the government dicks around with a defendant's ability to employ defense counsel of his choice by revoking a previously granted security clearance, which is necessary for the attorney to effectively represent him, then the government has manufactured a conflict which renders counsel of choice unavailable. The Government is not permitted to "manufacture" a conflict to prevent a defendant from obtaining particularly able counsel. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 163 (1988).

And I am not the one who said that erroneous deprivation of retained counsel of choice is structural error. Antonin Scalia, joined by John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer said so in 2006.

[Commenter_XY]

The POTUS has the right to yank clearance for any reason, or no reason at all. Jack Smith hasn't been indicted for anything, and therefore, has no need of counsel (yet); there is no manufactured conflict.

Perkins Coie just might be next.

[not guilty]

"Jack Smith hasn't been indicted for anything, and therefore, has no need of counsel (yet); there is no manufactured conflict."

Are you positing that someone who is being investigated by Donald Trump's lawless Department of Justice has no need of legal counsel??

That is simply ludicrous. A criminal defense lawyer who is able to avoid his client being indicted has provided a far more valuable service than any post-indictment counsel can furnish.

[Commenter_XY]

IDK that there is a DOJ investigation of Jack Smith and I would tend to doubt it. Why? Jack Smith just did his job as an employee of the DOJ. If he did not break any laws in doing his job as a DOJ employee, then he has nothing to worry about. He wrote a report. Case closed.

If Jack Smith is indicted, and I have no reason to believe he will be, b/c he is/was a very ethical prosecutor (heh), then it is a different discussion. This memo from POTUS Trump addresses a law firm, not Jack Smith (who resigned, and was not fired).

Did Covington & Burling drop Jack Smith as a client? Did Covington & Burling send Jack Smith a bill? No? Then how was Jack Smith harmed? He wasn't.

The process will simply have to play out, probably for months and months. Maybe even a couple of years. Absent an indictment or something, Jack Smith has nothing to worry about.

[bernard11]

If he did not break any laws in doing his job as a DOJ employee, then he has nothing to worry about.

This is a laughable statement.

Let me tell you a story.

Some years ago I was a senior executive of a small subsidiary of a large company. Both we and our parent came under federal criminal investigation. There was talk from DOJ of indictments of individuals. IMO there was absolutely no basis for this.

The investigation lasted two or three years and, regardless of my opinion, our parent company, not us and no individuals, was indicted and convicted in a bench trial.

When the case reached the Appeals Court it turned out they shared my opinion and overturned the conviction entirely, saying things like "we cannot fathom the [district] court's reasoning." No crime had been committed after all.

Yet this was an utterly miserable experience - easily the worst of my life.

So don't ever say that again.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, sound like a terrible experience. Sorry you went through that. That would make me very wary too.

SC Jack Smith reported to AG Merrick Garland. I don't see how he could break the law with an AG as boss. He isn't under investigation personally. Nobody is talking prosecution. The DOJ is going to review the team conduct, and make recommendations.

[bernard11]

Nobody is talking prosecution.

Not yet, maybe.

The DOJ is going to review the team conduct, and make recommendations.

Miserable enough. And what do you think those recommendations from Trump's DOJ are going to be?

You are trying hard to minimize the political corruption at Trump's DOJ. Forget it.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump has been in office 38 days. Kind of tough to make a corruption charge at this early stage. Maybe wait until 3/20 (60 days)? I figure that is long enough to get the geld. 😉

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yet this was an utterly miserable experience - easily the worst of my life. "

Yet, you had no sympathy when Smith and Garland, Wills and Bragg brought charges against Trump.

The Florida Trump case also roped in a low level employee. No sympathy for him either.

[David Nieporent]

Because, you know, Trump was actually guilty. Of incredibly serious crimes, in multiple jurisdictions.

[Bob from Ohio]

"incredibly serious crimes"

LOL None of the allegations were incredibly serious.

Its very libertarian of you to assume guilt in the 3 that never went to trial.

[David Nieporent]

Stealing classified documents and lying about it, trying to overthrow the government. LOL indeed.

[bernard11]

Because I thought Trump was plainly guilty and, at a minimum, there was enough to justify the charges.

With some help from his friends Trump mostly avoided trials, except for one. We know that outcome.

[Magister]

If he did not break any laws in doing his job as a DOJ employee, then he has nothing to worry about.

This is from Commenter_XY, "the process will be the punishment" and "Do the charges really matter?" and "Once the person of interest is identified, the charges will follow."

Commenter_XY pretends to be a decent human being but the mask slips often enough.

[Commenter_XY]

Jack Smith and his prosecution team have to live with the process like anyone else, Magister. No need for a double standard. He (and they) should be treated no better, or worse. But they will be subjected to the same process like anyone else.

For them, the process might as well be punishment.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes, you're exactly the piece of shit Magister remarked upon and everyone else already knew.

[David Nieporent]

The POTUS has the right to yank clearance for any reason, or no reason at all.

POTUS doesn't have any rights. (The person occupying the office has all the rights of any other person, of course.) POTUS generally has the authority to grant or revoke clearances at will, since no statute governs the security clearance regime, but as a state actor is of course bound by constitutional restrictions in so doing.

[Mr. Bumble]

As usual David Notsoimportant takes an early lead in "Semantics Antics".

[Commenter_XY]

David, you are right. I stand corrected.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Captain Pedantry to the rescue!!!

[Drewski]

"The POTUS has the right to yank clearance for any reason, or no reason at all."

Well, no. Congress controls security clearance and has designated grounds for granting and revoking it. He has the ability to do so by ignoring the law because his decisions aren't reviewable. That's not the same as a right. It's weird because conservatives and libertarians used to agree that the President misusing clearance powers is a serious problem.

Regardless, he may not be able to have his cake and eat it, too - having the power to revoke clearances does not shield him from any consequences from doing so. I'm not as confident as NG that the courts will see this as manufactured conflict but the question of whether it's legal is entirely separate from the question of whether it forecloses investigation or prosecution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would argue that the President has a *duty* to revoke clearances upon cause, and that failure to do so would constitute a legitimate impeachable offense.

[damikesc]

"Well, no. Congress controls security clearance and has designated grounds for granting and revoking it."

Well, that is patently false.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you a product of our public school system?

[damikesc]

I'm able to read.

Maybe you should try that.

[Mr. Bumble]

"With the suspension of security clearances, the firm [Covington & Burling LLP ] may find it difficult to engage in sensitive government-related work.
What sensitive government related work requires a private law firm?

[not guilty]

"What sensitive government related work requires a private law firm?"

Duh. A criminal prosecution which potentially involves disclosure of sensitive information requires defense counsel who is cleared to receive such information.

[Mr. Bumble]

Duh, what criminal prosecution?
Is Covington & Burling involved with the defense of anyone being prosecuted by the federal government?

[not guilty]

Yes. https://www.cov.com/en/practices-and-industries/practices/litigation-and-investigations

Jack Smith is not indicted, but he is under active investigation. According to Politico, in a statement, Covington said the firm “recently agreed” to represent Smith when it “became apparent that he would become the subject of a government investigation” and suggested the relationship began around the time of the 2024 election. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/25/donald-trump-jack-smith-covington-lawyers-022770?template_id=OTJIR2CRKUD6&variant_id=OTV1GDUJ5B1ZS&is_login_link=true

[Commenter_XY]

I thought reviews of conduct for any big case was a standard for the DOJ. You mean it is not? There have been any number of prosecutions over the years (Stevens, Menendez I, McDonell, etc) where one would expect a review of the team and team conduct. How else do you learn what 'not' to do the next time? This looks like a standard team review, not an investigation of Jack Smith individually.

IOW, how is reviewing the conduct of a DOJ team not a standard for all big cases they win or lose?

If nobody broke any laws, there is nothing to worry about.

[David Nieporent]

Why would one "review the conduct" of someone unless there were concerns about that conduct? For someone so concerned about "non-essential" personnel, now you suddenly want a second, shadow DOJ just to duplicate the work of the existing DOJ?

Of course, in the Ted Stevens case there were major concerns, and therefore the whole thing was heavily investigated. But none of the others you mention involved any ethical questions.

[Michael P]

Most government reviews of government conduct end up without any kind of disciplinary action, much less a civil or criminal case against those who engaged in the problematic conduct. Even private firms will review conduct that they are concerned about in order to revise their policies and implementation of policies.

[Commenter_XY]

Nobody shares 'lessons learned' or best practices within the DOJ?

[not guilty]

Irrespective of whether Jack Smith's individual conduct or that of his team is being investigated, Mr. Smith has a constitutional right to employ retained counsel of his choosing to advise him and represent his interests during such investigation.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, nothing in that memo is stopping Jack Smith or Covington from working with each other.

[Michael P]

It "became apparent" a long time ago, and continues to be apparent, that the Democrat Party is full of racists and also that Jack Smith has never been good at being a prosecutor.

If we are going to put so much weight on the words "became apparent", let's be honest about it.

[David Nieporent]

What is this "Democrat Party" of which you speak?

[Michael P]

I refer you to Wednesday's discussion of grammar for your remedial lesson.

[A Woman of No Importance]

I missed the grammar lesson, but saying "the Democrat Party is full of racists" essentially tells the world that you're a complete ignoramus to whom no attention should be paid. If you don't understand that "Democrat" is a noun and "Democratic" is an adjective, and it is therefore "the Democratic Party" (something most people here would have learned in third grade or so), then what else don't you understand?

Oh, and that's even before we get to the irony of the party doing everything it can to destroy DEI accusing the other party of being racist.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

you're a complete ignoramus to whom no attention should be paid

Says the resident schizophrenic sock puppet.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Before I decided to cut down the crap quotient—to be able to afford time to comment at all—I strove to avoid muting, except in the most extreme cases. Then I changed over to a liberal muting policy. My experience improved so much I wondered why I had not done it sooner.

I thus continue to recommend pro-muting bias to all. It empowers you to tailor your own, better VC, to suit your needs. And I especially urge Michael P, if he can be persuaded to, to mute me.

Accordingly, I now mull whether, "Democrat Party," ought to occasion a rebuttable presumption to mute a commenter. Today's guinea pig will be Michael P. Let's see whether I feel like I have lost anything, or whether I enjoy another increment of improvement for my VC experience.

A note to Bellmore, and other semi-substantive right wingers. Never fear, this is not about ideological bias. It is about too little time for nonsense.

Bye, bye, Michael P. Get someone to tell me if you give up on, "Democrat Party."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

S'funny, when I long ago first heard someone allege that the true name of the US' center-left party was "the Democrat Party", I believed it. (It may have been someone like Rush Limbaugh, whose radio show I occasionally listened to.) I thought it was funny that the Dems had so improvidently named their political party, but thought nothing more of it beyond an occasional, indulgent chuckle.

So I was actually surprised to learn (much later) that the claim was completely false. Of course, not being a Democrat (and never having so much as voted for a Democrat until 2020), I was not personally offended each time some MAGA nutjob taunted them with "Democrat Party, Democrat Party, nya, nya, nya".

All in all, anyone still using that term as an epithet today is probably not worth listening to.

[not guilty]

Use of "Democrat Party" as a slur has an even uglier provenance than Rush Limbaugh. It dates back to Joe McCarthy.

[tylertusta]

... which is necessary for the attorney to effectively represent him ...

...is it?

What if Smith is charged with a DUI?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What if the attorney legitimately should have the clearance yanked -- e.g. the Mass ANG idiot who was revealing classified stuff to impress his peers on social networking. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/former-air-national-guardsman-sentenced-15-years-prison-unlawfully-disclosing-classified

I would argue that the President (and his men) have a *duty* to immediately revoke a security clearance upon learning of something like this, regardless of *anything* else.

[tylertusta]

What Mr. Guilty hasn't explained is that he's assuming that any notional prosecution of Smith would require the use of classified information.

Except that's not how it works. The pernicious thing about lawfare is that the attacker has both the first move advantage and they get to choose what to attack on.

A hypothetical attack on Smith's work as special counsel may rely only on facts from his actions in the DC case. Trump now has declassification authority, so he might just declassify everything in the FL docs case to allow a prosecution under those facts.

There may even be tangential legal attacks that are ultimately unrelated to Smith's work as special counsel. These would be discovered in a fishing expedition in the sort of "show me the man, I'll show you the crime" style of lawfare.

[jimc5499]

A "security clearance" maybe revoked or suspended at any time for any or no reason. Mine was suspended after I was injured and was on pain medications. Upon clearance from the Flight Surgeon it was promptly restored. A "clearance" may be revoked if it is no longer needed. Smith "resigned" from Government service so what need does he have for a clearance? If in his future employment a need for a clearance comes up, it is easy to restore it. After the Walker fiasco in the mid 80's, almost every clearance in the Navy was suspended until a review determined that the person had a need for the clearance. Thousands had no need for them due to discharge or changes in duty stations.
Let's face it. This is more "Dump on Trump" bullshit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

jimc5499 — Except for three words, you put together a somewhat useful comment, albeit slathered with pro-Trump bias. But when you added, "Let's face it," you gave the game away. Too bad. Try to do better.

[DaveM]

You're jumping the gun. There's a lot of that going on right now.

[Sarcastr0]

Sanctions against attorneys for who their client is?

Naw, that's unamerican off the break.

[CountmontyC]

So you are calling the 65 Project un-American?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_65_Project

[tylertusta]

When our attorneys do it, it's noble. When yours do it it's sanctionable.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I am.
They also suck. Most of the practicioners on here, including those who are very much not Trump fans, agree.

But I will note that they're TRYING to do shitty things. Trump IS doing shitty things.

[SykesFive]

Distinguo.

The 65 Project is a group of private individuals who make complaints that bar disciplinary committees investigates, which ultimately leads to an adversarial process.

This is different from a unilateral governmental action.

[CountmontyC]

The Trump Administration is merely revoking a privilege. The law firm can continue to operate and the lawyers can continue to earn a living in their chosen profession.

Project 65 is attempting to destroy the careers of those they accuse.

Of the two having a privilege revoked would seem to me to be far less harsh.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you think Wheat has any meaningful application to this scenario, I think you may have lost the plot a bit.

[not guilty]

I cited Wheat for the proposition that the government should not be permitted to "manufacture" a conflict that would prohibit the accused from employing a particularly able attorney -- such as Jack Smith employing the Covington & Burling lawyers Lanny Breuer, the former head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, and Peter Koski, formerly a public integrity prosecutor.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

So if I am a Jack Smith traitor type you recommend me going to Covington. Did I read you correctly? Let the law save my corrupt asss.

[Frank Drackman]

Imagine if you put that much concern and effort into something that would actually improve your life. Chess, for example,
I spent 3 hours last night in a life and death struggle against an Egyptian 1555, struggle, as I was able to get a draw. 50+ years of playing Chess, (always the Sicilian Defense, because that's what Bobby F played) and it gets harder every match (huhuhuhuhuh)
There's a reason you don't see many old competitive Grandmasters (OK, Grandmaster Flash, and Victor Korchnoi, who I'm convinced was a Cyborg, playing in the World Championships in his late 50's and still ranked in the top 100 in his 70's*)
Every emotion you've ever felt in your life, Love, Hate, Anger, Fear, Jealousy, Lust, you'll experience in a good Chess match (I stole that from General Robin Olds, who said the same thing about Dog Fighting*)
* OK, he never beat Kasparov, Babe Ruth never hit a home run off of Sandy Koufax either
*One of Amurica's few "Aces" he should know

Frank "King me!, oops, wrong game, Queen me!"

[Jmaie]

This has me digging through old memories, I used to play a Sicilian variation 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 d5 (I think). This would work well against even opponents 200 points higher rated 'cause it was virtually unknown and easy for white to f*k up...

[Armchair]

"pending a review and determination of their roles and responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization of the judicial process."

Forgot that part...

Perhaps a review of their roles and responsibilities is appropriate?

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

It's only risible if he didn't commit any crimes.

If he did, well, justice is coming.

[Riva]

This is asinine, even for NG’s high level of TDS derangement. If Covington thinks they have some contractual right to maintain their government contracts, this has nothing to do with the Sixth Amendment rights of that thug Smith.

[tylertusta]

... contractual right to maintain their government contracts ...

Lol

[Riva]

Allow me to explain, because you’re an uninformed idiot. The lawfirm can sue for any monies they say are owed but can’t sue to force a client to remain their client, you f’ing abysmally ignorant clown.

[tylertusta]

Yawn.

[Riva]

Not exactly digging yourself out of your idiot hole.

[tylertusta]

You amuse me. Keep going.

[Frank Drackman]

You’re doing just fine with yours, let us know when you reach Chy-Na

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would imagine that *someone* has quite a bit of business either outright writing or reviewing all the contracts related to doing financial business with the government. If I am going to bid on a multi-dollar contract, I'd really like a lawyer to review it before I bid.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Steve Vladeck discusses the Trump war on lawyers here:

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-126-chill-all-the-lawyers?lli=1&utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2

[Bob from Ohio]

You posted that yesterday, its no better now. Who will think of Big Law lawyers? Poor souls that they are.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Big Law Lawyers" are not the only thing covered.

I was responding to something related. But, overall, maybe it works better if it is not selectively read.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not the only thing covered. "

No, he rambles on, but its his focus.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Among them, there is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s Friday night sacking of the senior military lawyers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force—lawyers who, by law, are required to provide “independent legal advice” to the Pentagon’s civilian and military leaders."

is mentioned multiple times.

He also broadly talks about going after people "representing" specific people and causes. It need not be "big law" firms who do that to get in trouble. Thus, his broader theme is expressed by the very title of the piece ("all lawyers").

Not that going after big firms is trivial, especially if the firms are particularly skilled and/or have more resources than others to address certain litigation.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link, JoeFromtheBronx. That's some worthwhile reading.

[ReaderY]

It’s a brilliant move. Security clearances are at the President’s pleasure and unreviewable. This means that under current precedent, Trump can use the process at his pleasure to deprive detainees on Trumped-up (pun intended) national security charges of counsel, simply by declaring information related to the charges secret and using security clearances to deprive them of counsel.

He’s found a genuine legitimate hole in the Constitution under current precedent. Courts have been incredibly trusting of Presidents, and national security creates compelling interests that Trump (pun intended) a number of constitutional rights.

If courts don’t ovdrrule existing precedrnt, he may well be able to detain members of the security establishment without counsel. And if he can do that, he can then come up with an argument that all his political opponents are thrwats to national security anc expand the program.

Hitler’s network of concentration camps were based on existing law. If we keep going in this direction, Trump’s will be as well. Trump is starting smaller and moving more gradually in using existing legal principles to get at his opponents. But the overall direction is the same.

[ReaderY]

One simple response the courts can do is for judges to refuse to consider secret information in any case where a defendant can’t get his counsel of choice because of lack of security clearance.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Such a response would also be illegal. There’s a statute the governs how to address classified evidence, and that’s not the solution it provides.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What is the difference between this and the state bar denying a state defendant his choice of counsel via disbarment?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well for one thing, the prosecutor doesn’t generally have the unilateral authority to disbar someone.

Edit: to be clear, denying a defendant access to classified information can, under the statute, lead to dismissal. Which is further reason why this isn’t a hole in the constitution, just Trump responding to perceived slights.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Edit: to be clear, denying a defendant access to classified information can, under the statute, lead to dismissal. Which is further reason why this isn’t a hole in the constitution, just Trump responding to perceived slights.

This was supposed to go to a different comment. Whoops!

[Senor Wolf]

Because disbarment proceedings are an adversarial process and result in disbarment only if the attorney violated some rule of professional conduct.

Here the revocation is based solely on the fact that Trump doesn't like the firm's client. There has been no allegations that Covington did anything wrong.

Deeply ironic when you consider how millennial/gen-z law students were lambasted for thinking it was unethical to represent bad people, including Trump. Representation of a client is not a lapse of ethics, doing unethical things in the course of that representation is.

[Lee Moore]

There has been no allegations that Covington did anything wrong.

My recollection is that General Flynn accused them of having a large conflict of interest when they advised him to plead guilty. That's an allegation that they did something wrong. I doubt it's the only one.

I suspect this isn't just about Jack Smith, but about whispers in Trump's ear that Covington is part of the "six ways from Sunday" apparat, which he wishes to dismantle.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There has been no allegation that Covington's banishment from the kingdom was related to anything they had done wrong.

[John F. Carr]

There are two problems with the government's action: revoking the security clearances and pressuring the law firm to drop a client. I don't think there are any consequences yet.

Can Smith's lawyers represent him without a security clearance? At this point, yes. It appears unlikely to me that Jack Smith's lawyers need classified information now. The Classified Information Procedures Act requires disclosures only after charges are filed.

Is there any right for a person not yet facing charges not to have the government pressure a lawyer to drop him as a client? I mean a legally enforceable right.

[not guilty]

"Can Smith's lawyers represent him without a security clearance? At this point, yes. It appears unlikely to me that Jack Smith's lawyers need classified information now. The Classified Information Procedures Act requires disclosures only after charges are filed."

The prosecutions that Jack Smith was leading involved classified documents, particularly the prosecution in Florida. If he is ultimately to be charged -- which I think is highly unlikely -- Mr. Smith would likely want to have the same legal team represent him both during the investigation and after any charge is brought.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Surprisingly, he wasn't on Patel's "Deep State" list: https://web.archive.org/web/20241205052251/https://newrepublic.com/article/188946/kash-patel-fbi-enemies-list

[questioner7]

Security clearances are meant to reflect a judgement on whether someone might be a spy, or is vulnerable to getting blackmailed into being a spy. Granting/revoking security clearances for other reasons, like settling personal scores, is offensive.

[John F. Carr]

The risk goes beyond spies. Some people if you tell them a secret can't keep it, or can't help telling the world "I have a secret." Trump is a good example of a person you might not want to have access to military secrets.

As offensive as it is, a remedy may be hard to find.

[Lee Moore]

The problem here is lese-majeste by Trump, who fails to appreciate that monkeying around with security clearances is the job of the intelligence apparat. They can slooooow waaalllk a security clearance for the President's son in law because sticking a middle finger up to the President is a perquisite of their office.

Trump is intruding on their domain, which is a foul. And seriously hissy-fit worthy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A criminal defendant has the Sixth Amendment right to employ retained counsel of his choosing

But that’s a right that doesn’t attach until the person is actually indicted.

If you have some authority for the proposition that the Sixth Amendment is violates—or even implicated—when the government’s pre-charging actions make an eventual defendant opt to hire a different attorney before charged, I’d be fascinated to see it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

NG didn't allege the proposition you have proposed. But if Smith is prosecuted, his 6th Amendment rights would then become relevant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bondi's pissed....
https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1391331/dl?inline

"Late yesterday, I learned from a source that the FBI Field Office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein. Despite my repeated requests, the FBI never disclosed the existence of these files. "When you and I spoke yesterday, you were just as surprised as I was to learn this new information."

Wow....

[Commenter_XY]

Prediction: There will be terminations of employment in SDNY by 3/15.

[David Nieporent]

Why would she fire someone at the SDNY for the actions of an entirely different organization?

[Dr. Ed 2]

IS it???

SDNY doesn't know what evidence the NY FBI has in a criminal case? Conversely, where was her source?

[David Nieporent]

IS it???

Is what what? Bondi is yelling, or pretending to, at the FBI for supposedly lying to her. So why would people at SDNY be fired for that?

[Lee Moore]

For good measure.

