Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

There is a case to be argued next month before SCOTUS involving the constitutionality of a contract between Oklahoma's Statewide Charter School Board and the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to the latter entities to operate a public charter school (St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School). The contract allowed for the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church and required students to participate in religious curriculum and activities.

The issues presented for review are:

(1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/oklahoma-statewide-charter-school-board-v-drummond/

In an original jurisdiction action, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the contract violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the federal Establishment Clause. The court held that St. Isidore, as a public charter school, was a governmental entity and a state actor. The court also held that the contract violated the Establishment Clause because it allowed for the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church and required students to participate in religious curriculum and activities. The court granted the extraordinary and declaratory relief sought by the state and directed the Charter School Board to rescind its contract with St. Isidore. https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/2024/121694.html

The Oklahoma Supreme Court found the St. Isidore Contract to violate two provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, which according to that Court "affords bona fide, separate, adequate, and independent grounds upon which [its] opinion is rested." (Slip. op., ¶38. The opinion of a state court of last resort interpreting that state's constitution should have ended the matter per Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 (1983). I am accordingly baffled that SCOTUS granted certiorari in this matter.

[A Japanese Student]

Isn't the school's argument that Oklahoma Constitution is unconstitutional under Espinoza? If that is the case, then the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

[Riva]

From the introduction to Petitioner's brief, it is noted that "St. Isidore is a private entity seeking to participate in Oklahoma’s charter school program...[b]ut Oklahoma denies that opportunity to religious entities, solely because they are religious." That would violate the Free Exercise Clause. Mystery of the federal constitutional interest solved. You're welcome.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If the answer to question 2 is “yes”, then the state constitution (as construed by the state court) violates the federal constitution. I would infer that at least four justices are think that there’s a good chance that the answer is indeed yes.

[not guilty]

No. The appellants make no contention that Okla Const. Art. I, § 5 and Art. II, § 5 violate the United States Constitution.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/351350/20250305181244391_24-396%2024-394%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/351240/20250305110401855_24-394%20Brief%20for%20Petitioners.pdf

Nor could they make any such contention. Although state courts cannot interpret their state constitution so as to restrict the protections afforded by the federal constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, they may expand protections on the basis of a textually identical state constitutional provision. If this were not true the frictions of federalism would be fierce and frustrating and state supreme courts would be reduced to mere conduits through which federal edicts would flow. Miller v. State, 584 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tenn. 1979). The Supreme Court of Oklahoma is free to interpret its state constitutional prohibitions on the establishment of religion more broadly than SCOTUS has interpreted the federal First Amendment Establishment clause.

Whatever the U. S. Supreme Court rules, a contract which runs afoul of the state constitution's establishment provisions cannot stand. The appellants here are asking SCOTUS to render a mere advisory opinion, which it is without jurisdiction so to do. As Justice O'Connor opined for the Court in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041-1042 (1983):

The principle that we will not review judgments of state courts that rest on adequate and independent state grounds is based, in part, on the limitations of our own jurisdiction. . . . The jurisdictional concern is that we not render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the state court after we corrected its views of federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion.

. . . Our requirement of a "plain statement" that a decision rests upon adequate and independent state grounds does not in any way authorize the rendering of advisory opinions. Rather, in determining, as we must, whether we have jurisdiction to review a case that is alleged to rest on adequate and independent state grounds, . . . we merely assume that there are no such grounds when it is not clear from the opinion itself that the state court relied upon an adequate and independent state ground and when it fairly appears that the state court rested its decision primarily on federal law.

[Citations, some internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted.]

Here there is such a "plain statement" by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that its decision rests upon adequate and independent state grounds. SCOTUS is not free to ignore that statement.

[Michael P]

In that passage, "independent" means that the state law basis is not intertwined with a federal question. Question two makes it clear that such independence is in question.

In Michigan v. Long, for example, the Court found that a search was legal even though the Michigan Supreme Court held that it violated the state constitution. Yet again you cite a case that came out the opposite of what you want.

[not guilty]

In Jankovich v. Toll Road Comm'n, 379 U.S. 487, 489 (1965), SCOTUS opined that it is undoubtedly:

the settled rule that where the judgment of a state court rests upon two grounds, one of which is federal and the other non-federal in character, our jurisdiction fails if the non-federal ground is independent of the federal ground and adequate to support the judgment. Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210. Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 281. [internal quotation marks omitted.]

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma expressly opined, "While we have already found the St. Isidore Contract to violate two provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, which affords bona fide, separate, adequate, and independent ground upon which today's opinion is rested, the St. Isidore Contract also violates the federal Establishment Clause." Slip op., ¶38 [emphasis added].

Irrespective of what SCOTUS may rule, Okla Const. Art. I, § 5 and Art. II, § 5 prohibit the State from entering into the instant contract at issue:

The framers' intent is clear: the State is prohibited from using public money for the "use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion." Although a public charter school, St. Isidore is an instrument of the Catholic church, operated by the Catholic church, and will further the evangelizing mission of the Catholic church in its educational programs. The expenditure of state funds for St. Isidore's operations constitutes the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church. It also constitutes the use of state funds for "the use, benefit, or support of . . . a sectarian institution." The St. Isidore Contract violates the plain terms of Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Slip op., ¶12.

There is no "intertwinement" here. SCOTUS is overreaching to gratuitously address a culture war issue. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to teach Kiddie Diddling 101, it is free to do so on its own nickel.

[Michael P]

Yet if a state Supreme Court declared that the moon is made of blue cheese, SCOTUS is in no way obliged to take that for granted.

The fact that you don't want a review of the First Amendment infringement here doesn't mean there is none.

[Thought about __ all my life]

You make a lot of references to child abuse, more than most on here. You have a problem

[Noscitur a sociis]

No. The appellants make no contention that Okla Const. Art. I, § 5 and Art. II, § 5 violate the United States Constitution.

They most certainly do argue that those provisions, as interpreted through the decision under review, violate the U.S. constitution.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/351350/20250305181244391_24-396%2024-394%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/351240/20250305110401855_24-394%20Brief%20for%20Petitioners.pdf

Nor could they make any such contention. Although state courts cannot interpret their state constitution so as to restrict the protections afforded by the federal constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, they may expand protections on the basis of a textually identical state constitutional provision

Normally that’s fine, because the rights only cut one way—there’s nothing stopping a state giving extra rights to jury trials or double jeopardy protections. But here, there’s a tension between the prohibition on establishing a religion on the one hand, and on prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And that does seem like the sort of thing the Supreme Court should resolve.

[not guilty]

No matter what SCOTUS rules, upon remand the contract at issue violates Okla Const. Art. I, § 5 and Art. II, § 5 as a matter of res judicata. As Governor Al Smith famously said, no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, could SCOTUS certify a question(s) to the OK Supreme Court for them to answer, as an outcome, post argument?

[Michael P]

I think that would be uncommon in this kind of situation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adequate_and_independent_state_grounds gives a brief overview of the relevant jurisdictional principle. The Michigan v. Long decision articulated bases to defer to state courts -- couched in avoiding advisory opinions but probably also to minimize round trips between state and federal courts.

[not guilty]

"NG, could SCOTUS certify a question(s) to the OK Supreme Court for them to answer, as an outcome, post argument?"

They could do that, in anticipation of further proceedings. I doubt that they will.

[Bored Lawyer]

If SCOTUS rules that the Oklahoma constitutional provision, as construed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, violates the U.S. Constitution, then under the Supremacy Clause, it's null and void. So, no, it's not baloney.
Any more than a state constitution could provide that the state may not contract with black people.

[Michael P]

Still missing from not guilty's vocabulary: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. 464 (2020).

[ReaderY]

Not Guilty, suppose the state had a state contstitutional provision prohibiting contracting with black people. Wouldn’t your argument hold equally in that case ? A contract which runs afoul of the state constitution cannot stand, so any appeal to federal courts over the matter would be asking for a mere advisory opinion for which federal courts have no jurisdiction? It seems to me if your argument applies to one, it applies to the other.

I don’t see standing as a problem here. The charter school has a contract, which was rescinded, a straightforward injury in fact. The contract rescision was proximately caused by an Oklahoma law the school claims is unconstitutional, which I think clearly establishes causation. And if the Supreme Court accepts the charter school’s arguments, I don’t see any reason why it can’t order reinstating the contract, or direct the Oklahoma courts to do so, as equitable relief. So there’s redressability. I don’t see merit in your argument that redressability is unavailable here.

Now, the charger shool might well lose on the merits. But I just don’t see standing as a problem.

[Commenter_XY]

Isn't the answer to 2 'Yes'?...so why do I say that?

NG, I am thinking of Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza cases. The direction of the current Court seems more toward including religious organizations, rather than excluding them.

[Thought about __ all my life]

But that means the real nub is "what is "relgious" ?
One can't logically take an issue and call any opinion 'religious' without implicating every opinion as religious. Your approach will just push things back to 'conscience' as in the atheist conscientius objector case

[Kazinski]

Seems Carson v. Makin, and Trinity Lutheran would determine the outcome.

Of this is how the framed the issue then the school wins:

"Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students"

Because it would mean a private secular school could get the contract, and the religious school would not, even if they were equally qualified to meet permissible state standards. And I don't think excluding religion is a permissible state standard, it certainly wasn't in the Maine case or Trinity Lutheran. It doesn't burden any students religious freedom because they have to affirmatively pick the school same as in Carson.

[Josh R]

The answer to the second question seems pretty clearly there is a violation of the Free Exercise clause given Espinoza (no more "play in the joints"). The answer to the first question (in effect, is a charter school a public school) is not settled law. But, the framing of the question ("simply because") seems to favor it is private achool (at least in this case).

As such, cert seems reasonable to me.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Seems and not settled vitiate your point !!
Free exercise doesn't extend to private contracts between a religious school and a religious tuition payer. Nor should a charter school as the best answer to an education need be shut down because someone only sees things in private vs public terms. This matters zero to most parents I know. If they don't like the school they don't send the child.

[bernard11]

Who exactly writes these questions, because these seem to be tilted in the school's favor:

Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students;

Note that the subsidized "educational option" includes mandatory religious instruction. How does funding that not violate the establishment clause? IOW, the "simply" is inaccurate and prejudicial.

(2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.

Lots of question-begging, lots of context ignored here. Would it be OK for the state to fund a madrassa? And the "solely" plays the same role here as "simply" does in #1. It tries to give the impression that this religious business is no big thing, nothing worth worrying about.

How does not funding a Catholic school violate Free Exercise? The state wouldn't be closing the school, or making it illegal to attend. It would be treated the same way churches are treated.

IMO this is a blatant violation. I doubt the OK Supreme Court is made up of rabid left-wing anti-religious Justices, and they seem to think so.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Who exactly writes these questions, because these seem to be tilted in the school's favor:

The lawyers who file the petition for certiorari (so in this case, the school) write the questions, although the other side has a chance to reframe them and the court sometimes changes the wording when they take the case. Writing the questions in a way that suggests that your answer is right without overdoing it is a bit of an artform.

[Josh R]

I know SCOTUS can choose only to grant cert on some of the questions petitioners present. Can SCOTUS modify the questions (in this case, the questions were not modified)?

[David Nieporent]

Can SCOTUS modify the questions (in this case, the questions were not modified)?

Yes. They can also add questions if they want.

[hobie]

Today Volokh also posted an article about child custody where one party's dalliances had significant effect on the outcome.

Owing to the substantial, documented, systemic child sexual abuse by the Catholic church and Southern Baptist affiliates, I don't see why any child, much less state money, should be going to support those institutions

[Brett Bellmore]

Considering that the public schools actually have a worse record in that regard, just far less reported, I don't think that issue actually moves the needle in a direction you'd like.

[Sarcastr0]

Given the imperial Presidency being pushed these days, that would seem to be the kind of justification a President could use if they got a notion to end subsidies to Catholic-related charities and schools.

That would be horrible policy, and horrible abuse of process. No President should have such a power.

But that's where we are today.

[hobie]

Why Brett, are you making another evidence-free broadside?

I'm unaware of any reports of systemic sexual abuse, much less coordinated cover-ups, in Anglican, Episcopal, Methodist, Unitarian, yeshivas or madras institutions. But I'm open to hearing about them if they exist

[hobie]

Oh, and I also forgot the decimation of Native American lives and culture at the hands of Catholic schools

[bernard11]

If it's far less reported, how do you know about it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because "far less" is not "not at all".

Red Flags in the Classroom

[bernard11]

So your claim is that the amount of abuse is far greater than what is reported?

How do you know about all these unreported cases?

How do you know there are not many unreported cases of abuse in the Catholic and Baptist churches? Bear in mind that even the cases that were reported were kept quiet for years, sometimes decades, through coverups by officials, and that we still have periodic eruptions.

[not guilty]

"Considering that the public schools actually have a worse record in that regard, just far less reported, I don't think that issue actually moves the needle in a direction you'd like."

Brett, which public school system has paid out billions of dollars in judgments and settlements because it was unwilling or unable to keep its employees out of its students' pants?

The conduct of the Roman Catholic Church Man/Boy Lust Association regarding its parishioners' children is vile and filthy.

[DaveM]

While the great legal minds of our age line up to do mighty battle on the funding of charter schools, according to the National Center for Education Statistics "23% of fourth graders and 20% of eighth graders in Oklahoma performed at a proficient level in reading", and "31% of Oklahoma fourth graders and 17% of eighth graders made a proficient score on math".

But by all means, let us continue to argue, and sue, and counter-sue. Wouldn't want to disrupt the status quo.

Here are the questions I would like to see answered: what is the societal price of having 4 out of 5 eighth graders not able to even read proficiently? Is that amount more or less than the amount of funding we're currently suing for? Might this case even be preventing the real problem of ignorance from being solved?

[not guilty]

There is a case to be argued next month before SCOTUS involving the constitutionality of a contract between Oklahoma's Statewide Charter School Board and the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to the latter entities to operate a public charter school (St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School). The contract allowed for the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church and required students to participate in religious curriculum and activities.

The issues presented for review are:
(1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/oklahoma-statewide-charter-school-board-v-drummond/

In an original jurisdiction action, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the contract violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the federal Establishment Clause. The court held that St. Isidore, as a public charter school, was a governmental entity and a state actor. The court also held that the contract violated the Establishment Clause because it allowed for the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church and required students to participate in religious curriculum and activities. The court granted the extraordinary and declaratory relief sought by the state and directed the Charter School Board to rescind its contract with St. Isidore. https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/2024/121694.html

The Oklahoma Supreme Court found the St. Isidore Contract to violate two provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, which according to that Court "affords bona fide, separate, adequate, and independent grounds upon which [its] opinion is rested." (Slip. op., ¶38. The opinion of a state court of last resort interpreting that state's constitution should have ended the matter per Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 (1983). I am accordingly baffled that SCOTUS granted certiorari in this matter.

[Michael Ejercito]

From what I can tell, whether or not a private indivudual is a state actor is a mixed question of fact and law.

[Kazinski]

Gov. Healy is dealing with a terrible energy crises in Massachusetts, renewables can't shoulder all the load, natural gas is in short supply, and below freezing temperatures. Residential bills up to $1000, and single digit temperatures forcast for next weekend.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/an-absolute-crisis-mass-lawmakers-and-consumers-fight-rising-heating-costs/3634766/

Here's a video linked below of her talking about how the State can't get enough natural gas, to ease the crunch.

But there is one problem, Healy created the crises.

After the first video is one from 2022, showing Healy bragging that she stopped 2 natural gas pipelines from being built.

https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1898459484973830587?t=fbR_kb8-TpgsWUz1hU5byA&s=19

[Michael Ejercito]

It is like a huge chunk of politicians are on a jihad against fossil fuels.

[Martinned2]

Massachusetts probably enjoys being above sea level.

[Michael Ejercito]

It will be so for at least 500 years.

[Martinned2]

I think it's mostly the bits near the ocean that they're worried about.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Landfill always naturally sinks as organics decompose and silt washes out -- most of Boston is sitting on land that was filled 150-200 years ago.

[Michael Ejercito]

There is also a thing called land subsidence.

[Martinned2]

Look at all the populist keyboard warriors who are suddenly experts in geology and climate change!

[Mr. Bumble]

How much of your homeland is and has been below sea level for centuries?

[Davedave]

Bit rich coming from a far-right populist climate science denier like you, Martinned.

[Michael P]

Most of the US's east coast is still springing upwards from the last time glaciers covered them and depressed the land.

[Kazinski]

Probably safer than most places, the long term trend in Boston is 2.66 millimeters per year which is less than the global trend of 2.97mm per year.

The estimated average sea level rise is about 10mm per year since the last ice age, since its risen 122 meters since then. But it actually fluctuates quite a bit, 125,000 years ago sea levels were 5.5 meters HIGHER than they are now, and that of course is very recent geologically.

The first Britons walked across the channel, or where the channel would be, maybe even from the Netherlands. They don't want that happening again anytime soon.

[Martinned2]

Like they say in Dutch commercials for investment products: Outcomes from the past offer no guarantees for the future.

https://sealevelrise.org/states/massachusetts

The sea level around Boston, Massachusetts, has risen by 8 inches since 1950. Its speed of rise has accelerated over the last ten years and it’s now rising by about 1 inch every 8 years.

Of course, you will note that that website relies on data from the NOAA, so it's anybody's guess whether they'll be able to keep it up to date.

[Kazinski]

"About 1" every 8 years", doesn't sound real precise to me.

But that multiplies out to 3.17 mm per year, which is just a cunthair off from the global rate of 2.97+/-.15 mm annually, or 11-12 inches a century.

Boston has face far worse dangers in the past:
"The Great Molasses Flood, also known as the Boston Molasses Disaster, occurred on January 15, 1919 in Boston's North End. A 50-foot tall tank holding over 2 million gallons of molasses burst, releasing a 25-foot high wave of molasses that destroyed everything in its path. The flood killed 21 people, injured 150, and killed horses and dogs."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe glacial rebound, (Still going on!) is bouncing a little.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The glaciers over upstate New York have melted, and granite is elastic. All that weight pushed the ledges under the glaciers down, which pushed the shoreline up. Think footprints in wet sand.

Well, now those footprints are leveling out.

[Thought about __ all my life]

https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2022/2/7/no-evidence-that-islands-are-sinking-due-to-rising-seas-96

Tell me how you defend parts of the ocean rising and other parts falling !!! Sounds silly

[Brett Bellmore]

While we generally pretend that "sea level" is a uniform level across the entire ocean area of the Earth, in fact the surface of the oceans is quite capable of being at different gravitational heights in different places, depending on temperature, salinity, and so forth. Up to a meter of difference from place to place, actually.

So, yeah, when you're talking differences measured in mm, the sea IS perfectly capable of rising in one place and dropping in another.

But, of course, the land is moving up and down too, at the same time.

Finally, coral islands are dynamic structures that move up and down with ocean level, and it's perfectly possible for such islands to grow faster than the sea is rising.

[John F. Carr]

Sea level change due to reduced gravitational attraction of ice caps is the same order of magnitude as sea level change due to to added water. If you're near a melting ice cap your local sea level rises less or not at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah. The local changes are mostly due to stuff like a current piling up against a coast, kinetic energy turning into potential energy, the water slowing and rising. And prevailing winds, of course; Any time the prevailing wind pushes water towards a landmass, the water will be a little higher there.

Glacier melt isn't remotely enough to measurably effect LOCAL ocean levels, even if it could potentially alter global ones over time.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I had not thought of this before, but glacier melt is what triggers geologic rebound. That is local, and potentially significant. Redistribution of the melt-water is not local, and thus attenuated locally.

[Brett Bellmore]

Absolutely true!

[Kazinski]

I think you are conflating different mechanisms, while the seas are rising and and its not even from place to place both due to rising and sinking land, what causes most coral atolls to stay the same size or even gain in size is the wave and wind action that built them up in the first place.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts taxed fuel to pay for pet projects and subsidies allowing poor people to use more fuel. Now people complain that prices are high.

I think formally the tax is a payment from utilities to the state that utilities can recover from customers. It functions much like a sales tax.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fair is fair -- ONE of the pipelines she blocked was to be paid for by electric consumers (i.e. the regulated monopolies that DISTRIBUTE electricity) with only the indirect link that cheaper natural gas MIGHT cause electric PRODUCERS to independently charge less.

That wasn't an allowable charge once the production became a competitive market, although mandates that the regulated utilities buy pixie dust & unicorn flatulence ought not be either.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But there is one problem, Healy created the crises."

What are they going to do, vote GOP?

[Magister]

Hasn't Massachusetts had more Republican governors than Democratic governors? So that would seem exactly something that Massachusetts voters might do.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They had a republican governor all of two years ago; there current governor is only the second democrat in the last 35 years.

[Bob from Ohio]

She's just going along with the legislature. That has not been GOP for 100+ years. Zero members of Congress, thanks to gerrymandering, and zero statewide office and, also thanks to gerrymandering, only 14% of the legislature

I guess I should have responded to this instead:

"Massachusetts taxed fuel to pay for pet projects and subsidies allowing poor people to use more fuel. Now people complain that prices are high."

The people might vote for a tame GOPer to check some of the obvious corruption and administer stuff. None of these GOP governors has had much influence on policy.

[Magister]

From the point of view of the current governor, enough voting for a different governor (of either party) would cost her the job. From the point of view of the Democratic party, a Republican governor (no matter how timid, but probably less so if the voters were unhappy enough with Healey) would doubtless impede them from achieving something they would like (say, opposing the Trump administration's worst policies).