It's inconceivable that firing everyone at SDNY and the NY FBI, down to the doorman, could do anything other than make the world a better, safer and happier place.

In fact I can't think of anything that could make it better, safer and happier, than perhaps doing likewise with their DC counterparts.

Burn it to the ground and then salt the earth.

[David Nieporent]

make the world a better, safer and happier place.

In fact I can't think of anything that could make it better, safer and happier, than perhaps doing likewise with their DC counterparts.

Well, there is of course sending Donald Trump to a meeting with Hannibal Lecter without any secret service protection.

[Martinned2]

Did she check Amazon before complaining?

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1957452064/reasonmagazinea-20/

[hobie]

I heard there wasn't shit in those files. Guess you hayseeds will have to find some other thing to obsess about

[Riva]

If you say so. Must be why information is so desperately being destroyed and names are being hidden. Because there’s nothing to see here.

[hobie]

I agree. Even all the interactions Trump had with Epstein I doubt add up to a hill of beans. Time to give that dead pederast a break

[Riva]

Yeah, the SDNY and FBI NY field office were, throughout the corrupt Biden years and before, in possession of information linking Trump to Epstein that they really didn’t and don’t want to produce. That’s why they’re now being insubordinate to the extent most will, at the very least, be fired. You may have just won the stupidest comment of the day award, and you’ve had some pretty stiff competition here today. Congratulations.

[Brett Bellmore]

My understanding is that Epstein made a point of inviting important people on his plane and island for perfectly innocent events, along with the people who were invited to the nasty stuff, just exactly so that the former would protect the latter to avoid being implicated themselves. Like, I really doubt Stephen Hawking was enjoying rape parties.

So the raw records of who visited or rode on his plane are relatively valueless. You need to talk to the girls about what actually went on.

[Riva]

Uh huh, all the Democrat refuse and their supporters and who knows who else on those flights were probably just going deep sea fishing. Now I understand why records are desperately being hidden or destroyed.

[Life of Brian]

Wow, you have an inside source at the FBI Field Office in New York? Heady stuff.

[hobie]

I do. My subscription to the NY Times. They beat the shit out of The Epoch Times

[Life of Brian]

Huh. So this tranche of docs the FBI withheld from Bondi (and in fact lied about their very existence) because they were supposedly so super-duper sensitive are already in the hands of the NYT? Or are you just saying NYT is simply and uncritically regurgitating the Fibbies' absolutely-not-self-serving representation of the content of the docs?

[David Nieporent]

1) There is no reason to believe that Epstein has a "client list." (At least not vis-à-vis sex.) Epstein was a pedophile (or, technically, an ephebophile, but not really important here), not a pimp. What's the plausible mechanism where he could go around offering 14-year olds for sex to lots of rich, powerful people without risking immediate prison? People just are intrigued because they want to believe a conspiracy theory.

2) If Epstein had a "client list," it's absurd to think it wouldn't have been leaked by now. Many many people, including the dozens of girls involved, would know. And there have been plenty of lawsuits filed; hell, as Ted Frank points out, the plaintiffs' lawyers even went so far as to go after Epstein's bank just because it had deep pockets. The notion that they wouldn't have sued all these "clients" is fanciful.

3) This is the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned, though; suppose there were a client list, and the people on it were so rich and powerful that they could keep it from seeing the light of day all this time. If so, why wouldn't they have the list destroyed? So many conspiracy theories about buried evidence ignore this point.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Number 3 really ought to do it. If you think there’s a secret cabal of incredibly rich and powerful people willing rape children and murder people for personal and political advantage, why would you think they’re fastidious about complying with records retention policies?

[Ridgeway]

Or that they would let themselves be included on passenger manifests under the heading: "Underage Sex Junket"

[CountmontyC]

Translation: Though there may be a lot of Democrats listed there is nothing about Trump.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There has been plenty about Trump already. He and Epstein were friends who had a shared taste for younger women. There are plenty of photos and documents establishing their connections and their similar interests. Trump was, however, a lot less discerning.

[CountmontyC]

Except Trump banned Epstein from Trump properties and helped the DOJ investigate Epstein way back in the day.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure, Jan.

I still wouldn't let my teenage daughter anywhere near the "pussy grabber in chief".

[David Nieporent]

There is no evidence that Trump banned Epstein, let alone that he did so for anything relating to sex; that's just a self-serving claim that Trump came up with after he entered politics. And Trump did not in fact "help the DOJ investigate" anything.

[Frank Drackman]

I love when Pam gets her feathers all ruffled!

[Kazinski]

Interesting week on foriegn affairs in the Whitehouse, first Macron, then Starmer and both meetings seemed relatively cordial. Including an invitation from the King for an "unprecedented" second state visit:
"WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Donald Trump accepted an invitation from King Charles on Thursday to visit Britain, making the U.S. president the first elected political leader in modern times to be hosted for two state visits by a British monarch."

But the real development is the Ukrainian peace deal seems to be rapidly firming and the discussion seemed to be mainly about "security guarantees" with both Macron and Starmer, which indicates the peace deal is probably very near completion.

Not coincidentally Zelensky is coming into town tomorrow, and the peace deal could be formally announced then.

[Martinned2]

Peace deal between who and who? Are you under the impression that the US is at war with Ukraine?

[Don Nico]

I also wonder Martin. I see no motivation at all for Mr Putin to call a ceasefire

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, none of this means much until...

A representative of UKR signs the deal, and UKR parliament approves; and
Putin agrees to EU troops on his border (seems really unlikely to me)

[hobie]

Apart from Haiti, I think the Treaty of Versailles is the only one where the victim nation's freedom was predicated on a ransom

[Riva]

And MAGA are Nazis?

[SRG2]

No, but being a Nazi isn't disqualifying.

[Riva]

Someone once coined the term “liberal fascist.” Don’t think that really applies to the refuse that regularly comments here. You ain’t liberal, whatever you are.

[SRG2]

And the term "liberal fascist" is oxymoronic if not outright meaningless, one of those coinages intended to bypass thought and appeal purely to emotion.

What I am - well, on the Political Compass questionnaire I typically score right-leaning on economics (as I'm in favour of capitalism, free trade, etc,) and high libertarian, though I'm too pragmatic to call myself a libertarian (which in its theoretical form has fatal deficiences)

You are a right-wing authoritarian, of course.

[Riva]

Depends on how one defines “liberal.” By either the classic definition or in any sense one supports freedom, that ain’t you clowns. To be more accurate, the term “liberal fascist,” when applied to the modern liberal, is more aptly described as redundant than an oxymoron.

[SRG2]

Humpty-Dumptyism.

[Frank Drackman]

Just as it took Nixon to “Go to China” Ronaldus Maximus to “tear down this wall” it will take “47” to do what all the Foreign Policy Experts couldn’t do and end the Wah. Just like LBJ, Zelensky needs the killing to distract from what a corrupt piece of shit he is

[SykesFive]

Peace deal between Ukraine and Russia isn't how it's being characterized by any government right now.

[Kazinski]

It certainly does not look like Zelensky is on board for a ceasefire, that press conference in the oval office was extraordinary.

I don't know what Zelensky thinks he was going to accomplish. He is not getting troops to turn things a round, and without troops the war is just going to be a Ukrainian meatgrinder.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A ceasefire doesn't help Ukraine because there's no reason to think Russia will honor it.

They weren't supposed to invade in the first place, after all.

[myself]

Russia is not on board with a ceasefire. From the beginning they've only been interested in complete capitulation, supposed peace negotiations were just a PR tactic against Ukraine. That's why they keep throwing out obvious non-starters like Ukraine surrendering larger portions of territory that Russia has never occupied.

As for Ukraine, they've had multiple agreements with Russia in the past, and Russia has broken all of them. A deal without foreign troops as guarantors is useless.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You think Zelensky thought Trump was going to send "troops to turn things around"?

Why would he have ever thought that would happen? Has he ever asked for that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Unsurprisingly, James Carville has proved a far better prognosticator than Kazinski. Carville most recently predicted a complete Trump administration meltdown in about 6 weeks. I don't know if I expect that, seems extreme. No doubt Kazinsky expects Trump riding high by then.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, I hate to say, I told you so. Nothing counts until the deal is signed, and Zelenskyy blew it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It looked to me more like Trump and Vance decided to sabotage the deal they had proposed and negotiated.

In public.

Extraordinary is right.

[Kazinski]

it looks like we shut down USAID just in time, we could have been embroiled in a major scandal:

"BELGRADE, Serbia (AP) — Serbia’s police raided the offices of at least four civil society organizations on Tuesday as part of a probe into allegations of abuse of U.S. Agency for International Development funds in the Balkan country.

This comes after the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump froze foreign funding for 90 days in January and has since taken steps to dismantle the aid agency, firing over a thousand workers.

State prosecutor Nenad Stefanovic said Serbia has asked the U.S. Department of Justice for information about potential abuse of funds and money laundering concerning USAID funds in Serbia, citing statements by Trump, State Secretary Marco Rubio, tech billionaire Elon Musk and other U.S. officials about the USAID fund freeze."
https://apnews.com/article/serbia-usaid-prosecutors-civil-society-probe-02af3400071175e0c4b717fb6b273493

They aren't just cutting spending, they are fighting crime.

[Martinned2]

Yes, you definitely want to be on the same side of every dispute as the pro-Putin authoritarian president of Serbia. If they say funds have been misused, it’s definitely not the case that that money has been used to promote democracy in Serbia.

[Kazinski]

Thanks for the update of what's going on in Serbia, I haven't been there since 2022.

The problem is there has been a standard set about what is considered acceptable election interference by the previous administration, and USAID has gone way over that line.

I spend a lot of time in Cambodia, probably at least 18 months in the last 6 years, so i follow the politics somewhat, and I am very sympathetic to the opposition. USAID activities "helping"the opposition provided the pretext the government needed to destroy the opposition.

"The government charged that an old video of Kem Sokha speaking at a seminar about receiving advice from U.S. pro-democracy groups was proof of collusion with a foreign power to illegally take power.

Judge Koy Sao of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court said Kem Sokha, backed by foreign powers, had used human rights and politics as a guise to organize people to stage a “color revolution” aimed at toppling the legal government. The maximum sentence is 30 years."

https://apnews.com/article/cambodia-opposition-leader-kem-sokha-treason-418b656e54f75d18bebbc6076ea068f2

We can't set one "rule" for what we consider election interference here, then ignore that rule worldwide.

[hobie]

So, if a vast organization has some bad apples, we should scrap the whole organization? Can I quote you on this in the future...possibly today even?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, yes, one bad apple spoils the bunch, like if you have one guy in your VFW who's found to have stolen Valor, he has to be thrown out (of the Post, not a window) before he ruins the whole bunch.

[myself]

Well there goes the White House.

[Riva]

No. It’s a rotten organization that may, and this is just for the sake of argument, have a couple of good apples. In such a circumstance, yeah, you scrap the rotten organization.

[Sarcastr0]

Your concern trolling can fuck right off.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/services-collapsing-usaid-cuts-health-contracts-worldwide-2025-02-27/
"International AIDS Society President Beatriz Grinsztejn, referring to cuts worldwide, said: "The U.S. funding cuts are dismantling the system. HIV treatment is crumbling. TB services are collapsing."
In South Africa, which has the world's largest number of people living with HIV at around 8 million, health experts said the cuts could roll back years of progress on the epidemic.
"We will see lives lost. We are going to see this epidemic walk back as a result of this," said Linda-Gail Bekker, chief operating officer of the Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation, which works with many organisations that were affected..."

[damikesc]

Not sure how that is a US issue.

We are beyond broke. If you wanted these "nice" things, there were decades where small cuts could have been made to avoid these issues.

The opposite occurred.

So bigger cuts have to happen.

That which cannot afford to continue will not continue.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Yeah, I post people are dying and you don't care. As I said above, fuck right off. Some things you do because they are right.

2. You want US equity for saving lives? OK: This was our Belt and Road. Projecting an international presence not with coercive loans, but relentless mercy.
Africa can go say hey to China now if they want to pay for vaccines I guess!

3. If we are beyond broke (we are not, that is an excuse), then look at Medicare and Social Security. This is a drop in the bucket.
I also expect you to oppose any tax cuts Trump makes.
Anyone in MAGA crying budget about this is a fucking liar.

[Frank Drackman]

Know how not to die from AIDS, don’t fuck, get fucked, suck the dick of, eat the pussy of, somebody with AIDS(or IV drug users either)
OK the people that get it from Blood Transfusions, that sucks, besides the HIVi-ie, now everyone wonders if you were a Homo(I read Arthur Ashe’s “Portrait in Motion” when I was 13, guy wasn’t gay. Of course his recollections of fucking tennis groupies wouldn’t play well today)
Oh, and don’t be Haitian

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

In Africa a fair number of people get it by being raped, on account of a quaint local belief that you can cure an STD by screwing a virgin.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah, I post people are dying and you don't care. As I said above, fuck right off. Some things you do because they are right.

If you want to volunteer for non-governmental organizations that keep people from dying, or donate your money to them, who's stopping you? No, what you want is for the federal government to steal my money, supposedly to keep people from dying. (As an aside, as we've discovered over the past month, a lot of this (stolen!) money is actually being used for ... other, quite questionable things.) So, no, Sarcastr0, you "fuck right off"!

[Sarcastr0]

We, as a country, voted for this.

The idea that good works cannot be done by the government is some retrgrade Victorian era nonsense.

Go live in a Dickens novel, don't take your amorality out on the real world.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we, as a country, just voted to put a stop to it.

[Sarcastr0]

You can't retcon ending USAID as a campaign issue.

[Commenter_XY]

Reducing spending was a campaign issue that Candidate Trump ran on.

[Kazinski]

Don't be ignorant Sarcastro, the Victorian era was when government social legislation and programs started, Googles helpful AI summary of Victorian Era Social programs:

"During the Victorian era, key social programs focused on reforming child labor laws, improving public health, establishing compulsory education up to age 10, enacting factory safety regulations, ending slavery within the British Empire, and implementing prison reforms, with a significant emphasis on addressing the plight of the working class through legislation and philanthropic initiatives. "

[Sarcastr0]

Your timeline is a bit advanced. Early in the Victorian era, they tried to leave it to churches.
A bit after the Diamond Jubilee, England began to step in when it became manifestly clear that private charity was fundamentally insufficient to support the poor.

I happen to have just read about this in the Clem Atlee bio I'm reading.

[Lee Moore]

when it became manifestly clear that private charity was fundamentally insufficient to support the poor

This is of course nonsense. The poor became more numerous during the Victorian era .... because more poor people survived. The population of England nearly doubled between 1850 and 1900, and not as a result of immigration. Population growth (of the native population) is a sure sign of improving living standards. The poor also got richer, per capita.

Private charity no doubt did a little bit for the poor, but the big thing in the enormous increase in the numbers of, and improvement in the standard of living of, the poor of Victorian England was our old friend - capitalism red in tooth and claw.

[Sarcastr0]

Quicky Google has your timeline of life expectancy still off:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/

1900s is the inflection point. And that's about when the state started to take a hand in things.

It was cities, I think, that made the poor and rich see one another. Though that's not from my book, that's just speculation.

[Kazinski]

It had been left to churches since the dark ages, so of course the early Victorian era would have left it to the churches. Victoria was 18 when she ascended the thrown in 1837, so you wouldn't think she was ready to just throw a switch on her first day on the job.

But I think Louis Pasteur had as much hand in it as any social programs, but rising standards of living and mechanization of agriculture certainly played a part.

Match that timeline to Pasteur's:

Born: Dec 27, 1822, Dole, France
Died: Sep 28, 1895 (72 years), Marnes-la-Coquette, France
Cause of death: Stroke
Inventions: Pasteurization, Rabies vaccine, Cholera vaccine, Anthrax vaccine, Chamberland filter.

[Sarcastr0]

I think Louis Pasteur had as much hand in it as any social programs

Yeah, you would think that

You have some super out of date idea of how to get to utopia, it seems.

[Lee Moore]

Your “inflexion point” - 1900 – shows a life expectancy of 46.81, up from 40.55 in 1840 at the beginning of the Victorian era. Not exactly chopped liver.

However I have my own little link :

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/methodologies/periodandcohortlifeexpectancyexplained#difference-between-period-and-cohort-life-expectancies

which explains the difference between “period” and “cohort” life expectancy. Broadly, “period” understates true life expectancy, in a time of increasing life expectancy, as it looks at the death rates of people dying at various ages in the year for which the calculation is being made. Thus it looks backward at life conditions before that year. While “cohort” attempts to correct this by estimating future improvements in survival rates.

I cannot drill into your source but from the numbers it is clearly a “period” thing. If you scroll down to Figure 1 in my link, you can read off the “period” life expectancy in 1841 as 41.2, and 45.6 in 1900 (averaging male and female.) These figures are pretty much the same as yours.

However the “cohort” life expectancy change is much bigger. In 1841 it is also 41.2, but by 1900 it is 53.1. Which is a 30% increase in life expectancy in the 60 years before your inflexion point.

What is more the “cohort” life expectancy is an estimate of future survival rates. The real deal is the cohort life expectancy calculated retrospectively once you have the actual date of death of all the members of your birth year cohort. And the projected cohort life expectancy (ie using estimates for the future) has been consistently and yuuuugely underestimated compared to the reality. (Which is why the figures always show a continued rapid rise in life expectancy.)

This is confirmed, not only by the doubling of population in the fifty years before your inflexion point, but by the terminal 20th century sickness and subsequent expiry of “defined benefit pension schemes” in the UK. The liabilities of these schemes were consistently underestimated decade after decade until all UK employers (being responsible for making good the underfunding) abandoned them and switched to “defined contribution.” The only surviving ones are, you guessed it – government pension schemes ☺

So to cut a very long story short. Your chart shows a measure that understates life expectancy year by year, as it rises, and thus conceals the fact that life expectancy was rising much faster than your graph shows, before your inflexion point. It backends the increase it life expectancy. And even the “cohort” measure, based on projecting future survival rates is a significant understatement too. It backends life expectancy too – just not by as much as your chart.

Your chart is a perfectly fine chart – it just has misleading inputs.

[damikesc]

"We, as a country, voted for this."

When did this election happen? I do not remember even being ASKED about it, much less "voting for it".

"The idea that good works cannot be done by the government is some retrgrade Victorian era nonsense."

We are in debt about $37T. "Good works" ain't really an option.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm tired of subsidizing bullies who aren't nice to us.

The White South African dictatorship was replaced by an even worse Black Marxist South African dictatorship that hates us, and I say bleep them. LET them all die -- or go ask Global Marxism to bail them out.

Uncle Sucker bled thrice in Europe to bail Europe out of its own stupidity. Uncle Sucker has spent 150 years spending his fortune around the world in hopes they would like him and it hasn't worked. F*ck the rest of the world, let's build walls and put machine guns on top of them and call it done.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Africa can go say hey to China now if they want to pay for vaccines I guess!"

Yes, why not?

[damikesc]

"1. Yeah, I post people are dying and you don't care. As I said above, fuck right off. Some things you do because they are right."

Welcome to the world of being broker than any country has ever been. So much money has been wasted on utter bullshit that even theoretically beneficial spending is on the block. Money to other countries should be the absolute first thing to go. Before literally anything else.

"2. You want US equity for saving lives? OK: This was our Belt and Road. Projecting an international presence not with coercive loans, but relentless mercy.
Africa can go say hey to China now if they want to pay for vaccines I guess!"

Africa is going to remain a shithole. That is not changing anytime soon. And China has some significant economic issues that they are ALSO ignoring as hard as they conceivably can. They will eventually have the same issues.

Countries might want to aim for self-sufficiency.

"3. If we are beyond broke (we are not, that is an excuse), then look at Medicare and Social Security. This is a drop in the bucket."

You're bitching about this drop of the bucket. But you won't bitch about cutting Medicare and Social Security?

That "Drops in the bucket" are making you lose your shit, imagine that a painful cut will do.

[David Nieporent]

Welcome to the world of being broker than any country has ever been.

We. Are. Not. Broke. You're using words you don't understand.

[David Nieporent]

We are not, in fact, "beyond broke."

[damikesc]

We have a debt of $37 TRILLION. Unfunded mandates are on top of that and not being counted.

We are broker than broke. Miles beyond just being broke.

Now, we COULD fix the problem easily by just going back to the spending of, say, 2017. But you would scream and cry if that was done.

[David Nieporent]

We have a debt of $37 TRILLION.

So what? Yes, we owe a lot of money. We also make a lot of money. And have a lot of money.

$37 trillion is an unfathomable number if you're the owner of a hardware store. It's not a lot when you're the richest country on the planet. Especially when we owe most of that $37 trillion to ourselves.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Make it a point to notice. One trillion is an unfathomable number in the news broadcasting business. So is one billion. Eleven-million can be quite a challenge.

It's hilarious to watch cable news anchors boggle when they have to newsread even multi-billion dollar figures on air. The ones who boggle the most are pretty clearly innumerate. They will read (or likely misread), without any skepticism at all, any outlandish numerically-presented information that gets handed to them. Then on to something more familiar, with visible relief.

If I ran a broadcasting business, before being hired to work in any news-related capacity—not just on air—the first screen a job seeker would have to get past would be to get handed a card with this printed on it: 13,473,391,336,191.0113.

"Look at it for a moment, then read it to me please." A candidate could earn extra credit for asking back where in hell it would be necessary to apply that level of decimal precision to such a large quantity.

Then, for the few who survived the big number test, a quick follow-up: "How many billions in a trillion?" If that does not get instant correct response, no job for you.

If you plan to evaluate and present news, you want everyone involved to practice a habit to use estimated arithmetic tests of plausibility. That needs to happen for every numerically-related story which will get offered to an audience.

People in the habit to do that all the time can read big numbers without a hitch. Not many people do that.

[Jmaie]

News anchors are not paid to know things, they are paid to be pretty and fluent.

See: Knoll's law of media accuracy...

https://effectiviology.com/knolls-law/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks for the link. Moderately useful advice. Do not rely on it too heavily. It's full of holes—so many that it would take a very long reply to detail them.

More generally, the best hope for reliable info comes from long acquaintance with sources which strive hard to deliver reliability. If you want your best chance to trust an alleged fact in a media publication, you will learn to discover which sources those are.

Unfortunately for folks who like right-slanted news, the best of the left-slanted media are usually the most accurate available, at least for now. For now, Fox news is not worthy of your trust. The New Yorker may not publish political news to suit you, but it will be orders of magnitude (literally) less likely to publish factual-looking claims which turn out false.

To distinguish accuracy on a story-by-story basis—with nothing in front of you except story contents—is a challenge to defeat almost anyone sometimes. Inaccuracy can be easier to spot, but remarkably hard to distinguish for motivated readers who mix accuracy, expectation, disagreement, and inaccuracy without discernment.

Skilled deliberate deceptions are in another class altogether, and of course increasingly common from internet sources. The best of those will deceive almost everyone, almost all the time, unless trouble is taken to research the contents from scratch. That is a task beyond the capacity of almost everyone except scholars, and the better sort of journalistic professionals—who are also the people most capable to author such deceptions.

[bernard11]

Here
are some programs that have been terminated. (Look at the full thread).

All malaria supplies protecting 53 million people, mostly children, including bed nets, diagnostics, preventive drugs, and treatments – terminated.

All tuberculosis programs, including the Global TB Drug Facility – terminated.

All supplies of US-manufactured emergency food packets for starving children on the brink of death – terminated.

USAID’s contract for supplying essential medicines for maternal and child health in countries worldwide – terminated.

Etc. What do you think, pro-lifers?

[Kazinski]

Nothing has been terminated, there is a 90 day review on USAID contracts, and as programs are reviewed and approved the freeze is being lifted.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Among the programs listed by bernard11, which do you think it would be wise to freeze, as opposed to evaluated during continuation?

[Noscitur a sociis]

We are beyond broke. If you wanted these "nice" things, there were decades where small cuts could have been made to avoid these issues.

The opposite occurred.

So bigger cuts have to happen.

You might want to write your congressman, because they don’t seem to have gotten the message.

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

And you uncritically parrot this Chicken Little routine, had the role been reversed you'd be demanding evidence.

[Joe_dallas]

The article is more than just a little hyped/embellished. Most every should have recognized the activists hype.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, if in your expert opinion it's not right, then no need for any kind of supporting evidence!

You'll just appeal to common sense, after all.

[Joe_dallas]

the hype/ embellishment is obvious to any layman, but not obvious to gaslighto or any other woke leftist

[David Nieporent]

Bookkeeper_joe is doing his usual "I make shit up that is a total lie because I have no subject matter knowledge, and then I just claim it's obvious."

[Joe_dallas]

The embellishment / hype is obvious
Though I can understand you and gaslight0 and most every other leftists inability to recognize the obvious

[Magister]

A political philosophy encompassing both Sarcastr0 and David Nieporent would be an immense tent, but it wouldn't be leftist. Probably not even left-center.

[Lee Moore]

Hey Pauline ! Howya doin' ?

[Bob from Ohio]

Maybe South Africa should spend on AIDS instead of lawyers to file and argue meritless, bad faith cases against Israel

[Sarcastr0]

Irrelevant.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not at all. Uncle Sugar gives them aid money so they feel free to waste their own money on stunts.

[Sarcastr0]

That causality is not at all clear.

And you're punishing the wrong people.

[tylertusta]

They aren't just cutting spending, they are fighting crime.

According to Democrats, this is an impeachable offense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Last year, approximately 191 people died from drug overdoses every day in the U.S. That’s the occupancy of a commuter jet. If a plane crashed every day and killed 191 people, there would be national outrage. Yet these deaths are quiet, largely ignored, and brushed aside. The victims are dehumanized, often labeled as “junkies” or “addicts.” It’s easier for society to ignore the death of a “junkie” than the death of their 16-year-old neighbor."

https://www.themainewire.com/2025/02/maine-cop-drug-addiction-is-killing-our-state/

[Martinned2]

Just Say No!

[Frank Drackman]

Won’t be so callous when it’s someone you love that’s dead. Congratulations! You’re more of a prick than me!

[AmosArch]

Ilya: We should let and even encourage as much people to flood in as possible! Come on in boys plenty of space and resources for everyone!

Also Ilya: Theres a housing crisis! No room for anyone to live!
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/26/upcoming-event-on-solving-the-nations-housing-crisis-2/

[Martinned2]

Who do you think should build the houses to solve the housing crisis? The Harvard class of 2025?

[AmosArch]

Plenty of Americans can build houses especially without the additional pressure from unchecked open borders. We don't need a slave underclass of laborers. Although its mighty interesting how you guys are so interested in one.

[CountmontyC]

My father, several of my uncles and my oldest brother all worked in construction until they were old enough to retire or passed away. All were American citizens.

Construction used to be a very well paid job until the labor force was flooded with illegal aliens.

[damikesc]

"Who do you think should build the houses to solve the housing crisis? The Harvard class of 2025?"

Are you now putting construction, one of the most widely done jobs by citizens for centuries, into your personal list of "jobs Americans just will not do"?

[hobie]

I'll tell you the solution to the housing crisis: Cleveland. Thousands of mansions for less than $60k. To apply, all you have to do is not be racist. But that's like taking the hill out of the billy

[damikesc]

Yes, if you have tons of dirt-cheap mansions, it is because racists cannot live there and not epic levels of government mismanagement.

Funny how, for you, the government is never the issue.

[hobie]

When did I say the government caused all these cheap mansions? I assign this largess squarely on the hillbilly mentality. Plus we have a saying in our hood: "Whites will not replace us!"

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie, can we make a "Deal"?, you don't say "Hillbilly" and I won't talk about your "Stolen Valor"

Frank "Hello, Police? I'd like to report that someone stole my Valor"

[hobie]

No. The stolen valor crack doesn't upset me. Give me your mineral rights and I'll consider it

[Frank Drackman]

Most thieves aren’t bothered by people calling them thieves, probably because we don’t crucify them anymore

[ThePublius]

"I'll tell you the solution to the housing crisis: Cleveland. Thousands of mansions for less than $60k. To apply, all you have to do is not be racist. But that's like taking the hill out of the billy"

You seem to believe that the reason for white flight is aversion to skin color only, that it's only and always has been pure racism. Of course it has nothing to do with soaring crime, unsafe streets, drug trafficking, constant shootings, severely disrupted school environments, or any of those other things.

You seem to think only whites can be racist, too.

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

What was the first thing that black BLM chick did when she grifted all those millions?

Moved her black ass to a White neighborhood.

[Frank Drackman]

Asian ones are even safer, quieter, keep their value. Just keep an eye on Fido/Fluffy

[damikesc]

Yes, he does. Hobie is a bit of dim one.

[Riva]

You would be more convincing if you didn’t display your own racism in almost every stupid comment you write.

[ThePublius]

"I'll tell you the solution to the housing crisis: Cleveland. Thousands of mansions for less than $60k. To apply, all you have to do is not be racist. But that's like taking the hill out of the billy"

Hobie, putting the insults aside, let me ask you: how are these impoverished illegal immigrants going to pay for heating and maintaining mansions? I bet a large part of the reason they are abandoned is that the cost to heat and maintain them was untenable, or at least not worth the benefit of living in them, or in the neighborhood.

So by what means do they solve a housing crisis? If you can afford to fix up, maintain, and heat an old mansion in Cleveland, you have many other housing choices.

Unless, of course, you think the government is going to subsidize this, in which case it would be cheaper for Uncle Sam, and better for the residents to knock them down and build modern, efficient housing. You could probably put a nice 30 unit apartment building on the footprint of a mansion. (But then you are liable to end up with "projects" again.)

[hobie]

Look at it this way. Most of the negroes in my hood don't work. They all get disability, food and rent assistance, utility bill assistance and free cell phone and internet. They also don't maintain their houses. Basically Appalachia (or Florida).

Immigrants ain't eligible for any of that. They'll actually bring income into the hood. And they'll fix up their houses (I would assume). A win-win for Cleveland and America

[ThePublius]

I don't buy your assumption. There are much better housing opportunities for them; plus, they have to be in proximity to work. Sure, you might argue that they will all be in construction and contracting fixing up each others' mansions. But, as Ross Perot famously said, you don't generate wealth by shining each others' shoes.

Everything else aside, one would have to be at least nearly wealthy to heat one of those places. (I doubt they are insulated, and imagine they have old, inefficient heating plants. Not to mention leaky roofs, draft windows, and so forth. Any maybe even lead paint, asbestos, and vermiculite.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — If resourceful, energetic immigrants can figure out solutions to all your objections (hint: it's easy and customary; more occupants per mansion), then are you fine with it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you don't think immigrants don't get handouts, think again...

[AmosArch]

Its kind of funny how all immigrants are Einstein supermodel jd rockefellers that will pull out a magic wand and transform the country that accepts them into the jetsons but none of the other countries are lining up to take them.

[David Nieporent]

Many countries admit a higher percentage of immigrants than the U.S. does. And also, why do right wing loons cite the practices of other countries in this context, but reject that argument in every other policy context?

[damikesc]

Also amazing that in spite of these people's amazing prowess in everything --- their home countries are still utter shitholes.

[David Nieporent]

That's… not really amazing at all. It's exactly what one would expect if institutions, rather than individual talent, is what leads to national success.

[damikesc]

"Immigrants ain't eligible for any of that. "

It is borderline adorable that you believe that.

[Sarcastr0]

No support for this.

Just one more in a drivethrough of like 15 shitposts early this morning. eh?

[VinniUSMC]

Cleveland? Even homeless people don't want to live in Cleveland. Or anywhere else in Ohio.

[hobie]

The Haitians do.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Thousands of mansions for less than $60k."

Utter BS, there are no such "mansions". There are plenty of ramshackle, badly maintained pre-war frame houses that need tens of thousands of dollars of repairs.

[Mr. Bumble]

When you're a true "hillbilly" (like hobie) that's a mansion.

[hobie]

Nonsense

[Brett Bellmore]

What are you complaining about? He's going to solve the housing crisis!

By increasing the number of people who need housing, and driving down wages. It's perfectly logical.

[hobie]

Hmmm...by this logic, you shouldn't be happy if there was an increase in the white population

[Brett Bellmore]

Wouldn't we need to reach a stable population, first, before seeing an increase? Anyway, I don't give a damn about the racial demographics of the country, unlike the left, who have definate ideas about how they should change. I care about the cultural demographics.

Skin color and the shape of your cheekbones is just cosmetic. Your cultural endowments are where it's really at. And these are only partially correlated with the cosmetics.

Anyway, I repeat: His solution to the housing crisis is to increase the need for housing while diminishing the ability of people to pay for it. Because he doesn't really care about the housing crisis, he just cares about open borders: EVERYTHING is an excuse for open borders.

[hobie]

"I care about the cultural demographics"

Which cultural demographics? We got a lot of 'em.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, you know the ones.

[hobie]

Does it involve the Angles and the Saxons?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know, were the residents of Hong Kong before the Chinese takeover Anglo-Saxon? I don't think so, but when Thatcher took their passports away, (May she rot in hell for that. Well, just purgatory, hopefully.) I advocated that we give them all US passports. Would have given us a real entrepreneurial shot in the arm!

Reagan didn't, and I thought much less of him as a result.

Your problem is that you're stuck in this "Everybody who disagrees with me is a racist, and so I will interpret anything they say as being racist" mode, and it blinds you to what people are actually saying in the real world.

And people have caught onto what you're doing, and just ignore you when you start raving about racism, because 90% of the time it's just you calling somebody you disagree with "racist" because you've got no argument.

[Sarcastr0]

Thing is, you don't see me or the hobester throwing around accusations of racism willy-nilly.

But you and your 'cultural demographics' keep saying things a racist says.

[Michael P]

Yes, we do see that.

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

>Thing is, you don't see me or the hobester throwing around accusations of racism willy-nilly.

lol, only to everyone who has a different opinion...

[Life of Brian]

Thing is, you don't see me or the hobester throwing around accusations of racism willy-nilly.

And thus you push Poe's Law to the far outer limit by posting this in the middle of a blizzard of posts that Hobie started by saying, and I quote: "To apply, all you have to do is not be racist. But that's like taking the hill out of the billy."

Well done.

[hobie]

""To apply, all you have to do is not be racist. But that's like taking the hill out of the billy.""

I must say, I'm inspired today

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, LoB, I didn't realize you were denied a mansion in Cleveland.

[Life of Brian]

Well there's a flailing distraction.

I suppose this is going to come down to you having some sort of secret definition of "willy-nilly"?

[damikesc]

"Thing is, you don't see me or the hobester throwing around accusations of racism willy-nilly."

Do you not read his posts?

Cannot blame you, but you must not if you really believe this line of nonsense.

[hobie]

If I've got your non-answer parsed right, you're saying the only immigrants we need are entrepreneurs?

Also, when you're a hammer like me, every hillbilly looks like a nail

[Frank Drackman]

So what Valor did you steal this week? "Army SEAL Marine F-14 Pilot"???

[Brett Bellmore]

What I'm saying is what I'm always saying about immigration: That who we admit to the country, and how many, should be entirely driven by benefit to existing citizens. NOT the benefit to potential new residents, which if it happens is just a bonus.

Skim the cream. The cream comes in all shades and shapes. So does the whey.

[Life of Brian]

[moved]

[David Nieporent]

His solution to the housing crisis is the free market: let property owners build whatever they want on their own property. Something an actual libertarian rather than a poseur who claims that 50 years ago he was a libertarian without holding any libertarian views would understand.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

[John F. Carr]

See "Billennium" by J. G. Ballard.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like Martinned2's account has been hijacked by SarcastrO.

[hobie]

What are you bitching about? No one can tell you and Dr. Ed apart.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just look for the advocacy of mass murder and nuking tiny urban areas right on your border. It's a dead giveaway.

[Frank Drackman]

Look, in med school they “bug bombed” all the Med Student Dorms(yes they still had Med Student Dorms in 1983, a whole 6 students lived there, the ones too stupid (Me) to know you could just borrow thousands of dollars and live in a nice apartment, for 2 weeks we had to live in the Undergraduate Dorms, same thing can be done with Gaza

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I am grey-blind. Thus, there is no need to tell them apart.

[Commenter_XY]

In the People's Republic of NJ, Rutgers University is awash in rampant anti-semitism. As a NJ taxpayer, it is revolting.

https://www.jns.org/nj-congressman-slams-rutgers-for-antisemitism-after-lecturer-attends-hamas-linked-webinar/

https://popularresistance.org/statement-from-jewish-rutgers-union-members-zionist-hegemony-must-end/

RU receives federal and state taxpayer money. Is there a cause of action for a citizen to sue the state for directly funding antisemites on RU, particularly those who deface property or intimidate Jewish students, without sanction?

I am fine with protest. I am 'Ok' (not really) with faculty calling Jewish students the descendants of apes and pigs, and genocidal colonizers. I am not fine with property destruction, or intimidating students, which is what has been happening for some time.

Why should I be compelled to pay for this?

[hobie]

"I am not fine with property destruction, or intimidating students"

Why you throw me a softball like this?

[Bwaaah]

Next pitch, remember to take a swing.

[not guilty]

"RU receives federal and state taxpayer money. Is there a cause of action for a citizen to sue the state for directly funding antisemites on RU, particularly those who deface property or intimidate Jewish students, without sanction?"

No there is not.

[Commenter_XY]

Well it sucks to be me, NG. Why? I cannot wear a kippah at RU Camden (or Newark) without harassment, and attend law school. Jews are targeted for harassment and treated differently by students (and faculty) who harbor (and openly communicate) their antisemitic sympathies.

Suppose RU invited Richard Spencer and David Duke as lecturers. Would the reaction be the same? I don't think so. It isn't just Jews, or AA; consider Indians. They are going through the same thing. In NJ, we have a large Indian population (phenomenal food, btw, can be had in Edison).

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/harris-ramaswamy-usha-vance-south-asian-american-hate-rcna174935

Indians also endure harassment. No cause of action in state courts, though. Seems unjust. The only option is to vote with one's feet. That is what you're saying, in effect.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well it sucks to be me, NG. Why? I cannot wear a kippah at RU Camden (or Newark) without harassment, and attend law school. Jews are targeted for harassment and treated differently by students (and faculty) who harbor (and openly communicate) their antisemitic sympathies.

There may be a cause of action for Jewish students to sue Rutgers if they are being denied access to access to its educational programs. That is different from what you originally asked about, i.e. a citizen who doesn’t attend the school suing the government for funding it.

[damikesc]

If you were a progressive, you could easily find courts to give you standing.

If you're not --- then, no.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And that's why the Klan was created.

We don't have one now, but if Trump isn't able to end DEI, we'll have one by 2030.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The Klan was not, in fact, created because of inconsistently-applied standing rules.

[David Nieporent]

Are you sure about that? It might be in his dissertation.

[bernard11]

No? Wow. I learn something every day around here.

[damikesc]

The Klan was created because Democrats did not like the idea of those dark-skinned folks being equal.

Their views have not changed all that much. They still demand an underclass with few protections to offer them cheap services.

[hobie]

In recent psychology literature, this appears to be the consensus Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. This will tell you whether you're an ordinary hillbilly or an extraordinary hillbilly

I think that...,

1. ...many very important things happen in the world, which the public is never informed about.
2. ...politicians usually do not tell us the true motives for their decisions
3. ...government agencies closely monitor all citizens
4. ...events which superficially seem to lack a connection are often the result of secret activities
5. ...there are secret organizations that greatly influence political decisions

[Brett Bellmore]

1. Trivially true, as there isn't enough bandwidth to inform the public about everything important that's happening.
2. Certainly "often", anyway.
3. Oh, come on, not "all", most people get only the shallowest of glances. This becomes more true, of course, as surveillance has been automated.
4. Again, not enough bandwidth, most activities are, for all practical purposes, "secret".
5. You keep using this word "secret", would you care to define it? How does it differ from "obscure"?

[hobie]

I'm just reporting the questionnaire. I didn't write it

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's the people who write those questionnaires who are mentally ill.

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

See how they pre-pave the frame?

The first three are obviously true, but then they try to position these obviously true things adjacent to classic "conspiracy nut" tropes.

These people are sickening.

[Bwaaah]

(shhhhhh. Hobie's hunting wabbit.)

[Frank Drackman]

You get a good price for that Stolen Valor?

[Riva]

Define “hillbilly”

[Life of Brian]

1. ...many very important things happen in the world, which the public is never informed about.
2. ...politicians usually do not tell us the true motives for their decisions
3. ...government agencies closely monitor all citizens
4. ...events which superficially seem to lack a connection are often the result of secret activities
5. ...there are secret organizations that greatly influence political decisions

Seems to me most of the fearful bleating these days about mostly made-up what-ifs concerning Trump/Musk/DOGE/Project 2025 ticks those boxes pretty squarely.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1. ...many very important things happen in the world, which the public is never informed about.

I've been involved in DOING that. We didn't tell people that the main sewer line overflowed, instead we got it declogged and went home.
Or the three times (that I know of) that anyone dialing 911 would have gotten a busy signal. Or the scary and dangerous criminal that the cops were looking for.

2. ...politicians usually do not tell us the true motives for their decisions

It sometimes would make things easier if they did.

3. ...government agencies closely monitor all citizens

They TRY TO, and usually wind up doing stupid things on the basis of bad criteria and worse judgments. But society demands that they do.

4. ...events which superficially seem to lack a connection are often the result of secret activities

Politicians are petty people often seeking to "get even" for past wrongs.

5. ...there are secret organizations that greatly influence political decisions

I don't know how "secret" they are -- Heritage and Open Society are rather public about their intent and perceived influence.

[Commenter_XY]

Here we go again...federal district court judges on fire.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/27/judge-orders-trump-admin-to-rescind-memo-directing-mass-firing-of-federal-workers.html

I think thelawfare lawsuit count is past 90 now. Impressive.

[hobie]

So you think lawsuits filed against presidential policy are lawfare?

[Commenter_XY]

No hobie, I think the count is impressive. The last count I recall seeing was 92 in 38 days, or 2.4 per day. Record shattering pace, in fact. At this pace, it might pass 1K lawsuits by 12/31/2026.

It is impressive, hobie. I have never seen anything like it in my entire life.

[bernard11]

Ever reflect on possible reasons for that impressive count?

[Joe_dallas]

Judge William Alsup
Another democrat appointed judge trying to dictate policy and micro manage the executive branch

[Kazinski]

He said that OPM had to rescind its memo, not that anyone had to be rehired.

He seems to be saying that the departments like Defense can decide on their own to fire the probationary employees, Who does he think directs both OPM and DOD?

"“The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe, to hire and fire employees within another agency,” Alsup said Thursday night. “It can hire its own employees, yes. Can fire them. But it cannot order or direct some other agency to do so.”

“OPM has no authority to tell any agency in the United States government, other than itself, who they can hire and who they can fire, period. So on the merits, I think, we start with that important proposition,” he said."

If the Administration has a policy, and the President directs OPM to communicate that policy to the departments that the President also controls, and his appointees then implement that policy, I fail to see the role of a Federal judge in how that policy is communicated within the administration.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If the Administration has a policy, and the President directs OPM to communicate that policy to the departments that the President also controls, and his appointees then implement that policy, I fail to see the role of a Federal judge in how that policy is communicated within the administration."

OPM was just the tool the President was using to communicate the President's decisions. I guess Trump needed to call up this judge first.

[Joe_dallas]

Chief Justice Roberts, the Justice assigned to cover the DC Circuit, has issued a stay:

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, IT IS ORDERED that the February 25, 2025 orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-00400 and 1:25-cv-00402, are hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that any response to the application be filed on or before Friday, February 28, 2025, by 12 p.m. (EST).

[Joe_dallas]

https://t.co/cptvt2g4Gu

The DC CA with a obama appointee and two biden appointees upholds the district courts order to dispurse $2b in funds with in 36 hours.
Fortunately Roberts stays the idiodic order.

[tylertusta]

More specifically, they declined the government's request, saying that you can't ask an appellate court to stay a TRO.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.52482/gov.uscourts.ca1.52482.00108246952.0_1.pdf

[John F. Carr]

The response has been filed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a831.html

Also filed, an amicus brief saying Trump has unclean hands and should therefore be the loser in any equitable dispute.

[Bob from Ohio]

The amicus brief is a hoot. I wonder what possessed him to file it.

[Joe_dallas]

In a long-awaited decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the parents of an 11-year old girl had no right to be notified when she “socially transitioned” to another sex in school. The court held the school’s non-disclosure policy was necessary to promote a “safe and inclusive” environment for all of its students.

Three biden appointees -

Pathetic decision

[hobie]

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that children too have legitimate expectations of privacy

[Joe_dallas]

Its not a 4a case

The court had to flat out lie about the facts to make a 4a argument.

The reality is the school activitely choose to participate in their preferred mental health treatment of a minor and hide that particpation from the parents.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Speaking of flat-out lies: How ya doin, fuckhead!?

How's Sonja_T doing these days? Anyone else we should know about, perhaps someone special?

You seem pretty desperate this morning for some attention, so I thought I'd give you what you've earned. 🙂

[tylertusta]

Children's "privacy" against their own parents is probably the dumbest thing I've read today.

This should be jettisoned, as should the rest of the post-Roe parade of horribles in our jurisprudence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

FERPA gives the parents of unemancipated minors an absolute right to review their student's educational records. In their entirety.

[damikesc]

Trump needs to broadcast these decisions far and wide.

Democrats will be forever in the wilderness if they keep on with their "States have more rights over your children than you do" bullshit to parents.

[Commenter_XY]

This decision is the best advertisement for private schools, ever.

[hobie]

Private schools: where kids dress alike and are taught to think alike. But this is not a new concept. I once saw a grainy black and white clip about this very thing, but I couldn't understand it because it was narrated in German

[Frank Drackman]

You really need to get out of your shithole more, lots of Pubic “Magnet” Screw-Les require uniforms. Gets the Screw-dents used to what they’ll wear at State Prison

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

"Let your children be groomed by deranged LGBT Democrats, or you're a NAZI!"

This is the "hobester" not casually labeling people as racist...

I mean, according to Sarcastr0 The Truthteller, he really does this and when he does, it's very powerful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When was the last time that hobie set foot in a public middle or high school? The students DO all dress alike, the girls like sluts and the boys like gangsters. And as to being taught rightthink, our skools do far better than the National Socialists ever attempted.

[Moderation4ever]

Note here that we are taking about "socially transitioned" and to me that is hard to define. Do, the school report on everything a kid does at school, I like to know more about what we are talking about? My kids had kids who were Goth and that pretty gender independent. Do school call up parents and say, " hey your kid is dressing Goth"?