So, yeah, the voters could vote Republican. Trump makes it a lot safer for Democrats in Massachusetts, because he will sabotage any Republican who doesn't lick his boots, and Democrats will have a wide array of unpopular policies to run against.

[John F. Carr]

"Governor Maura Healey said Monday that millions of utility customers in Massachusetts will receive a $50 credit on their April electric bills to help offset the surging energy costs many faced during the winter. ... Healey administration officials said the money to cover the costs would come from so-called alternative compliance payment funds, which the state has used to promote the development of clean energy technologies, such as solar panel installations."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/10/metro/massachusetts-maura-healey-electric-bill-credits-125-million/

[Kazinski]

None of that is going to help the supply crunch that is the root of the problem.

What would help is suspending the Jones act so they can get LNG shipments from US ports.

[not guilty]

[Duplicate comment deleted.]

[santamonica811]

Was it, though? LOL

[Kazinski]

I've seen a lot of posts here and news stories locally nationally and even internationally expressing concern about the rule of law US, and Trump's aggressive implementation of his agenda.

But many of them cite one of the concerns about the Trump administration's determination to deport illegal aliens, starting with the 1.5 million criminal illegals, and those who already have deportation orders. Its not only long-standing law but it was just strengthened by the Laken Riley act which just passed not even 2 months ago with bipartisan majorities.

I'm mystified that so many people who think that the rule of law is one of the bedrock principles of our system, don't want Trump to faithfully execute the laws, including the Laken Riley Riley act.

https://truthout.org/articles/by-voting-for-laken-riley-act-democrats-cede-more-power-to-anti-immigrant-right/

[Commenter_XY]

Speaking of deportations....

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/405125

SecState Rubio: We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported

Can't happen fast enough.

[Martinned2]

What makes you think that Rubio is even in charge of his own stationary?

[Davedave]

I would imagine he is indeed in charge of whether or not he is moving.

[Kazinski]

Like I've said before, I don't support it unless there have been criminal violations.

I suppose being suspended or expelled for harassment by theor university would also be grounds for terminating a student visa, but what are the odds of that happening?

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, if you lie on a federal form, say for example forms I-20, DS-160 (note: this form has political affiliation questions), and/or the boatload of forms you fill out for a green card, it is a false statement, and therefore perjury. It says so right on the forms themselves.

Any support for hamas, then you're out of here; you can support hamas from your home country. There are millions of other foreigners who will happily take your slot, support America and it's ideals, and not support Judeocidal terror groups.

American citizens have privileges and immunities that non-citizens do not.

[Martinned2]

That assumes facts not in evidence, i.e. that the person was affiliated with Hamas (which is, note, a very different thing than "supporting" it) at the time they applied for their visa or green card.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being affiliated with Hamas may or may not be a very different thing than 'supporting' it, but the relevant question appears to be this one:

"Q: Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?"

I don't see the word "affiliated" in there. 'Support' is indeed sufficient.

[Martinned2]

Support in that sentence is clearly something different than "agree with" or "express agreement with".

https://legal-wires.com/glossary/legal-maxim-noscitur-a-sociis/

[Commenter_XY]

I see the words 'or other support' in the actual question text. What do you see?

[Martinned2]

I see "financial assistance or other support", which implies that the support in question has to be akin to financial support. (Like giving a terrorist a place to stay, or something else of monetary value.)

[Brett Bellmore]

PR campaigns are regularly paid for as a commercial activity, so I think protesting in favor of Hamas clears the bar.

Bottom line, these people are promising, as a condition of receiving the privilege of entering the US, to have nothing (positive) to do with terrorist organizations. It's not a difficult thing to pull off.

If they're not willing to do that, deport their asses.

[David Nieporent]

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project makes quite clear that independent speech does not trigger the "support" provision.

[Commenter_XY]

David, you can explain. The case cited is providing material support to terror groups. That isn't what the form asks.

Have the limits of 'or other support' been tested yet. I think we are about to find out. Do you agree...it will be litigated?

[Drewski]

I see a bunch of idiots trying to interpret a phrase from a form without looking to the controlling law. 8 USC 1182(3)(B)(iii) defines what activities are support for terrorist organizations, and specify that such support must be material. (Note that this is separate from the section prohibiting admission of knowing members of terrorist organizations. I shouldn't have to say that but I am dealing with a bunch of idiots who think a form's language, as interpreted by them, is controlling law.)

[Martinned2]

Brett asked me to interpret a phrase. I'm willing to do that, but I'm not willing to look up where he got that statute from. Brett should do his own homework.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't get any statute from anywhere, I just looked up what the question on the immigration form actually asked. And it didn't say "affiliate", it said "support", from which I reasonably deduce that perjuring yourself on the immigration form doesn't require being "affiliated with" a terrorist organization.

[bernard11]

Well, I did look at the statute

Here's what it has to say about "support:"

Aliens are inadmissible if they have (among many other reasons) engaged in "terrorist activity," defined as: [lots of obvious things] and

VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training-

(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;

(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;

(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to any member of such an organization; or

(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), or to any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.

Nothing about demonstrating or speechmaking.

[Drewski]

Indeed, Bernard - although a speech or demonstration geared to recruiting may fall afoul of a different provision of 1182 ("to solicit any individual into membership into a terrorist organization"). I don't know where the line is drawn on that but I think 1A requires it to be pretty explicit. I expect Trump to try to push up against that at some point though.

Still, consider this hypo: John Saruman holds a rally for the war-torn land of Mordor, where the oppressed orcs don't even eat dinner every night. The content of the rally is mostly about how Mordorian orcs should be allowed to settle the forests without getting shot by elves. Nobody calls for any specific acts or praises Sauron's army (which is a designated terrorist organization).

Rallygoers leave contact information, which John sends to Sauron who will use it for potential recruitment. Was the communication to Sauron protected? Was the rally itself? I think the answer to the first question is "no" but damned if I'm sure on the second.

(To be clear, this is an entirely hypothetical example. I have no reason to think that anyone currently in the news was communicating to real-life terrorists in any way for any reason. I just got to thinking about when a demonstration might fall afoul of 1182 indirectly without offending 1A.)

[Kazinski]

Well perhaps you misunderstood me, I don't support people.on University campuses.on student visas being deported based merely on speech or viewpoint, but I think its definitely legal.

Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I think the courts should enforce my opinion.

I just think we have enough idiots here that a few more, as long as they aren't criminals don't matter.

[Mr. Bumble]

Until they do.

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing wrong with plugging the idiot leak (continuing your analogy). The fewer the better.

There are many millions of people globally who would gladly be here, and share our values and don't support Judeocidal terror groups.

[Bored Lawyer]

" I don't support people.on University campuses.on student visas being deported based merely on speech or viewpoint"

That begs the question. Supposes a person on a student visa engaged in criminal activity, but the school and local authorities decided not to press charges. Is the federal govt. bound by that decision? I think not.
The Palestinian agitator did more than express an opinion. He helped organized a protest that blocked access to school grounds and harrased passers-by. That's more than enough to deport him, even if the spineless local authorities gave him a pass.

[Sarcastr0]

The Palestinian agitator

Why do advocates for Israel keep falling into this kind of rhetoric?

Lawful Permanent Residents get due process before deportation. So might be premature for you to convict them already.

His detention seems already beyond what the law would allow, to my understanding.

[Commenter_XY]

Then the palestinian agitator can have his due process, and get himself legal counsel. He'll be gone, either way.

I won't weep kicking out antisemites who support hamas.

[Thought about __ all my life]

That is a DEFENSE of free speech. Anyone supporting hate based on not all men are created equal NEEDS TO GO

[Magister]

Punishing people on the basis of their speech and chilling similar speech by others is not a defense of free speech.

[Josh R]

Most of the objections I have heard are on policy grounds rather than the rule of law, and are mostly limited to going beyond deporting felons and those already with deportation orders.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I'm mystified that so many people who think that the rule of law is one of the bedrock principles of our system, don't want Trump to faithfully execute the laws, including the Laken Riley Riley act."

This was on display 4-8 years ago, with the 'TakeCare' blog. It purported to be neutrally concerned with Presidents violating the constitutional duty to "take care that the law be faithfully executed", but half their complaints actually revolved around Trump enforcing laws they didn't like.

And, of course, they shut it down as soon as Trump wasn't President anymore, because he's obviously the only President who has that duty. [/sarc] Couldn't even be bothered to pretend they were serious. I'm waiting to see if they're not too embarrassed to fire it up again.

[tylertusta]

Expecting political groups of that type to not be hypocritical is just a bridge too far.

Remember when MoveOn was created during the Monica Lewinsky scandal for Congress to just censure Clinton and move on?

Pepperidge Farms remembers, but not many on the left do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHAT "rule of law" -- between the lynching of the Jan 6th folk and the anti-Trump lawfare, rule of law has long been abandoned.

[Martinned2]

the lynching of the Jan 6th folk

Holy Victim Complex Batman!

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Darryl Gates wasn't a racist.

[Riva]

Many, if not all, of those who supposedly "think that the rule of law is one of the bedrock principles of our system" also supported and continue to support the sick weaponization of federal law enforcement against political targets. They're not principled people; or, that is to say, their principles do not include the objective and fair administration of the law.

[David Nieporent]

Trump and his crooked cronies going to jail is the objective and fair administration of law,

[Mr. Bumble]

The Queen of Hearts approves.

[santamonica811]

Anyone else been experiencing this on Facebook over the past 3-4 weeks? I believe that I'm quite liberal on most social issues (eg, gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action), middle of the road on a few (trans rights), and conservative on others (guns, strong military and Reagan-era military strength used abroad). On the internet, and on FB, I click on articles that are generally consistent with this. I'm happy to click on an anti-choice article, if I respect the author. Same with a gun-control article. But that's very much the exception. This blog is, by far, the most MAGA-friendly of any website that I visit more than a single time--and this blog is, of course, not the least bit MAGA in terms of its actual conspirators . . . other than Josh Blackman, whom no one takes seriously.)

Okay, having said all that, here's the problem. Or, if not a problem, a wrinkle. Over the past month, I suddenly have started receiving A TON of far-right wacko MAGA posts every single day, all day. *All* of them fake articles. Along the lines of, "[Famous liberal celebrity] will move abroad due to Trump.", with only the name of the celebrity changing. I get at least 20 of these every single day. I cut-and-paste a response ("This is a fake and untruthful article. Please don't post them. Readers, don't believe the article, or anything else this person is posting or re-posting.") and then permanently Block that person.

Anyone else been having this experience? What is especially odd is that the people/organizations posting these bullshit articles never have names like "Trump for Justice" or "Proud Conservative" or things like that. It's always with a name that relates to love for animals or love for arts & crafts. (I guess another, related question is why a MAGA nutcase would create a profile page called, "Puppies are our friends," when every single post is a politics-related conspiracy that even Fox News would not carry.)

It's been happening so often that I'm throwing the subject over to you guys. Wisdom of the masses, etc. And, if you have any suggestions on how to block them all in advance, of course that would be ideal. Weird. And annoying. No idea at all how the FB algorithm concluded that I'd enjoy this genre of posts.

[Kazinski]

I'm getting a lot of JD Vance Memes on X, so that doesn't sound so bad.

Are there ads accompanying the stories, are they trying to get you to click through to.something else?

I don't use FB, so I can't give you any help there but muting on X seems to give me less of things I find irritating.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the key point to understand is that their algorithm isn't trying to send you posts you like. FB doesn't give a damn if you like things; They're selling your eyeballs, not your smiles.

They're sending you content they think you won't ignore.

So if you so much as pause while scrolling, the algorithm upranks that content for you.

And since producers of content get paid on that basis, not whether you like the content, pissing you off is a viable business strategy.

[John F. Carr]

Sounds like Facebook is doing the same thing that drove people away from Twitter. Long before Musk became Prime Minster to King Trump, Twitter/X was pushing MAGA content on people who just wanted knitting or chickens.

Cory Doctorow likes to write about this problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a natural consequence of the service being "free": As the saying goes, "If you're not paying for the product, YOU are the product!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm noticing some really outrageous YouTub advertisements -- outrageous in that I *know* that they must be fraudulent -- a lot of "snake oil" medical cures and such.

I'm all for free speech and such, but the two or three legitimate advertisers have a legitimate complaint here...

[Drewski]

Advertisers don't generally have standing against their hosts' content outside the four corners of their contracts. This is the sort of thing we rely on government regulation to keep under control.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There used to be a concept of "reputable" and "reputable" companies wouldn't advertise in venues where unreputable were permitted.

[Bored Lawyer]

Competitors do have standing under the Lanham Act and some state laws to sue their competitors for false or misleading advertising.

[Drewski]

Okay yeah that's true but it's not because they're advertising on the same platform. They would also have standing to sue if another advertiser hired mercenaries to shoot at them, but it wouldn't be because they bought ads from the same host.

[Krayt]

I sometimes get snake oil ads, read by AI emulating (absolutely flawlessly, keep in mind) a famous celeb like Tom Hanks. The audio is overlaying an actual video, not even AI, of him talking about something else, the mouth doesn't line up.

I flag the video, mentioning the snake oil aspect and ripping off a celeb.

[Thought about __ all my life]

You are naive. That is coming from leftist liberal sources and is for the purpose of getting people like you to go on the rant you are going on.

[santamonica811]

Interesting to read. And not impossible. Do you have a cite for this? Or is your reply merely your own speculation?

[SRG2]

The trick is to do some searches within FB for stuff you're interested in - vintage cars or microbrand watches or whatever, and open a few of the resultant pages/links. You'll find that thereafter your feed will e full of those instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

That does work to some extent, but you're still going to encounter what I call "bait and switch" posts, that start out for a moment looking like something you'd like, and then abruptly turn out to be something different.

Automated content generation has gotten as cheap as automated email generation, since the marginal cost is essentially zero, they can afford to annoy thousands for every sucker they actually land.

[Kazinski]

The trick is to not use Facebook.

The only social media I use is X, and 90% of the time I'm just in the Following tab which cuts way down on what they curate for me.

I have noticed that a lot higher percentage of what the curate is videos, to keep you scrolling and entertained, but I'm not really entertained by that, I want to read my content.

[santamonica811]

SG,
Oh, I do that already, and have done that, as part of my (extremely limited FB use). I search for old segments from WILTY, vegetarian recipes for various entrees and desserts, and re to darkroom use in photography. I have *NEVER* received an unsolicited WILTY episode, or a veg recipe, or anything remotely related to photography. And the above 3 categories are probably related to literally 99% of my FB searches. (And, out in the real world, to 96% of my Google searches...just in case FB somehow knows about my Google search history and manages to incorporate those as well.)

[Bwaaah]

SM811: "I cut-and-paste a response"

My first rule of spam is to never engage it. A response can signal to them that they hit pay dirt, and tends to cause more of the same. Reporting the post to FB is one thing, and possibly helpful. Commenting is probably not helpful, and possibly exacerbating the problem.

[santamonica811]

Good point. I hadn't thought about it that way. But of course you're correct...me "engaging" with the fake video is probably a jackpot from FB's perspective. I'll immediately stop doing that. Great suggestion!!!

[SIV]

I get ads and tons of posts about 20th Century rock bands, many of which appear to either be AI-composed or written by snot-nosed kids who get basic facts wrong. I get a lot of classic movie posts, although only a small minority feature glaring errors of fact. Everything else is ads, Fox News stories (often non-political entertainment/sports garbage) and tons from "the Resistance" praising Liz Cheney, and bizarrely, Thomas Massie and Thomas Sowell memes. The latter must be reposted from some Democrat site that neither knows or cares who those people are and much less what they believe.

[Martinned2]

Michael Ignatieff has written a lovely little piece on his Substack about gratitude: https://substack.com/inbox/post/158169542

Gratitude is one of those feelings which ceases to be itself, when it is forced. It is like love in that respect. It is in the very meaning of gratitude that it should be free. So when a man refuses to say he is grateful for a deal which damages his country’s vital interests, he is speaking as a free man.

There used to be American Presidents who understood what gratitude meant. Not anymore. There used to be Presidents who understood what freedom was, and why it was unnecessary to demand gratitude when the United States defended it. Not anymore.

[Kazinski]

Well I have to agree, forcing Zelensky to express gratitude for trusting to end the war, is like forcing an addict to express gratitude for forcing them into rehab.

[Martinned2]

I don't know about that analogy, other than that in both cases you'd be an asshole.

[Kazinski]

Oh come now, I sincerely hope that Zelensky comes to realize that a ceasefire and ending the war now are the right thing to do, and of course that events prove that too. Just as many an addict who was terribly resentful they were forced into rehab later realizes it was the best thing.

I did see a clip about what I think is somewhat analogous to many peoples attitudes about the Ukrainian peace deal, regarding a completely different issue on the Bill Maher show. He had someone from the arts community who has evidently completely cut ties with the Kennedy Center after Trump took it over and replaced the board. He said he didn't want the Kennedy Center to actually fail, as long as Trump doesn't get any credit for saving it.

I don't think you want the Ukraine peace deal to actually fail, unless of course Trump gets credit for it.

[Martinned2]

WTF are you talking about? There is no peace in Ukraine, there is no peace deal. The Russians have no interest in peace. All there is, is Trump throwing the Ukrainians under the bus because he's likes Putin better.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Russians may have no interest in peace, but they are damn tired of paying for war. Paying in cost (their economy went into the toilet when oil prices went down), paying in men, and paying in sanctions.

A lot of people, myself included, are genuinely surprised that Putin is still alive. He may be the biggest bully in Russia but he isn't the only one and the others have had their style crimped by his war.

It's like the US in Iraq -- Russia wants out.

[Moderation4ever]

Russians want out all they have to do is leave like they did in Afghanistan in 1989.

[Martinned2]

Which Russians are you talking about? Or are you under the impression that Russia is a democracy?

[Martinned2]

But don't worry, Elon Musk has challenged Putin to "one to one physical combat over Ukraine", so I'm sure it will all be sorted out soon.

https://bsky.app/profile/radek-sikorski.bsky.social/post/3ljwxopzjjc2g

(And no, it is not OK for a senior US government official to call the foreign minister of a key NATO ally a "small man", just because the foreign minister had the audacity of asking whether the contracts signed by that government official's company are worth the paper they're written on.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Miss Manners.

[Kazinski]

Now do.NZ former ambassador to the UK, or the UK ambassador to the US.

[Martinned2]

WTF are you talking about? Peter Mandelson has been kissing Trump's backside since he got the job.

[Kazinski]

Now maybe, but not always.

Peter Mandelson calls past remarks about Trump ‘ill-judged and wrong’

Labour peer says president has won ‘fresh respect’ ahead of expected confirmation as ambassador to the US

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/29/peter-mandelson-remarks-trump-us-ambassador

[Thought about __ all my life]

I will only say that your comparison is illogical on 3 counts
1) Expresed forced gratitude is in no way gratitude.
2)Are you saying Z. is an addict ? That would have to follow if your point is about how there is a difference betwee what you say and why you say it.
3)"Forcing" used twice testifies to the fact that there is no comparison. There is only one Z. but many addicts and some do express gratitude.

Why do idiot comparisons like thils rankle me? Because you could completelyl reverse it and be arguing just as illogically for the opposite.

[Kazinski]

I came across a link to a story of horrific child abuse linked in that MA energy crises above. Any monster who would put a child* in danger like this should get thrown in jail for a decade or more:

"At 11:30 a.m. Saturday, New Hampshire State Police said a trooper patrolling on I-93 south in Londonderry saw a yellow Dodge Charger Hellcat driving recklessly at 122 mph.

The trooper conducted a traffic stop and identified the driver as 18-year-old Jaden Cummings, of Manchester. He had three passengers with him in the car, including an adult female and two infants."

Any one who would give the keys of a Hellcat to an 18 year old child, especially a male, deserves the book thrown at them.

I'm glad the poor boy is ok.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/nh-teen-arrested-for-driving-122-mph-with-2-infants-in-the-car/3652458/

* child of course by gun control advocates definition, which I think is appropriate here, the poor kid never had a chance.

[Frank Drackman]

When George Herbert Walker Bush was 18 he was flying 1800 Horsepower Avengers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I assume that the woman had custody of the infants and she should have been arrested for child endangerment.

This was "Warp 2" -- twice the posted 65 MPH speed limit.

[John F. Carr]

Under New Hampshire law any speed over 100 mph on a public highway is by definition reckless. Since the law went into effect several years ago state police put out regular press releases about catching fast speeders.

Some supercars have a "valet mode" to prevent crazy driving. In that mode they should be safe for inexperienced drivers.

[Martinned2]

And speaking of current/former leaders of the Canadian Liberal Party, Mark Carney has won the leadership race with an eye-watering 85.9% of the vote.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-pary-leadership-winner-1.7476359

I listened to him and Chrystia Freeland being interviewed on The Rest is Politics: Leading, and I preferred Carney as the more centrist on substance and the more thoughtful on his style of answering the questions, but I didn't think he'd win by this much.

As someone who is more familiar with the UK system than the Canadian system, I'm fascinated to learn how someone who does not have a seat in Parliament can be PM. I see reporting that he will probably call a general election soon, but it doesn't look like he's required to. Would he give himself a senate seat until the election otherwise? (The Canadian senate is appointed, but there aren't unlimited seats.) Or can he just be PM without ever appearing in Parliament?

(Of course in a sensible system, like the Dutch system, government ministers have their own area in Parliament where they can participate in debates without needing to be MPs themselves, but I suspect that's not how Canada works.)

[Martinned2]

And of course the House of Commons has a seating plan online, and it basically has the same setup as the UK House of Commons.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/floorplan

[Kazinski]

Its not at all clear, except that its not completely up to Carney, its really up to Jagmeet Singh whether there is going to be an election right away:

"The new leader inherits a minority government with no supply-and-confidence deal and an opposition that’s eager to boot the Liberals out.

The Conservatives want the Liberals to reopen Parliament to debate the response to Trump’s tariffs. But the Tories are not promising to hold off on an election if that happens.

When he was asked on Feb. 5 if forcing an election now would be a responsible choice, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said it’s “the only responsible course of action.”

The New Democrats, however, have said they are willing to work with the Liberals in a limited way. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he wants legislation passed to support Canadian workers affected by tariffs and “an election is secondary to that.”

The NDP and Liberals together hold enough seats to pass legislation and defeat motions of non-confidence, but the NDP would want to see specific measures."

Wernick said the new prime minister could work out a deal with other parties to get some things done in a short sitting before heading into an election, but “that requires a level of maturity” beyond what we’ve seen in recent months.

“We can go very quickly into an election right after the swearing-in of a new cabinet,” Zussman said. “That may be a strategic advantage (for the new leader).”

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-leadership/article/the-liberals-are-about-to-choose-the-next-prime-minister-what-happens-next/

[Martinned2]

Well, it's *also* up to the other party in the coalition, but ultimately it's the PM who has to advise the Governor-General to dissolve parliament, so in that sense it's up to Mark Carney first and foremost.

[Kazinski]

Maybe it doesn't work quite the way I thought it did, when I read this "The new leader inherits a minority government with no supply-and-confidence deal and an opposition that’s eager to boot the Liberals out."

I would think Singh wants an election then maybe he will get one, After all Carney just won the election to lead the Liberals not be PM, if Singh votes for Pierre Poilievre, isn't he then the PM?

I doubt the governor general will Whitlam Carney of he becomes.PM but can't get a working majority, I'm not even sure he could in Canada, but without the votes to do anything I would think he'd call an election, otherwise the voters might be pretty upset if he was hanging on with no prospect of getting anything done.

[Martinned2]

You've identified the problem. If the Liberals and the NDP disagree about when to have the election, the only threat the NDP has is to vote Poilievre into office, which isn't a very credible threat for a party that's to the left of the Liberals. But if the NDP joins a no confidence vote against Carney's government, there does need to be an election pretty quickly. But then, by statute there needs to be an election by October anyway.

[Kazinski]

"isn't a very credible threat for a party that's to the left of the Liberals "

Maybe long term, but lets look at it from Singh's view, strategically, he's already said said he won't support the liberals anymore back in December. And he knows there will be an election by October. So he is going to do what he thinks will most enhance his election prospects.

If he thinks coming crawling back to the Liberals is will best enhance his electoral prospects, then he'll say its in the national interest to do that.

If he thinks an election now is his best bet, then he will cut a deal with Poilievre, make him PM in support for immediate elections, or he can even make the same deal with Carney, if he wants to be PM before the elections, then he needs to agree to call them immediately or whenever Singh wants.

Singh has lots of leverage, and he doesn't have to go into government with the conservatives to use it.

And its probably in his best interest as leader of an independent party to show his independence with an election coming up.

[Brett Bellmore]

While I'm not totally opposed to the parliamentary form of government, this business of letting the government in power decide not to hold elections is a bad idea. That's one thing America absolutely has right: Regular elections whether or not the party in power likes it.

[Martinned2]

Well, that's not how it works. Under s. 56 of the Canada Elections Act there has to be an election by 20 October at the latest.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2007_10/page-1.html

But you can hold elections sooner, and if ever there was a place that shows why that might be a good idea, it is the US in the last 10-15 years. If coherent government action has become impossible because the government and the majority in parliament can't work together anymore, you either get a new government or a new parliament (or both).

[Brett Bellmore]

Can't agree. I think it's just generally a bad idea to allow the politicians who happen to be in power at any given moment to game the timing of elections. Lets them do the political equivalent of "pump and dump".

Absolutely predictable elections is the way to go.

[Martinned2]

As long as the US still has politicians deciding the boundaries of their own districts, I think this isn't really something for you to worry about.

[Krayt]

Michigan set up the people's commission to redraw districts and it got several attempts last election borked by the courts.

I also don't see how there won't be attempts at something similar to regulatory capture by the parties anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not in favor of that, myself.

The scheme I've proposed, (Not that it has any chance of adoption!) is that a computer be used to generate from random seeds many thousands of potential district maps, with no data concerning demographics or voting patterns, just satisfying equal population, compact boundaries, and respect for natural boundaries such as bodies of water.

Then each of n ballot qualified party gets to eliminate 1/(n+1) of those maps, in a process similar to voir dire, on any basis they like.

Finally, the map that actually gets used will be selected from the surviving maps by use of a bingo cage in public.

This would totally eliminate any possibility of gerrymandering.

[bernard11]

Cute idea, Brett, but I'm not sure it works statistically.

There were about 152M votes cast for President in 2024, so about 350,000 per congressional district. Imagine a state which has 10 districts, say, and is, statewide, 51% (R) and 49% (D). The mean district will have that proportion.

Try calculating the standard error (it's .085% - 350,000 is a huge sample), and figure out how likely you are to get even one such sample. You could do billions of runs and not get one. And if you miraculously do the Republicans will throw it out.

What's going to happen is that you will end up with ten 51-49 districts.

Of course the compactness requirement will mitigate that to some degree, depending on how it's implemented, but you are still extremely likely to get an entirely one-party delegation, when getting, say, 8-2 today, would be a rare landslide, especially if you eliminate gerrymandering.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What's going to happen is that you will end up with ten 51-49 districts."

I'm not sure how anybody with even a passing acquaintance with real world political geography would arrive at such a conclusion.

That would be true if voters were randomly distributed, sure, but in reality they're not remotely randomly distributed, and surely you're aware of that! Michigan, for instance, is a Presidential swing state because it's close to 50-50 overall, but that doesn't mean that Wayne county is close to 50-50!

Here's what I think is the seminal paper on the topic of gerrymandering and random computer redistricting. On page 335 you have a chart that shows the distribution of party numbers for all 50 states based on creating a large universe of randomly seeded compact and equal population districts.

Your scenario is only remotely plausible in Hawaii and Oklahoma, because both states are so far from 50-50 that there aren't enough members of the minority party to make up a district even if they all lived in the same place.

In real states that are NOT political monocultures, the heterogenous distribution of party members assures that both parties will see some representation, in rough proportion to their fraction of the population. Rough, because partisan geography isn't usually symmetric, and the party with less efficient distribution loses out a bit.

The grey bands in that chart show the distribution of randomly generated maps, and you can see the states that are gerrymandered by the fact that the actual map produces an outcome no map generated objectively would.

[Kazinski]

Well of course the drawback to regular elections is 2 year campaign seasons.

I too like.our system better, but its not flawless.

[Martinned2]

That's one of the drawbacks. Another one is long periods of deadlock when nothing can get done. And those deadlock periods are why the US has ended up with a President who can pretty much run the country on his own, because he has statutes that empower without requiring, and a judiciary with decades of case law supporting the President's authority.

[Brett Bellmore]

We tend to think of that as a feature, not a bug, since we're biased in favor of the government NOT doing things absent a strong consensus they ought to be done.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not how it operates. It's biased in favor of current policy continuing, not against government action generally.

I learned at our governmental structure is more resolute and the UK's is more agile. But I can't find that terminology used more widely.

[apedad]

The problem is "the politicians who happen to be in power" isn't the same thing between a parliament govt and a winner-take-all govt we have.

Obviously in our govt, the person (and therefore their party) who wins the election gets all the power of that office.

However, in the parliament govt, they often have to share power, i.e., coalition which means lots of compromise.

And sometimes (often?), the coalition just can't hold up and then it's appropriate to hold a new election before the next mandatory date.

[Don Nico]

and sometimes, one extremist legislator gets inordinate power over the PM (think Israel).

[Commenter_XY]

It is in Canada's interest to 'Defuse The Donald' (meaning, get a tariff deal in place quickly before any economic impact is severely negative).

Is Mark Carney the man that can defuse him? Seems doubtful.

But there is progress in that the lunatic Freeland wasn't the winner.

[bernard11]

Unless it's a reduction, why would a tariff deal avoid a negative economic impact?

Here's the thing, XY. Tariffs are, in general, not good. They are a tax on trade, which reduces trade, thereby negatively affecting the economy. Trump's misunderstanding of even the basics is frightening.

One exception is for strategically important items, where it is important to build a domestic industry, and another that is sometimes argued is to provide protection for "infant industries."

[Dr. Ed 2]

GHW Bush (41) would have won re-election had the election been held in May of 1991 rather than November of 1992. Remember that the reason why Clinton was the Dem nominee was that none of the likely candidates wanted to run against him.

By contrast, Reagan would have been defeated in July of 1982, and the GOP lost 26 house seats that fall, even though the economy was recovering.

[Thought about __ all my life]

You either support or don't support a parliamentary form . Zelensky is doing the evil he does because he is able to forestall elections.

[Martinned2]

Zelensky isn't doing anything except complying with Ukrainian law, as you well know.

[CountmontyC]

So what you are saying is that as long as the war continues Zelensky gets to remain president of Ukraine? Seems like a perverse incentive to continue the war.

[Absaroka]

I agree in a theoretical sense; I wouldn't put that rule in a constitution.

In a practical sense. I don't see an issue at this point, since the Ukrainian people still strongly support the war and their current president.

Great Britain put off elections in WWII:

"The Government has reached a decision that the general election which would ordinarily be due in November will not be held. All parties agree that an election in the midst of war would be a disaster."

so it's not that unusual. And the Brits hadn't even been invaded 🙂

[John F. Carr]

I think when Congress fails to do its job forced dissolution is appropriate. In plain language, if we get a government shutdown or even if we don't get a budget on time, we have a snap election. One problem is codifying the definition of failure so we all know when it happens.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's where a king comes in, I think even in Canada, the King's representative calls for the new election.

[Davedave]

"As someone who is more familiar with the UK system than the Canadian system, I'm fascinated to learn how someone who does not have a seat in Parliament can be PM"

That is also true in the UK.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/prime-minister-loses-seat-general-election

As usual, Martin displays complete ignorance of any proclaimed 'fact' that he hasn't been fed by some far-right facetok video.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Speaker of the US House does not have to be a Congressman.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That another hot fact from your dissertation?

[David Nieporent]

That’s actually unfair to Dr. Ed. (I gag as I write that.) While it's a stupid idea from people who mistakenly think they're being clever, it's a real idea that people have proposed over the years. Obviously it's never gotten past the pundit stage.

[Magister]

It seemed like a remote possibility that the Republicans would actually choose Trump, who had all their souls in boxes in the Mar-a-Lago bathroom, when Kevin McCarthy took a huge number of votes to become Speaker. But Trump would never do the work and didn't have anyone like Musk to do the actual work for him, so even the most dried up soulless husk in the Republican caucus could see it was a bad idea. (Well, maybe not, since he did get a vote from Gaetz several times.)

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an interesting article.

https://archive.ph/GFxWf

Here is an interesting quote from the article.

Glass had recently helped his teenage daughter with a science project that examined how infection spreads through social networks. And he’d homed in on a strategy that went back centuries but seemed to be getting little attention in contemporary epidemiology: social distancing.

The whole pandemic policy was based on a teenage girl doing her own research.

[Martinned2]

Sure, that and literally millennia of experience dealing with infectious diseases.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Okay, given in fact there is a pandemic .

[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?

[Bwaaah]

It wasn't until the pandemic that I first heard the term, "social distancing." Up until then, I just tried to not get close to people with infectious diseases.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd heard the term before then, but it related to avoiding people who you simply didn't want to associate with.

[Magister]

I heard of it in continuity of operations planning before the 2009 flu pandemic, along with comparisons between St. Louis and Philadelphia.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://www.aol.com/2-us-soldiers-accused-selling-163624710.html

Jian Zhao and Li Tian, Army soldiers stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and Ruoyu Duan, a former Army soldier, were arrested on Thursday after a federal grand juries in Washington and Oregon indicted them.

Tian and Duan were charged with conspiring to commit bribery and theft of government property, the DOJ said in a Thursday news release. Zhao was charged with conspiring to obtain and transmit national defense information to a person not authorized to receive it, bribery and theft of government property.

“The defendants arrested today are accused of betraying our country, actively working to weaken America’s defense capabilities and empowering our adversaries in China,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “They will face swift, severe, and comprehensive justice.”

What are the odds that the Army will convene a general court-martial against Zhao and Tian?

[David Nieporent]

The defendants arrested today are accused of betraying our country, actively working to weaken America’s defense capabilities and empowering our adversaries in China,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “They will face swift, severe, and comprehensive justice.”

Got excited when I read that, until I realized she wasn't talking about Donald Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

I'll bet you did, that old Prosecutus Interruptus

[TwelveInchPianist]

That must have hurt.

[Commenter_XY]

Hopefully someone will ask SecDef Hegseth what he thinks. How does the court martial work? It isn't like that Tom Cruise movie. What are trials like?

[Martinned2]

I'm sure he'll get right on that, right after he's finished making sure that nobody ever mentions the name of the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most of the point of malicious compliance is so that people like you can have silly talking points. Well, at least it helps identify people who need firing, so it's not entirely a bad thing.

[Sarcastr0]

David Nieporent had your number 2 days ago:

"When Communist state companies and entire economies floundered under central planning, the governments did not say, "Well, guess our decisions were actually kind of stupid." They blamed it on "wreckers." (Sometimes "saboteurs" or "counterrevolutionaries.")

Shockingly, MAGA Jacobins use the same pathetic excuses for why their plans don't work out: "It's not that we had a bunch of idiots who didn't know what they were doing giving orders; it's that people weren't following those orders the way we thought they would, and this must be deliberate, because it can't be our fault."

[Brett Bellmore]

You look so silly when denying that malicious compliance is a thing.

[Sarcastr0]

No one claimed it never happens.

But it's a thing you need to establish, not just assume it's the reason whenever some random thing doesn't go smoothly.

You assume liberals behind every single thing you don't like.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd say "undue command influence" and refuse to comment. At all...

[apedad]

"What are the odds that the Army will convene a general court-martial against Zhao and Tian?"

Zero.

This is going through the federal court system not the military system.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1392231/dl

[Commenter_XY]

Is that routine, apedad? Meaning, prosecution of active duty military in federal courts and not via UCMJ for something serious like bribery and passing along sensitive information. That seems really odd to me. Is it?

My followup...why isn't the gov't using the UCMJ?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What on earth is going on in Syria?
https://www.the-sun.com/news/13732570/thousand-slaughtered-naked-women-paraded-executions-syria/

Does this indicate that Russia isn't as powerful as it once was?
That's my take -- although Russian supported versus Radical Islamic -- isn't there some way that both sides can lose?

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if Ukraine kicking Russian ass has knock-on effects elsewhere in the world.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And people wonder why I say Russia wants out of Ukraine....

[bernard11]

And other people say that if Russia wants out they can just leave. They don't need permission.

So I'd say they don't want out. The fancy term is "revealed preference."

[Riva]

You seem to think "thousands slaughtered" and "executions" is a good thing. I guess that's part of why you slugs support a never ending meat grinder of a war in Ukraine. You're psychotic slugs.

[Michael P]

"The bodies of 31 people killed in revenge attacks that tragically include nine children and four children, were laid to rest in a mass grave, residents said."

Nine children and four children ... what is this world coming to?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Probably 9 women and 4 children.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Israel turns off the lights in Gaza:
https://time.com/7266211/israel-says-it-is-cutting-off-electricity-supply-to-gaza/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

South Africa would have nuked Gaza years ago.

[Martinned2]

How many times do people have to explain to you that Gaza is so small that literally "nuking" it would make Israel glow in the dark too?

[Frank Drackman]

and unnecessary, just cut off the food and water and the problem will take care of itself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Like Hiroshima did?

[David Nieporent]

Hiroshima did not make Israel glow in the dark, no.

[Don Nico]

To be accurate Martin, the direct effects of a 10 kT weapon on Gaza City would be contained within Gaza. However the 1 rad/hr contour of fallout would reach deep within Israel but not to Tel Aviv

[hobie]

I read that the cut off wouldn't have much effect since most power in Gaza is obtained through generators. So Israel should also cut off gas shipments if it wants to have any effect

[Bored Lawyer]

You do realize that your first sentence utterly refutes the notion that cutting off electricity is a war crime.

[Riva]

Nah, too much fall out. Conventional ordnance will do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The sane Ilya has an interesting article advocating deporting the Hamas Fan Club.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-deport-hamas-supporters-visa-law

[Martinned2]

Sure, who needs free speech anyway? That's definitely a talking point that's gone away fast after 20 January.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/

[Mr. Bumble]

"Sure, who needs free speech anyway? That's definitely a talking point that's gone away fast after 20 January."
Says the Dutch ex-pat living in the U[K]SSR.

[Martinned2]

I'm not living in the UK anymore. Either way, the UK and the Netherlands, unlike the US, have free speech rights that don't depend on who won the last election.

[Frank Drackman]

Like banning Michael Savage? Martha Stewart? Ja Rule? Dog the Bounty Hunter? Mike Tyson (like to see the Customs Inspector who orders Iron Mike to take out his "Grill")
But Cat Stevens AKA Yusuf Islam is free to declare Fat-Twats on Salmon Rushdie (who's a smart guy, moved to the US where he can own a gun) right on Piccadilly Circus

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm not living in the UK anymore. "

UK finally gets a break.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ohio is jealous.

[Michael P]

Certainly not the people who threaten to jail people for praying in their homes or cancel elections because the wrong candidate might win.

[Malika the Maiz]

Canceling elections?

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288818160389558273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1288818160389558273%7Ctwgr%5E438277009e6a147b5167c79c5b2adf67f71d0e2c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2020%2F3%2F21%2F21188152%2Ftrump-cancel-november-election-constitution-coronavirus-vote-by-mail

[Malika the Maiz]

Along with

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-demands-redo-2020-election-1234583872/

[Michael P]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2yl2zxrq1o actually happened.

[Malika the Maiz]

Your King called for that here repeatedly so what’s your beef? Are you disloyal to your King?

[Michael P]

The only kings I have are in boxes of cards, you kook.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lol, it must be tough to swear fealty to such a ridiculous regent. You try to point to some evil on “the other side” (even if you have to use your Capital One miles to go all the way to Romania) and, as usual, your King is on record as advocating the same thing here!

[apedad]

MAGAs can't use Capitol One anymore.

Trump companies sue Capital One over ‘woke’ account closures

Several companies affiliated with President Donald Trump, along with the president's son Eric Trump, sued Capital One in Miami on Friday (3/7), claiming the bank bowed to political and social pressure when it closed more than 300 Trump-linked accounts in 2021.

https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-companies-sue-capital-one-over-woke-account-closures/

[Bwaaah]

"MAGA MAGA MAGA!!!"

[Riva]

What I don't understand is why the institution continues to allow you unfettered access to the internet, although I am impressed at your ability to type with a straightjacket. Or are you using some voice activated typing tools?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It appears that someone was using the autopen to sign executive orders for Biden. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-s-autopen-signature-appears-on-most-official-docs-raising-concerns-over-who-controlled-the-wh-report/ar-AA1AyQUi

Are these executive orders actually even valid?

[Martinned2]

Trump (or someone acting on behalf of Trump) already torched them anyway. The more pressing question is who is in charge of, say, the US State Department right now: Trump, Musk, or Rubio?

[Mr. Bumble]

"...who is in charge of, say, the US State Department right now: Trump, Musk, or Rubio?"
The same person who is ultimately in charge of all executive departments (and no, that isn't Musk).

[David Nieporent]

It's Putin.

[Frank Drackman]

wow, that's original

[Krayt]

That the idea he's trying to curry favor with Putin at the expense of Ukraine cannot be rejected out of hand is a concern.

[Bob from Ohio]

It can be rejected out of hand. Deranged Trump haters are the only ones who think so.

[Don Nico]

More of your childish stupidity. Grow up

[Martinned2]

And yet, it seems to be Musk who gets his way more than either of the other two.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you still day drinking or have you gone cold turkey and are now suffering DTs?

[Bwaaah]

DjTs?

[Bob from Ohio]

"seems to be Musk who gets his way more than either of the other two."

Its been less than two months. Musk is catching a lot of flak, as intended, but flak knocks down the highest flyers eventually.

[David Nieporent]

Stupid people never bother to read past the headline.

Fox News Digital also examined the signatures on President Donald Trump’s executive orders, which are often signed in public or in front of the media, during his first administration and second administration and found the signatures were also the same.

[Dr. Ed 2]

i.e the same as the ones witnessed

[Noscitur a sociis]

Nope!

[Bored Lawyer]

Forget EOs. How about bills he signed into law? I can see someone arguing that one of those laws was not valid because it was never signed by the president.

[David Nieporent]

Unless it was a law passed by Congress at the very end of its session, right before it adjourns, the president does not need to sign a bill for it to become law.