[Joe_dallas]

The real issue is that the school took an active part in the mental health treatment of a minor and hid those actions from the parent.

[Moderation4ever]

Let me again point out that the child was "socially transitioning". Does this really amount to providing mental health treatment? I will not even get into the question of why the parents are so absent from their child's life they were not aware of what the child was doing.

[Joe_dallas]

the school was participating in the gender transition and keeping their participation and encouragement of the gender transition from the parents.

[David Nieporent]

Let me again point out that the child was "socially transitioning". Does this really amount to providing mental health treatment?

The district court found — and the 1st circuit agreed — that the parents just conclusorily alleged that using other pronouns/name, without anything else, is medical treatment. The court reasonably did not accept this:

Solely as pled here, we do not believe that using the Student's chosen name and pronouns -- something people routinely do with one another, and which requires no special training, skill, medication, or technology -- without more, can be reasonably viewed as evidencing some indicia of medicalization.

The court did not rule out the possibility that it could be, but said that there was nothing here that made such an allegation plausible.

[hobie]

Glad to see you acknowledging that transitioning can be healthcare. There's hope for you, Joe.

[ReaderY]

The problem here is that parents, not schools, have primary responsibility for making decisions about their children’s medical treatment, and primary responsibility for their children’s general upbringing.

[Joe_dallas]

correct - however the court had to misrepresent the facts to argue the school was not involved in the pushing the school's preferred mental health treatment.

[David Nieporent]

As always, bookkeeper_joe shows no evidence he has read a court opinion he's criticizing. (That opinion, which he didn't link to for that reason, is here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/23-1069P-01A.pdf)

I am going to infer from his chosen pronouns username that he's located about 1,700 miles away from the school in question, and if so it's rather unclear how he could possibly have the firsthand knowledge to state that the court was "misrepresenting the facts." It is 100% on brand, of course, that he does not identify a single statement in the opinion that was misrepresented.

[Joe_dallas]

The court intentionaly misrepresent the facts to reach the erroneous opinion

That is not in dispute - at least not in dispute by anyone trying to be honest

[David Nieporent]

It is 200% on brand then when caught making up shit, bookkeeper_joe doesn't try to explain why his fabricated claims are correct, but simply repeats them.

1) You have identified no misrepresented facts. Not even one.
2) You certainly haven't cited anything showing that this nonexistent misrepresentation was "intentional."
3) You have presented nothing of any sort — not even a meritless argument, let alone a meritorious one — showing that the opinion was "erroneous."

This sort of argumentation style you employ may be convincing when you're drunk at a local bar, but nowhere else.

[grb]

Look on the bright side: If Joe_dallas is busy manufacturing anti-trans hysteria from whole cloth, at least he's not trying to kill people with his anti-vaxx lunacy.

Of all the expert "talents" of this faux-renaissance man, it's Joe_dallas, expert immunologist, that's the most stomach-churning.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you call John "Susan" at school, your report card has to also say "Susan" on it.

[David Nieporent]

It does not, in fact, "have to" do any such thing.

[David Nieporent]

In a long-awaited decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the parents of an 11-year old girl had no right to be notified when she “socially transitioned” to another sex in school.

I haven't read the decision, so I'm just speaking superficially: it may be an appalling policy, but I can't imagine that there's a right to be notified (absent a statute giving parents one). The constitutional right to make decisions about one's children's upbringing is not a constitutional right to have other people tell you what your children are doing.

[David Nieporent]

Followup: I have now read the opinion. And my preliminary conclusion hasn't changed: I would vote against any school board member or legislator who adopted these policies. But there's no plausible constitutional claim.

[Dr. Ed 2]

FERPA?

[David Nieporent]

1) I realize that this is the only law you've heard of and so you cite it any time a school is mentioned, but, no, not FERPA. What may be a clue in that regard is that the plaintiffs did not so much as allege any violations of FERPA.

2) My statement was that "there's no plausible constitutional claim." Assuming for the sake of argument that there was a FERPA violation, it would not in fact be a constitutional claim.

[Joe_dallas]

The problem is the school was active participants in their preferred mental health treatment

[David Nieporent]

There was no "mental health treatment."

[Joe_dallas]

The school participated in the minors delusions in a manner that became effectively mental health treatment

[Noscitur a sociis]

Joe/Sonja, as someone who is very much on your side on this issue: I implore you to please, please, stop helping.

[David Nieporent]

Wait, are you saying you agree with him about the merits of the school policy? (Because I do, too! Well, I don't "agree with him," but we're both on the same side.) Or are you saying that you think the court got it wrong, legally? Because I don't see it. The court analogized it — I think persuasively — to parents who try to get schools to stop teaching their kids some things. The right to direct one's child's upbringing means one can homeschool or private school if one is unhappy with the school's teaching — but it's not the right to tell the school not to teach some things because you don't want your kid to hear it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I really meant on transgender stuff in general more than any specific sub-issue, although I certainly do find school policies like this one shockingly abhorrent. I share your doubts about the merits of the constitutional challenge, although Circuit Judge Sociis’s opinion would have had a somewhat different tone.

[David Nieporent]

Fair enough.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In a long-awaited decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the parents of an 11-year old girl had no right to be notified when she “socially transitioned” to another sex in school.

Do you actually expect anyone to believe that you were aware of this case before the opinion came out?

If so, why did you wait ten days to post about it?

[Kazinski]

I fail to see any "right" of the parents under the constitution, other than to choose where their children are educated.

Under state law and constitution it may be a different outcome.

But I don't think the constitution was written to provide or deny any such right.

Not every issue can be or was intended to be solved by the US constitution.

[damikesc]

It is time to defund public schools. End the whole system.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Again, not a constitutional issue.

[Sarcastr0]

https://jabberwocking.com/californias-20-fast-food-minimum-wage-hasnt-had-much-effect/

It's been nearly a year since California raised its fast food minimum wage to $20, so a couple of days ago the IRLE at Cal Berkeley released its second report on how things are going (https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Effects-of-the-20-California-Fast-Food-Minimum-Wage-Highlights.pdf).

After you adjust for seasonality there's no difference between California and the broader US. Employment remained steady.

As for prices, the report concludes that California prices went up 1.5%, or about 6 cents for a $4 hamburger. So that's how much more we're paying.

POSTSCRIPT: I should remind everyone that the average fast food wage in California was $18 before the new law was passed. So there was never any big reason to think it was going to make a huge difference.

[hobie]

I can attest that in red states the price of a taco is approaching $10. Same as a single damn beer. Used to be strip clubs were the only places charging that much for a drink. Also, my neighborhood grocery stores are starting to ration eggs: only two dozen at a time now. Ah the Trump Economy. But, hey, California/Obama something something

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

Recalling everything you know about economics, supply and demand, and systems in general... when Biden and his operatives ordered the culling of 100M egg laying chickens six months ago, what impact do you think that might have had on egg prices today?

Given the fact that nowhere else, no neighbors, had to cull chickens to this degree, and how petty Democrats are, do you think they did this on purpose to create a political problem for Trump? They've done these things in the past. It's just another take on the Washington Monument Syndrome where government bureaucrats intentionally harm citizens to generate political leverage.

[David Nieporent]

do you think they did this on purpose to create a political problem for Trump?

Do I think they took action 3 months before Trump was elected to create political problems for Trump? No; that's even stupider than the underlying conspiracy theory.

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

Did you take note of when the order came? 3 months before elected, or 3 months before he took office?

Or Kamala since he hated the rug pull.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You said it was six months ago, which would have been late August—so more like two and half months before the election rather than three.

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

So what, I was ballparking.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Still, what a stupid take to take. Kamala Harris was doing well in the polls at the time.

[Kazinski]

I didn't know you were such a Trump fan Hobie.

He's been in office 39 days, and while I have seen some criticism that he's moving to fast, you'd have to have incredible expectations to think he can completely fix a problem Biden failed at over 3 years in less than 6 weeks.

[Armchair]

Nope...

https://californiaglobe.com/fl/gov-newsom-exposed-for-gaslighting-on-californias-fast-food-industry-job-loss/

[Sarcastr0]

"According to the Employment Policies Institute, the Berkeley IRLE report and an affiliated report from the Shift Project used alternative data sources to minimize the extent of the damage AB 1228 has already caused.

With new quarterly data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released Thursday showing that California has lost 6,166 total fast food jobs since the AB 1228 fast food minimum wage law went into effect, there is no doubt that Governor Newsom and his staff have been gaslighting the public and the media."

Come on, this is some incredibly flawed reasoning and I think even you can see it.
The metric is unemployment as compared to the national baseline, not just unemployment period.

In general, anyone that talks about "Union-Backed Researchers" is not here to do a careful statistical debunking.

[Armchair]

Keep reading.

"Since the passage of AB 1228 in September 2023, California’s privately-owned fast food restaurants have lost -6,166 jobs (-1.1%) through June 2024 (the latest available data). (See Table 1, page 2)
Over the same period the previous year, prior to passage of AB 1228 (September 2022 through June 2023), California gained 17,528 private sector fast food jobs (+3.1%).
California’s fast food job losses are unique to the state – total private sector fast food employment nationwide grew over the same period (September 2023 through June 2024). (See Table 3, page 3)
U.S. total private fast food restaurants added 74,327 jobs (+1.6%) during this period.
California’s fast food employment decline is steeper than statewide private employment decline over this period."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, do the math. If 1% of California fast food workers lost 100% of their wages, and the balance got an 11% raise, that is a huge gain for fast food workers overall.

[Armchair]

Show the stats where the balance got an 11% raise.

Remember to include the increase or decrease in number of hours worked.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Are you presuming the lost hours, or can you show them. If that happened as you suggest, then it seems to presume a net decline in business by a comparable amount. Can you show that?

[Armchair]

"Are you presuming the lost hours"

I presume nothing. I noted the INCREASE or decrease in hours worked.

You never did any math

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchiar — In the link you provided I found somewhat vague reports on jobs; could not find anything on hours. Can you show me what I overlooked?

[Joe_dallas]

SL ". If 1% of California fast food workers lost 100% of their wages, and the balance got an 11% raise, that is a huge gain for fast food workers overall."

- that is the same flawed logic used in most all the "Pro minimum wage increase" studies. You have to adjust for hours worked ie the cut back in hours. 10% hourly wage increase with a 10% -15% cut back in hours isnt much of a pay raise.

[tylertusta]

I'm not sure if "How To Lie With Statistics 101" is already a course in Cal Berkeley, but they clearly have the talent to offer one.

[Joe_dallas]

its not so much lying with statistics as much as hiding key facts. The cut back in hours confirms the basic law of supply and demand.

[tylertusta]

Where I'm from, lying by omission is still a lie.

[Joe_dallas]

agreed

[Dr. Ed 2]

If they already were at minimum staffing, how did they cut back hours? They either increased productivity (which they would have anyway) or reduced service and that costs customers.

[ThePublius]

Automation.

[Sarcastr0]

"The partial coverage and lower wage levels in the covered sector suggest caution when using the BLS’ Current Employment Survey or its Quarterly Census of Wages and Employment (QCEW) to analyze the effects of the policy.

These datasets are available only for the entire California fast food industry. To address this issue, we rescale our QCEW-based estimates of wage effects to reflect the partial coverage of
the policy among fast food workers."

[Dr. Ed 2]

"California has lost 6,166 total fast food jobs since the AB 1228 fast food minimum wage law went into effect,

Syastically irrelevant.

[Michael P]

It might be random variation rather than causation, but you can't just dismiss it out of hand as statistically irrelevant given that both time- and cohort-based comparisons went the other direction.

[tylertusta]

The -6k is understating the job loss here.

In a state with increasing population and a growing economy, you'd expect fast food employment to go up by tens of thousands, not down by 6k.

[Frank Drackman]

You’ve obviously not been to CA in a long time, a Double Cheese/Fries/Coke at In N Out is nearly $20

[Frank Drackman]

Pre-Responding for all the fucks who'll say "Typical Frankie exaggeration, How is $14 nearly $20?" Well, California has this thing called a "Sales Tax" that the State and Local communities collect, in Berkley it's %10.25, so now your $14 Double Cheese Combo is $15.40, and then there's the Tip, to me it's easier to just give the guy an Andrew Jackson (and saves him the trouble of spitting on my burger)
Yes, I tip the guys at In N Out, You tip your Uber Driver? Your Waitress, the "Captain" at a swanky Hotel? But not the Dishwasher, or the guys at In N Out, Why? Society says "Tip these guys here, but not those guys" Totally senseless
OK, maybe now that they're making $20/hour I'll risk getting my Burger spat on (upon?)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

For $20, I can cook my own burger...

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, we know Dr Ed, you can purchase your own Ground Beef, Buns, Pickles, Onions, and cook it cheaper than what a Restaurant charges, some of us have travel jobs and don’t carry a kitchen around with us,
Oh, and I can’t get my burgers to taste like Mickey D’s, it’s some secret ingredient they use
Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I can personally testify to that, we actually ate there last June while visiting my brother in Ventura on the way to scuba in the Philippines.

A gourmet meal for three in the Savoy Manila was cheaper than hamburgers in California.

[Magister]

You can't order In-N-Out online, but I compared the price of a Big Mac meal through Uber Eats from the first restaurant in Los Angeles, California and the biggest city I used to live in; 12.69 in Los Angeles and 12.39 in the other city with its lower minimum wage and 9% sales tax. 12.49 in Atlanta, Georgia with 8.9% sales tax and 7.25 minimum wage, if that data point would make Frank more comfortable.

[Commenter_XY]

There is no world I pay $12 for a Big Mac. Others will.

[Magister]

Big Mac meal. Big Mac alone in Los Angeles is 7.99. I haven't had a Big Mac in decades, if ever, and the point was to compare prices between cities with lower and higher minimum wages. Actually the underlying point was that Frank is again full of shit that is fairly easy to rebut.

[Frank Drackman]

So you haven’t had a Big Mac in Decades? Me either, that whole “Special Sauce” reminds me too much of my own “Special Sauce” I go with the 1/4 pounder or get 2 regular burgers and make a double burger out of it, In N Out is a step up

[ThePublius]

"According to a new study released by the Berkeley Research Group, the $20 minimum wage has negatively impacted fast food workers and customers. The study reveals that the increase has led to thousands of job losses, a double-digit hike in food prices, and accelerated use of automation and artificial intelligence.3 days ago"

Forbes: "Although the bump in pay is intended to help improve the standard of living for more than half a million fast-food workers, there may be unintended consequences that could do more harm to these employees, including restaurant closures, job cuts, reduced hours and increased deployment of automation to bring down expenses."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/07/26/california-20-minimum-wage-fast-food-impact/

And on and on and on. You are gaslighting again.

[ThePublius]

Here's the google AI response to the query "california fast food erstaurants closing due to $20/hr minimum wage:"

Yes, some fast food restaurants in California have closed since the state's minimum wage increased to $20 per hour in April 2024. The higher minimum wage has also led to job losses and reduced hiring.
Explanation
Job losses
Edgeworth Economics estimates that 9,600 to 19,300 jobs were lost in limited-service restaurants between September 2023 and September 2024.
Snappy reports that 1,040 fast food restaurants permanently closed since April 1, 2024.
Increased costs
Small business and franchise owners have been forced to raise menu prices and cut staffing to cover higher payroll costs.
Automation
Fast food chains have been adopting automation technologies, such as self-ordering kiosks and mobile apps, to reduce labor costs.
Other impacts
Some say that the higher minimum wage didn't attract more people to work in fast food.
Some employees would have preferred to keep working at a lower hourly rate than being laid off.

[Sarcastr0]

Why would you post this for truth? Here, where AI's shown to be full of it over and over?

[Joe_dallas]

The study looks as robust as the card kruger minimum wage study.

Note the weak reliance on poor quality data on the key metric of hours worked.

Note the frequency of proponents of minimum wage increase regularly pimp the card kruger study is spite of its serious flaws.

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord you're just an ipse dixit machine.

When you don't change the subject.

I'm just glad you didn't link to some awful blog.

[DaveM]

I love the fact that we're examining the effects of market manipulations by the State. The standard, however, isn't that prices are "only raised a little bit". The standard is that people's lives are improved. Is there a study on that? And if not, then why would we permit the market manipulation in the first place?

I ask this in anticipation of a similar manipulation in the form of tariffs. I, for one, am going to be looking for proof that things will be BETTER, not just forgivably worse.

[ThePublius]

It's not so that some people receiving higher pay rates improves the lives of all workers. Many people lost their jobs due to this, and other suffered reduced hours, requiring them to find second and third jobs, and the burden of juggling the schedules and managing transportation.

Plus, something no one talks about, it now costs them (and their family) much more to eat at those places! [1]

[1] Yes, McDonald's employees receive free or discounted meals.
- Free or discounted meals
Employees can get one meal at half price during their scheduled shift.
Off-duty employees can get food at a 30% discount.
Some employees say they can get most of the menu for free.
- Meal policy
The meal must be eaten in the break room before or after the shift, or during the break.
The meal is for the employee's personal consumption only.
The meal can't include specialty drinks or desserts.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you pretending to give a fuck about people losing their jobs now?

LOL.

[Sarcastr0]

You want child labor? Because the stat's regulated the market for a long time.

The standard is that people's lives are improved. Is there a study on that? And if not, then why would we permit the market manipulation in the first place?
This makes sense only to a superficial libertarian who has never engaged with anyone who disagrees with them.

[ThePublius]

This is interesting. It's a fun app. It shows Big Mac prices for the entire country.

McCheapest

I thought after initially consulting it this morning that it would support Sarcastr0. But if you look carefully you will see that most prices haven't been updated since 2023, before the wage increase in CA.

So, I thought I'd check using the McDonalds app on my phone. Alas, it won't show Big Mac prices until they are available, after breakfast. So I checked a representative breakfast sandwich, Bacon, Egg, and Cheese Biscuit (sandwich only):

My local store in New Bedford, MA: $4.89
Lawrence Exxpy, Sunnvale, CA: $7.09

Yikes!

I wish someone would write an app (maybe I will) that will use the ability to change locations and choose stores to automatically update McCheapest.

[ThePublius]

As an aside, since it's legendary that the ice cream and shake machines are often broken, here's an app to check the machine status at any McDonalds:

McBroken

[Sarcastr0]

I'm looking forwards to digging into the more substantive critiques above, but this doesn't even have a timeline and you're trying to assume causality.

That's pretty dumb.

[ThePublius]

I'm just stating facts. The prices I quoted are this morning. Draw your own conclusions. I recorded what the Big Mac prices were are various CA stores from April, 2023. When lunch is served in CA I'll check prices today. We'll see what happened, and how it tracks with inflation, and compared to other states.

[Sarcastr0]

"if you look carefully you will see that most prices haven't been updated since 2023, before the wage increase in CA."

You're trying to find causally relevant numbers.

But one data point definitionally can't do that.

[ThePublius]

"You're trying to find causally relevant numbers."

No, I'm not.

"But one data point definitionally can't do that."

Duh!

[Sarcastr0]

Why did you care about whether your info was before or after the wage increase in CA if you weren't working causality?

[Bwaaah]

Sarc reminds us that they only forced a labor cost increase of 11%, which in his world, is just rounding error (on top of inflation, which is more rounding error, on top of all discretionary spending programs, which are just rounding errors).

Anyway, it's only money, and Sarc is teaching us how to understand it.

[Sarcastr0]

You wrote an entire post from the Sarcatr0 in your head.

Not a great show.

[Armchair]

Read an interesting story on the lawyer cartel, and how it serves the rich.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/02/unauthorized-practice-law-upl-laws-state-bars-monopoly-affordable-civil-legal-advice-lawyers-attorneys-aide/

It's an interesting read. But basically, it works down to this. Lawyers are increasingly just working for corporations and rich individual clients, because that's who can afford their services. If you're poor or middle class, $500+ an hour starts to get unaffordable. And often you don't need much, a little advice how to properly fill out a simple form or motion that any first year paralegal or person with a passing interest in the law could help you out with.

But legally, they're not allowed to. Only a "lawyer" can provide legal advice. If a honest soul who isn't a lawyer tries to...the lawyers cartel gets them put in prison. So, the "law" works for those who can afford the extravagent rates. And sure, there's some pro-bono work...but it's a band-aid at best, and a PR cover at worse.

You can use an analogy to car mechanics. Imagine if you legally HAD to take your car to the dealer for any repair, no matter how small, unless you could do it on your own...and no one else could help you. Change a light bulb, change a battery, change the oil. Pretty soon, you'd find dealer rates for labor really, really high. And a lot of people without working cars. Even if they could be simply fixed by a friend...it would be illegal.

Maybe it's time to end the cartel.

[Sarcastr0]

AL posting Mother Jones.
Do you often take Mother Jones uncritically as truthtellers? I wonder who linked you to that since I don't think you're a regular reader.

Lawyers are increasingly just working for corporations and rich individual clients, because that's who can afford their services
A ton of my law school colleagues went to go work for nonprofits. They're all still paying off their loans, but they're doing good works for groups that aren't just rich people. And I'm not sure they're captured in the article.

In fact, the article should have more stats in it. Great stories, and I think I agree inasmuch as law firms are seeing this shift. But that's vibes, so I could very well be wrong.

[Armchair]

I read all sources of news, including Mother Jones. I remember when your fav, Kevin Drum, was a regular contributor. Perhaps you don't, and can't imagine it reading sources from all over the spectrum. But I do.

I read sources of news from all over the web, and evaluate them critically on my own. This seemed accurate.

Your "non-profits" may be another problem. Gotta wonder where they are getting their money. We'll get to that.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not believe you regularly read Mother Jones. Much less 'all sources of news.'

I've not seen you do a lot of critical evaluation. Everything seems to align with your priors. Even your hypothetical questions.

Did you see the nugget of my own critical thinking at the end of my post? You've never, ever, posted anything like that.

[Bwaaah]

I think what you're trying to say is, "Your side is not allowed to cite my side's propaganda."

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, I was amused by it. Now he's posted lies and I'm calling him a liar.

[Bwaaah]

Ohhh, snap!!! You da man, Sarc. You da man!

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair called NY Post centrist.

I do not believe he reads Mother Jones.

[Armchair]

I mean, I did just post an article from Mother Jones, and summarized the same article....but sure, believe I'm a liar and I somehow summarized an article from Mother Jones without actually reading it the article.

Sometimes you're so blind it's a parody of itself.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair:
"The NY Post is right in the middle of the ideological scale, for example."

No, linking to MJ is not going to establish you're broadly read.

[Armchair]

And suddenly the backpedaling begins.

[Bwaaah]

OK, Sarc. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that you don't believe Armchair "reads Mother Jones."

My question is this: what difference does it make what you don't believe?

[Kazinski]

Mother Jones isn't news its opinion.

I'm glad to see Sourcewatch is on the job, however I see you've updated the rules, not only is it not allowed for people to use conservative outlets as news, we can't use progressive outlets either when we agree with them.

[Armchair]

Well, that's not entirely fair. It certainly has its share of opinion, and certainly a leftist bent. But they do actually do a little investigative reporting.

[tylertusta]

It boggles my mind when I hear about people with access to literally everything anyone writes online would deliberately ignore what different outlets are saying.

People who are so close-minded as to ignore any source of information are just as bad as those who accept anything they read at face value. And in my view, there's significant overlap between those two groups.