[Bored Lawyer]

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

If flunkies were signing bills without asking the president, then it was never "presented to him." So, no, it would not be a law.
Now whether that happened remains an open question. But I can see someone raising the issue.

[Mr. Bumble]

Queenie (now Malika?) used to be the leader of the pack when it came to obfuscating but David Notsoimportent and SarcastrO are neck and neck for the lead now.

[David Nieporent]

If flunkies were signing bills without asking the president, then it was never "presented to him." So, no, it would not be a law.

Creative, but no. Congressional leadership doesn't personally walk documents over to the Oval Office and hand them to the president to sign. They present the documents to the president by sending them to the White House. The White House Chief of Staff (or, for that matter, the receptionist) can't sub silentio veto bills by refusing to actually put them on the president's desk after they're delivered.

[Kazinski]

I'm pretty sure the Presentment clause would be interpreted as just giving the President opportunity to sign or veto the bill, so Congress can't just sit on the bill and let it become law in ten days without giving the President a chance to veto it.

[John F. Carr]

It is common in other situations to interpret a requirement to give notice as a requirement to make a serious attempt to give notice. For example, delivering mail to the right mailbox or office is close enough for government work. Actual receipt need not be proved. If the driver's license suspension notice ends up in your house, it is still effective if through no fault of your own you don't see it. (That's my state's rule.)

[Mr. Bumble]

That doesn't address the issue of who signed the laws that were "signed" under Biden. Were so many laws passed that it was necessary to use an auto-pen?
Just what it the reason for having and using an auto-pen except for signing Christmas cards?

[Brett Bellmore]

So that you can delegate what can't constitutionally be delegated. Large parts of our government operate in defiance of explicit constitutional commands, (You're considered a crank if you don't ignore this.) such as Congress' quorum clause.

[David Nieporent]

So that you can delegate what can't constitutionally be delegated.

Brett has momentarily forgotten that he's a Unitary Executive guy.
​
​
Also, just to be clear, this whole stuff about bill signing is made up; the story on which this fake scandal is based only looked at executive orders, not proposed bills.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do executive orders and directives have the force of law?

[David Nieporent]

Do executive orders and directives have the force of law?

They do not. Strictly speaking, every single instruction a president gives a subordinate is an executive order; we just reserve that fancy label for ones that are presented more formally. Since the president is not a legislature, a president's orders are binding only on subordinates, not on any other American.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Another one bites the dust:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/ice-arrests-palestinian-leader-of-columbia-s-anti-israel-protests-revoking-student-visa-and-green-card-lawyer/ar-AA1AyTQe

Send them ALL home...

[Martinned2]

Times change...

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

Abu Marzook was elected as the first head of the Hamas Political Bureau in 1992, overseeing its operations from Northern Virginia under the United Association for Studies and Research. According to U.S. officials, up to 15 percent of Hamas's $70 million annual budget came from America.

[Michael P]

Thanks, Bill Clinton! (Marzook moved to Jordan in 1998.)

[hobie]

Sounds like speech and viewpoint discrimination by government

[EllaWilson]

I did not vote for Fauci.

[Martinned2]

Presumably you didn't vote for Elon Musk either.

[Michael P]

Nobody votes for any Cabinet member, for that matter, but Elon Musk was obviously part of the package.

[Sarcastr0]

Obviously

[Michael P]

Yes, you sad denialist. Musk was an on-stage regular at Trump's campaign rallies. He participated in virtual town halls with Trump. He was a huge part of the campaign.

[apedad]

Why is that?

Seriously, what dirt does Musk have on the Alpha Egomaniac Trump that forces Trump to share the limelight?

[Brett Bellmore]

You're just not going to accept that a guy who thinks highly of himself for just barely being a billionaire is naturally going to be impressed with somebody who is approaching trillionaire status, are you?

[apedad]

Not from Trump.

Trump will never be impressed with someone who's better than him.

Jealous? Sure.

But not impressed.

[Don Nico]

It is simple apedad. Musk is the lightning rod. That is useful for Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Nine of that reads ‘un-confirmed co-President’ chief.

[Michael P]

I said "part of the package", you sad straw-manning denialist.

[Sarcastr0]

So you aren't discussing Musk's actual role, but to some nebulous other thing with a different definition?

[Michael P]

The original contention was that "Presumably you didn't vote for Elon Musk either", so I was addressing that rather than your frivolous and unsupported characterization of Musk's role.

If you have some examples of Musk signing legislation, nominating or dismissing political appointees, or exercising other substantive powers of the presidency, then we can discuss whether "co-President" is a reasonable characterization. Otherwise, it looks like you and apedad think it is a bad idea for a President to delegate to, or take counsel from, other people.

[Sarcastr0]

Do even you believe this pathetic apologia?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/elon-musk-supreme-court-donald-trump

"what Donald Trump has done in designating Musk as his de facto prime minister—superintending his own Cabinet, declaring the death of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other agencies, and sending shockwaves through the federal workforce—is something that our constitutional order cannot tolerate.

Can it be that the richest man in the world may simply decree that an agency Congress has authorized and funded for decades be put “into the wood chipper” and nothing be done about it?"

[Michael P]

What do you mean "believe"? That's exactly the kind of fact-challenged fuzzy thinking that I expect from Vanity Fair, and I'm not surprised you would cite it, but I put no weight to it. Was it written before or after Trump backed Marco Rubio over Musk in the recent Cabinet meeting?

[Sarcastr0]

DOGE, per Musk, is making hiring and firing decisions.
It is dissolving Congressionally-created agencies.
It is placing young idiot administration minders in agencies whose authority supersedes political appointees.

You are arguing Musk is just a widdle guy with no real executive authority? That is a level of laughable falseness that makes me somehow revise down my sense of your low level of personal dignity.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Musk is just a widdle guy with no real executive authority"

He's a staffer, just with a high profile. What "real executive authority" did Kissinger have when he was NSC? Or any number of White House Chiefs of Staff?

Musk lasts as long as Trump lets him go.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, sorry to see you have an ED problem. Meaning, of course, Elon Derangement.

Musk is a special governmental employee, just like Anita Dunn. He can make recommendations, but the Agency head and ultimately POTUS Trump make the final decision.

We need more woodchipper action.

[David Nieporent]

He can make recommendations, but the Agency head and ultimately POTUS Trump make the final decision.

I guess I missed the part of his email to all employees where he said, "Send me a list of 5 things you did last week, but that's just a recommendation and actually you can ignore me because I have no role in this administration."

[David Nieporent]

Elon Musk was obviously part of the package.

And yet, supposedly he is not in charge of DOGE.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody votes for any Cabinet member, for that matter,

They are, however, confirmed by the senate. Unlike Musk.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who confirms the White House Chief of Staff? Or National Security Advisor?

People in these positions have had quite a bit of power, for instance Henry Kissinger. Musk is still just a staffer, if he fails to deliver results, his power vanishes as soon as Trump says so..

[Don Nico]

And neither are any Assistant to the President. That is how he is acting.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk the humble Presidential advisor?

That's not what's going on.

[Don Nico]

Your snark contributes nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

Either does your ipse dixit.

Objections to his broad exercises of direct authority are all over the place.

[hobie]

So was Fauci. Jeez, you're not very good at this, Michael

[Thought about __ all my life]

Okay, back up. Biden couldn't find his way to the bathroom and Trump ran a thriving multi-million dollar hotel chain.
Bottom 10 of his law class, so I dont think Biden is much better on medical matters ....IN FACT....

"“It is purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history,” Ron Klain, who was Biden’s chief of staff at the time, said of H1N1 in 2019. “It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that this can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918, they just have to go back to 2009, 2010 and imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math on that.”"

BIDEN UTTERLY INCOMPETENT BECAUSE SHELTERED FOR 50 YEARS AT THE PUBLIC REST HOME KNOWN AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

[Martinned2]

Trump ran a thriving multi-million dollar hotel chain.

He did?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/

[Bob from Ohio]

Fake news. Trump has never declared bankruptcy. Some single asset entities have.

[CountmontyC]

Martinned doesn't understand how corporations work. He doesn't understand that when a corporation wants to start a new business it often opens a brand new corporation and acts more like an investor putting some money in. That protects the original corporation if the new corporation/business fails it only costs the original corporation the money it invested. Trump over his lifetime probably opened dozens if not hundreds of businesses. That out of all of those businesses only six failed that is a pretty good average.

[grb]

Oh, for God's sake! Trump's business career, Readers-Digest-Version:

1. Daddy stakes little Donnie tens of millions. DJT blows it all.
2. Daddy stakes little Donnie tens of millions more.

And Trump has success for a time. This was back in the Trump Tower days. But it goes to his head and he blows it all again in a wanton orgy of egomaniacal bungling.

3. Daddy keeps little Donnie on a short leash. This was when Trump found his real talent : Two-bit scams like his faux-charity and fake university, plus brandling hustles marketed to chumps & rubes. Only when Fred died and the family holdings were liquidated did Trump really emerge in the clear.

[bernard11]

Trump over his lifetime probably opened dozens if not hundreds of businesses. That out of all of those businesses only six failed that is a pretty good average.

1. You have no idea how many he opened.

2. Not all, or even most, of businesses that fail, go into bankruptcy. Most just quietly close up shop. Some are sold at a loss. What ever happened to Trump Steaks? Trump Shuttle?

3. His bankrupt businesses were not neighborhood hardware stores. They were large undertakings, heavily publicized. He hasn't had a lot of successes of that type, so his ratio stinks. The guy busted casinos, and the Plaza Hotel, a NewYork icon, for Pete's sake.

4. At least one, Trump University, was an outright fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

You said that last week.

Didn't get a lot of engagement then either.

[Kazinski]

Got a lot more engagement this time.

7 of the comments in the thread are yours.

[Sarcastr0]

I've only heard her post 2 things: 'Blocked. Muted.' and 'I did not vote for Fauci.'

I hold by my statement.

Her comment wasn't engaged with; it was all spun off to be about Musk.

Decent chance she'll be back again next week with the same offering.

[Malika the Maiz]

8/9/24:
“Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods.”

I know a lot MAGANs are like a cult and worship Trump, maybe it’s like that thing from Genesis and Day One really meant an eon or something?

[Malika the Maiz]

What’s it’s like for people who try to intellectually defend flip flopping King Trump, x 1,000

“It’s not going to be a pause, none of that pause stuff, but I think he’s going to figure out, you do more, and I’ll meet you in the middle some way, and we’re going to probably be announcing that tomorrow.”

Trump’s Commerce Secretary, March 4th

Headline next day:

President Trump pauses Mexico and Canada tariffs until April 2

[Don Nico]

Look, Trump, even says that he wants to be unpredictable to avoid being played.
No surprizes there.

[grb]

Don Nico : "Look, Trump, even says that he wants to be unpredictable...."

When Trump fires nuclear workers and then scurries to rehire them, it's not eleventh-dimensional chess. When Trump announces massive tariffs and immediately rescinds them after Wall Street reacts, it's not precalibrated tactics. And Trump least of all keeps track of the random gibberish that dribbles from his lips. Every day is a new huckster scam. Every speech a new chance to lie.

There's no grand scheme involved here. Trump is undisciplined, deeply stupid, and showing clear signs of accelerating mental decay. You've got to be a pretty desperate Cultist to see any evidence of planning. It's all cartoon theatrics and PR stunts.

[Armchair]

Daylight savings time sucks...

Seriously though, they kept expanding it. First it was 6 months* (Yes, after the WWII time). Then 7 months. Then 8 months. The "second Sunday in March." It's too much, it's too dark.

Drop it back to 7 months.

[Frank Drackman]

Remember the Year-Round Daylight Saving's Time President Milhouse imposed in 1973 due to the A-rab Oil Embargo (with the much larger Military we had back then, why didn't we just take the Saudi Oilfields??) We were at Minot AFB North Dakota (not only did we live in both Dakotas, we lived at two different bases in ND, Minot and Grand Forks)
With year round Daylight Savings time, a Minot sunrise on December 21 occurs at 9:30am, talk about your "Seasonal Affective Disorder" (as if living in North Dakota wasn't enough)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

I remember walking to school in the dark. (As if it wasn't sucky enough when I got there.) I think that's why they stopped that. They didn't want me to have to walk to school in the dark.

[Martinned2]

You're not enjoying being an hour closer to Europe for the rest of the month?

[tylertusta]

Being closer to Europe is reason enough to go two hours back.

[Don Nico]

The changing differences in time zone are a PIA for those who regularly work with people around the world.
Pick a time and stick with it. I'd pick the time that the cows choose :standard time–such that the sun is highest at noon.

[Commenter_XY]

Or make it happen on the Saturday night (not Sunday), so there is an adjustment day before the business week. Latitude makes a difference.

I much prefer maximizing all the daylight possible.

[Krayt]

It is done Saturday night, as in early Sunday, so you have Sunday to recover.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe one day I'll explain to you what C_XY meant. (You coulda done it yourself.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Have I got news for you, Commenter_XY!

[Malika the Maiz]

Have you MAGA loyalists got behind your King’s agriculture vizier’s brilliant plan to reverse egg prices by buying chickens for your homes? How many chickens have you got? Remember, King Trump can’t fail, he can only be failed!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ag-secretarys-clucked-advice-050651229.html

[Drewski]

Speaking as a Democrat, I have plenty of chickens but they're all in Washington, D.C. I would think egg prices there are just fine judging by all the squawking and brooding in the left wing of Congress. Hopefully after midterms we'll have a chicken dinner and put some fucking donkeys in those seats.

[Frank Drackman]

Malika, I can't believe I'm agreeing with you, as a "Poultry Scientist" (I have a BS from Auburn in "Poultry Science" doesn't that make me a "Poultry Scientist"??https://agriculture.auburn.edu/research/poul/)
Raising Chickens is way more complicated than just White/Dark, Spicy/Mild, you gotta know about Pullorum Disease, Fowl Pox, Fowl Cholera, Mushy Chick, Chinch Bugs, and Manganese, alot of people don't even know what that is.
And ya gotta mulch, you've got to!

Frank "Of course it tastes like Chicken, it's Chicken"

[Thought about __ all my life]

Woman down the street announced she is doing that, yesterday.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally? I've got seven. But I've had them since before Trump was President, we just like having chickens. Helps me feel like I'm still living in the country.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Chickens were a prime commodity back when I was still living in western Maryland, because they eat stink bugs.

[grb]

Malika the Maiz : "Remember, King Trump can’t fail, he can only be failed!"

Indeed. Over the weekend Trump posted a link on Truth Social to an article written by rightwinger Charlie Kirk, telling Americans to - quote - "Shut Up About Egg Prices" - unquote.

So Dear Leader tells the little people not to worry about the upcoming recession and stop whining about prices. You'd think even the Cultist would notice that regal contempt....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/shut-egg-prices-trump-shares-063551005.html

[Moderation4ever]

President Trump is now accepting that the Trump recession might be coming. Most President's work to avoid recessions but Trump will shake things up by throw the economy under the bus. Of course recessions seem to be a stable of Republican Presidencies, Bush I, Bush II and Trump I. Guess American will have to elect a Democrat in 2028 to straighten the economy out again, like Clinton, Obama, and Biden.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again. We’ll do that. We’ve got to bring it down.”

10/1/24 Trump delivers campaign remarks in Waunakee

[David Nieporent]

Starting on day one, we will end inflation

Well, that set unfairly high expectations, because Trump also promised to end the war in Ukraine on day one. Since he spent his whole first day accomplishing that, I really think he deserves a grace period until day two to end inflation and make America affordable again.

[Bwaaah]

Well at least he became a dictator on day one, amirite?

"MAGA MAGA MAGA!!!"

[Malika the Maiz]

He just said he would and then went on to call himself King.

[Moderation4ever]

Well, a Trump recession will certainly end inflation. Egg prices will come down and you can buy some if you still have a job,

[Kazinski]

Recessions don't reduce the demand for eggs, in fact they might increase demand.

But I'm sure there are lots of layers laying as we speak to rebuild the laying flocks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course there's going to be a freaking recession. How can there NOT be a freaking recession? The government has been artificially pumping up GDP by massive deficit spending, any reduction in that would be recorded as a drop in GDP even if the private sector economy actually held steady!

The government could pay a million people to dig and refill holes, and if you stopped it abruptly it would be recorded as a 'recession'!

Just as a hangover is built into going on a bender, and a crash is built into snorting coke until your sinuses rot away, at least a recession was built into our recent huge expansion in government spending.

But if we don't drag out the process of cutting, and axe enough stifling regulations to make the economy do well, it could be over with by the midterms.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not artificial just because you don't like it.
You have a bad habit of calling things you disagree with illegitimate or artificial or evil. None of that is true.

This is a choice to kneecap our economy.

I know you're economically delusional, so I don't expect you to own the thing you're supporting, but Trump and Musk are completely responsible for what's to come.

[Don Nico]

Why do you let Brett troll you so easily?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett is not a troll.

[Don Nico]

I agree; Brett is not a troll.
However, there is a difference between someone being a troll and letting a person troll you. You always take the bait.

[Malika the Maiz]

Shouldn’t you call out the troller?

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, to me two quarters of stalled growth is a speed bump, while technically being a recession. A few forward recession indicators are present; lower consumer confidence, lower consumer spending, falling job creation. Does that trend continue...nobody knows.

Yes, lower tax rates, aggressive deregulation, foreign investment can blunt the impact and forestall a recession. The Congress needs to move more quickly on debt ceiling, and tax reform.

[Sarcastr0]

lower tax rates, aggressive deregulation, foreign investment can blunt the impact and forestall a recession.

Fairy dust. Especially given the timelines involved.

And...foreign investment? Have you head our President talk lately??!

[Moderation4ever]

Wow, I am flabbergasted. If any Democrat had brought in a recession the conservatives would howl. But Trump brings one on and it simply accepted because they are sick minded. I would remind you that while a recession is two quarters, the loses during that time can take years to build. I lost 30% of my portfolio in the 2008 recession and it is back but it took years to rebuild. People who lose their home might never get another. People in their late forties to early sixties who lose their job will likely never get back a job with the pay and benefits of the one they lost.

[grb]

Moderation4ever : "People in their late forties to early sixties who lose their job will likely never get back a job with the pay and benefits of the one they lost."

And then you ask why? Because all the misery will be for nothing. Trump's belief in tariffs as a magic all-purpose answer to any problem is addled lunacy. His brainless hacking away at the government is more performance stunt than rational downsizing. His party just passed a deficit-exploding budget. People will suffer for no reason other than a buffoon's desire to playact presidential.

And Trump made sure to surround himself with yes-men losers this term. He ensured no one around him had the stature or backbone to question his mental illness. Musk certainly won't. He knows Trump is an imbecile, but thinks it's all great trolling fun - like giving the Nazi salute on a public stage.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a darker reflection of human nature that populists get a charge from using authority to immiserate an outgroup.

Feds have absolutely been that.
And grantees.

Universities look to be next.

[Don Nico]

The gravy train of 65+% indicts costs is going to end. Expect a settlement in which universities agree with ~45%

[Commenter_XY]

Why should the gov't agree to 45%; the govt says 15%. If the universities don't want the money with those conditions, don't take it.

[David Nieporent]

The government does not say 15%. Trump said 15%. You people really don't get that Trump isn't king. The government said that Trump couldn't say 15%.

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

What sort of reflection on human nature do you think the past few decades of using authority to otherize and immiserate White males?

[Moderation4ever]

So, when white males can't be on the top of the heap they are immiserated? You're saying we need to go back to the times when mediocre white males got the job over the better qualified female of minority.

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

Affirmative Action and DIE have nothing to do with merit. It upends it to focus on superficial, immutable characteristics of people and not their skill or talent.

Give the reality of the systems you're defending, your point is a non sequitur.

[grb]

Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 : " ...have nothing to do with merit"

Kinda hard sell for the Cult to be peddling that talk. Just look at the freaks, whack-jobs, losers, leeches, and lackeys Trump installed in his Cabinet. Everything but merit was a factor.

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

Do you actually believe your whataboutism somehow redefines Affirmative Action and DIE into some type of merit-based systems?

Or are you upset that I am correct, and you just don't like hearing the truth?

[Moderation4ever]

Clearly you have no idea how DEI and Affirmative action programs work. The requirement is that employers search out for a diverse pool of qualified candidates, so the employer is not left having to hire unqualified white male candidates from an incomplete pool.

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

You think there needs to be a law to force employers to search for qualified people?

[Malika the Maiz]

“Affirmative Action and DIE have nothing to do with merit. It upends it to focus on superficial, immutable characteristics of people and not their skill or talent.”

The argument is that because much of US history formally focused on superficial, immutable characteristics of people rather than their skill or talent that has caused disadvantages based on such terrible policy to do things like reinforce negative stereotypes, reduce networks, etc., in ways that are survivals of what you claim to abhor, and thus amelioration must occur.

[Bwaaah]

And for 50 years, starting in the 1960s, many efforts were made to rectify the situation through all kinds of support and affirmative action programs. The greatest efforts went into education and educational opportunity, from public schools to universities, in funding and in spirit. And there were all kinds of social programs, and food programs, and housing programs, and community outreach and empowerment efforts.

It worked. Some. For people who had the personal initiative to capitalize on the efforts. But those efforts did not cause a fundamental change in the predicament of statistically "under-performing" sub-populations that we associate, most visibly and conveniently, with race and sex.