[Brett Bellmore]

I know what you mean. When I was in college I was reading everything from the Nation to Human Events. A person who won't look at what is being said across the whole political spectrum is like somebody who deliberately blinds themselves in one eye because binocular vision somehow offends them.

It's not like you have to AGREE with something to read it, after all!

[tylertusta]

Indeed. I read stuff running the range from DailyKos to the NYT/WaPo/Politico/WSJ, to National Review/RedState/HotAir.

If you don't know what the 'other side' is saying and what their response is to 'your side' then you aren't going to be informed.

[Armchair]

But of course. One needs to stay informed across the spectrum.

But if you're Sarcast0, you literally cannot even imagine the possibility of reading articles that are outside your personal little bubble. That if you disagree with something, it must not exist.

[Sarcastr0]

I can imagine lots of people on here being read. Even some of the quite conservative ones.

Not you.

[Armchair]

That speaks more to your lack of imagination.

[Sarcastr0]

"The NY Post is right in the middle of the ideological scale, for example."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's between "right center" and "right", with "mixed" factual credibility, according to Media Bias/Fact Check.

So (if that is an accurate quote), AL is not as far off as I would have assumed (since I rarely read tabloids of any description).

[Dr. Ed 2]

End the cartel BEFORE there is a revolution.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“If a honest soul who isn't a lawyer tries to...the lawyers cartel gets them put in prison.”

Is UPL a crime places? I think it’s usually a civil matter, at least in my state. Other acts that might coordinate with it can be crimes, like fraud for example. But UPL itself I’m not so sure.

“Maybe it's time to end the cartel.”

You say this, but what happens is a bunch of grifters, sovereign citizens, and know-it-all engineers who aren’t trained or bound by professional rules start giving advice and then their advisees end up being screwed over with little recourse. I mean if someone listened to Brett instead of a lawyer and ended up with a lengthy prison sentence or massive judgment that would be bad

[Michael P]

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/practicing-law-without-a-license.htm says "Most states make it a crime to practice law without a license."

Where I live, UPL is a Class I (most severely punished) misdemeanor: "confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both".

[Armchair]

"Is UPL a crime places? I"

You should read the article. It addresses your "grifters" argument. But here's the first 3 paragraphs telling a story. Seems even a "sovereign citizen" could've helped out the individual in a more timely manner. Instead....

A receptionist was explaining the firm’s rates to a caller who was clearly in distress. Ray (a pseudonym) was a single father and fast-food manager with three girls between the ages of 7 and 12. His estranged common-law wife, struggling with addiction, had moved in with a man who’d done prison time. Ray had heard she was planning to leave town with him and take the kids, and he was desperate to prevent it. Despite the urgency of his situation, the receptionist was telling Ray the firm would be unable to help—he couldn’t afford their fees.

Mitchell-Mercer reached out to Ray. It turned out he’d already been to the sheriff’s office and had consulted with a court advocate. Both said he needed an emergency custody order—and a lawyer. She knew how to help him, but she couldn’t do it on her own. Laws in all 50 states forbid what’s known as “unauthorized practice of law.” UPL statutes generally preclude the provision of legal services by nonlawyers, even old hands like Mitchell-Mercer, who, in addition to her decades as a paralegal, has served in state and national legal organizations and volunteered as a court-appointed child guardian.

For Ray, she found a workaround. On her own time, she ghostwrote a complaint and had an attorney she knew review it. Ray filed the complaint as an unrepresented litigant and got his emergency order. But by the time his daughters were located, several weeks after Mitchell-Mercer reached out, the girls were living in another state and said they’d been assaulted and sexually abused.

[David Nieporent]

Is UPL a crime places? I think it’s usually a civil matter, at least in my state. Other acts that might coordinate with it can be crimes, like fraud for example. But UPL itself I’m not so sure.

I think it's a crime almost everywhere but Arizona.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Are we talking UPL or holding oneself out to be an attorney? Because those are different things.

So in Ohio under R.C. 4705.07:

(A) No person who is not licensed to practice law in this state shall do any of the following:
(1) Hold that person out in any manner as an attorney at law;
(2) Represent that person orally or in writing, directly or indirectly, as being authorized to practice law;
(3) Commit any act that is prohibited by the supreme court as being the unauthorized practice of law.

But under R.C. 4705.99 only the first two things are misdemeanors. Not UPL in and of itself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about going back before the ABA monopoly and letting anyone who (a) passes the bar exam and (b) the moral character part that all who pass the bar are subject to -- be a lawyer.

And we wouldn't have death penalty appeals if all lawyers were competent...

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is UPL a crime places? I think it’s usually a civil matter, at least in my state.

It is definitely a crime in at least some place: if I’m bored later I might research it in more detail.

It is not, of course, a crime that is prosecuted very much, and I would put the over/under on number of people currently in prison for it right now at about 1.

[LawTalkingGuy]

My state makes a distinction between UPL and holding yourself out as an attorney, the latter of which is a crime but not the former. But I guess Florida makes UPL itself a crime. Seems like making UPL itself a crime could lead to some proof problems. Typically only the state Supreme Court can declare something is or isn’t the practice of law. Seems like it would be hard to get a jury to decide that first. And I also don’t think you could use the opinion saying something is UPL as evidence against them in a criminal case?

[Noscitur a sociis]

One of the reasons, I suspect, why you don’t see it filed very much!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Indeed. If I’m bored I might explore this more. Raises some interesting issues.

[Armchair]

"why you don’t see it filed very much"

Depends on how broadly you consider "filed".

The California State Bar has issued literally hundreds of cease and desist notices for the unauthorized practice of law over the last few years. And if you don't cease and desist, they will take you to court over it and shut you down.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public/Discipline/Nonattorney-Actions

[Noscitur a sociis]

I would not count that as a criminal charge being filed, no.

[Armchair]

And something like this count as prosecuting?

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/state-bar-shuts-down-pomona-unauthorized-law-practice

[Noscitur a sociis]

Correct, that is not an example of a criminal prosecution either.

[Armchair]

I think the issue we're running into here is what is considered a prosecution. Since much of the enforcement for these laws has been...outsourced...to the bar organizations, you won't necessarily see criminal enforcement.

That doesn't mean that large penalties aren't being paid.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This discussion started, you’ll recall, with your claim that “the lawyers cartel gets them put in prison.” That’s why we’re discussing criminal prosecution.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I'm not without some sympathy for some of your concerns. But I don't find anything wrong with the CBD letters.
And I don't see any assertion that "hundreds" have been issued.
It is unclear what the last paragraph means. Why wouldn't a repeatedly offending enterprise not get an initial letter?
The Dad's case sounds awful for him but how is the unaffordable firm the cause of the delay? If the paralegal could draft and submit the requested relief as promptly as a licensed attorney then why did she not do so?

[Armchair]

"And I don't see any assertion that "hundreds" have been issued."

I mean, I listed the link, that lists all the cases individually. There are hundreds.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Well I count 10 in LA County. In Marin County there are 3 in 37 months. California is huge. I think we disagree about the magnitude of this, or even the proriepty of it.
I don't see anything wrong with the CND letters (which we can't read, or at least I can't) in the first place.
Also the tale told suggests no remedy, just recounts a random incident that's just barely tangentially germaine to any proposed 'reform, IMHO.

[Armchair]

"Well I count 10 in LA County."
That was just page 1.

There's also a page 2. Page 3. Page 4....all the way to page 14.
Just in one county.

Keep counting

[BrotherMovesOn]

There are 14 pages (10 items per page) of ALL counties, not 14 pages of 1 county's items.
I get you think this is outrageous.
I simply disagree.

[DaveM]

Few people have the kinds of legal tangles that make investing $500 an hour in talented representation worth it -- or even necessary. For those who do, it's just the cost of doing business.

I will say that I've personally had sticker shock the very few times I've had to hire an attorney, but never regretted it in the end. By the time you need a lawyer, there's never a question you'll be feeling some pain, it's just a matter of how much.

[Brett Bellmore]

My sticker shock during my divorce came when the up front payment, which had been represented to me as likely covering the entire non-contested divorce, turned out to be a minor down payment. Apparently the most expensive person in the firm had been operating the photocopier, at one page per hour, or some such bullshit.

My ex broke my heart, my own attorney broke me financially. But I guess I should have been suspicious when I walked into the offices of ADAM, (American Divorce Association for Men) and everyone there was a woman...

[tylertusta]

One possible reform is allowing government-approved certifications and licenses that are short of a bar license that allows a new "junior" profession that handles low-level paperwork.

[Armchair]

They call those "paralegals"... But for some reason, they can't operate without a "lawyer".

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Who else would provide the guidance they presumably require?

[tylertusta]

I think we would want to keep the word "paralegal" as just being someone who assists a lawyer with prep work.

We can call the new profession "Legal Consultant" or something like that to distinguish them. Certified Legal Consultants could also be paralegals, or they could have their own independent operations, like how notaries work.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’ve been doing an originalism on a state constitutional provision. Actually working on this with an open mind for practical purposes has led me to conclude it’s still a really dumb approach to constitutional interpretation.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Care to elaborate?

[Moderation4ever]

Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. had the FDA cancel the March meeting where medical experts begin the process of selecting flu strains for winter 2025 flu vaccine. This is important because decision have to be made to give the manufacturers time to prepare the vaccines. The first Trump administration showed their ineptitude in addressing the COVID19 pandemic and they are starting down a road to repeat that ineptitude.

[Michael P]

Has that process historically done much better than flipping coins, or just picking whatever strains are most common during the southern hemisphere's most recent flu season?

[Moderation4ever]

Is that what you think infectious disease control is about flipping coins? There is a process and a reason for the process. But clearly you're in the group that thinks that all science is fake. I would like a vaccine in the fall, you can eat some horse liniment if that make you happier.

[Michael P]

Are you unable to answer my question? Or is the answer just unfavorable to your whine? Science works by proposing and testing hypotheses. You work by throwing around insults based on your imagination.

[apedad]

Why don’t you answer your own fucking question.

[Michael P]

Because I wasn't the one defending the process that was shut down. Tell me why it is better than the alternatives I suggested, neither of which require meetings.

[Sarcastr0]

Has that process historically done much better than flipping coins

'What if I reject trhe idea of expertise, and ask a bunch of lawyers on a political website to convince me otherwise.'

Yeah, no one should bother engaging with you on that. If you're not in bad faith, you're far too committed to ignorance.

[Michael P]

Maybe, for a change, you should argue against anything that remotely resembles what I said.

I think flu vaccines that match the circulating strains are good[1], but the FDA's approach has assumed both (a) they do a better job than alternative approaches and (b) the whole market benefits from central direction about which strains to put in vaccines.

M4e came in with a hot take about how RFK Jr was doing an obviously bad thing, but you and he seem to just be angry because somebody told you to be angry, not because you have any relevant knowledge to support that anger.

[1] The CDC says things like "During seasons when flu vaccine viruses are similar to circulating flu viruses, flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the risk of having to go to the doctor with flu by 40 - 60%." but is much quieter about how often that "when" is true.

[Michael P]

... and contrast that CDC claim with the study results that Reallynotbob linked below, showing only two years in the last decade where the vaccine was more than 40% effective (and earlier studies used data from fewer states). Who's acting in bad faith now?

[Sarcastr0]

You can think a whole lot of things, but your refusal to engage with any experts talking about the FDA's approach doesn't require any of the rest of us to help you do that.

RFK Jr. is a crank who came in and with no explanation kicked out the experts. You, doing no additional work, endorse that move as cool and good.

Experts aren't always right, but you should spend a moment of effort before you declare them bad.

The CDC says things like "During seasons when flu vaccine viruses are similar to circulating flu viruses, flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the risk of having to go to the doctor with flu by 40 - 60%." but is much quieter about how often that "when" is true.
I mean, at this point, why believe the CDC at all? Once you lean into facile ignorance, you should go whole hog or else you look inconsistent.

[Michael P]

You still have no point, only ignorant rage against a position that does not even deserve to be called a straw man.

[Bwaaah]

Michael P addresses the issue with a critical but reasonable eye that engages what the experts say honestly. Those who oppose him here don't engage the material with a critical perspective, as if the mere presence of an "expert" is a reason to dismiss other views. It's not even clear that Michael P significantly differs with the experts, and true to the spirit of science, I've never seen an actual scientist dismiss cogent criticism like Michael P's in the manner that you guys do.

You guys may think you're defending a scientific perspective. You're not. You're enforcing ossified social conventions, very much to the detriment of the spirit of science, of inquiry, of the practice of science.

[Noscitur a sociis]

“To what extent does the flu strain selection process actually improve the efficacy of the flu vaccine?” actually seems like a fair question, and I don’t have the slightest idea what the answer is. Do you?

(Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure RFK didn’t crunch all the numbers and make a calculated risk-benefit decision to shut it down. But I’d still like to know!)

[John F. Carr]

There is a process which does not do a good job. The flu vaccine is not very effective.

[Reallynotbob]

What's your criteria for "effective"?

In most years, vaccinated people are 35-55% less likely to contract the flu, compared with placebo. Vaccination also significantly reduces severity of disease and hospitalizations. The data is pretty well publicized.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu-vaccines-work/php/effectiveness-studies/index.html#cdc_data_surveillance_section_3-results-from-prior-flu-seasons

https://www.cdc.gov/flu-vaccines-work/php/effectivenessqa/index.html

[John F. Carr]

It is not useless. It is much less effective than most approved vaccines.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let the market for vaccines produce them -- big pharma is capable of doing this, and then selling the shots to those who want them.

[Reallynotbob]

They do.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccine-process/index.html

[Frank Drackman]

Good! so we'll have a nice "Controlled" Experiment, one year where the Experts "Select" (I would have said "Guess" but I'm not an "Expert") which Flu Strains will cause a minor illness in 99% of those who contract it, and one year where they don't.
You know how many Big Pharma Scores Lap Dances have been paid for with Flu Shots? I'll say one thing about RFK Jr, he's got Big Ones, Big Brass Ones, he should be in Real Estate, and by fucking with the big Dog of big Pharma he's risking the same fate as his Dad,

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Right Frank. Let approach this like the Trump administration approached COVID19. Their basic approach is "we hope it goes away".

I also remind you of some economics. Minor illness still means there will be medical cost, loss of productivity, and missed school days. You can balance these against the cost of the flu shots, most of which are covered by health insurance and have already been figured into people's coverage for 2025. So, we can stiff Big Pharma and line the pockets of the health insurance companies instead.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Uncle sucker eats the cost of the vaccine, that "cost" is merely for the injection...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wrong. Trump actively wishcasted it away in the early days:

“We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.”

“I think the virus is going to be—it’s going to be fine.”

“Looks like by April, you know in theory when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”

“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA… the Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”

“CDC and my Administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus.”

“I think that's a problem that’s going to go away… They have studied it. They know very much. In fact, we’re very close to a vaccine.”

“The 15 (cases in the US) within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.”

“We're going very substantially down, not up.”

“Well, we're testing everybody that we need to test. And we're finding very little problem. Very little problem.”

"This is a flu. This is like a flu."

“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

etc.

[Reallynotbob]

Unfortunately, the flu doesn't choose its evolutionary path in such a way that it'll give you "mild" and "severe" strains on command. I think we've asked nicely, but the DNA won't write us back.

[Armchair]

The Democrat - Non-Profit Scam.

1) Get your wife to "work" at a small non-profit
2) As Senator, direct millions in grants to that small non-profit
3) Have those grants in part offset costs to pay your wife.
4) Have the rest be used to lobby and donate to your campaign.
5) Profit.
6) Sucker the US taxpayers for their money

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ethics-watchdog-flags-senator-helping-make-millions-wifes-green-nonprofit

7) Hire Sarcastr0's "non-profit" Lawyer friends to help out.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible critical thinking.

Taking a conservative watchdog's allegation as fully proven and then massively generalizing is truly interrogating your own biases before diving in.

Do you even know what a non-profit is?

[ThePublius]

Sarcasrt0, why do you reflexively jump to the defense of every single prog, dem, and liberal? There really is something here. Google "Sheldon Whitehouse" and then click on "News."

For example,

Ethics Complaint Targets Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse Over Millions in Grants to Wife’s Nonprofit

"Federal records show that since 2008, Ocean Conservancy has received over $14.2 million in federal grants. In 2024 alone, the nonprofit was awarded a $5.2 million grant from NOAA and another $1.7 million EPA, both for marine debris cleanup projects. The NOAA grant was funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which Whitehouse supported, while the EPA grant came from an appropriations bill that he also backed.

Ocean Conservancy has spent millions lobbying on ocean and climate-related issues—priorities that align with Whitehouse’s work in the Senate. A longtime member and current Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he also co-founded the Senate’s Oceans Caucus.

Financial disclosures indicate that since 2010, Ocean Conservancy has paid Sandra Whitehouse $2,686,800 through direct employment and consulting fees."

Don't you even recognize, if not corruption, the appearance of impropriety, when you see it?

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe it's that I know something about grants integrity on the funder side, but this is dumb.

Grants are awarded competitively. I'm all for upping what counts as a conflict of interest in Congress, but funding a grants program that later awards a grant to an org that includes a Senator's wife is not a conflict, absent more evidence.

If there was not a full and fair competition? Fine. But looking only at the outcome doesn't cut it when it comes to a conflict.

At best it might point to an investigation.

Ocean Conservancy has spent millions lobbying on ocean and climate-related issues—priorities that align with Whitehouse’s work in the Senate.
If their lobbying arm is the same as their research arm, the OC might have a conflict. The Senator does not.

Voting to fund things that you like is kind of part of a Senator's job.

[ThePublius]

You're funny. Nothing to see here, move along. Like there there was any corruption in DC among congress people.

[Sarcastr0]

I gave you a detailed explanation.

You have returned with an appeal to incredulity.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If their lobbying arm is the same as their research arm"

LOL

Its the same organization! Its like treating my left and right arms as something separate.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob doesn't understand very common internal controls.

That tracks.

And, again, even if that is pretext, it's not a problem for the Senator, it's a problem for the organization.

[Kazinski]

Wasn't there already a discussion about how grants for science are padded with overhead to fund the general budget of the parent organization?

[Sarcastr0]

1. An utterly new subject.
This isn't even a research grant!

2. No, there wasn't a conversation about that. Because no one here knew anything about the negotiation. Lots of claims and accusations, but no support for any of it.

[Armchair]

And yet more on government waste...

The Biden-era effort to bring broadband to rural America has been a multibillion-dollar bust. A brewing scandal in Lovelock brings the matter home to Nevada.

More than three years ago, Congress allocated $42 billion under the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment Program to ensure that every American household could connect online. Nevada’s share was $417 million. As of November, “not even one home has been connected with internet service as a result of a program,” the National Review reported.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-free-rural-internet-money-goes-missing-in-nevada-3311192/

It's incredible....

[Brett Bellmore]

"As of November, “not even one home has been connected with internet service as a result of a program,” the National Review reported."

It's a complicated story, actually. Starlink was competing for that money, and got cheated out of it by a hostile Biden administration, but they DID deliver, they have a lot of customers in Nevada.

The cheating consisted of denying the money on account of not having already met a benchmark they weren't supposed to have met yet.

I guess getting the service without the government paying for it, through a bait and switch, represents an unusual level of government efficiency.

[Sarcastr0]

You are mad about 3 years, but what was the expected timeline?

[Armchair]

You don't even read the links...

"The Reno Gazette Journal reported this month, “The state of Nevada gave $9 million to a Reno company to bring high-speed internet to rural Nevada, but the money has disappeared and it’s unclear what happened to it.” The plan involved digging trenches along Interstate 15 near Lovelock, 90 miles northeast of Reno, for internet cable.

Various contractors and subcontractors are now suing each other over payments related to the work, the paper reported. The missing money was part of an investment from the Nevada Department of Transportation that went to Uprise Fiber out of Reno in May 2023.

State Sen. Ira Hansen, a Republican whose large district includes Lovelock, said the contract between NDOT and the Reno company — approved by the state attorney general’s office and the top state transportation official — lacked the protections inherent in such agreements. “The contract itself is totally flawed,” he told the Gazette Journal. “I’ve never seen anything quite like it.” He added, “They did not require performance bonds, payment bonds, prevailing wage reports or even an inspection of the work.”

[Sarcastr0]

So from $42 billion to $9 million.

I'll take that as acknowledging my point.

Sure there's fraud and waste. But you will find as you look for it that the amounts go down the more you care about actually proving it.

[Armchair]

The only acknowledging is that you don't bother to actually read the links before dumbly commenting.

Some of us are broadly read and actually read things. You can't even imagine doing it.

Here, this is more your style of reading.

https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

[DaveM]

The word, "equity" in the very name of the bill gives the game away. Yet another DEI scam.

[Bwaaah]

"Equity" is a great red flag word. It was rarely used outside legal contexts until neoracists needed to trash the concept of equality. Used as a keyword search term, excepting discussions of law, it's almost synonymous with "contemporary neoracial bullshit."

A few months ago, when I used "equity" as a search term for filtering NSF grant abstracts, I hit the mother lode of DEI grants...thousands totaling around $3 billion. It's hard to use the word "equity" legitimately in an abstract of a grant for scientific research.

[Sarcastr0]

This is about rural America. You're being pretty simplistic.

Not simplistic; reactionary.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, the REA, bringing electricity to rural America, was far more difficult. The poles are already there, phone service and copper wires are already there.

I had high-speed internet on century-old TELCO 3-wire twist with cloth insulation inside the building.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Michael Dorf responds to Paul Cassell regarding the Glossip case: https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/02/the-unsubstantiated-allegations-against.html

Cassell did offer possible reasons, including an argument that the AG's position would help him politically. It did seem a stretch.

[SRG2]

Good article, thanks!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Absolutely wild that Thomas would cast aspersions on a litigating position because of their public communications and personal/donor relationships. Has he ever thought about those things when it is right-wing activist litigation?

Also hilarious that Reed Smith is described merely as a firm dedicated to "fighting the death penalty." It's a massive law firm that does pro bono work after defending companies for environmental disasters. Not exactly a bunch of libs. Even so, if you actually want a death penalty case investigated well, you'd hire practitioners with extensive experience in post-conviction work. That kind of experience only comes from lawyers who fight the death penalty! Does he think they should have grabbed some estate planning lawyer off the street?

[ThePublius]

hobie glossary:

hill·bil·ly
/ˈhilˌbilē/
nounNorth American
noun: hillbilly; plural noun: hillbillies
1.
derogatory•informal
an unsophisticated country person, associated originally with the remote regions of the Appalachians.
2.
old-fashioned term for country music.
"he played sweet hillbilly guitar"

hay·seed
/ˈhāˌsēd/
noun
noun: hayseed; noun: hay-seed; plural noun: hayseeds; plural noun: hay-seeds
1.
grass seed obtained from hay.
2.
informal•North American
a person from the country, especially a simple, unsophisticated one.
"notices of agricultural sales are an irresistible lure for hicks and hayseeds"

[hobie]

My childish supremacist insults are on rotation. Today it's hillbilly

[Kazinski]

As a proud graduate of the University of Arkansas identify with that insult.

I think back to my days going for picnics and swimming in the lake at Hog Scald holler in the Ozarks and smile.

I grew up in California, but there's no place but a swimming pool that has water as warm and clear as the lakes in the Ozark.