In a mad rush of impatient impetulance and self-flagellation, we adopted quotas all across government, education, and business. What quotas? They worked like this: "If [fill in percent] of the population is [fill in immutable characteristic], then [fill in the same percent] of [fill in job category] must be [fill in the same immutable characteristic]."

Make no mistake about it: "progress" meant you hired the black person (or the woman, or the [fill in immutable characteristic]) . Your corporation got to tick another box and move one body closer to the quota. You got to demonstrate that you were on board with those "equity" coaching sessions where they talked about your (our) horrible history and this being how we undo its horrible effects.

Need an engineer? Go with the black guy who says he's an engineer, and for this moment, this social engineering moment, set aside every other difference that might sway us away from today's goal: statistical concordance with our race/ethnicity/[what-have-you] population makeup.

It was a well-intentioned but dumb idea. It was over-reach. It systematically reduced organizational performance by setting aside past performance as the most significant indicator of future performance. (If making a person good at a job was as simple as just giving him the job, this problem would have gone away long ago.)

I appreciate your desire to "ameliorate" the disparities. But I hope you watched closely as relatively poor performers were not only hired, but promoted throughout our institutions. If you missed the fallout, then you're in the minority. Most people got to witness it first hand.

[Bwaaah]

(By the way: wherever I wrote [fill in immutable characteristic], some people consider "gender expression" to be an immutable characteristic, and a suitable basis for quotas.)

[grb]

Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 : "using authority to otherize and immiserate White males?"

Huh. Here I am a White male. Been one for over 65yrs. Strange how I've never felt "otherized". Nor have I ever suffered a single second of oppression over my Whiteness & Maleness.

Of course there's an easy answer why. I'm not a Right-type, therefore I'm not a snowflake butthurt whiny professional victim. There's has NEVER been a political movement so dedicated to their own victimhood as today's Right.

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

I have two young White boys.

That's why I see things that you don't. I see the world as father of two young White boys.

When you were growing up, your political tribe hadn't quite finished their long march through the institutions.

[Malika the Maiz]

Someone seems focused on superficial, immutable characteristics of people rather than their skill or talent.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. Like women, always going on about sex discrimination. When will they join the ranks of you and me who have moved beyond all that? Amiright?

[Commenter_XY]

We did, in fact, have a recession in 2022 (two quarters negative growth). And speaking of pre-retirees, 2022 represented one of the worst portfolio real returns in many years (60/40 portfolio), mostly because of the historic declines in bonds. They won't recover from that anytime soon.

Age discrimination is a real thing = 40-60 year olds who cannot get re-employed with anything like they once had.

There are only two things certain about the market: The market goes up, the market goes down.

But the long-term trend is up.

[bernard11]

But the long-term trend is up.

I think Keynes had something to say about that.

[Commenter_XY]

M4e, I don't normally do this, but...would you like to make some money?

If you are 100% certain a recession is coming, what do you buy? Start buying commodities. That is what historically does best during recessions.

Here is the rub...knowing when to buy back into the market. 😉

[Moderation4ever]

Post pandemic the inflation was expected, and it was also expected that the inflation would be followed by a recession. The Biden administration safely brought the economy in for a soft landing. Trump now planes to crash that economy. Mostly because he is an incompetent. But Trump and his peers don't really care because they are rich, and a recession means little to them.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "How can there NOT be a freaking recession?"

1. A few months back I made the point most presidents get too much blame for bad economic news - using the examples of W Bush & the Great Recession, Trump & the covid downturn, Biden & inflation. In all of those cases, presidential actions had little or no impact on the macroeconomic trends.

But that's NOT the case here. There was no sign of a recession before Trump's performance chaos & tariff lunacy. If we have a recession - and they're already predicting negative growth this quarter - it will be because of Trump's clumsy bungling. Hell, Brett isn't even caught up with Dear Leader on this point. Even Trump is describing this possible recession as the "transition" to a glorious future brought by that one-size-fits-all answer to every problem: Tariffs.

Of course that's because Trump is too damn stupid to know what a tariff is or how it works, but that's another story.

2. Meanwhile, we have Brett's typical hypocrisy on "massive deficit spending". Well he voted for the "massive deficit spending" candidate this election - just as he's always done, election after election. And he supports that president's "massive deficit spending" policies. And when the House passed a "massive deficit spending" budget, we all heard nary a peep from Bellmore. And when Trump brings about a "massive deficit spending" explosion of red ink, Brett will be first in line with the excuses. And then he'll vote for the "massive deficit spending" candidate next time as well.

But occasionally he'll bow his head reverently and say some pieties about "massive deficit spending". Apparently it's a coping mechanism.

[Joe_dallas]

GRB - there have been lots of recessionary signs building for the last several years.

[Moderation4ever]

Right and Biden fought through these brought the economy in at a good place, but you are happy if Trump trashes it now.

[Kazinski]

Government spending may juice GDP, but unless its capital spending on productive assets its really of no long term benefit to the economy.

If it was every state would be copying California's train to nowhere.

[Sarcastr0]

Nonsense.

Not all government spending will be productive - malonvestment is a thing. But that’s true of all spending.

Counterexample of a government project that sure did juice GDP: national highway system.

[Joe_dallas]

Your response doesnt dispute Kaz's statement

[Sarcastr0]

You are right. Bernard has a better rejoinder.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard's comment skips/side steps the substantative issue with a deflection

[bernard11]

Wait. You mean a paycheck issued to a janitor in a government building is of no benefit to the economy?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Only if cleaning the building benefits the economy more than the next best use of the janitor's time. Don't forget the broken window fallacy.

[Kazinski]

You would never hear me say a Janitor doesn't do productive work.

But a bureaucrat denying a permit for a pipeline or a natural gas powerstation?

[Malika the Maiz]

If that pipeline otherwise malfunctions causing harm to the area, those that relied on it, and to the reputation of the company/field?

Seems productive to me, in fact lots of places hire supervisors to combat those outcomes. Are they not being productive?

[grb]

In the last few days both Moody's and the Fed have been revising their projections from positive to negative growth. This shift has been massive - over five points. It wasn't caused by "recessionary signs building for the last several years". The projections were still positive with that. It was caused by the chaos, uncertainty, and lunatic policies of Donald John Trump.

"The most recent estimate from the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow tool, on March 3, is that GDP in this quarter will contract by -2.8%. This is considerably lower than its projection on February 28 of -1.5% negative growth. The bank’s previous projections, starting from the end of January, had all been positive.."

https://www.centralbanking.com/central-banks/economics/7972431/atlanta-feds-gdp-estimate-takes-a-nosedive

[Stella Link the dog]

And when the economy suffers a prolonged and intractable recession coupled with inflation and double-digit ^TNX and the national debt increases, seemingly without bound, Trump and his lovers will continue to blame it on Clinton, Obama, and Biden.

[bernard11]

So it's all the Democrats' fault. Is that right, Brett?

I should have known we would start hearing that from MAGA idiots.

"Artificially pumping up GDP." Horseshit.

Can't wait until you start claiming all the government statistics were phony anyway.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Looks like fairly soon, Bellmore will be able to make that complaint accurately—not that I expect he will.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard11 9 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
So it's all the Democrats' fault. Is that right, Brett?

I should have known we would start hearing that from MAGA idiots.

"Artificially pumping up GDP." Horseshit.

Another liberal paul krugman wannabe

[gVOR08]

Fun fact - Every Republican president since 1900 has had a recession in his first term. One may debate whether Trump 2.0 is a second term or a second first term, but it looks like he's going to have his recession.

Reagan is the only one, so far, that figured it out. Have your recession early so that your reelection comes in the glow of recovery. (OK, actually Paul Volker decided to have the recession and Reagan may have just been lucky he did.) But I expect some people behind Trump noticed how an early recession worked out for Reagan.

[SRG2]

Who is the ally, Ukraine or Russia?
Recently, the US has:
* opposed a UN resolution criticising Russia for starting the war
* cut off military supplies to :Ukraine in general
* cut off supply of intelligence to Ukraine
* vetoed a G7 proposal to track Russia's sanction-busting fleet of tankers
* stopped cybersecurity measures against Russia
* cut back on support for Ukraine's F-16s
* continued to insist on Ukraine concessions without asking any from Russia
* refused to provide security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace plan
* continued to press Ukraine to hand over mineral rights for a value far in excess of anything owed to the US (even Trumpists should concede that Krasnov's $350bn claim is a lie)
* not done anything visible to get Russia to compromise or make concessions.

These are facts. You can attempt to argue that, "ah, but we don't know what's going on behind closed doors" - but we have no evidence of anything, while we *do* have the evidence above., (Plus the WH and Trump specifically will leak anyway.)

An article or two recently has claimed that Krasnov isn't a Russian asset, he just really likes Putin. I don't think a mere man-crush explains all the anti-Ukraine actions Krasnov has taken.
As I said in a previous post, i don't believe Krasnov is a spy. But I think that Musk's GrokAI wasn't too off the mark when it estimated that the chance of Krasnov being a Russian asset is 80% or so, - and this was before some of the actions noted above. Of course, GrokAI has now been "re-educated" to change its response.

You can claim, as some Putin apologists here do, that Zelenskyy is corrupt, Ukraine is corrupt, there should be elections (except under Ukrainian law, enacted well before Zelenskyy elections are cancelled under current circumstances) and so Ukraine doesn't deserve our support. But compared to Putin and Russia? At the very least, if you think Ukraine is not more deserving than Russia, you still should not approve of Krasnov trying to coerce Ukraine into largely unconditional surrender.

[Krayt]

Cutting off intelligence to Ukraine is very disturbing. We are aiding our enemies, a dictatorship rolling tanks throuth Europe.

A few days back, I proposed observing to see that, if Europe steps up to help defend Ukraine, would Trump put on the thumbscrews to break Ukraine even faster?

We shall see. Or maybe are seeing.

[Don Nico]

Krayt, you do understand that the intelligence cut off is tactical intelligence to aid offensive operations. That is little different than the pause in aid for weapons.
You also note that Trump has threatened now sanctions on Putin and cronies.
We'll see how that play out during the next couple of weeks.

[Absaroka]

"you do understand that the intelligence cut off is tactical intelligence to aid offensive operations"

I mean, no one is giving me classified briefings, but I've read that one of the things stopped was launch warnings etc for inbound missiles, making it harder for Ukraine to defend against Russian attacks on their cities, power plants, and so on. Another was whatever they call the Mission Data File for F-16's (which are the updated data the radar warning receiver etc, so you know whether Russian radars are targeting you. IIUC it today's software defined radio world radar characteristics can change pretty often). That makes it harder for the F-16's to defend against inbound cruise missiles (which is what Ukraine has been using them for).

[Don Nico]

Gabbard claimed the opposite yesterday as the present state of affairs. Of course, I have no inside knowledge as to the truth of that claim.

[Absaroka]

I hear that. Ran into a neighbor walking their dog the other day and they lamented 'I don't know what is true anymore'. Getting caught telling lies doesn't seem to shame either side anymore.

[Don Nico]

I'm afraid that is true. Caveat emptor.

[ThePublius]

You missed this one (BBC, 3 days ago):

"US President Donald Trump has said he is "strongly considering large-scale sanctions" and tariffs on Russia until a ceasefire and peace deal with Ukraine is reached.

Trump said he was contemplating the move because "Russia is absolutely 'pounding' Ukraine on the battlefield right now"."

[Dan Schiavetta]

You really think this is relevant? That Trump said he was "considering" something? Maybe he has "concepts of a plan"?

[SRG2]

Evidently your urge to defend Krasnov overrides your capacity for intelligent thought.

[ThePublius]

You think that childish retort is a compelling argument?

[SRG2]

The retort was neither childish nor inaccurate.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump is all in for Putin, Ukraine will be absorbed, Poland threatened, and somehow most Americans will either not care or satisfy themselves with lame rationalizations.

[Don Nico]

That Dan is your projection. You state it as if it were a fact.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a prediction.

And Trump's basically said as much. No sanctions for Russia, no arms for Ukraine.

I know you're reserving judgement as hard as humanly possible, but others can read the writing on the wall.

[ThePublius]

That's not so, Trump said just a day or two ago he's considering increasing sanctions on Russia. By the way, there are many existing U.S. sanctions on Russia. Yet, the EU continues to buy Russian oil and gas.

[ThePublius]

"US President Donald Trump has said he is "strongly considering large-scale sanctions" and tariffs on Russia until a ceasefire and peace deal with Ukraine is reached.

Trump said he was contemplating the move because "Russia is absolutely 'pounding' Ukraine on the battlefield right now"."

[Don Nico]

I think they are misreading the handwriting and ignoring signs that get in the way of their narrative. But we'll see.

[Commenter_XY]

Every week, a couple thousand more UKR and RUS (and NK?) young men die on a battlefield, victims of a WWI meat grinder style war (started by RUS). You don't need to be an apologist to see reality.

The reality is that if we want to see an independent UKR at all, it is time for UKR to cut their losses, while they can. RUS is capable of going past the Dnieper river, albeit at great cost.

Crimea is gone, the 4 provinces are gone. Nothing will change that battlefield reality. NATO isn't going to fight for UKR to push RUS out. There will be no NATO membership for UKR.

It is not wrong to advocate for the killing to stop, and to take diplomatic steps to make that happen.

We've had three years of fighting RUS down to the last UKR soldier; the strategy has not worked (unless the strategy all along was to wound the Russian Bear badly enough to forestall an invasion by RUS into NATO countries, like the Baltics). Time for a different approach.

America has additional interests that the EU does not; Taiwan. Also, it is a net plus to talk directly to Pres Putin. One must talk to make peace.

[SRG2]

So you advocate for Krasnov to force Ukraine to surrender.

You are not remotely addressing the issue that every step Trump has taken has benefited Russia and not :Ukraine.

[Commenter_XY]

What benefit to RUS? Meaning, tangible. Articulate their tangible benefit.

Has the fighting stopped? No. RUS troops die every day in battle.
Have sanctions been lifted? No.

New President, new policy. This POTUS will actually be speaking to both warring parties in KSA this week. As an American, I appreciate the host country (KSA, who I do not trust) providing the venue to talk. The agenda...is an armistice possible, or do you (RUS, UKR) want to fight it out? Hint, hint, it is way less lethal to make money than fight (Abraham Accord model).

UKR cannot fight it out. They don't have the manpower. That is reality. To maintain a viable UKR, they must cut their losses (while they can). No one is coming across the Dnieper river to save them.

RUS also has a strong incentive to settle, why invite even more restrictive sanctions, and lose another ~1K soldiers weekly? This war is an open wound for them.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "This war is an open wound for them"

So support Ukraine as long as they want to fight. Make the war painful and costly for Russia. Remember, Putin's entire strategy for this bungled bloody mess was to outlast Western support. He was sure the Europeans would bolt and the U.S. get bored. He could keep sacrificing Russian lives on the certainty of that.

Of course he badly misjudged Europe, both in their initial response and continuing fortitude. But no matter, right? The President of the United States is his docile little playtoy, a puppet dangling from the Russian leader's strings.

[Commenter_XY]

So....just more of the same. I think three years is enough to determine that strategy isn't working.

[Absaroka]

"I think three years is enough to determine that strategy isn't working."

Interesting historical thesis.

Sooo...we should have stopped aid to the Afghan mujahideen after three years, because if someone resisting an invasion hasn't won after three years, there is no way they will ever win?

(just FWIW, we aided the Afghan resistance for the full ten years of the Soviet invasion)

(also glad the French didn't end aid for the hopeless cause of the colonials after three years, instead of providing aid for seven years until Yorktown)

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "So....just more of the same"

Why bother to answer when you never deal with substance? It's all empty talking points to you, 24-7. Dear Leader must excused, however hollow & rote the intoned words.

This is a war of attrition for Ukraine. That is their strategy. The same strategy has worked repeatedly throughout history, sometimes to this country's dismay. It has only three requirements:

1. Ukraine must want to fight - and they do.
2. Ukraine must inflict pain on Russia - and they are.
3. Ukraine must have continuing support.

Only the last one is in doubt. And that's because Trump is Putin's pet poodle (and you'll drink any Kool-Aid handed to you by Dear Leader).

[Commenter_XY]

grb, take a step back. UKR cannot win a war of attrition. UKR are fighting bravely, but simply cannot win. I would like UKR to win, but UKR simply do not have the manpower. It is tragic.

This isn't the mountains of Afghanistan. UKR is wide open from where the line of battle is currently, to the Carpathian mountains in the west. Perfectly suited for heavy armor, and meat grinding. That is the terrain.

The Kursk counterattack is being systematically enveloped, and destroyed. UKR is in real danger right now of losing all of the country up to the Dnieper River, and losing access to the Black Sea. Then what? NATO isn't is coming with tanks and heavy armor and ships to fight them.

RUS have taken a massive kick in the balls with this misadventure. I am glad. If europe wants to continue to support the killing, then they can provide the weaponry. No problem.

[Sarcastr0]

I would like UKR to win
What a damn lie.

You've been actively rooting from Ukraine to lose from the start!
Early on, you said said you wanted them to lose due to some grudge you are holding from back in WW2.
And every post since then has been how they are bad people who were about to lose.

Do you think we all have amnesia or something?

[David Nieporent]

I would like UKR to win,

I don't believe you.

but UKR simply do not have the manpower.

It is not Ukraine that is reduced to hiring North Korean auxiliaries.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : UKR cannot win a war of attrition.

How does it matter that Ukraine is "wide open"? Neither side can effectively manage close air support - the Ukrainians lack the means & the Russians are too incompetent. The armor you gush about isn't moving anywhere. Russia lost a massive number of tanks before learning that. "Wide open" - your latest go-to excuse - means absolutely nothing on a battlefield where both sides move by inches.

The only thing that threatens Ukraine is Trump's dog-like slavish obedience to Putin. Two additional points:

1. Trump has been frantically lying about the support this country has provided to Ukraine (almost doubling its size) and that from Europe (cutting it way back). There was one point were he told this dishonest crap with the Emmanuel Macron sitting beside him, then sulked & pouted when the French leader corrected his numbers. Ever see a child put on a face to show (with theatrical exaggeration) that he's ignoring what the adult is saying? That was Trump next to Macron.

Europe has contributed more to Ukraine than the U.S. That's both in total dollars and (even more so) as a percent of GNP. Are you willing to concede that? Are you permitted?

2. Your "I am glad" throwaway line has little or no support in your previous comments. Indeed, I am willing to offer you this praise: You were pro-Putin before pro-Putin was cool. Many of your fellow Right-types suffered massive whiplash as they reversed their previous positions to conform to Dear Leader. Not you!

[Commenter_XY]

grb, nothing you wrote addresses the battlefield reality.

Crimea is lost. The 4 provinces are lost.
RUS/UKR have a meat grinder, with thousands dying weekly.
UKR does not have the manpower that RUS does.
NATO is not coming to defend UKR with troops.

UKR fought bravely. They've lost. It is time for UKR to cut their losses. Hopefully an armistice can emerge this week from KSA.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "grb, nothing you wrote addresses the battlefield reality"

What I wrote addressed the "battlefield reality" you claimed most important right above. So you just changed you argumen. Of course it's all just disingenuous weaseling. As Sarcastr0 notes below, everything you write on this topic is full of posturing, phoniness, and lies.

There is only ONE "battlefield reality" decisive to Putin : Whether Western support for Ukraine will be weak, wavering, and indecisive. That's what he depended on when he launched this invasion. That's what he'll depend on when he launches the next one. He initially thought the Europeans would be the soft timid ones, with their divided leadership and need for Russian gas. He greatly misjudged them, but that hardly matters now. Not with Trump kneeling at his feet like a dog fretful and anxious whether he'll earn a pet on the head.

Nor with you and people like yourself, XY: People so shallow and superficial they see European security and the fate of the Ukrainians as playing tiny bit parts in some trite cartoon show twirling around their brain as a casual amusement.

[Sarcastr0]

I am amazed at how brazenly and easily Commenter lied about his affection for Ukraine.

How do people get like that?

[bernard11]

XY: What benefit to RUS? Meaning, tangible. Articulate their tangible benefit.

Did you even bother to read SRG2's list above?

Here are some pretty damn tangible items:

* cut off military supplies to :Ukraine in general
* cut off supply of intelligence to Ukraine
* vetoed a G7 proposal to track Russia's sanction-busting fleet of tankers
* stopped cybersecurity measures against Russia
* cut back on support for Ukraine's F-16s
* continued to insist on Ukraine concessions without asking any from Russia
* refused to provide security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace plan

[Commenter_XY]

Again, articulate the tangible benefit. There isn't any. If we actually lifted sanctions, I would feel differently. We haven't.

RUS is in the same position today as it was two weeks ago; only thousands more RUS soldiers are dead. What benefit?

[Krayt]

Force Ukraine to concede to save invader lives?

Incredible.

[SRG2]

Are you aware that if you reduce support for one side, you benefit the other? Apparently not.

Depriving Ukraine of military support? How does that benefit Russia? asks, General_XY. Stop providing Ukraine with intelligence? How does that benefit Russia? asks General_XY. Stop cybersecurity measures against Russia? How does that benefit Russia? asks, General_XY. Stop tracking sanctions-busting tankers? How does that benefit Russia? asks General_XY.

Such pitiful. So apologetics.

[Commenter_XY]

I said tangible benefit, SRG2. Something we can objectively measure. What benefit?