[John F. Carr]

Under New Zealand law, owners of a volcano are not responsible for guaranteeing it does not erupt. A judge reversed convictions related to the deaths of 22 tourists in 2019. The tour operators, not the land owner, owed a duty to the tourists.

This case was governed by workplace safety law.

I don't know who is financially liable. A lot of personal injury cases that would be resolved in court in America are instead resolved under a compulsory insurance scheme in New Zealand.

https://apnews.com/article/whakaari-white-island-zealand-volcano-overturned-tourism-df8826fd5d792402848a2f3561446ce2

[Gasman]

"Survivors told the trial in emotional testimony during the company’s 2023 trial that they had not been told the active volcano was dangerous when they paid to visit it."

People need to assume personal responsibility to distinguish between visiting a volcano at Disney, and visiting a real volcano. The presence of actual risk is a feature, not a bug, in this case. Sometimes a feature proves deadly, but hey, whatever floats their boat.

[hobie]

I find it interesting that a volcano can be privately owned. Need to check for Bond villains.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's land, if there's a volcano on privately owned land, is not the volcano privately owned?

Bond villains prefer extinct volcanoes, it's the Incredibles villains who like the live ones.

[ThePublius]

Fuck count as of 08:36 EST

(not counting quoted instances)

Sarcastr0: 3
Frank Drackman: 5
Ed Grinberg: 1

[ReaderY]

Frank Drackman has gotten laid?

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck off, tone police.

You complain we're not more civil, and then this is your metric?

You, the one who thinks we should stop having the UK as an ally because they're a tyranny.

Yeah, can't imagine why people don't take to your opinions with the proper decorum.

This is a thing on other boards they call 'calm hitlering.' Concentrating on superficialities as the core problem while in the meantime posting substantively bad things.

[ThePublius]

You're foaming at the mouth!

The fuck count is simply a metric of civility, or lack thereof. My expression of opinions, on the UK, for example, are not uncivil, except in your mind.

On the UK, thing, yes, I think they have become totalitarian, and are not only suppressing, but punishing free speech. Thankfully J.D. Vance expressed that to Starmer's face yesterday.

Can you imagine a police door knock due to you criticizing a politician online? [1]

Can you imagine a criminal prosecution for praying in your own home (Scotland)? [2]

[ThePublius]

[1]

Knock knock, it's the Thought Police: As thousands of criminals go uninvestigated, detectives call on a grandmother. Her crime? She went on Facebook to criticise Labour councillors at the centre of the 'Hope you Die' WhatsApp scandal exposed by the MoS

[ThePublius]

[2]

Praying at home could be a crime ‘depending on who’s passing the window’
Architect of ban on protests outside abortion clinics in Scotland says such an act could theoretically fall foul of new legislation

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0 is grouchy. Those Monday emails, you see. Emotionally taxing, and it takes days to recover, ThePublius.

[Bob from Ohio]

He just writes "shit posting on government time" 5 times.

[ThePublius]

An expletive, a non-sequitur, and Godwin's Law all in one reply. I'd call that a hat trick.

[hobie]

This post is chilling speech!

[ThePublius]

It's a threat to democracy!

[Bwaaah]

Rev?

[Michael P]

RFK Jr and Texas antivaxxers cause a measles outbreak to exceed 175 cases since October in (checks notes) Ontario.

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2025/02/27/canada-Ontario-measles-outbreak/4321740708228/

[Longtobefree]

May we assume you have checked that none of the cases are related to persons who illegally crossed a border and avoided health checks, along with all other screenings?
Each and every one was directed by RFK to refuse the vaccine?

[Michael P]

The government described the index case ("patient zero") as being "travel-related" but I have seen no further description of the travel or how it was "related".

[Noscitur a sociis]

You may want to read Michael P’s post again, all the way to the end this time.

[Reallynotbob]

According to the article, 97% were unvaccinated. So...

1) This yet again demonstrates that anti-vaxxers endanger even those who choose to be vaxxinated because they undermine the backstop of herd immunity.

2) I'm not sure what point you're making. This is more evidence that RFK and the Texas antivaxxers are fools.

[ReaderY]

A current tactic Trump and Musk are using is to claim that Musk has no power at all. They even found a figurehead to make DOGE at all. He merely recommends things that agencies have no obligation to carry out.

This should be a familiar defense. When the Don suggests the family would be better off without so-and-so, he’s just offering an opinion. If the family hitman decides to wack the guy, it’s his own idea and on him. And if he always follows the Don’s recommendations, it’s just a coincidence.

The courts certainly aren’t used to attempts to run the federal government like a mafioso. But they’d better get used to it. Just as they’d better get used to a world where every discretionary decision is made solely based on personal interests.

It’s

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure power and influence are different things. He has the power to make recommendations, anyway.

[Bwaaah]

But does he have the "authority," or the "right?"

David? David?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure everybody under the sun has the authority/right to make recommendations. Hotspur's caveat applies, of course.

[ReaderY]

They even found a figurehead to make the head of DOGE.

[John F. Carr]

Formally, most government actions are taken by heads of agencies and by people to whom authority has been delegated. If Trump suggests the EPA do something evil, it's the EPA that does something evil and it's the EPA that should be sued. Ordinarily it doesn't matter if there was pressure from above.

If your termination notice was under the authority of Musk or OMB, it may be ineffective. If your termination notice was under the authority of the cabinet member you work for, pack your bags.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He merely recommends things that agencies have no obligation to carry out."

Ever hear of the White House Chief of Staff, for instance. She calls up a cabinet officer and tells him to do something, its going to be done. Musk is no different.

[Michael P]

Under Donald Trump, DC's law enforcers are finally shutting down drug dealers.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/illegal-pot-shops-closed-dc/65-998b84ce-5fff-4b79-9848-dad212468719

[SRG2]

Why is that a good thing?

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

Because drugs are bad, mmmkay?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

January is named after the Roman god Janus, the watcher of doorways. March is named after Mars, the god of war.

What about February? Merriam Webster:

Middle English Februarie, from Old English Februarius, from Latin, from Februa, plural, feast of purification

[Moderation4ever]

Let be real here. February is the shortest month, and no god really wanted to get the short month. They wanted big months, especially those with 31 days. Augustus Caesar grabbed a big one for himself also. He wasn't a god but likely thought of himself as one.

[Artifex]

Hmmmm, I wonder if Trump could be prevailed on to pardon Edward Snowden and while he is at it, end the abuses that Snowden complained about ? After all, Snowden is a more sympathetic figure than Ross Ulbricht.

I must admit that I feel a bit like a kid at Christmas complaining: "... but I want a pony too!"

[ThePublius]

Reflecting on the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, it sure smells fishy.

The ineptitude of the Secret Service during the prep and through the incident is so extreme as to be incredible. An organization like that can't be that bad by accident.

It has recently been revealed that it was a local SWAT team member's shot that took initially Crooks down, but the kill shot was fired by a Secret Service sniper. The rooftop where Crooks was positioned was almost immediately hosed down. And Crook's body was almost immediately cremated. I don't know if there even a cursory autopsy, but there certainly was no toxicology exam.

Private investigators on the case assert that Crooks did not act alone.

The FBI is apparently suppressing info about the incident.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/02/28/the-fbi-is-also-reportedly-interfering-in-another-investigation-n2652984

[tylertusta]

An organization like that can't be that bad by accident.

Actually, the Secret Service is just that bad. What's amazing is that it took this long for someone to take a shot at someone as prominent as Trump.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When it comes down to gross incompetence versus malice with the Federal Government, the smart money will always be on gross incompetence.

Now as to killing the already-disabled sniper, that would be easier than having to question him, and making it impossible to look for accomplices is easier than actually doing so, but that doesn't mean there was an actual plot.

[Brett Bellmore]

The secret service IS that bad, but there were additional factors at work in Butler, such as a lot of SS pulled off the Trump detail to guard a nearby appearance by Ms Biden. So they weren't just under-manned, a lot of the people they did have were temps.

But there's still enough that went on that day that doesn't pass the smell test.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you saying it wasn't God's plan after all?

[ReaderY]

I think that Justice Alito’s fundamental approach to religion questions - to use Equal Protection analogs and discrimination arguments - has a fundamental flaw. I’ve often argued that religion is sui generis and is not, as Professor Volokh has contended, to be treated like just another form of speech. But I’m going to make a similar argument regarding Alito’s equal protection analogs arguments, which tend to turn religion into simply another kind of identity group. It isn’t that either.

Justice Alito’s basic position turns on animosity type arguments. If religion is excluded from some benefit or othe, it is because people have animosity towards religion, or some religions, and animosity is wrong.

The fundamental problem with this position is that hostility to other religions has been as common in the history of religion as the practice of sacrifice that the Supreme Court recognized in Lukumi Bablo Aye. Religions, and denominations within each other, have a long history of declaring each other heretics, blasphemers, and so on.

Thus I think Justice Alito’s oft-repeated references to Protestant opposition to Catholics in the 19th Century is off the mark. Protestants opposed Catholics as a religious practice. A protected religious practice. The Religion Clauses give them a right to do so. It’s part of religion to think that only folks who agree with us are going to get into Heaven. However much Justice Alito may think it the better approach, Government cannot establish universalism as a religious belief.

This means that when people don’t want their money spent to support people of different religions, they are not acting out of animosity. They are expressing their religion.

It seems to me that failure to acknowledge that opposition to other religions is a religious practice, a practice as legitimately religious as sacrifice, represents a fundamental flaw in Justice Alito’s reasoning. Because it’s a religious practice, religion is a square peg that can’t be put in the round hole of ordinary identity politics and Equal Protection analysis. When Protestants say they don’t want their money spent on Catholic schools, they are asking for a religious accommodation.

I think it has to be analyzed that way.

[Josh R]

When Protestants say they don’t want their money spent on Catholic schools, they are asking for a religious accommodation.

The religious accommodation (in your view) by the government of its Protestant constituents targets those who practice Catholicism even if it is not motivated by animus. Doesn't that accommodation trigger strict scrutiny under Employment Division v. Smith?

[ReaderY]

A general rule that government doesn’t fund religious schools targets no religion in particular. Alito’s view is that it reflects a general hostility towards religion and further, Blaine amendments reflect a hidden hostility towards Catholics . I’m arguing that they can at least equally be regarded as an accommodation of religion. It seems to me that because the “animosity” is itself religiously motivated, a standard “animosity” analysis is inappropriate and instead the Religion Clauses have to be interpreted in a sui generis fashion, without regarding religion either as merely a kind of speech or merely a kind of demographic identity.

If we remove Alito’s sense of rage and hurt at the Protestants being so grossly unfair to the Catholics, the atmosphere in which the analysis is conducted changes.

[Josh R]

No way is the Court going to agree that strict scrutiny (which is required by Smith when religious group A is targeted) is overcome by by accommodating the Free Exercise of religious group B.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's more than that -- I prefer to look at the historical backstory that is being ignored.

The 1st Amendment was NEVER intended to apply to states having an established church -- most did in 1787. VA was Anglican, PA was Quaker, MD was Catholic, and MA was Congregationalist. None would ever have agreed to give up their own established churches -- John Adams' father in law was a minister!

No, the fear was that one of the big states, VA or MA, would impose its church on the rest of the states.... (MA essentially includes CT & NH, and did include ME -- all were Congregationalist.)

In Massachusetts, the town church was an entity of the town government until 1855, funded by the property tax, and the minister hired and fired by a vote of town meeting.

Irish immigration led to this ending -- the "deal" was that public money wasn't funding anyone's church -- and that became Blaine's issue. If the Catholics don't have to pay for the Protestant church, then the Protestants don't have to pay for the Catholic church either -- and these Catholic schools were being run by the Catholic church.

That led to this: https://thomasnast.com/cartoons/the-american-river-ganges/ -- note both the upside down US flag on the school (a distress signal) and the papal flags on the cathedral. Protestants thought they were under siege -- and arguably were, as the once Protestant theocracy of Massachusetts is now the second most Catholic state in the country.

But I see the Blaine Amendments as being people who had only recently been told that tax dollars couldn't support their own church objecting to taxes supporting someone else's.

[David Nieporent]

The 1st Amendment was NEVER intended to apply to states having an established church -- most did in 1787. VA was Anglican, PA was Quaker, MD was Catholic, and MA was Congregationalist. None would ever have agreed to give up their own established churches -- John Adams' father in law was a minister!

Dr. Ed strikes again. Pennsylvania never had an established church — certainly not the Quakers! — and while Maryland did, it was the Anglican Church, not Catholicism.

[John F. Carr]

On this day in 1993, ATF agents executed a warrant in Waco, Texas to search for weapons on which the $200 NFA tax had not been paid. By late April approximately 80 people were dead, mostly Branch Davidians. Janet Reno took responsibility, by which she meant she didn't want people to blame her.

In this century we still have militias and cults and standoffs but there is less shooting.

[ThePublius]

First, I think the tax should be struck down as unconstitutional.

As for Waco, agents could have easily grabbed David Koresh, who was the person apparently sought, during one of his many trips to town, when he was alone.

The siege and massacre are a national disgrace. Like Ruby Ridge.

[ThePublius]

In fact, get rid of the NFA (1934), GCA'68, and the FOPA (1986).

A lot of FOPA is good, and a reaction to ATF harassment of FFLs under GCA68, but this provision stinks (thanks Chuck Schumer):

The Act also contained a provision that banned the sale to civilians of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."[3]: 85 

Regarding GCA68, no account is made since then, 57 years ago, for technology. With NICS, state online licensing databases, and so on, why can't firearms be purchased online and shipped directly to the purchaser? And why can't USPS be used? And why can't I buy a handgun out of my home state, but a rifle or shotgun is O.K.? And so on.

(By the way, as an Type 03 FFL, collector of curios and relics, license holder, I can purchase any gun online or otherwise and have it shipped directly to me as long as it's 50 or more years old, or on "the list.". Many of those guns are just the same as current production, if not identical.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which is safer -- a 50 year old car with 200,000 miles on it, or an identical car that is only 2 years and only has 20,000 miles on it?

Why wouldn't this be true of guns?

[ThePublius]

That's rather silly. I bought a 51 year old Colt Commercial 1911 that was a "safe queen." It had probably had no more than 100 rounds through it since new.

Many, many guns are hardly, if ever used. Even fewer carried.

And guns don't age like cars.

[John F. Carr]

Guns have fewer and mostly simpler parts.

How much of a pre-1968 machine gun can be replaced before it becomes illegal? The serial number has to remain. Anything else?

[Frank Drackman]

You can replace everything except the registered part

[Frank Drackman]

In 1988 bought an Austrian Mannlincher in 8mmx56 for $60, 1000 rounds of ammo was about the same (try to even find it now)loved it so much bought a Cavalry version a few months later for $90( that’ll give your arm a kick) since they were built before 1896 didn’t require an FFL, delivered by the mail, no 4473, packed in the German Version of Cosmoline, appeared unfired

[John F. Carr]

I remember the authorities took out one of the wildlife refuge protesters when he tried to go into town instead of blowing up the refuge buildings. And they didn't do a Waco-style assault on Cliven Bundy and his people either. Definitely a more peaceful time than the 1990s.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"As for Waco, agents could have easily grabbed David Koresh, who was the person apparently sought, during one of his many trips to town, when he was alone."

Not only did the local sheriff offer to arrest Koresh for them, he had an open telephone line into the compound at the height of the shooting and offered to negotiate an end for the ATF, and they refused.

[Longtobefree]

Local law enforcement had made several visits to the compound, always in daylight, arriving in a marked patrol car, driven by uniformed officers. They were greeted at the door, and allowed access to any area. (most complaints were firearms related; reports of machine gun fire, which was actually just rifle fire from multiple people at a firing range)
Yet somehow the feds decided it was a good idea to have a bunch of black-clad, masked guys try to crawl through a window in the middle of the night.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yet somehow the feds decided it was a good idea to have a bunch of black-clad, masked guys try to crawl through a window in the middle of the night."

You mean "fight", I presume?

[Brett Bellmore]

"On this day in 1993, ATF agents executed a warrant in Waco, Texas to search for weapons on which the $200 NFA tax had not been paid."

Knowing, mind you, that one of the residents actually legally owned NFA weapons, so that the fact that automatic fire had been heard at the site wasn't evidence of anything. It still hasn't been proven that there were any NFA violations, the agency asserted their were, but refused to allow the alleged full auto conversions to be examined by anybody outside the agency.

The BATF was looking at a really nasty hearing in Congress due to the exposure of their participation in the "Good Old Boys' Roundup", an annual racist gathering of federal law enforcement. Despite official efforts to whitewash the scandal, things were not looking good, and they desperately needed a high publicity triumph prior to the hearing.

Thus "Operation Showtime", and the rest is history.

The government's slaughter there, and the failure to do anything about it, was the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing.

And I really hate to say it, but the OK bombing is probably why the federal government stopped committing atrocities like Waco. (Waco and Ruby ridge just being the ones that got the most press, there were other cases where federal law enforcement 'accidentally' burned people alive after a standoff.) Apparently McVeigh was right: The only thing that would change things was the feds learning that sort of violence wasn't a one way street.

[Brett Bellmore]

No More Wacos by Kopel and Blackman is a good reference on the event.

I have a personal connection to Waco; At the time I was tangentially involved with the Michigan Militia, and I got an invite to go along with them to Waco; The plan was to march in unarmed with cameras running, to document conditions in the compound before the feds had time to falsify anything the way they had at Ruby Ridge, and rescue the Davidians.

I begged off, not being the least bit confident that the feds wouldn't gun us down even if we were unarmed.

So, if you're wondering why the feds suddenly decided to end the waiting game, and rush a disastrous confrontation? Wonder no more. In a couple more days the standoff would have ended much less favorably from their perspective...

[Dr. Ed 2]

"the OK bombing is probably why the federal government stopped committing atrocities like Waco."

You gotta admit that the building burning flat on national TV (back when everyone watched network TV) got people's attention.

This was 1993, Rodney King had been 1991. Random civilians could now take broadcast quality video, and broadcast it themselves when YouTube arrived in 2005. It's now possible to upload it from a smartphone in the field.

This changed things...

NB: I know that the Waco footage was shot by local TV stations -- it's that they couldn't have done that in 1983. Everything had gotten so much smaller and more portable.

[David Nieporent]

NB: I know that the Waco footage was shot by local TV stations -- it's that they couldn't have done that in 1983. Everything had gotten so much smaller and more portable.

A number of years ago at the VC, someone announced that 911 didn't exist until the mid-1990s. If my memory serves, that was Dr. Ed. This is reminiscent of that. Does he think — like my teenage daughter (who I'm reasonably confident is trolling me) — that there was no electricity or technology in the 1980s? I assume him that local TV stations could indeed shoot and broadcast footage in 1983.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If my memory serves, that was Dr. Ed.

It was, of course.

[David Nieporent]

That last sentence was supposed to say "I assure him," in case that wasn’t clear.

[Magister]

Would it make you feel better that you still have fewer typos than your political ally Sarcastr0? 😀

(Anticipating the response "No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.")

[John F. Carr]

Oklahoma City was a successful terrorist attack. I'm going by the legal definition: terrorism is use of force to influence government policy or retaliate for government policy. In the other direction the September 11 attacks were not successful. The United States got more involved in the Muslim world. As Toby Keith put it, "We'll put a boot in your ass. It's the American way."

If "cultists and militia types" had been seen as a bloc in the 1990s the government might have felt obliged to put a boot in their ass too. With McVeigh and Nichols seen as acting on their own it was sufficient to prosecute them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they WERE working on their own. As I said, I had some Michigan Militia connections, and were they ever pissed. All the work they'd put into getting normalized and going mainstream, and McVeigh blew it up along with that building, giving the government all the excuse it needed to come down on the militia movement like a ton of bricks.

And the joke was, they'd kicked him out the door, he wasn't even a member! It was a standing rule at the time that the moment somebody started talking about breaking the law, you'd immediately kick them out.

[bernard11]

The Michigan Militia. Saints. All of them.

[John 4]

"I had some Michigan Militia connections"

Shocker.

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

Infamously, Biden's ATF director was posing for pictures with burnt up Waco kids.

Nice guy.

[David Nieporent]

What did Steve Dettelbach have to do with Waco?

[Brett Bellmore]

Nope, he did not. Nobody seems to know who that was in the picture, except that it wasn't Chipman.

[Moderation4ever]

We still have no-knock raids that end up with people getting killed. Including innocent people, like Breonna Taylor, when cops get the wrong address.

BTW - don't forget when Philidelphia police blew up a city block to get a group of blacks. May 13, 1985

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, we do, and the use of no-knock raids should be dramatically scaled back, reserved for genuine hostage situations.

And, yeah, the MOVE bombing was just as much of an outrage.

[SRG2]

On what constitutional basis can Trump unilaterally impose tariffs or offer "gold card" naturalisation? Both seem to fall within Congressional power under Art 1.

[ThePublius]

On naturalization I found this thoughtful post on Quora:

The President cannot do so directly, but the closest thing that exists is 8 USC §1427(f), which allow certain members of the executive branch to naturalize aliens who have “made an extraordinary contribution to the national security of the United States or to the conduct of United States intelligence activities”. If the President considered someone deserving of this benefit, they normally should not have any trouble convincing the relevant subordinate officials to issue the determination. There are however two important limitations on this power:

It can only be used to confer citizenship on up to 5 people per year.
The beneficiaries must have lived in the US for at least 1 year. However, it's not difficult to satisfy this criterion, by paroling them into the US if they don't already live in the US.
If the President were to act in a manner that would be viewed as abusing this provision of law, which I suspect is a holdover from the Cold War era, Congress would probably repeal it in short order.

[Riva]

They hide that kind of thing in laws. Those things passed by Congress and signed by the President.

[SRG2]

That isn't "unilateral", now is it?

[Riva]

Is this your contention? That the President when acting pursuant to the Constitution and statutory authority is somehow acting in an improper “unilateral” way? Uh, that’s kind of the system we have in this country, in fact the President has a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. If this is somehow offensive “unilateral”conduct to you, I guess your argument really is to eliminate the executive branch. In other words, discard the Constitution.

[SRG2]

You're determined to misunderstand, aren't you?

If the Constitution gives a general power to Congress and following legislation the president executes the law, that is not unilateral. If a power is given to Congress and the Executive acts without Congress having exercised that power, that is unilateral. If the Constitution gives the Executive power, then an act under that power is likewise unilateral and properly so.

But in this case both the general power to impose tariffs and to make rules on naturalisation fall to Congress so when the president imposes tariffs or offers an Oligocard, the question is whether he has the unilateral power to do so under the Constitution.

[Riva]

Now we're going in circles. My intial response obviously (if admittedly facetlously) was a reference to the President's legal authority. Authority of which you are apparently ignorant but which exists notwithstanding your ignorance.

[SRG2]

Nah, both naturalisation and tariffs initially fall under S1, and the Executive can only execute laws, it can't make them. Try again.

[Riva]

I didn’t realize I was exchanging comments with the mentally handicapped. I apologize for the confusion and understand your inherent inability to comprehend that the “laws” referenced above was a reference to enacted law. You can go play now.

[ThePublius]

"The executive branch has the authority to impose tariffs through two different processes. First, a series of Trade Acts—enacted between the 1930s and 1970s—empower the executive branch to proclaim tariff rates to protect American workers and consumers from unfair trade practices. This is the authority that empowered President Trump to impose limited tariffs on products like solar panels and washing machines during his first administration. To invoke this authority, an investigation is initiated by either the Department of Commerce or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to determine whether tariffs are necessary to remedy unfair trade practices. These investigations take some minimal time—including a 30-60 day notice-and-comment period that allows the public an opportunity to raise concerns—meaning that these authorities cannot realistically be used to impose new tariffs on trading partners on day one.

Instead, if President Trump wishes to impose tariffs more quickly, he will likely need to invoke the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. Under the IEEA, Congress grants authority to the executive branch to address “unusual and extraordinary” peacetime threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. In May, 2019, President Trump threatened to use the IEEPA to implement escalating tariffs on Mexican imports in May 2019. He withdrew this threat after Mexico committed to specific measures aimed at curbing immigration. "

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-could-impose-tariffs-on-day-one-with-few-checks-on-that-power/

[SRG2]

Thanks - that does seem like a violation of separation of powers, no?

[ThePublius]

Well, IANAL, but it seems that congress has delegated powers to the executive.

"The Supreme Court has sometimes declared categorically that “the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated,”51 and on other occasions has recognized more forthrightly, as Chief Justice Marshall did in 1825, that, although Congress may not delegate powers that “are strictly and exclusively legislative,” it may delegate “powers which [it] may rightfully exercise itself.”52"

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/04-delegation-legislative-power.html

So, it's at least as legal as congress delegating powers to subordinate agencies.

[M L]

The Bezos Post is announcing a new tagline, "Free Minds and Free Markets"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/26/washington-post-bezos-opinion-trump-market-liberty/42c98fe8-f46d-11ef-acb5-08900d482a27_story.html

[SRG2]

This is more libertarian than right, and while free markets are of the (economic) right, they are decidedly not part of the Trumpist GOP, nor have free minds anything to do with MAGA - quite the contrary.

[M L]

I dislike a lot of things about Trump but he is entertaining.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c625ex282zzt?post=asset%3Ab7ebab76-592b-49fd-9a1c-073e86c2a2bd

[Reallynotbob]

He even commented that it would make good TV.

[ThePublius]

duplicate post

[Estragon]

Any of our Milei fanboys around here take a bath on $Libra?

[John F. Carr]

The Fourth Circuit has reaffirmed its view that universal injunctions are good and refused to narrow such an injunction against Trump's restriction of birthright citizenship.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/trump-loses-attempt-to-stop-courts-pause-on-birthright-order

[ThePublius]

Everything expires this year.

LTC: $100 (good 6 years)
Passport $130 (good 10 years)
FFL Type 03: $30 (good 3 years)
Driver's license: $60 (good 5 years)

If I was 70 the LTC would be free (Massachusetts)

I think all of these things should be "free," i.e., absorbed by the government and subsidized by taxes.

Just saying.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that'd make voter ID issues go away.

But a lot on the right have number of the beast issues.

[ThePublius]

I sincerely doubt anyone who wants to vote doesn't have ID because of cost. But in Mass, anyway, a Mass ID card is $25 for 5 years, and there's a fund to pay this fee for people who can't afford it.

[Sarcastr0]

It would make voter ID issues go away, whether or not you think they are a thing.

[ducksalad]

Depends what you mean by issues.

Perhaps it would satisfy whatever issues you have with it. But we have absolutely free EIC (election identification certificates) in TX, yet the complaints that voter ID is vote suppression continue. So whatever the complainers think (rightly or wrongly) the issue is, making the ID free doesn't make it go away.

[Mr. Bumble]

I know you know nothing is free. Why should I pay for your passport or whatever? Thinking thinks are "free" is what gave us a $36 trillion debt.
On another note did you try those store brand English muffins yet?
I tried on several times but always go back to Thomas'.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. Well, the idea of a license and a fee to exercise a constitutional right is repugnant to me. And, yes, I know nothing is free. But I'm paying taxes, too.

The store brand are better for sandwiches and eggs Benedict than Thomas', as the halves are symmetrical when you split them. Not so Thomas'. But Thomas' are better in tasted and texture.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree all these things are personal choices so why would the public be expected to pay for them.

[ThePublius]

Let me ask you. People choose to come to the United States and we fly them all over the place, bus them places, put them up, feed them, and so forth - no cost to them. Is that fair to me and you?

Some things should be done "for the good." And we should never have to pay to exercise our constitutional rights.

[Moderation4ever]

Stop the what-aboutisms. We could go on forever on that line. The government does provide services some of which are cover broadly through taxes, but many services are provided at a direct cost. Most direct costs are related to individual choice. Why should I cover your carry permit? Why should you cover my bike license?

[ThePublius]

The carry license should be free, if it exists at all (29 states are constitutional carry at this point), because it's to exercise a consitutional right. There should be no fee associated with this, just as you don't have to pay a fee to speak, go to church, be free from warrantless searches, and so on.

When you say 'bike' do you mean bicycle? Where would one need a bicycle license?

[ThePublius]

Oh, yea, I had to renew my boat Certificate of Documentation - annually, $26.

I guess I shouldn't complain about these costs if I have a yacht, should I? 🙂

[Michael P]

By default, the people who use a service should bear the cost, and the people applying for these IDs or licenses are the most obvious "users" in that sense.

My state has a mechanism for the indigent to get a photo ID paid by tax dollars instead, which is reasonable given that others who want to check photo IDs also benefit from that particular case. The same isn't true for firearm licenses or even a passport.

Bur Gaslight0 is wrong about tax-paid IDs ending complaints about voter ID. Bad-faith fans of voting fraud have complained that it's too hard for lots of people to get to the DMV, so we can't expect that. (They mostly make this complaint about very sparsely populated counties in Texas, where sparsity is why it's hard to get to the DMV, so "lots of people" is debatable. But they sure don't accept that Dallas or Houston should require photo IDs to vote.)

[David Nieporent]

By default, the people who use a service should bear the cost, and the people applying for these IDs or licenses are the most obvious "users" in that sense.

I think the counterpoint is that not all of these things should properly be viewed as "services." When the government imposes a restriction on doing something and then offers to let you do that thing for a fee, that's not really providing a service. You're not deriving a benefit from paying the money; you're just returning to the status quo ante.

So a passport is a service, because other countries won't let you in if you don't have one. But (say) a driver's license isn't one, because all it does is remove the restriction the government imposed in the first place. (The counterpoint to that is that it provides the service of keeping the roads safe for one to use. But the response is: no, it doesn't. One might be able consider the first issuance of a driver's license as doing that, since a trivial test is required. But the renewals are just taking money.)

Bottom line: the question of whether a government fee is justified needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeessh. I like Zelensky and don't like Trump, but Zelensky needs to learn to shut his mouth.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Although in my experience, all conversations in Russian sound like that, so maybe Zelensky thought the conversation was going normally.

[M L]

Just watched this. Can't see what's to like about Zelensky.

[Frank Drackman]

Reminds me of Maury in “Goodfellas” demanding his share of the Lufthansa Heist(in Maurie’s defense, it was his idea)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He didn't start kissing Donald's feet (despite Vance's command)?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well this went well, not.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14447185/Trump-LIVE-President-sign-trillion-deal-Zelensky-White-House-dictator.html

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

It went great. Zelenskyy and the warmongers need a dressing down.

Trump is a man of peace. Much to the chagrin of the MIC and the Deep State.

[tylertusta]

This isn't even the first time that Zelensky got a dressing down by an American President:

Biden had barely finished telling Zelenskyy he’d just greenlighted another $1 billion in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine when Zelenskyy started listing all the additional help he needed and wasn’t getting. Biden lost his temper, the people familiar with the call said. The American people were being quite generous, and his administration and the U.S. military were working hard to help Ukraine, he said, raising his voice, and Zelenskyy could show a little more gratitude.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-lost-temper-zelenskyy-phone-call-ukraine-aid-rcna54592

[Commenter_XY]

Zelenskyy made a huge mistake. The UKR foreign minister has some serious cleanup work here, but I don't think it will work.

Glad Zelenskyy signed on the dotted line, first.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Glad Zelenskyy signed on the dotted line, first."
He didn't.

[Commenter_XY]

When I posted that, I was unaware that it was not signed. Unreal.

Zelenskyy completely fucked up. He obviously thought he was dealing with the cauliflower and word salad queen. So no deal, and the meat grinder goes on. For three years, they achieved nothing.

I am glad the American people could see openly what happens behind closed doors.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, it was utterly disgraceful. I hope the stench can be removed from the Oval Office when MAGA is finally destroyed.

[Commenter_XY]

How many young men will die from Zelenskyy's stupidity?

[SRG2]

Zelenskyy made a huge mistake.

Yes. He thought he could have an intelligent discussion with Krasnov and JDViance rather than being talked down to, talked over, and generally berated.

Krasnov was a fucking disgrace. He wants peace, sure - on Putin's terms, and so he can claim some propaganda victory and perhaps he's stupid enough to think that if he coerces Ukraine into a peace deal, he'll get a Nobel prize - or at least, deserve one - whjch you of course would heartily approve. Hint: Neville Chamberlain didn't get one either.

[santamonica811]

Trump is a white-hot fucking mess. The world is less safe today than it was yesterday. Yesterday, 190 countries were laughing at us. Today, they are laughing . . . and also wincing, and also vowing not to trust Trump at all. What a treasonous traitor (in layperson's-speak). What an evil man.

I expect that I will be able to count on two hands the number of Republicans in the House and Senate who will criticize Trump for the debacle today, as he desecrated the Oval Office. The number of posters here who will whore themselves defending Trump is--on the other hand--not the tiniest bit surprising.

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

Oh noes, will he also be On the Wrong Side of History (tm)?

[tylertusta]

Helpful tip: If you have a numeric keyboard, you can hold down the Alt key while typing 0153 to get the ™ symbol.

[David Nieporent]

Or you can just use Option-2, after going out and buying a Mac.™

[TwelveInchPianist]

If the world had spent the last 11 years dealing with the situation instead of jerking off and pretending to deal with the situation, we wouldn’t be in this perdiciment.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nor would we be in this predicament if Trump had indeed ended the Ukraine war "in 24 hours". So...

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes. He thought he could have an intelligent discussion with Krasnov and JDViance rather than being talked down to, talked over, and generally berated."

Yes, Vance is full of shit. But you don't tell him that during a press conference if you want something from him.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is this a reference to Zelinsky asking if ("Ukraine expert") Shady Vance had ever been to Ukraine? Classic.

But, really, the most logical explanation for this episode was that Trump and Vance wanted to sabotage their own agreement with Ukraine. A couple of schoolyard bullies' idea of a brilliant plan. It looked like a set-up.

Perhaps they didn't expect Zelinsky to agree to the mineral demands at all? Inadvertently giving an "advantage" to Ukraine in any peace talks with Russia was certainly not what Trump wanted to do!

[SRG2]

Krasnov going off on a tangent telling Zelenskyy about who has the cards and how the USA is fine was classic Krasnov bullshit. And Vance was lecturing Zelensky and not giving him a chance to answer - which was disrespectful. Vance is the VP.

[Mr. Bumble]

There was disrespect but point the finger to where it belongs.
Meanwhile more people will die.
By the way, what do Ukrainians think about how this went down?
It will be interesting to see how the people most effected by this feel.

[SRG2]

Did KD Vance lecture Zelensky and prevent him from answering questions? Did Krasnov interrupt and start telling Zelensky that he had no cards to play?

[Bob from Ohio]

"start telling Zelensky that he had no cards to play"

Pretty much true, no?

As the old saying goes "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". You can be as mad as you want posting comments here but a man in Z's position can't afford to get mad.

[Sarcastr0]

What an absolutely terrible worldview.

People, strong or weak, have agency.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, Z has agency. He can decide to quarrel in public with the US president. Let's even assume he is totally correct in everything he said and Trump/Vance were a-holes.

Its still not very smart. Ukraine needs the US, the US doesn't need Ukraine.

[SRG2]

You're missing the point. If the US just walked away, ok, I don't approve but there's an argument to be made. This ism not what Krasnov is doing. He's trying to coerce Zelenskyy to surrender, with no conditions for Russia and, now it appears, no security guarantee.

IOW the US is not merely being more neutral than I think they should be, but is actually clearly and unambiguously on the side of Russia - and you support this.

[Bob from Ohio]

"clearly and unambiguously on the side of Russia - and you support this."

The biggest mistake extreme pro-Ukraine people like you have made is equate any person not 100% on board with support to be pro Russian or Putin stooges.

Its been 3 years, all we have is a stalemate. Time to make peace if possible, which is not unambiguously on the side of Russia.

[SRG2]

The biggest mistake extreme pro-Ukraine people like you have made is equate any person not 100% on board with support to be pro Russian or Putin stooges.

If Krasnov were neutral and I insisted that meant he was really pro-Putin you'd have a point. But he isn't, and so you don't.

When the first peace talks started, were the two combatants involved?

Who was described as a dictator by Krasnov, Zelenskyy or Putin?

Who started the war, Ukraine or Russia?

What concessions has Krasnov asked of Putin?

Why is Krasnov trying to get Ukraine to admit they can't win and to surrender?

[Commenter_XY]

You nailed it: UKR needs America a lot more than America needs UKR.

Since when does an invited guest get to piss all over the living room floor? That basically happened, diplomatically.

Many young men will die b/c of Zelenskyy's lunacy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He was already drenched in their piss. Trump may be into that kind of thing (allegedly), but Zelensky probably realized that at that point, there was no deal to be signed anyway.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What an absolutely terrible worldview."

So you're happy with the outcome? Zelensky got to say his piece in the oval office, and he was correct. Trump and Vance were wrong.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As the old saying goes "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

How did that one work out for the Athenians again? I forget.

[SRG2]

WaPo clearly heading on the right path with its new "twin columns" idea.

Dana Milbank: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/28/free-markets-personal-liberties-trump-threat/

his much is clear: If we as a newspaper, and we as a country, are to defend his twin pillars, then we must redouble our fight against the single greatest threat to “personal liberties and free markets” in the United States today: President Donald Trump.

Claiming monarchical powers, attacking the free press, starting trade wars, cutting off legal immigration, siding with despots over free countries, politicizing law enforcement and the military, assaulting the judicial system and injecting crony capitalism at the highest levels of government: These are all the very antithesis of “personal liberties and free markets.”

Ilya gets interviewed for the article as well.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Zelenskyy is defending his country.

In another context, let's say it was Trump or Vance, some people would be proud of him.

Now, it's time to condescendingly tell him what he is supposed to say especially while a Putin puppet lectures him along with Boy Wonder Vance. Anyone listening to Vance "berate" (to quote one article) most anyone would want to tell him to STFU.

Reference was made to Z. by Trump, who said that he had to be thankful. Z. was thankful in front of Congress to the whole country. Trump means to him personally.

The nation is led by horrible clowns. "The nation" being the U.S.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Regardless of what you think of the substance, it's hard to see how he helped himself.

[Mr. Bumble]

In crass terms, he stepped on his dick big time.

[Krayt]

Reporter asks, "Poland is afraid, 'We're next!' "

Well, I guess we're gonna run that experiment!

Watch as the rhetoric unfolds over months, does he try to end NATO so the US can walk away? Much blabberation today, actions speak louder than words.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Zelenskyy is defending his country. "

Not very well in this instance.

The brutal fact of the matter is that as the supplicant for aid and support, he needed to butter up Trump and Vance, not try to win debate points or please the New York Times opinion page.

[Krayt]

The shameful Republicans twice voted down more aid, before Trump even became president, out of fear of him. Their reward?

"Thanks, Gramps!" from the Russian state TV, mocking them. Twice.

If this kind of shame doesn't affect them, I don't know what else will. I also don't know how much more evidence people want.

[SRG2]

The brutal fact is that Krasnov is not there to be buttered up, he's there to help Ptuin force Zelensky to surrender.

[Reallynotbob]

You're assuming Trump was negotiating in good faith. There's plenty of evidence to suggest he's not.

If Z thinks Trump is not going to help him regardless, then it's rational for Z to (further) expose Trump as being in the bag for Moscow. (1) Z offers to make the rare earth metals deal to show good faith, intending to sign if Trump follows through. (2) Trump immediately abusing Z on camera shows the world Trump wasn't serious. (3) Z improves his standing with the Europeans for help closer to home, with fewer strings, and without having to depend on Putin's ally, Trump. (4) Macron and Starmer's failures to get Trump in line embarrass the Europeans mildly, pushing them closer to Ukraine. (5) This one is key -- Trump loses the diplomatic credibility necessary to stage "negotiations" with Russia for a cease fire.

I think Z would have preferred continued US assistance or completing the deal, but kneecapping Trump as a peace broker is Z's second-best outcome if he thinks Trump cannot be relied upon.

[Bob from Ohio]

"kneecapping Trump as a peace broker is Z's second-best outcome"

It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.

[Krayt]

[Josh R]

I think Z should have not brought up Minsk II in public. Let the incriminations begin behind closed doors. That being said, Vance and Trump's reactions (to the truth) were disgraceful.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"expose Trump as being in the bag for Moscow."

Which president hasn't been in the bag for Moscow? Under Biden, the West gave Ukraine weapons, but wouldn't let them use them in ways that would make Putin mad.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

True, but out of an "abundance of caution", rather than to please Putin.

Trump is specifically aiming to please Putin.

[David Nieporent]

but kneecapping Trump as a peace broker

I would've phrased it as "exposing the fact that Trump shares about as much in common with peace brokers as he does with astronauts."

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

He's loyal to the Deep State and the MIC.

That's who is audience is. He thinks they're going to win, not the patriots.

[hobie]

This is just horrifying, disgraceful. Having Putin's two lapdogs humiliating a head of state in front of the cameras is beyond the pale. OMG, I cannot believe I'm seeing this!

[ThePublius]

We must have watched a different video.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, you're just a fucking moron incapable of seeing reality in any objective manner.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was obviously an ambush planned by Trump and Vance. Good for Zelensky for having none of their juvenile bullying.

[Frank Drackman]

I can’t believe someone would steal Valor and be such an obnoxious prick

[Frank Drackman]

“Anyone”???
Not me! (Ht B Keane)
Or 100,000,000+ Amuricans.
Vlodomir’s graves already dug. He just doesn’t want to accept it

[John F. Carr]

The Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of an Arkansas prisoner who requested a religious accomodation for pagan group worship. "At least one other religious group received this option, and nothing in the record suggests that Pagans pose a greater security risk." The claim will go to trial where the Departmenf of Correction will have to prove it is using the least restrictive means to achieve its legitimate goals.

I appreciate the use of the prisoner's pagan name instead of his legal name, making for the unusual caption Happy Stompingbear v. Wendy Kelley.

[santamonica811]

It's obviously a made-up name. I mean, who on Earth came up with something as comical and ridiculous as "Wendy Kelly?"

[Sharper]

Curious about the Conspiracy member's thoughts on https://www.cato.org/blog/rational-basis-test-unconstitutional-kludge - that the Rational Basis Test doesn't have a foundation in the Constitution.

[Krayt]

Rational basis doesn't even require that reason to be the proffered reason by the legislators themselves as they pass the legislation.

Fundamental Theorem of Government: Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the weilding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one.

Rational basis just recognizes BS reasons used across the Earth and throughout history to get what you want done.

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

Did anyone see Sen. Pocahontas the other day crying on the Senate floor about the impact on Big Pharma's profits?

Secretary Kennedy sure did nail it when they revealed her and Bernie are the biggest recipients of Big Pharma cash.

[Krayt]

Isn't Big Pharma evil profits and hiding cancer cures an RFK thing?

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

She was bemoaning the shrinking of them.

[Frank Drackman]

I didn’t think Indians could cry

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

Why would the Democrats at the SDNY insurrect against lawful orders to release Epstein documents?

Why are they protecting a child sex trafficking ring? Is it because it would harm an ally?

[hobie]

Newsflash, Magnus. The SDNY isn't in some separate country. It's part of Trump's federal government run entirely by MAGA. So ask them why they haven't come up with the fabled Epstein client list or Biden crime family proof. Democrats got nothing to do with this

[Krayt]

Like Trump and slavish talking heads in the 2020 election, he could have sat down and given a speech to the nation about finding out an insidious plot to steal the election. He controlled everything and could order an investigation on top of it.

He was uniquely positioned to do so.

He didn't, in favor of letting talking heads run wild with nothing more than nudge nudge, wink wink. Because it was all BS and rhetoric.

[Krayt]

Hell, he could have had a secondary sit down, "I orderer an investigation into this insidious plot, and the FBI is disobeying me! That is itself insidious!"

That also never happened, in favor of talking heads pulling BS in the same manner.

[hobie]

That's a really good point. Trump can finally do his investigation on the theft of the 2020 election! I hope they start the investigation quickly.

[Krayt]

I hadn't thought of that. Thank you for pointing it out!

He is president again. He can order an investigation into the fraud and theft of the 2020 election, based on the tons of evidence they had gleaned by that point, no doubt added more evidence since then.

[SRG2]

Krasnov promised to release his tax returns, which never happened and wasn't going to happen. I don't know how much he appears in the unredacted Epstein docs but between him and some of his acquaintances, I didn't expect a full release here either.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lol. Anything that even remotely incriminates Trump that didn't come out before the Biden crew handed over the keys to the Trump crew, ain't coming out now.

Given what we already know about Trump's relationship with Epstein, nothing more will be released.

[Voize of Reazon]

President Trump is planning an Executive Order to proclaim that English is the official language of the United States.

Rumors are that the first order will be quickly followed by a second, to rename the language "American".

[Moderation4ever]

You know there is a difference between English and American English. I frequently use subtitle on English television programs

[SRG2]

American English has a more impoverished standard vocabulary than English English.

[Krayt]

We have every word they do, and more.

[Frank Drackman]

But “Smoke a Fag” doesn’t really translate

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And fewer.

[SRG2]

Rumors are that the first order will be quickly followed by a second, to rename the language "American".

I can't tell whether you're joking or it might be true.

[hobie]

He might as well declare it be Russian. Good thing I speak it.

[Frank Drackman]

To describe your Stolen Valor?

[grb]

The link below shows the performance of different stock markets around the world since America elected an ignorant, incompetent, and mentally ill president. The tanking U.S. numbers are just what you'd expect given Trump sees brainless chaos as yuks for his political base and still doesn't understand how a tariff works:

Reporter: Americans who are concerned about higher prices believe, as most people do, that tariffs are paid by consumers and importers when they import things into this country.

Trump: ….It's a myth that's put out there by foreign countries that really don't like paying tariffs.

You might be surprised "super-businessman" Trump doesn't know junior high-grade economics until you remember most of his career was bungling-away daddy's money. This country's only hope against total disaster is Trump's pro-inflation policies somehow cancel out his pro-recession policies, but I don't think things work that way. The real question is who bails from the clown car first, his MAGA working class base or Wall Street. The latter will probably stick around for the deficit-exploding tax cuts since they'll get the payout.

The working class stiffs won't get jack but - hey - maybe they'll be so distracted by Trump's cartoon entertainment they won't notice.

https://digbysblog.net/2025/02/28/the-masters-of-the-universe-are-perplexed/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well put.

Most of us get disabused of our fantasies at an early age — we get slapped in the face by reality. I wonder if this will ever happen to Trump.

(Thanks for the link to Digby — it’s been a long time since I read her blog. I should get back to it.)