[SRG2]

Something can be tangible but not quantifiable. You're getting desperate in your urge to defend.

Let me ask you a simple question. Does depriving Ukraine of intelligence about incoming Russian aeroplanes, missiles or troop movements benefit Russia?

[bernard11]

I don't think that word, "tangible," means what you think it means.

How is any of that not tangible?

You are being blindly stubborn.

[SRG2]

I think XY has the problem that he supports Krasnov but has enough historical awareness to know that Putin is the bad guy and shouldn't be appeased so he has to engage in the most absurd rationalisations.

[ThePublius]

Your juvenile nicknaming of Trump aside, yes! Cessation of hostilities, more accurately than "surrender." If we keep funding Ukraine, and keep supplying intelligence, the killing will continue. It's like shipping ammunition and rations to the trenches of WWI. Stop the killing, draw the lines on the map, and get on with the work of rebuilding, and repatriating all of those young Ukrainians who fled the country to avoid fighting and dying. End Ukrainian martial law, hold elections.

This war is unwinnable. It's only going to lead to more death and destruction.

How else would you stop the killing and destruction? What's your idea or plan to end this?

[SRG2]

A cessation of hostilities with Russia retaining all conquered land, and with no security guarantee is a surrender.

you may claim that using Krasnov is a childish (though IMO well-deserved) nickname, but at least I'm not shilling for Putin. You are. Childish but moral beats adult but immoral.

[ThePublius]

I'm not shilling for anyone, I just want the killing to end.

Putin's going to keep Crimea, regardless, and the Donbas are actually Russian speaking people who want either independence or to ally with Russia.

Ukraine gets a security guarantee from the EU. 'Though, I would argue there's no such thing as a security guarantee, only an alliance of mutual support and defense. Ukraine brings little or nothing to the table on that score, but the EU seems to be stepping up to the plate lately. The U.S. has no overriding interest in defending Ukraine anyway.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." Lord Palmerston 1784–1865, British statesman. Words to live by.

[SRG2]

I just want the killing to end.

And you think that appeasing Putin will lead to that result. Unfulievable.

BTW Lord Palmerston was not an Ottoman asset.

[Sarcastr0]

We've had three years of fighting RUS down to the last UKR soldier

If you need to take away the agency of the people fighting and dying to make your argument, you may not be on the side of the good guys.

[Commenter_XY]

What's the strategy, from an American interest? You left that part off.

[Sarcastr0]

This has been explained to you over and over and over again.

That you keep asking the question makes one wonder if you care about the answer.

[Don Nico]

My word, you never have explained it.
You never give your proposals; rather you settle for mere criticism and snarks.

[Sarcastr0]

The strategy from where Trump broke things? No. There is no strategy - it's all Trump and Putin.

The strategy from an America perspective before that? I did. Over and over. Along with plenty of others on this blog.

You just don't like it, so you pretend the status quo ante wasn't a choice.

[ThePublius]

I don't recall what your preferred strategy is. Can you please repeat it?

[Sarcastr0]

Read carefully, I put it in my comment above!!

[Commenter_XY]

It was a pithy throwaway statement with nothing in it.

What's your strategy? Do you have one, b/c it sounds like you just want more of the same. As in, we'll just keep doing this same thing over and over and hope for a different result.

[Sarcastr0]

I said status quo ante.
grb put it well here:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/10/monday-open-thread-96/?comments=true#comment-10951236

Not that that's in the cards based on Trump's deeds and words.

I'd hope the consequences to come will fall on Trump's head, but I've read the comments enough to know someone else will be blamed for whatever happens, the only questions is what cockamamie theory you all come up with to cover.

[Don Nico]

The status quo ante is not the starting point of the negotiation no matter how much you wish it.
Stop the killing and stop talking is the way to begin.

[Sarcastr0]

Negotiations are not what's going on now.

Demanding everyone pretend otherwise and come up with a 'strategy' is a weird exercise.

[Don Nico]

"Negotiations are not what's going on now. "
Says you. The US delegates, the Saudis, the Russians and the Ukrainian are acting otherwise. So why should I believe you.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, RUS will not give up Crimea, or the 4 provinces they took. UKR cannot push them out, and NATO will not push them out.

So your strategy of status quo ante is busted. It is dead.

Now what?

[Armchair]

Sarcastr0's strategy:

Just enough weapons that hundreds to thousands of Ukrainians continue to die every month. Not enough that Ukraine could actually win and end the war.

[bernard11]

I don't think that's Sarcastro's strategy.

Regardless, mine is full support for Ukraine's military, without isiots like Mike Johnson interfering.

The Russian effort will collapse. Then negotiate.

[Sarcastr0]

Bernard is right that’s not my strategy, as I’ve told Armchair before.
Armchair likes his strawmen too much to leave me to what I actually say,

[Armchair]

Oh, Bernard...

"Regardless, mine is full support for Ukraine's military, without isiots like Mike Johnson interfering."

So...you support the US Airforce making a full array of strategic and tactical strikes through Russia and Ukraine then, fully supporting the Ukranian Military by forcefully eliminating the Russian presence in Ukraine, and its ability to support any such presence?

Is that what you support?

[Armchair]

And as Sarcastr0 has told us repeatedly...

He supports the status quo. Exactly how things are now. With hundreds to thousands of Ukranians dying every month.

[Magister]

Big distance between "full support for Ukraine's military" and "US Airforce making a full array of strategic and tactical strikes through Russia and Ukraine", in that only the first is feasible or sensible.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He supports the status quo. Exactly how things are now."

IIRC he supported the status quo when support was more limited as well, when we weren't providing ATACMS, etc.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Big distance between "full support for Ukraine's military" and "US Airforce making a full array of strategic and tactical strikes through Russia and Ukraine""

Not really, they seem to be about the same.

What restrictions do you think are consistent with full support?

No US troops? No US air power? No Tomahawks? No ATACM's or other long range misses? No F16's? Targeting restrictions? No targeting inside Russia? Limits on armored vehicles?

[Armchair]

"Big distance between "full support for Ukraine's military" and "US Airforce making a full array of strategic and tactical strikes through Russia and Ukraine", in that only the first is feasible or sensible.

How we've shifted...from "full support" to "Only full support which is feasible or sensible"....

Interesting that.

[Magister]

No shift; "full support" is feasible and sensible; the US Air Force attacking Russia is neither. Stop pretending the latter was what bernard11 suggested.

[Armchair]

"No shift; "full support" is feasible and sensible; the US Air Force attacking Russia is neither. Stop pretending the latter was what bernard11 suggested"

Oh, how silly of me. See, when I hear things like "The United States will fully support you if Russia attacks," I assume that means at the very least that the US Airforce will directly assist by attacking Russian forces invading my country.

Poor Latvia. I assume if Russia attacks, the United States will no longer find it "feasible or sensible" to directly engage Russia forces. But still call it "full support". Maybe the US will send a few thousand rounds of ammunition and call it a day. That's feasible and sensible....No?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No shift; "full support" is feasible and sensible; the US Air Force attacking Russia is neither."

Jeez. It's my understanding that the NATO countries were counting on the US Air Force and the rest of the US military coming to their aid if attacked. They'll be sorry to hear that that's not feasible.

[Magister]

You two are really stupid.

"Full support" is what we were approximating before Republicans started blocking aid and then Trump decided to give Putin an unearned victory: weapons, equipment and intelligence, along with non-military aid. They have the will to fight; that's the stuff they need, not American personnel.

No, I don't know what that comes to in dollars or specific supplies; yes, there will be exceptions in exactly what weapons or equipment or intelligence we give them. Cutting them off so that they even lose the bargaining advantages of our support and what they've earned themselves in the battles so far? Stupid as you two.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You two are really stupid.

"Full support" is what we were approximating..."

Lol. At least we understand what full support means. Remember when Ukraine asked for a no-fly zone? I suppose that would have been greater than full support?

And is the limited aid we were giving Ukraine previously (i.e. "full support") all we are obligated to do under Article V if Russia attacks Europe? Many people will be shocked to hear that.

[Magister]

Someone doesn't know what approximating means. But a US no-fly zone would mean US Air Force flying over the battlefield (or at least some other NATO country, which would pull us in if they were attacked), which I had already rejected, so, no, not part of full support. Supply the Ukrainians what they need to fight for themselves.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You never give your proposals; rather you settle for mere criticism and snarks."

Sarcastro's, and Biden's, strategy, as should be clear, is to get bogged down in a stalemate with no exit strategy or path to victory until he loses support, then blame the people who withdraw support.

[Sarcastr0]

Russia is the one in the quagmire.

Until Trump threw them a lifeline.

[TwelveInchPianist]

They had Russia right where they wanted them, eh? Another month or two and they'd be pushing Russia out, but then Trump got elected and screwed everything up?

Cool story, bro.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not what I wrote.

[Malika the Maiz]

Uh, quagmire’s don’t push people out, even in the movies…

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then why did you guys want one so bad?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Armchair:
"Exactly how things are now. With hundreds to thousands of Ukranians dying every month."

No month of the war, ever, of course, has experienced this. Why write it?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Apologies to Armchair.
I read "to" as "of", probably due to an eye floater.

[David Nieporent]

* continued to insist on Ukraine concessions without asking any from Russia
* refused to provide security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace plan

Yesterday (or perhaps Saturday; I was traveling and so the days blur), it was reported that Trump said that he wasn't going to restart assistance to Ukraine even if Ukraine did sign the minerals deal.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Who is the ally, Ukraine or Russia?"

Neither. Ukraine is a dependency, Russia a rival.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is Israel a dependency?

[ThePublius]

It's working:

Ukraine-Russia war latest: Kyiv to push air and sea ceasefire with Putin’s forces at US-led Saudi Arabia talks

US president Donald Trump says the US has ‘just about’ lifted its suspension on intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-live-map-trump-zelensky-starlink-saudi-arabia-b2711945.html

[bernard11]

"just about lifted."

I guess he'll lift it right after he announces his new improved cheaper better health plan, paid for with all the money China is going to pay in tariffs.

You people are crazy.

[ThePublius]

"You people?" How about that Democratic party clown show of yours? That's not crazy? A mentally incompetent president for four years with staffers issuing EOs via autopen - that's not crazy?

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s your guy now, do you really think pointing back to what former guys did is, or should, work as defenses of your guy’s current wackiness?

[apedad]

Bad news for Bob from Ohio.

Death penalty reversal

NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit reversed the death penalty conviction of a former sex worker accused of murder. The court wrote, “There is a reason Brittany Marlow Holberg has been on death row for over 27 years. The State denied her right to due process by keeping from the jury evidence favorable to the Defendant, and this suppression prejudiced her case.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/death-row-inmate-conviction-reversed-at-fifth-circuit.pdf

It's BfO's opinion that all murder convictions have the execution take place immediately upon the verdict being announced.

[Bob from Ohio]

I haunt dreams.

[ReaderY]

For the St. Isidore case, I am finding myself skeptical of argumjets that treat issues of funding religious schools as a matter of discrimination based on animosity.

The fact of the matter is, opposition to other religions has been as much a part of religious practice as the sacrifices that were at issue in Lukumi Babalo Aye. Objecting to other religions is simply part of what religions so and historically have done. The fact that Justice Alito does not like this does not change this. So I don’t think that Justice Alito is free to characterize this form of religious belief and practice as a knod of “animosity” the Constitution discourages. To the contrary, it’s as protected by the Constitution’s Religion Clauses as any other religious practice.

So in addition to thinking that a charter school acts as an agent of the state and not as a purely private school to which the state merely provides general services, I also think that Protestants in Oklahoma have a Free Exercise right to object to having their money used to teach popish superstition. This objection is a straightforward religious belief that I don’t think federal courts are entitled to disapprove of as “animosity.” Government may be entitled to create National Brotherhood week. It may be entitled to enforce order in the workplace. But it can’t stop the Protestants from hating the Catholics, the Catholics from hating the Protestants, the Hindus from hating the Moslems, and everyone from hating the Jews. The Religion Clauses create a right to do so.

Because I think that the Alito animosity jurisprudence just doesn’t apply to the Religion Clauses, I think states can accommodate religious beliefs that hate and don’t want to support each other by limiting funding of religious schools.

I also have a second reason for this . I think when government conditions funding on abdoning religious doctrines like homosexuality is immoral, it is effectively establishing religion. Not funding religious institutions both avoids funding doctrines the state wants to fund and avoids an establishment problem.

[Bored Lawyer]

"I also think that Protestants in Oklahoma have a Free Exercise right to object to having their money used to teach popish superstition."

Nonsense. Once the money is taxed, it's the state's money, and the state is bound to treat everyone fairly and neutrally.

Racists have the right to hate other races. They don't have the right to insist that tax dollars not be distributed to their hated race.

[ducksalad]

Well, they have the right to insist all they want. But the state can't give in to their insistence.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment is all cases whatsoever?”

[Jerry B.]

Anybody watch "History - With David Rubenstein" on PBS?

Mr. Rubenstein does a one-on-one interview with an author or academic about one particular part of history or historical figure (usually from a book or paper they have written). It's not so in-the-weeds that you need a history degree to know what they're talking about, but it does make you think.

[Sarcastr0]

I haven't, but I'll take a look!

I enjoy In Our Time from BBC Radio 4, and The Rest is History also from the UK.

My wife likes The History of Foods great course, and curates the banger episodes for us to watch together. The Katsubushi episode was pretty evocative.

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

You and your wife might like the Tasting History with Max Miller channel on youtube. The basic structure of an episode is to introduce a historical recipe then go over the history of the food while preparing it.

[Don Nico]

Your wife might like the Molecular gastronomy course on EdX. I took it (for free). It was great fun.

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

Oh, that's a good one. I couldn't find one by that title, is this it?

https://www.edx.org/learn/food-science/harvard-university-science-cooking-from-haute-cuisine-to-soft-matter-science-chemistry

[Don Nico]

Yes, that is the one. It is an excellent course.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Fall of Civilizations podcast is excellent also. Each one is pretty long, though, usually in the neighborhood of three hours. Done by a British historian named Paul Cooper.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Prof. Michael Dorf on the Columbia matter addressed earlier on this blog. Dorf includes things Columbia did, including accepting the resignation of its president who was pressed to do so.

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/03/wait-can-he-actually-do-that-part-8.html

[apedad]

Virginia judge: Human embryos are unique — and can’t be partitioned

FAIRFAX, Va. (CN) — Human embryos can't be partitioned in the manner of marital property, a Virginia judge ruled Friday, handing a setback to a woman who waged a high-profile court battle to become pregnant over the objections of her ex-husband.

Unlike divisible assets, such as land or financial instruments, human embryos are unique biological entities, wrote Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Dontaé L. Bugg in a 10-page opinion: "Any division would require either allocating one embryo to each party, which does not ensure equal division, or ordering a sale, which is neither legally sanctioned nor ethically acceptable in Virginia. Virginia's partition framework presumes a market-based valuation and sale mechanism, which is inapplicable to human embryos. This court cannot enforce a remedy that is fundamentally unworkable."

The Heidemann case made headlines with a controversial ruling in 2023. Jason Heidemann's attorneys argued that embryos are not “goods and chattels” that could be partitioned because each embryo is distinct, unique and nonfungible. But after researching the law’s history, Judge Richard Gardiner ruled that human embryos are "chattel" based on his analysis of centuries-old slave laws. The ruling drew criticism from the bar.

Gardiner's opinion relied on an earlier version of Virginia code, Bugg pointed out. "The court takes issue with reliance upon a version of the statute that predates passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865," he wrote.

https://www.courthousenews.com/virginia-judge-human-embryos-are-unique-and-cant-be-partitioned/

Seems the correct decision.

The "chattel" decision was eye-opening.

[Bored Lawyer]

Slavery issues aside, what's wrong with what he ruled?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the part where it's not biologically accurate. At early stages of development, (Up to at least 10 days.) an embryo CAN be split, which results in identical twins. In fact, they come from cases where that happens by accident.

And embryos are frozen before this stage ends, because early stage embryos, prior to differentiation, are much more resilient when it comes to freezing; They can lose a few cells, (Half of them when twinning happens!) and resume from there.

So this key point in the ruling is, as a matter of basic biology, simply wrong.

[hobie]

Now that we have officially two genders I went and checked the price of eggs. [checking notes] not so good

[Bwaaah]

Now check down between your legs, admit they're little testicles and stop bragging, "I have distended ovaries!"

[ThePublius]

I don't recall you noting the price of eggs when Joseph Robinette Biden was in office. What changed?

"I have a phone and an autopen," said a Biden staffer.

[Bwaaah]

"I have a phone and an autopen," said a Biden staffer.

LOL

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

That was funny, but really, that's the biggest scandal our country has ever faced. Some unknown duration, but not trivial, we had no functioning President and the country was run on secret conspirators.

At the same time, these same people were prosecuting Trump and his supporters for allegedly trying to instigate a coup.

As it always is with Democrats, what they accuse you of, they themselves are always doing.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I take it neither of your PhD's was in US history.

[RedheadedPharoh]

America suffered a successful coup attempt before?

[Malika the Maiz]

Are you this obtuse? Trump made confident promises to bring these prices down on day one. It was demonstrably idiotic or mendacious.

You might have some kind of derangement when discussing Trump. I’ve heard many people lacking a strong role model and struggling with their masculinity might.

[Bwaaah]

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts law requires towns served by public transit to change zoning laws to allow multifamily housing near transit stops. The state Auditor recently declared this law to be an unfunded mandate. Thanks to a taxpayer revolt in 1980 unfunded mandates are not enforceable.

Last week the town of Wrentham sued to block the law. Wrentham is supposed to rezone to allow 750 multifamily units. I've watched fights over affordable housing and the town's arguments are very familiar. If we allow development we need to rebuild all our roads and schools and water lines and sewer lines and so on. A developer could spend decades and millions of dollars fighting for the right to build in a rich town. I think the state will win this fight because the state Supreme Court likes the housing law.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/03/09/wrentham-files-lawsuit-over-mbta-communities-act/

[ThePublius]

I recall some other towns objected to this, maybe Weston(?) at the cost of losing their commuter stations. Does that sound familiar?

[John F. Carr]

Weston voted against rezoning after the state started cutting commuter rail service. It still qualifies as a commuter rail community.

[tylertusta]

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that 83% of USAID programs being shut down, amounting to 5,200 contracts that were to be cancelled.

The remainder of the programs are to be administered by the State Department.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5185546-trump-administration-cuts-usaid/

Judge Ali had previously ordered that the government pay out contracts for nine of the named plaintiffs by today. I am unsure whether the cancelled contracts are for any of the nine plaintiffs.

This is effectively the end of USAID, at least during Trump's term.

[Bob from Ohio]

Conservatives have opposed foreign aid since Bob Taft. Trump gets results!

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

USAID isn't "foreign aid". It's a graft, corruption, and social engineering conduit hijacked by vile ideologues like Soros and Powers.

[apedad]

Conservatives have long approved foreign aid.

FTFY

Marshall Plan
Israel
Sen. Rubio

"In 2008, the Republican platform argued, 'Because the issue of climate change is global, it must become a truly global concern as well.' The platform called on all developed and developing countries to make significant contributions to the global response to climate change, adding that the U.S. could not be expected to carry burdens 'which are more appropriately shared by all.'”

"Conservatives emphasize the strategic alignment of foreign aid with national interests. The argument is that foreign aid should be focused on initiatives that directly benefit the donor country, reinforce its alliances and ensure democratic values are promoted in receiving countries. Additionally, conservatives assert that fostering stable and democratic alliances enhances global security and economic growth."

And lots more examples.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Marshall Plan
Israel
Sen. Rubio"

The Marshall Plan was a once in a century thing. Israel gets military aid, you are right that conservatives support that kind, but USAID is just mainly worthless NGO welfare.

2008 might as well be 1808.

[RedheadedPharoh]

A system which got gamed badly by some evil people, like Soros, Biden, and Obama and their evil acolytes.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No matter what USAID is or how you wish to characterize it, it was created by an act of Congress and spends money as appropriated by Congress. Do you remember the Constitution? Do you believe it's still in force? Do you care?

[Commenter_XY]

The USAID woodchipper worked! Only wood chips remain. Plenty more agencies to feed into the woodchipper.

[Don Nico]

I'd note that one of the casualties has been the work of the DOE weapons labs to support the work of the IAEA in monitoring potential proliferants in general and Iran in particular.
The amount same is literally a couple of million dollars. Seems like a very cost ineffective action.

[bernard11]

But it appeals to fools.

[Don Nico]

Hard to believe that anyone can be that foolish, but then...

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico...If it needs to be brought back to life, it can be. POTUS Trump has been clear about that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

…and here’s Commenter_XY to remove all doubt!

[Life of Brian]

That process has already played out in the real world, multiple times.

[Sarcastr0]

...You think this is a defense of DOGE?

"Oh yeah they screw up all the time, but sometimes they've managed to unfuck the things they broke."

[Life of Brian]

Just a quick glance upward would confirm for the intellectually curious that the cites are in support of C_XY's demonstrably correct statement that "If it needs to be brought back to life, it can be."

[Sarcastr0]

Since the it is USAID you are wrong; nothing supports that case.

[Life of Brian]

Having clearly not read the thread at all before barreling in, you're now scrambling around for new goalposts.

If only you had bothered to work your way back to tylertusta's OP, which explicitly says that 17% of USAID programs are surviving and being moved to the State Department....

[bernard11]

XY,

What do you. think? That all these fired workers from the DOE labs are just sitting around, hoping Musk calls?

No. That's not what anyone would do. They are looking for and getting other jobs, where the insane whims of a fool won't lead to them getting fired.

[Life of Brian]

They are looking for and getting other jobs

I realize we're having a very theoretical conversation since Don didn't link to the specific $2M program he referenced and it's not even clear that anyone involved in it was actually fired, but I'm curious where in the private sector you think a career SME on nuclear proliferation monitoring would be able to readily jump to.

[Sarcastr0]

I doubt they were all SMEs.

But in general needless economic churn is bad. Bad for the agency, bad for it's mission, bad for the country. And awful for the workers, but that's become a value add to a lot of the people here.

[Life of Brian]

That seemed rather implicit in Bernard's concern that the same people might not be available to hire back if the program was restored. If they're not SMEs, they can be readily replaced.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, I promise you...the newly whacked workers are not pounding the pavement quite yet. They're waiting to file for UI benefits (waiting week), and getting their last paycheck + severance direct deposited.

Besides, isn't there a saying to the effect that 'it is good enough for government work'? DOGE is making that standard a reality. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

Making things up so you don't look like such a vile piece of shit cheering on massive job losses to good hard working people.

You have no idea.

Smug fuck.

[Commenter_XY]

Tsk, tsk....such tone.

Be sure to send your email by 11:59pm.

Did you actually do 5 productive things last week?

[Ridgeway]

Have you read some of the comments on this site?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Do you think Rubio and his team might have had more information about that funding than you do?

[Malika the Maiz]

Look at this guy snuggle in with elites now!

Tasty boots?

[Bob from Ohio]

Washington Examiner@dcexaminer
"#BREAKING: Construction crews have begun the dismantling of Black Lives Matter Plaza near the White House. The move comes after Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) proposed withholding federal funds to Washington if it was not renamed. The plaza will now be redesigned to honor the nation's 250th birthday next year."

[Bwaaah]

They should rename it, "All Lives Matter Plaza." How hateful would that be? It would probably trigger a move to secede from the Union. And what would that even mean? Maybe they could put a symbolic statue there, in preparation for removal during the next social justice cycle? Maybe they should just change it too, "All Words Matter." I'm kidding. I don't even know what I'm talking about. But I'm still topical, amiright?

[M L]

Bedlam in Bucharest as Populist Presidential Frontrunner Banned From Election to ‘Defend Democracy’

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/03/10/bedlam-in-bucharest-as-populist-presidential-frontrunner-banned-from-election-to-defend-democracy/

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

There's one thing the Global Democracy Defenders can't stand... voters.

[Bwaaah]

Voters are stupid.

Sincerely,
DNC

[Bwaaah]

It sometimes stings to read back my own jokes and consider how close to serious they can be. In this case, I suspect that there aren't many Democrats, especially here, who don't think, "Well, yeah."

For all of you who think, "Well, yeah," I want you to know that voters read you loud and clear.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

This is always my favorite example of projection on the part of Republicans.

[Bwaaah]

What's the "projection" part? My comment is based on having listened to many Democratic voters, a majority of whom do indeed communicate not only that voting for Trump is stupid, but that the people who do it are kind of stupid. Do you think I've been hearing a non-representative sub-population of Democrats?

Can you characterize for me how Democrats you've observed feel about Trump voters?

[David Nieporent]

Evil. And stupid. And evil.

[Bwaaah]

I appreciate your honesty.

[Sarcastr0]

You smolder with rage in almost all your posts.

And then you think you have an objective take on Democrats. Which you lump DMN into.

You see the issue here?

You have no special insight into people you hate.

[Bwaaah]

No rage. And you don't dispute my post.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Twitter/X being down seems problematic since it is effectually a quasi-official message board for the Deputy President and others.

[Kazinski]

There is always Truth Social.

[grb]

My favorite political commentator of recent years has been Kevin Drum. He was level-headed & moderate, willing to tell his own side when they're wrong (and everyone should always look for someone to do that), and tried to back his opinions with cold hard data.

Regular readers of his site knew he's been battling illness for years. A while back he basically told everyone he was dying, but then held on several more weeks. But today we learned Drum passed away. He'll be missed.....

https://jabberwocking.com/

[Sarcastr0]

Beat me by 2 mins.

Yes, he will be missed.

A very good, data-based blogger. Basically the only blogger I followed daily.

[M L]

Sad. Any idea what kind of illness this was?

[grb]

From his website's intro paragraph :

In 2014 I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow. It’s currently incurable, but modern treatments are pretty good and I remain alive and hopeful that a cure is on the way.

[David Nieporent]

Cancer.

[MoreCurious]

Cancer sucks. For me 2024 will always be the year of the three cancers. Fortunately -- unlike multiple myeloma -- mine were all treatable with radiation and surgery. I followed Kevin for years, including his battle with cancer, and I will miss his insight. His blog was smart, respectful, and peaceful. Too bad that some blogs never seem able to achieve those things.

[grb]

MoreCurious : "His blog was smart, respectful, and peaceful."

A very good description.

[Brett Bellmore]

Whoa, that's nasty, three cancers. Back in 2010 I had two, but that was actually fortunate, because the physical for surgery for the one was how the other was found while still at stage 1. And since the other was a lymphoma, that's probably the only reason I'm still alive.

[MoreCurious]

First: Mohs surgery and skin graft for melanoma on my face. Second: Radiation treatment for prostate cancer. Third: partial nephrectomy for kidney cancer (discovered while they were dealing with the prostate). (It's a good thing I retired because now I have time for all the damn medical appointments.)

[Sarcastr0]

..

[Don Nico]

In case anyone here cares:

Germany’s chancellor-to-be, Friedrich Merz, has said he will reach out to France and Britain to discuss the sharing of nuclear weapons, but cautioned that such a move could not be a replacement for the US’s existing protective shield over Europe.

“The sharing of nuclear weapons is an issue we need to talk about,” Merz said in a wide-ranging interview on Sunday with the broadcaster Deutschlandfunk (DLF). “We have to be stronger together in nuclear deterrence.”

[ThePublius]

Yea, let's give the country that started two world wars and committed one of the most horrific genocides in history nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?

One of the funniest lines I recall from Jay Leno was when the wall came down and East and West Germany were reunited he asked "Now that the two Germanys are back together do you think they'll tour Europe again?"

[Sarcastr0]

This seems inconsistent with your mockery of Germany for not deploying with deadly force, and for training without live guns.

Do you want a strong militarily independent EU or not?

[ThePublius]

Actually, no, seeing what they've just done in Romania.

[Sarcastr0]

Then don't mock them and insist they're not pulling their weight in NATO.

Though frankly that ship has sailed; I wouldn't buy anything from the US since most of that gear has strings attached and I wouldn't trust US support if my country got into it with Russia.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Oh noes, Muh Sacred Miltary Industrial Complex!

Won't someone please think of the war profits???

[Malika the Maiz]

This guy’s party literally recently voted to increase military spending, lol.

[grb]

ThePublius : "What could go wrong?"

It wasn't an issue when the United States was leader of the Free World. But that was pre-Trump, before we became just another scuzzy thug regime on the make. Our ascendency to world leadership took decades; Trump destroyed it all in weeks. Make America Great Again apparently means nobody looking to us for leadership, nobody trusting us, nobody seeing our nation as embodying any ideal, and a foreign policy based on two-bit hustles & shakedowns.

Well, that and keeping Putin's shoe leather tongue-polished bright. There must be some special favor in that polish, Trump loves it so.

[ThePublius]

What a jerky, juvenile screed that is! Trump hasn't destroyed anything, he's putting things back together from the disaster that was the Biden presidency. And look, honestly, at what he's accomplished in world peace, both in his first administration and continuing now. Start with the Abraham Accords. Now it looks like peace in Ukraine. And a solution for Gaza. He's gotten Starmer and others to step up to the plate, gotten the EU to increase their defense funding. Good things are happening.

You are so stuck in your Trump hatred you can't see any of this. Your Trump/Putin schtick is sickening.

[grb]

And a solution for Gaza!

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/26/nx-s1-5309695/trump-gaza-video

[David Nieporent]

Ah, yes, the infamous Abraham Accords, which resulted in countries that weren't fighting each other continuing to not fight each other.

[ThePublius]

No, promoting good relations with Israel.

[RedheadedPharoh]

He can't even acknowledge the historical realignment with Saudi Arabia, for example, those accords caused.

And he's Jewish!

[David Nieporent]

Saudi Arabia was not a signatory to the Abraham Accords. And Israel and Saudi Arabia had been quietly aligning against Iran for years; there was no realignment.

[grb]

ThePublius : "Your Trump/Putin schtick is sickening."

No. Trump flouncing after Putin like a simpering love-struck tart is sickening.
Though you don't seem to mind.

[tylertusta]

The US already shares nuclear weapons with Germany, along with Italy, Turkey, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

For the US, nuclear sharing means that the host nation maintains a base where the US keeps nuclear bombs. The weapons are kept isolated from the rest of the base and controlled by US military personnel until and unless the US government authorizes the transfer to the host nation.

The only time that we would allow those countries to take our nukes is if we're on the verge of going nuclear ourselves.

[Don Nico]

The US does not share nuclear weapons. They remain under the direct and sole control of the Commander-in-Chief. That authority is not relinquished to other nations.

[Absaroka]

'Nuclear sharing' is a term of art in common use. The notion is we keep control at foreign bases, but Allied crews train for, and could execute in wartime, delivery missions, hence 'sharing'.

[Don Nico]

You may call it that but US policy and practice is another matter

[Absaroka]

I'm confused? US policy and practice is that we store nukes at Allied locations where the local military trains to deliver them. For one example, from the previous link:

"Büchel Air Base hosts an estimated 10-15 US B61 nuclear bombs for delivery by German PA-200 Tornado aircraft."

TBH, I'm not sure there is a good political or military reason for having Luftwaffe planes sending nuclear love to Russia instead of US planes, but that is indeed the system we have had in place for much of the cold war.

[Don Nico]

The US law is that only POTUShas authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. Where they are stationed is a matter that is delegated to the DOD and State.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Whatever you may think about Danielle Ellsberg, his career positioned him to know more about the actualities of America's nuclear strategy than probably anyone else alive. I doubt Ellsberg would even have agreed with you about the law, let alone the practical realities of America's nuclear weapons control.

[David Nieporent]

I' not sure why you're misgendering the guy, and this comment is entirely empty. For someone who rants about historical hypotheticals, this is a pretty weird comment of yours.

[tylertusta]

Splitting this off into another sub chain since Absaroka is aptly discussing a direct response with you.

Nuclear sharing was implemented as a means of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was politically untenable to allow West Germany to have their own nuclear weapons program due to that whole Nazi thing. It was also politically and militarily untenable to not give the West Germans some sort of nuclear deterrent.

Thus the nuclear sharing compromise: they were legally US weapons until the US decided they weren't, and the only instances where we would allow it would be where the balloon has or shortly will go up.

Finally, your contention that the US retains control of nuclear weapons makes them not shared, but the UK and French were highly unlikely to deploy nukes first without the US giving them the green light, "independent" nuclear weapons or not.

[bernard11]

So the Trump Administration cancelled a speech to the TN National Guard about women's suffrage, apparently because "guest speakers are no longer allowed to focus on 'certain groups.' "

What assholes.

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

How on Earth does a speech about "women's suffrage" improve readiness of the TN National Guard?

[Bwaaah]

Give him a break. He woke up this morning, took a look at the world, and then focused on what matters. And then he shared.

"Everyone look at who didn't talk about women's suffrage!"

Laser focus, he's got. On what matters. Laser focus.

[ThePublius]

I agree. We have to get off all of this woke b.s. and back to war fighting.

[David Nieporent]

Shorter MAGA: what has learning things ever done for humanity?

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

Longer David Nieporent: It's important for National Guard soldiers to spend one of their two training days a month listening to a speech on woman's suffrage! Diversity is Our Strength! The History Woman's Suffrage Is Important To National Security and Learning about it Improve Our Readiness! Be On The Right Side of History! Day Two Will Be Spent Learning About the Historical Harms Caused By the Brand Aunt Jemima. Next Stop? The Battlefields of Eastern Europe!

My use of capitalization is as pompous and arrogant as your attitude.

[bernard11]

I doubt the speech would take a full day. And apparently they regularly do this sort of thing.

Anyway it's not taking time for the lecture that was objected to. It's the topic.

But I don't expect any of the jerks here to understand the difference.

[Absaroka]

I think the objection is that topics like 'Latest Improvements in Casualty Care' or 'Recognition of Enemy Aircraft' or whatever has the potential to yield more military effectiveness than studying the Suffragettes.

ISTM the rate of new things you have to learn is the same for Active and Guard, but the Guard only gets two days a month to do it, putting a premium on efficient use of time.

[ThePublius]

National guard troops don't drill to learn about women's suffrage.

[David Nieporent]

If the complaint were "They don't need history lectures; they should be practicing crawling under barbed wire or learning to use antitank weapons," that would be one thing. But the story says that they were fine with a lecture as long as it wasn't about women.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not a "story", its an opinion piece.

We only have her unsupported word for what the e-mail said.

[Frank Drackman]

Haven’t women suffraged enough?

[Bwaaah]

I walked into the house on Friday to hear my wife on the phone with a friend who spoke very loud. Said the friend, "(sigh) I have to go to that protest tomorrow."

Said my wife, "Maybe you can go for a short time, and then leave?"

When the call ended, I asked, "What's she protesting?"

My wife answered. "Tomorrow is International Women's Day."

"Oh," I said. "Are they protesting that now too?"

Anyway, I want y'all to know that these are the best protestors ever. They don't arrive early, and they all have places to go shortly afterward. No spray paint, no hammers, no [seriously] angry people. They don't even have signs if somebody doesn't hand 'em out, and even then, they're small and stow easily into park wastebaskets. Sometimes, the organizers don't even have megaphones.

"I CAN'T HEAR YOU," yelled a leader at an impressive volume.

"NO," came back 200 well-healed voices, in unison, not loud enough to convey any real conviction.

When I was in Washington Square Park yesterday, a big group of people came marching through. I wasn't wearing my glasses. I couldn't tell if it was a protest or a park tour.

Best protestors ever.

(Oh. And median age ~ 45)

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

It's 2025 and liberals are firebombing and attacking EV's.

What a world we live in.

[ThePublius]

Yes, and Dems distributing bumper stickers calling for Musk's assassination.

[tylertusta]

Weird. I recall people insisting that sort of thing constituted proof of insurrection-y behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

I see 1 twitter rando reporting this.

Maybe wait a tick; you don't need to slam-post every morsel of as-of-yet unsupported right-wing nonsense the moment you read it.

If it's true, no loss. If it's false, you saved yourself from posting bullshit that discredits you and your side.

[ThePublius]

Maybe I just ignore you, Sarcastr0.

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

It was on the front page of reddit with 22,000+ upvotes.

It's so sad how low-information you choose to be. Your head-in-the-sand-ism is just as unhealthy as David N.'s denialism. Do you think it's just your incantation of the CIA-induced Stockholm Syndrome you and him suffer from?

I also love how you're just trying to give him some friendly advice... "Hey, don't report any rumors about things that hurt my tribe, it makes you look bad when you're wrong!". Just a friendly suggestion to vet stuff that makes your team look bad and to be careful and cautious.

A standard you don't hold yourself to or anyone on your side to.

Pretty neat schtick you got there.

[ThePublius]

Thank you for that. Well said.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I see 1 twitter rando reporting this."

Sad you call a WaPo reporter a rando.

Pranshu Verma@pranshuverma_
new: Anger at Elon Musk is turning violent. People are burning his cars and shooting his stores, leaving frontline Tesla workers and ordinary vehicle owners to bear the brunt of the anger incited by Musk's politics. w/@TrishaThadani

link to WaPO paywalled article

[Stella Link the dog]

"Sad you call a WaPo reporter a rando."

The assertion: " Dems distributing bumper stickers calling for Musk's assassination."

That was in WAPO?

[Absaroka]

First hit searching for "burning teslas washington post":

"Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, more than a dozen violent or destructive acts have been directed at Tesla facilities, according to court documents, surveillance photographs, police records and local media reports reviewed by The Washington Post."

Arson, shootings, etc.

[Magister]

No bumper stickers in that story, though. The first two hits for a search of bumper stickers calling for Musk assassination were Twitter posts, the first quoting the second, with no evidence that Dems were distributing them (the pictured sticker says "Make Nazis Dead Again" and has Musk doing his Nazi salute with a gun sight superimposed (which we know from Sarah Palin doesn't mean anything)).

The third hit was a guy selling various stickers which are suddenly popular among Tesla owners who want to distance from Elon Musk: "Elon killed my resale value", "Anti Elon Tesla Club", "Shut up Elon", "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy"; I'm inclined to believe that one, and not just because Business Insider is a less sketchy source.

I did find various "Make Nazis Dead Again" stickers for sale from various sources, but none pictured Musk.

[ThePublius]

ActBlue Funding Terrorist Campaign Against Tesla

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2025/03/10/actblue-funding-terrorist-campaign-against-tesla-n3800597#google_vignette

[Sarcastr0]

This link is bad craziness. Click on it for a helluva ride. HotAir really is out there.

No proof, of course. Lots of accusations.

I liked how they called USAID a criminal organization and then got all fainting couch when some leftist called DOGE a criminal organization.

Angry delusional snowflakes.

This is what ThePublius actually believes.

[ThePublius]

"In a recent tweet, Musk specifically pointed to five organiz .."

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/118837003.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

[Stella Link the dog]

From the linked article we find:
" there has been no independent verification of Musk’s claims .."

So, Musk has made some unverified allegations. Extra large surprise.

edit: Has Musk explained his basis for believing what he has asserted? That is, if we assume that he actually believes it.

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

He should've waited until they covered this topic on the View, like you did!

[ThePublius]

"Elon Musk names 5 ‘ActBlue’ funded groups responsible for Tesla protests in explosive claim;"

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/elon-musk-names-5-actblue-funded-groups-responsible-for-tesla-protests-in-explosive-claim-who-are-they-101741454525377.html

[David Nieporent]

Yes, that's when he also named five individual people involved, two of whom have been dead for years.

Also, to be clear, there are no "ActBlue-funded" groups.

[ThePublius]

David, you are incorrect. From ActBlue's website:

"We want as many groups as possible to be able to create strong grassroots fundraising programs. Our platform is available to Democratic candidates and committees, progressive organizations, and nonprofits that share our values for no cost besides a 3.95% processing fee on donations. And we operate as a conduit, which means donations made through ActBlue to a campaign or organization are considered individual donations. You can read more about our structure here."

[emphasis mine]

Is an organization a group, or are you going to argue about that?

[David Nieporent]

I am not arguing about any semantic distinction between an organization and a group. I am arguing about the substance, which is that ActBlue doesn't fund organizations. Or groups. Or politicians. It is a platform. One might as well call these organizations "Venmo Funded" or "MasterCard Funded" because donors use Venmo or MasterCard to transfer donations.

[tylertusta]

It took me 20 seconds to determine that the Democratic Socialists of America received funding through ActBlue.

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/demsocialists

Perhaps you'd like to clarify your statement, counselor?

[David Nieporent]

Sure: "received funding through" and "received funding from" are very different things. (See the comment I just posted right above yours.)

[tylertusta]

Pretty pointless distinction, actually.

Assuming you were representing a group like ActBlue that redirected payments to groups engaged in terrorism as Elon alleges, your protests of "No no no! They were getting funded through!" as the Feds arrest your clients on material support charges would be a pretty enjoyable scene of futility.

[Magister]

Fundraising for a terrorist group is criminal; fundraising for candidates, PACs, ballot initiatives, 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s is not.

[tylertusta]

I must have missed the clause in 501(z) that said that all grounds in this chapter are immune from 'material support of terrorism' charges.

[Magister]

So you think ActBlue is already doing what you propose in the hypothetical? If they were doing that, you wouldn't actually need a hypothetical, would you?

[tylertusta]

I think companies that perform financial transfers and services are very, very careful about making sure they don't do business with criminal organizations or groups that have ties to terrorist organizations.

ActBlue previously booted PACBI due to their links to terrorist groups. You also won't find Antifa chapters on ActBlue for the same reason.

[Magister]

So, they're specifically not doing the illegal thing you think they're doing. (Of course, "Antifa chapters" is an oxymoron.)

[tylertusta]

So, they're specifically not doing the illegal thing you think they're doing.

ActBlue didn't fund those groups I mentioned. However, Elon is alleging that they're funding others that are engaging in criminal activities.

ActBlue isn't doing a good job of curating their associated groups.

Of course, "Antifa chapters" is an oxymoron.

How could I forget that Antifa doesn't exist!

[Magister]

That they curated their associated groups is to tylertusta, MAGA moron, proof that they are not curating their associated groups, and Musk, who might actually tell more lies than Trump, thinks they did something wrong.

"Chapters" of a movement that has no unified organization? Keep saying stupid things, tylertusta! It's very entertaining.

[tylertusta]

MAGA moron

Is that the best you got?

That they curated their associated groups ... proof that they are not curating their associated groups

To 'curate' is to decide and select, which for ActBlue means that they made a conscious effort to support certain groups and not support others.

They're not doing a good job of curating if they choose to support groups that engage in terrorism.