[SRG2]

Krasnov doesn't understand macroeconomics and is not interested in learning any. The cultists generally think that because he is a successful businessman he must be an economics expert. They're wrong, of course.

[Ska]

A chart that doesn't identify what global markets it's measuring over a span of one month is pretty useless, unless you make a habit of day trading global index funds that capture all markets. The sentiment of the investment managers ring true, though. Seems like that post would have been better without the chart.

Real estate is in for some interesting times, at least in my home city. All those interest only commercial loans that are coming due this year and next that need to be refinanced at 200 basis points above their original interest rate while rents are locked in are going to lead to so many defaults, with banks having no desire to hold billions in underperforming assets - whether they be mortgages or actual buildings. Good time for real estate investors who have cash to invest.

[Commenter_XY]

I keep saying the same thing = cash for real estate.

In one year, Northern Va real estate will be a screaming buy. Foreclosures, too.

[Frank Drackman]

I hear the market in Pacific Palisades is on fire!

[Commenter_XY]

That chart is financial porn. Have an investment plan, decide on your allocation, and use low cost index funds. Then let time in market work the magic.

[grb]

I'm curious about Cult opinion on this :

"The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That's the purpose of it, and they've done a good job of it," Trump said at his first Cabinet meeting this week. "But now I'm president."

Is that current Cult dogma? Of course, today's Right is addicted to zero-sum thought. If a Rightie doesn't whine & wail with professional victimhood fervor six times daily how he's "being cheated", the poor guy breaks into tremors & sweats like a crack addict late with his fix.

[santamonica811]

Trump's face was unusually orange today. Last time I saw a face that shade, it was singing an Oompa Loompa song. It was so orange, I could hardly focus on our President berating a supposed ally on national TV.

I heard that Musk was so giddy with joy that Elon immediately jumped up, and did Nazi salutes so vigorously that he dislocated his right shoulder. Probably just a rumor, I reckon.

[grb]

You know, I still hear people claim Musk wasn't seig heil-ing on a public stage. They have zero basis for their defense, but I'm a genial guy and like to look for compromise.

So I offer this : It was only 99% a Nazi salute, and that makes Musk's toadies feel so much better. But I also ask this : Wouldn't someone as smart as him know that? Wouldn't he understand what he was doing?

Of course he did. Now whether Musk is truly fascist, I don't claim to know. But he definitely enjoys playing Nazi in public. And the Cult seems to be fine with that. They sold every bit of their souls away long ago.

[hobie]

I like to call it the 'seek help' salute

[Frank Drackman]

Most “Stolen Valor” perpetrators can’t execute a proper military Salute

[David Nieporent]

It was 110% a Nazi salute. Yes, there is a question as to how much of it was sincere and how much was trolling, but in the end, what difference does it make? Popehat's Law of Goats applies: it doesn't matter if you're fucking a goat ironically; you're still a goatfucker.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s called the “Roman Salute” and dates back to Duh, the Roman Empire, kids used to do it in this country for the Pledge of Allegiance before a certain Austrian wallpaper hanger ruined it for everyone

[Bwaaah]

My Jewish father, upon entering the dining room at his Jewish country club, would immediately look for any of his friends in the room. Upon spotting one, he'd throw out his arm and flip up his hand in his way of greeting that I now understand, by the guidance of DMN, was "110% a Nazi salute."

Like the reinvention of the circled thumb/index finger A-OK sign as a symbol of "white supremacy," DMN purports to teach me what I didn't know about my father.

DMN...a 98% over-educated, under-powered thinker, and mathematical hyperbolist to boot.

[Commenter_XY]

LMAO = Last time I saw a face that shade, it was singing an Oompa Loompa song.

That was pretty funny.

[Frank Drackman]

“47” Nailed it

[SRG2]

WV crackers try to promote the Bible as history:
https://www.wdtv.com/2025/02/27/wva-lawmakers-want-recognize-bible-accurate-historical-record-human-history/

House Joint Resolution 3020, which is co-sponsored by Delegates Dillon, Coop-Gonzalez, White, Anders, Butler, Mazzocchi, T. Howell, T. Clark, and Moore, would recognize the Holy Bible as:

‘the divinely inspired, inerrant foundational document for our society and government’
‘an accurate historical record of human and natural history’
‘the utmost authority for human moral behavior’

(d) None of the above.

[grb]

‘an accurate historical record of human and natural history’

Wait! The age of the Earth is only 6,000 years old after all ?!?

[Frank Drackman]

How old is it then?
Show your work

[Bwaaah]

SRG2: "WV crackers..."

(just reiterating for the benefit of all "WV crackers", and anybody else who may see something wrong with that expression)

[grb]

China has recently taken an even harsher stance against Taiwan. They see Trump's weakness. After all, China isn't Denmark, Greenland, Ukraine or Canada. Those are the kind of countries that get Trump's full bellicose tough-guy act. With Russia, he's a simpering coquettish floozy. Hell, he couldn't even negotiate with the Taliban without going to his knees in full appeasement-mode.

[hobie]

One of the more important consequences of today's disaster is that no one will now believe we would honor Article V of the NATO treaty...especially Russia. Unless Trump has specifically told them to take Europe, Russia can figure this out on their own. The Baltic States and Finland are now in grave danger. This new, weak America is inviting WWIII. What in the fuck can Putin possibly have over Trump?

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to us when Ukraine is a NATO member.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe you could repent for the Stolen Valor Accusations by volunteering to fight in You-Crane

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump is on the phone with Putin all the time. It impresses Trump that Putin will take his calls. Everything gets recorded, of course. How many hours of that do you think it would take before Trump could be blackmailed nine ways before breakfast?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Remember, Putin's the one who's really suffered through this. Poor Putin and the hoax witch hunt, according to King Dumbfuck.

Trump mocked Zelenskyy the moment he arrived.

"“You either make a deal or we are out,” Trump told Zelenskyy, underscoring the American leader’s plans to dictate a swift end to the war or leave its longtime ally to continue the fight without its strongest backer."

He's a clown, a moron, and a fucking bully who is no better than Putin and deserves the same fate. Instead of diplomacy and forcing the aggressor to the table, he's sucking Putin's dick and spreading Putin's lies while extorting the victim.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You are, basically, correct.

Equally depressing is how many of our fellow Americans will fall in line with Trump's out-of-reality account of things.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

To elaborate: Trump mocked Zelenskyy the moment he arrived by remarking crassly upon how he was dressed.

Remember - Trump does not like Zelenskyy, and holds him responsible for the first impeachment.

Trump continues to lie about the amount and terms of aid given to Ukraine. He attacks Zelenskyy as a 'dictator' and lies about his approval rating - Kremlin talking points, I might add.

Trump doesn't attack Putin. At all. In fact one of the first things his new AG did was to dismantle task forces responsible for investigating election interference (which we know Russia does), and one responsible for enforcing the sanctions on Russia for the war.

Weird.

Vance and Trump were the ones raising their voices like a bully. Zelenskyy kept his calm and attempted to answer the questions.

JD Couchfucker (true or not, I think it's a fitting name) has never supported Ukraine as far as I can tell, so the fact that he would utter a bald-faced lie in claiming Zelenskyy doesn't thank the US is unsurprising.

It's almost like a guy who doesn't want to help Ukraine in the first place somehow wanted things to escalate.

Weird.

Trump threatened that Zelenskyy was "threatening World War III" and stuck his finger in Zelenskyy's face. One might think that perhaps it is the aggressor of this war that was threatening World War III, but that would be Putin.

And Trump doesn't like to say anything bad about Putin.

Weird.

Then Trump extorts Zelenskyy once more: “You either make a deal or we are out."

Who benefits from that? Putin.

Weird.

Our lawless President is a fucking puppet for Putin, and the dipshits around here can't seem to figure out anything is wrong.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Note: JD Couchfucker did not say that Zelenskyy never thanked the US. That's my error attempting to remember all the insane bullshit involved in the tantrums.

He did challenge Zelenskyy: "Have you said thank you once, this entire meeting? No, in this entire meeting, have you said thank you - you went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October, offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the President who is trying to end the war for your country."

The answer to that is yes, Zelenskyy not only has thanked the US numerous times before, but in fact that very morning:

https://youtu.be/fdT14LeHsIg?si=l4yDWALnSFgimIPi&t=277

Odd thing to challenge unless one is looking for a fight.

It should also be noted that Trump then repeated his lie that he's been corrected on multiple times, including by two foreign dignitaries, that "We've given you $350 billion dollars."

The most disgraceful moment in foreign policy of my lifetime. Absolute fucking bullies and clowns doing Putin's work for him.

[damikesc]

Like it or not, we owe Ukraine nothing. Their fall is of no importance to us. If Putin rolls over Europe, ALSO, no issue for us.

We've wasted far too much money keeping the inbred yokels who run that continent from killing one another.

Zelensky fucked up. C'est la vie. He has a habit of negotiating one thing and saying the opposite to the press afterwards. He's being hoisted on his petard.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know if he "fucked up" by not falling to his knees before Trump and Vance. He did seem to be struggling to respond appropriately in English, but that's hardly his fault. English is, after all, his third language, at best. And he was being verbally attacked by the MAGoons in an unprecedented way.

But what relevance is Zelinsky's behavior in the Oval Office to someone who doesn't believe that preserving Europe's freedom is in any way within the interests of the United States?

[Brett Bellmore]

Hell, I have Asperger's, and *I* know better than to fail to be polite to people I'm asking a favor of. I might not have any instinct for social interaction, but at least I can learn from experience... What's Zelensky's excuse?

"who doesn't believe that preserving Europe's freedom is in any way within the interests of the United States?"

I don't see how we could preserve freedom in Europe at this point, short of invading and taking them over; They seem intend on abolishing it themselves without any outside help. But, sure, it's in our "interest" that a lot of things happen, that we shouldn't spend blood and money to achieve, having other interests, too, and limited resources.

[Sarcastr0]

A pathetic about face.

Can't wait for you to start talking about Putin the peacemaking freedom-loving manly man.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore "..... and limited resources."

Says Brett. But no one doubts he wasn't first to cheer the the House GOP's new deficit-exploding tax cut bill adding trillions in new debt. Open up a dictionary to the word "hypocrisy" and there's a pic of Bellmore explaining how federal debt is very, very, bad.

We all remember Brett strongly supporting Ukraine's fight these past three years - right up to the point his Cult god decided it would be fun to switch to Putin's side. So Brett immediately followed, being the obedient little Cult slave he is.

Suddenly he presses the back of a hand to his forehead and give a theatrical wail, "I don't see how we could preserve freedom in Europe at this point..." Well, Brett, why not continue to support those fighting for freedom, not screw them over as Valentine Day gift for that dreamboat hunk Putin?

Brett (with pretend piety): "They seem intend on abolishing it themselves...." Uh huh. Who is "they" in that statement aside from the day-glo orange deity who controls every waking thought you're allowed to think?

Brett ("explaining" - a sad spectacle) : "....shouldn't spend blood and money to achieve, having other interests, too, and limited resources." The first thing here is Brett's anguish over all the blood we've expended in the war - despite the fact there's been none. But that's a line from the Putin songbook, and that's the sheet of music Brett sings from these days.

Then there's the "... having other interests ..." bit, which apparently refers to carving up Ukraine behind alpha-thug Putin, or getting revenge against Zelensky for some offense that exists only in Trump's diseased mind.

But for Brett, the "limited resources" is the go-to lie to explain why he's suddenly reversed every single statement and position on this issue from three years running. We had enough money before. Right up until Brett's hive-mind handler plugged a cable into his skull port and downloaded new acceptable "thoughts". Then suddenly we didn't. Excuse achieved.

[tylertusta]

One of the more important consequences of today's disaster

Performative histrionics are always enjoyable to watch.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To the contrary, it was absolutely disgusting to watch.

Trump and Vance covered themselves in shit. And then tried to rub it on Zelinsky. The Oval Office may never be the same.

[Krayt]

America First as inaccurate synonym for isolationism and abandoning keeping the sea trade routes open. Who cares if dictators begin running expansionistic over the surface of the Earth?

How to squat over the past 80 years of containment.

[Frank Drackman]

Few hundred square miles of You-Crane, most of who’s citizens welcome the Roosh-an “”Occupation”” isn’t really world wide expansionism(rhymes with…)
So eager for War, did you ever participate in one personally?

Frank

[Krayt]

Military conquest in Europe, using Hitler's rationale: we need to protect ethnic Germans in the Sudetanland, gibbe it to me!

We need to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine, gibbe it to me!

There is nothing noble about this. It is a disease process of history.

[damikesc]

It is amusing watching neocons trying to defend their thoroughly debunked ideology.

[Jmaie]

"abandoning keeping the sea trade routes open"

I've never understood this fear. Exports to Europe and the US are China's lifeblood, if their overseas markets are closed off then unemployment would skyrocket and their government would fall overnight. Could they close the Malacca Straight? Sure, but why would they...

[Commenter_XY]

grb, you are right to be concerned re: Taiwan.

[Michael P]

grb, WW3 fan.

[Paul Elliott]

Does the "and"clause of the fourth amendment limit its application to the context of warrants? I have asked this question before but have never been able to get an answer.

Definition: the Fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Definition: the "and" clause: "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Clearly, an ordinary reading would say no. The meaning of "and" is to present an additional thing that is true, not limit what has already been assert true. But attorneys are tricky, they tend to alter the accepted meanings of common words to get the results they want. Sometimes even in different ways for different contexts! Can anyone site caselaw that would be on point? That is a case where the government is trying to limit the ability of the public to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" in a context that does not involve warrants? Perhaps by limiting the means by which securing is effected? Does anyone have caselaw on this point? How are such questions researched?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's March. 2025 is just zooming along! Ha ha.

[Sarcastr0]

Talk to someone from Europe. Or check out European media.

An 80 year edifice of trust and mutual security has been brough down. No longer just tacitly assuming our presence and support, Europe now knows they can no longer count on the US - that we are one election away from fucking them over.
They will act accordingly.

If you're in Europe, in the long term that might be good.

But I am not one of those liberals who thinks Europe is better than America. I trusted modern America as a good, if not perfect steward of the world with out not-an-empire-but-fill-that-vacuum-so -there-wont-be-another style.

Our military umbrella is not something I'm against, even if the Pentagon budget is bloated.
It's boosted our economy in every state. And it's given us no shortage of soft power to influence people and nations. Natural resources, people, global commons in science and markets.
Now that's gone.
Now Europe's going to go it's own way, and project it's own authority to make things happen in it's own style. And be worse at it.

The same people that are American nationalists, often to the point of chauvinism. Who have had contempt for Europe in one flavor or another for generations. You now join the ant-American left in cheering this kinda thing on.

Meanwhile, our domestic economy has some storm clouds too:
https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

Way to go MAGA.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I live in Europe, and I prefer living in Europe, but I will never cease being an American. No matter how many passports I hold, my perspective will always be that of an American, first and foremost. No apologies.

But there is some truth to the notion that Europe has not been "puling its weight" against Russia and other foes of freedom and the rule of law. Like an adult child who still lives at home, Europe has had the opportunity to focus on other things, rather than security, because it has always known that, "if you called your dad he could stop it all, yeah", as Jarvis Cocker once eloquently put it.

Time to grow up, Europe. Your dad is now elderly and has lost his mind, and he certainly won't be there if you need him.

[Sarcastr0]

If you look at things through a paradigm of fairness, sure.

If you look at things in terms of America's benefit, we've gotten well more than we paid for.

If you look at things in terms of Europe's benefit, then this wake-up call will probably help them in the long run, if they can hold together in any kind of coalition.

If you look at things in terms of worldwide benefit, I suppose it depends on how much you trust Europe versus America.

It may be irrational, but I trust America more. So I do not like this change.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What does "pull its weight" mean?

They gave more money than the U.S. to Ukraine. They support the "rule of law" in multiple ways. They welcome refugees.

It's not like Europe is just letting the U.S. handle everything. And the U.S. has had problems recently, including twice voting for Russia's pal. Did Europe as a whole "pull its weight" like that?

Europe will have to do more now that our country is failing, but that is not great, given the reasons why. I think the division of concern has overall been pretty logical.

[damikesc]

I'm supposed to care what a continent full of governments that have decided that free speech and free elections are just not needed anymore think?

We should divorce ourselves from that increasingly fascistic blight on the planet. We should make alliances with people that at least profess to have our same interests.

Siccing police on people for posting, talking, or praying? You are so fundamentally off that you are not anybody we need to deal with.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read the above as being pro-Europe? Hell, did you read it at all?

"But I am not one of those liberals who thinks Europe is better than America. I trusted modern America as a good, if not perfect steward of the world with out not-an-empire-but-fill-that-vacuum-so -there-wont-be-another style."

"Now Europe's going to go it's own way, and project it's own authority to make things happen in it's own style. And be worse at it."

Every once in a while you pop up, shout a bunch of incoherent bile, and then crawl back under some rock.

Whatever your deal is, it seems sad.

[Brett Bellmore]

"not-an-empire-but-fill-that-vacuum-so -there-wont-be-another style."

The problem is that we can't AFFORD to do that indefinitely, and the very attempt has been warping us away from being the country we used to be.

[ThePublius]

"Every once in a while you pop up, shout a bunch of incoherent bile, and then crawl back under some rock."

No, it's not incoherent bile, it's a statement that many people agree with, as a matter of fact, just not you and your ilk.

[David Nieporent]

I'm supposed to care what a continent full of governments that have decided that free speech and free elections are just not needed anymore think?

This is so totally insincere. Your orange god tried to steal an election; you didn't care. Your orange god is retaliating against reporters who have the audacity to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico; you don't care. Don't pretend you care about either free speech or free elections.

[ThePublius]

You lose all credibility with your juvenile naming of Trump, and your pretense to know what someone feels or is in their heart.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know about losing credibility, but I am definitely losing sleep about the fact that ThePublius no longer accepts my arguments.

[ThePublius]

Likewise, IU'm sure, Mr. Moderator.

[ThePublius]

Likewise, I'm sure, Mr. Moderator.

[ThePublius]

The richest European countries are poorer than Mississippi, though they all look down on Mississippi.

"Mississippi's GDP per capita is significantly higher than the other four top European economies, exceeding Spain by €16,710, Italy by €12,553, France by €5,415, and the UK by €1,339."

Poorest US state rivals Germany: GDP per capita in US and Europe

There's an interesting chart in the article comparing the top five and bottom five US states by per capita GDP to selected European countries.

[ThePublius]

This is worth posting again:

This, from David Sacks, is worth quoting in full:

"WHY ZELENSKY CANNOT MAKE PEACE

Zelensky’s meltdown in the Oval Office began over his refusal to accept a negotiated settlement to the war. Even the Vice President’s use of the word “diplomacy” provoked a heated response.

So why can’t Zelensky make a peace deal?

1) He will lose power.

Zelensky cancelled elections in Ukraine and remains in power through martial law. Despite what USAID propaganda polls may claim, Zelensky is unpopular in Ukraine and would likely lose a fair election. That could leave him vulnerable to retaliation from political opponents he has imprisoned or seized assets from. In short, Zelensky needs the war to justify his continued rule.

2) The gravy train will end.

Ukraine was widely acknowledged as the most corrupt country in Europe before the war, and there is abundant evidence that Ukrainian elites have been hugely profiting from the billions in Western aid. If the war ends, so does the gravy train. A post-war audit of where the money went would also be disastrous for Zelensky’s supporters.

3) He fears the ultra-nationalists.

Most Ukrainians say they want the war to end, but the ultra-nationalist faction (a relative minority but well-armed and willing to use violence to achieve their ends) refuses to accept any territorial concessions to Russia. If Zelensky signs such a deal, he has reason to fear for his safety.

4) He’s psychologically committed.

Zelensky’s belief in ultimate victory over Russia has “hardened into a form that worries some of his advisors,” according to a report by TIME Magazine, which described Zelensky’s faith as “immovable, verging on the messianic.” According to one of Zelensky’s aides, “He is delusional. We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.” Zelensky may be in too deep to see the situation objectively.

5) History will judge him harshly.

Zelensky could have accepted a draft peace deal signed in the first month of the war, the Istanbul Accords, under which Ukraine would have kept all of its territory in exchange for neutrality. A deal now will likely be modeled on Istanbul but require Ukraine to recognize realities on the ground (ie loss of territory). Acknowledging that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died only to get a worse deal may be too bitter a pill for Zelensky to swallow, now or ever.

In summary, Zelensky has powerful motivations to reject a deal, no matter how bad the battlefield realities get. His incentive is to continue a doomed war even if it leads to the complete destruction of Ukraine.

Instead of offering unconditional support, Zelensky’s supporters in the West should be urging him to seek a diplomatic off-ramp. Certainly they should stop catering to his unrealistic and maximalist demands.

As Solzhenitsyn said, the yes-man is your enemy, but a friend will argue with you."

See also Victor Davis Hanson's excellent piece on this:

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: 10 bad takeaways from the Zelenskyy blow-up

[David Nieporent]

Why is reposting something from a pro-Putin financebro with no knowledge worthwhile even once, let alone twice?

[ThePublius]

David, not everyone shares your point of view. You act as if you own this blog, or are a moderator.

BTW, not a pr-Putin guy, oand not "no knowledge," by any stretch.

[ThePublius]

BTW, I didn't post it twice in this thread. I know (perhaps you don't?) that not everone reads the comments of every thread on the Volokh Conspiracy. (Duh!) And, I acknowledged that I was posting it a second time.

Anything else, Mr. Moderator?

[ThePublius]

Anyone here into the shooting sports and handload ammunition?

I swear, if I ever find it, I'm sure that "Loads for the 38 Short Colt" is among the shortest books in the world. I may, now that I'm retired, just take that up as a challenge and write short handbook for this interesting and useful cartridge. Try to cover all the popular handgun powders, and a good range of bullets, including cast lead, copper plated, and jacketed, say from 90 gn. through 148 gn. Will address power factor for competitive use, too.

I think the primary use for this these days is using moon clips for competitive shooting. But it's a cool cartridge in other ways, not least is a low cost, low recoil, low report round for fun and training.

(It chambers in .38 Special and .357 Magnum revolvers.)

(I'm pretty sure Jerry uses these for his quick reloads when setting records:
https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM?si=LZHaHPPbWUrtyyIP&t=52
)

[ThePublius]

"Months after war broke out between Russia and Ukraine, then-President Joe Biden had a fiery private phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which included Biden allegedly losing "his temper" and calling on Ukraine to "show a little more gratitude" towards the U.S. for its support, a resurfaced 2022 NBC News report shows.

"Biden had barely finished telling Zelenskyy that he had just greenlighted another $1 billion in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine when Zelenskyy started listing all the additional help he needed and wasn’t getting," according to an NBC report published in November 2022, recounting a prior June 2022 call that Biden and Zelenskyy shared.

"Biden lost his temper, the people familiar with the call said. The American people were being quite generous, and his administration and the U.S. military were working hard to help Ukraine, he said, raising his voice, and Zelenskyy could show a little more gratitude," the report continued. "

Sound familiar?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-isnt-first-us-commander-chief-lose-patience-zelenskyy-resurfaced-2022-report

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes, a 'fiery private phone call' is exactly the same thing as an live, televised Oval Office ambush with JD Couchfucker waiting to spring the same bullshit accusations he used during his campaign.

Fuck off and die.

[Bwaaah]

That's really not nice.