"Chapters" of a movement that has no unified organization?

An organization that doesn't even exist!

[David Nieporent]

I think companies that perform financial transfers and services are very, very careful about making sure they don't do business with criminal organizations or groups that have ties to terrorist organizations.

Note how you changed things from "funding" to "perform services"? A landlord who rents warehouse space to Hamas to store their weapons might be doing business with Hamas, but it is not "funding" Hamas. None of ActBlue's money is going to the groups Musk is talking about.

[tylertusta]

Note how you changed things from "funding" to "perform services"?

I fail to see why you think this matters. "Perform services" is an expansive term that encompasses "funding" as funding is a service.

None of ActBlue's money is going to the groups Musk is talking about.

Yawn.

[David Nieporent]

I fail to see why you think this matters.

Because the entire topic of the discussion was whether ActBlue funded them, and talking about something else was thus non-responsive.

[Magister]

They're not doing a good job of curating if they choose to support groups that engage in terrorism.

And still you have no evidence that they are doing so.

By tylertusta's reasoning, as soon as someone at least as reliable as Elon Musk says that tylertusta fucks goats, pointing out goats that tylertusta has not fucked is evidence that he is not doing a good job of not fucking goats and therefore tylertusta must be a goat fucker. That level of reasoning is what makes you a MAGA moron.

[tylertusta]

And still you have no evidence that they are doing so.

I provided a link to ActBlue's page for funding the Democratic Socialists of America.

tylertusta fucks goats

You're getting a timeout, son.

[Magister]

The Democratic Socialists of America does not engage in terrorism.

[Kazinski]

Well the good news is it doesn't look like ActBlue is going to be around much longer

Although this source may not pass muster either:

"ActBlue, the Democratic Fund-Raising Powerhouse, Faces Internal Chaos
At least seven senior officials have left the group, setting off deep concerns about its future as it confronts scrutiny from congressional Republicans."

The exodus has set off deep concerns about ActBlue’s future. Last week, two unions representing the group’s workers sent a blistering letter to ActBlue’s board of directors that listed the seven officials who had left. The letter described an “alarming pattern” of departures that was “eroding our confidence in the stability of the organization.”

What prompted so many longtime ActBlue officials to leave is not clear — none of the former officials agreed to be interviewed on the record."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/us/politics/actblue-democrat-fundraising-resignations.html

[Magister]

You should ask Commenter_XY, who celebrates MAGA vendettas: "the process will be the punishment" and "Do the charges really matter?" and "Once the person of interest is identified, the charges will follow." ActBlue processed donations that led to the Democratic takeover of the House in 2018 and the Senate and Presidency in 2020, so why wouldn't it be more of a target than individuals? I can't blame people who don't want to expose themselves to that sort of baseless attack.

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds like ActBlue officers better lawyer up. It sure looks like a long, drawn out, expensive legal process is about to happen. And those seven who left? Did they leave in time to escape any liability? It will be a lengthy and expensive legal process to answer that question. I wonder if any of them will have to drain their 401K, take their kids out of private schools, or sell their home to pay for legal bills.

ActBlue does campaign finance? Sounds like the DOJ better take a look at that. Just think about discovery and what might come to light. Nothing, of course. Because I assume that ActBlue has a sterling reputation and operates with only the highest ethical standards. 😉

If no laws were broken, the officers of ActBlue have nothing to fear. Nothing to fear, that is, except bankrupting size legal bills.

[Sarcastr0]

No due process, heck, no consideration for actual guilt.

Only persecution and misery via abuse of government authority for those you don't like.

How can you post this and not see you're one of the baddies?

[Commenter_XY]

What are you talking about? This is a validly predicated investigation of financial fraud. What abuse of power? Name it.

In the meantime, the investigative process goes on.

If no laws were broken, nobody has anything to fear....right?

[Magister]

Apparently Donald Trump had stuff to fear from the indictments brought against him, so I guess this is Commenter_XY's admission that Trump broke laws.

Trump attacking disfavored law firms and news media is the new Nixon enemy list or McCarthyism.

[Commenter_XY]

No Magister, this is Commenter_XY telling you, in not so many words, the shoe is on the other foot now.

Enjoy the 4-year show.

[Magister]

Commenter_XY is indifferent to whether anyone is guilty or even if they had anything at all to do with the things he imagines justify vengeance.

If Trump did nothing, he would have nothing to fear, according to Commenter_XY, and yet he feared; that is Commenter_XY's admission, no matter how furiously he spins now.

[Magister]

Yes, celebrating MAGA vendettas as previously noted,

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

[grb]

Some very elemental points :

1. This is an accusation by Musk. It has no specific charges and provides no supporting facts.

2. Musk lies. All the time. Repeatedly. Shamelessly. He thinks it's great trolling fun to lie. Almost as fun as Nazi salutes on a public stage.

A while back he claimed Congress was giving itself a 30% pay raise. One of our office Righties was strutting around loudly sneering over this. I had to explain to him that (1) There was zero truth in Musk's claim, (2) Nothing Musk says has any value whatsoever without a rigorous check, and (3) The pay raise thing wasn't even his most grotesque lie that day.

See, that was also the day Musk claimed he could build a transatlantic tunnel for 20 billion dollars - a lie that epitomizes how worthless all his talk is to me. But it was just one falsehood of many on that specific day.

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

[ThePublius]

So, you speak the truth, always, and Musk lies, always, is that it? And you repeat that bullshit about the supposed Nazi salute?

And I guess you'll suggest he's accomplished nothing, and he's stupid, and so on?

[grb]

ThePublius : And you repeat that bullshit about the supposed Nazi salute?

I'm curious how far down the rabbit hole you've gone. So, if you will, please answer this :

Do you honestly believe Musk wasn't aware he was giving a Nazi salute? Do you think he did it (twice) and then was shocked (shocked!) that people saw a rousing "seig heil"? How witless and stupid must you see Musk to believe so.

Let me explain you to yourself : You're embarrassed by Musk's Nazi display, and that's commendable. But you have to excuse Dear Leader's lackey as a good Cultist, and that's pathetic. So you've convinced yourself you have 1% plausible deniability on the salute, and that's delusional.

Because Musk knew damn well he was giving a Nazi salute, your 1% or 2% notwithstanding. He thought it was a trolling good lark to "seig heil" in public. Please remember, the man has the emotional maturity of a acne-scarred twelve-year-old boy seething with resentments.

[ThePublius]

It's amazing that you can read Musk's mind, and at such a distance. I reject the notion that he was giving a Nazi salute, just as I do for Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all of the others of who we have pictures of them with an outstretched arm and flat palm. Don't be an ass. Musk has never espoused Nazi philosophy.

[David Nieporent]

t's amazing that you can read Musk's mind, and at such a distance. I reject the notion that he was giving a Nazi salute,

I have enough respect for your intelligence not to believe you when you say this.

just as I do for Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all of the others of who we have pictures of them with an outstretched arm and flat palm.

Sigh. We went over this a week or two ago. Pictures and video are different. If someone is waving, and you create a still image at the right time, their arm might be in that position. But that is different than snapping out a Heil Hitler salute.

[Absaroka]

"Do you honestly believe Musk wasn't aware he was giving a Nazi salute?"

Sure. I think it's a profoundly silly claim to make.

Outside of building rockets, I'm not a Musk fan, I think DOGE is a travesty, yadda, but I don't think he is going to make Nazi salutes even if he has a shrine to Adolf in his bedroom.

Heh. Here are some photos of other politicians making the same gesture. And yes, I read the commentary there saying 'well, the photo of XXX is just a still photo so totes different', and I think that's a lame attempt at manufacturing controversy. If you spend enough time on camera waving to crowds, apparently you are a Nazi.

There is no shortage of quite legitimate things to criticize Trump and Musk for ... Nazi salutes isn't one of them.

[ThePublius]

Well said, thank you.

[Kazinski]

Not to mention him saying "my heart goes out to you" when he made the gesture.

Unfortunately the lies have lost their potency, nobody cares, it's not like he made an OK sign, which of course can only be a White Power signal when done by a Republican.

[grb]

Absaroka : "...but I don't think he is going to make Nazi salutes.."

Three Points :

1. I think Musk enjoys his little childish troll theatrics, the more bad-boy the better. Playacting Nazi fits that like a glove.

2. And all this talk relies on NOT watching the video. If you watch it and then try to produce a whataboutism, you'll find the way much more difficult.

3. And all this talk depends on believing a smirking Musk didn't know precisely what he was doing. And it's kinda hard to believe that with a straight face.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cpdxzjw9p47o

[Absaroka]

"If you watch it "

I did, and I saw awkward waving.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, Musk can be given the benefit of the doubt. Just some dorky exuberance.

However, by the time Steve Bannon did it several days later, after seeing all the attention Musk got, there is zero doubt that it was intentional troll-Nazi saluting.

[Absaroka]

I'll buy that.

Heh. Pols are probably practicing waving in front of cameras...'no, no, keep the elbow bent!!!'... so none of the stills look like a Nazi salute.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I agree = trolling

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Did you see the video of Musk doing what he did? If so, have you ever seen video of any other American politician of consequence doing anything like it?

[Absaroka]

Yes, as I said above, and it looks like a wave. I think you need really partisan glasses to see a Nazi salute.

[Magister]

It also looks to Absaroka like Donald Trump is 6'3" and weighs 215 pounds, and that there were nothing but tourists at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. "Partisan glasses" is a funny bit of projection.

[Bwaaah]

In case you're missing it, Absaroka presents as relatively thoughtful, non-aligned commenter. Your two-bit ridicule is unhelpful.

[Magister]

That would be way more convincing if Absaroka hadn't gone to still photos of other politicians with their arms straight, and didn't ignore Musk's support of hate speech on Twitter and Musk's own problematic statements. The neo-Nazis appreciated Musk's support, certainly, and they're not as willfully blind to the meaning of this gesture as Absaroka acts.

Well, I guess it's OK as long as Musk doesn't endorse the far right neo-Nazi party in Germany.

[Bwaaah]

As I once previously remarked: my [now deceased] Jewish father had a way of waving to his friends upon entering a dining room at his predominately Jewish country club that would have certainly matched your requirements for a "Nazi" gesture. Adding the fact that he consistently voted Republican and didn't mince words, I'm quite sure he would have fit easily into your "neo-Nazi" meme.

I am not only his son, but a person who firmly believes his arm/hand gesture reflected no neo-Nazi inclinations or sympathies. So that would make me something like a naive boot licker, or maybe a disingenuous fascist poser, yes?

[Magister]

Bwaah and Absaroka are peculiarly invested in defending Elon Musk on this.

Bwaah, did your father do that wave with the same grimace as Musk? More importantly, did he promote neo-Nazis and anti-semitism conspiracy theories like Musk? Probably not, or he might not have had many friends to wave to at a predominantly Jewish country club.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know about you, but normally when I wave my arm is bent at the elbow, not extended straight. Even if I'm waving at someone far away and need to have a straight arm such that I'm trying to make sure they see it, when I wave my wrist is bent, not straight, and my hand is moving, not stiff.

[Absaroka]

Maybe it's a politician thing.

This reminds me of the Trump 1.0 inauguration flag brouhaha. Some flag (Betsy Ross??) he used was totes a racist dog whistle ... until you spent 5 minutes looking at previous inaugurations that used the same ones.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[David Nieporent]

I reiterate that those are all still images, and thus irrelevant. Try it yourself. (I did.) Put up your own arm as though you were waving to someone far away. For one moment your hand/arm/wrist may all be straight, but then you immediately start, you know, waving.

The only activity I can perform from muscle memory where those are all straight and not moving is raising my hand like a student asking to be called on. But then my arm is straight up in the air, not angled forward.

[Absaroka]

I have a personal failing, I guess, of trying to assume the best about people and circumstances, even in the case of people I don't like. I see an awkward wave, not a Nazi salute.

Trump and Musk are doing terrible damage to our country, but I don't think Sieg Heils and swastikas are, or are likely to be, part of that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they were firebombing back in the 70's, when I was a teen, so I guess it's not like they've changed much.

[tylertusta]

Much like back in the 70's, today's leftist revolutionaries still have support among the Democratic Party. Charges will be commuted or dropped altogether once they get back into power.

Anyone else remember this one?

Pair of NYC Lawyers Face Significantly Less Prison Time for Firebombing NYPD Vehicle

[Magister]

I did not recall it; both lawyers were disbarred but the judge, who was appointed by George W. Bush, sentenced each to less prison time than the prosecution had sought, and less than the maximum the reduced charges allowed. So George W. Bush appointed people from the Democratic Party as judges? Huh.

I do recall Trump pardoning or commuting a bunch of violent felons who took part in his insurrection, and various other criminals from the ranks of his minions.

[tylertusta]

So George W. Bush appointed people from the Democratic Party as judges?

Actually, yes. That is more or less what happened here.

Due to how the Senate works for Federal judicial nominees, you do not get onto the bench unless you have the approval of that district's two Senators. This means that the nominee's political preferences align more with the Senators in office at the time.

For Judge Cogan, who was appointed on June of 2006, that was Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.

[Magister]

It must be sad to be one of the so very few people who aren't part of the Democratic Party! Not all of Trump's judicial appointees were corrupt toadies; I recall at least one decided against him on the merits in one of his 2020 election lawsuits. It's a good recommendation for Democrats today that you believe anyone who is sane, principled and competent must be a Democrat, but in 2006 there were still some of those in the Republican party.

[tylertusta]

It must be sad to be one of the so very few people who aren't part of the Democratic Party!

And you looked up his party registration?

[Magister]

No, I'm mocking you because you're a very stupid clown.

[tylertusta]

Awww, shucks! Thanks for your attention!

Anything else you'd like to comment on?

[David Nieporent]

This means that the nominee's political preferences align more with the Senators in office at the time.

It does not in fact mean that. It's true that if both senators from a state are members of the opposition party, that the nominees for the bench in that state tend to be more moderate. But that's not remotely the same thing as appointing a member of the other party. And Judge Cogan is not a liberal.

[tylertusta]

But that's not remotely the same thing as appointing a member of the other party.

I said it was essentiallythe same. One need not be a card-carrying Democrat to support leftists and their causes. One can even be a FedSoc contributor and still be very, very liberal!

And Judge Cogan is not a liberal.

NY is your bailiwick. Care to share why you think he is not?

[David Nieporent]

"They."

[tylertusta]

Were their pronouns xir/xem instead?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the conventional pronoun for more than one person, what's your problem?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "It's the conventional pronoun for more than one person"

True enough! But it's also the conventional pronoun for vast murky conspiracies with hazy nebulous attributions.

So two usages. I wonder which one applies here?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, considering that the Weathermen weren't imaginary...

[Ridgeway]

In fact, they were vaporware avant la lettre.

[Frank Drackman]

Surprised the poor Cops who had the misfortune to be on the scene for Floyd George’s Fentanyl overdose are still alive, they must be in “Protective Custody”

[Moderation4ever]

It generally doesn't help to be the defendant in high profile cases. You might ask Jeffery Dahmer or Whitey Bolger. I suspect that if the convicts do their time quietly, they will be alright. The video showed Derek Chauvin choking Floyd for 9 minutes. How much longer would it need to be for you to believe it happened? For 15 minutes, 20 minutes, or maybe a half hour?

[Frank Drackman]

The video showed Floyd George dying from his self inflicted Fentanyl overdose, and ridding the world of a piece of shit petty criminal/wife beater

[Bob from Ohio]

"choking"

Zero minutes of that.

"Choking happens when an object lodges in the throat or windpipe blocking the flow of air. " Mayo clinic

[Magister]

Minnesota statutes forbid peace officers from using choke holds, defined as

choke hold" means a method by which a person applies sufficient pressure to a person to make breathing difficult or impossible, and includes but is not limited to any pressure to the neck, throat, or windpipe that may prevent or hinder breathing, or reduce intake of air. Choke hold also means applying pressure to a person's neck on either side of the windpipe, but not to the windpipe itself, to stop the flow of blood to the brain via the carotid arteries.

There's a similar definition for the crime of strangulation.

There were a number of minutes of Derek Chauvin murdering George Floyd, of course, no matter how much you want to quibble about the method; "choking" was used by Moderation4ever in the transitive verb sense and in the same common understanding by which Donald Trump has been judged to be a rapist.

[apedad]

Genetic testing shows fraud in domestic shrimp supply

Research on behalf of the U.S. shrimp industry found as much as 70% of shrimp sold in restaurants as domestic is anything but.

The test has helped bring light to what shrimp-watchers say is a major problem: Fraud and mislabeling in the domestic shrimp supply.

“Ninety percent of shrimp sold in the United States is imported, farm-raised shrimp,” SeaD founder Dave Williams said in a phone interview in December. Much of it comes from Asia and South America, where groups like the World Bank have subsidized aquaculture as a means of economic development. He added: “I have no problem with that product, except when you are implying or deliberately telling people that you're selling one thing and you're not.”

And yet across the Gulf region, the company says many food vendors are doing just that. At the National Shrimp Festival in Gulf Shores, Alabama in October, they say they once again found that four out of five samples contained imported shrimp.

https://www.courthousenews.com/genetic-testing-shows-fraud-in-domestic-shrimp-supply/

I agree with the statement about just properly label the shrimp.

I try to buy organic but I'm pretty sure I'm getting scammed at least part of the time.

[ThePublius]

It's been going on for a long time with seafood. There's little chance that in a restaurant the fish you get is even the species they say it is. This is particularly so with Chilean Sea Bass.

Where I live, New Bedford, MA, the busiest seafood port in North America, there are seafood markets attached to wholesalers right on the dock where I buy my fish. But even they sell frozen shrimp from somewhere else! The scallops are certainly local catch, though, they are the biggest portion of New Bedfords seafood industry.

[apedad]

The Bill and Bob's in Salem, Mass, had the decency to tell my wife that the crab meat in the crab salad sandwich was imitation.

I'm more of a Kelly's guy anyway.

[ThePublius]

Wow, that was quite an honest admission. Last year I. bought a whole bunch of Jonah crab right off the boat in Westport, MA, of something like $1/pound. I know it was real crab because it was still alive! I still have a lot of it, cooked, in the freezer. I think I bought something like 15lb. of live crabs.

I love Kelly's too, but it's been a long time, too long. They have branched out now, and have many, many locations, and will be expanding more.

I cooked a roast a little while ago, and I have a deli slicer, so rare roast beef sandwiches with horseradish sauce, or Arby's sauce - yum!

[grb]

$1/pound ?!? I would have died and gone to Crab Heaven at such an experience.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet you don't take bugs when you dive?

[grb]

Never have. Not even in Florida, where the beasties are disarmed. I also haven't done any spear fishing. Somehow it seems rude, me being their guest and such.

[ThePublius]

Yes! Jonah crab is not usually very expensive anyway, but $1/lb is a deal. The boat captain was having some kind of row with the dealers in New Bedford so he just said 'screw it' and sold it himself off his boat.

There's a great dish I've had at a fancy restaurant in Edgartown, a Jonah crab and asparagus salad. Delish!

[Brett Bellmore]

We've got a local guy who periodically drives down to the coast, picks up a bunch of locally harvested shrimp, drives back up here, (It's a 4 hour drive both ways.) and sells it out of the back of his truck.

I'm fairly certain it's domestic because it's clearly not been frozen, and sometimes it's still moving. His crabs certainly are still moving!

Price is pretty decent for 8-10 count shrimp, too. Only catch is that you're paying for the whole shrimp, they are NOT beheaded or cleaned. But in this house that's the way we prefer to cook them.

He does rip the heads off for you if you want. I appreciate that, because he gives me the heads for free.

[ThePublius]

That's awesome! Yea, I like to have the entire shrimp, too, for making bisque, etc.

[ducksalad]

8 count? That's not a shrimp, it's a mini-lobster.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Shrimp Man

Yeah, they pretty much are that. Somehow taste meatier than the smaller shrimp.

[SRG2]

Yup. Entirely unsurprising, of course. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/08/a-seafood-fraud-investigation-dna-tested-fish-sold-in-the-us-here-s-what-they-found/

[Kazinski]

Its ridiculous to think anything you buy prepackaged in a supermarket is any healthier for you than the generic product next to it on the shelf.

In fact a lot of organic food is processed more, like super pasteurized "organic" milk that's do over processed you can't make cheese out of it because its been heated so high of a temperature it breaks down the natural enzymes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

South Carolina legally shot someone last week.

Five more executions (each in a different state) are scheduled this month. The next up this week is Texas, who, after over thirty years, plans to execute a serial killer.

Justice Breyer (joined by Ginsburg; Stevens had earlier made related arguments) explained the problems with executing someone after so much time in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/upcoming-executions

[Bob from Ohio]

"problems with executing someone after so much time "

The reason for "so much time" is all the appeals and post conviction petitions filed by anti-death penalty zealots.

Breyer was like the orphan begging for mercy after parricide.

[Frank Drackman]

I’d prefer a speedier trial/appeals like with the Lincoln Conspirators, but as it is now they get 2 punishments a “Life” sentence of 20-30 years and still get executed at the end

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The reason for "so much time" is all the appeals and post-conviction petitions filed by anti-death penalty zealots.

As Breyer and others note, (1) repeatedly, the petitions are shown to be based on valid due process problems; (2) the government itself is regularly to blame for many of the delays, generally speaking.

[SRG2]

At least the SC man was guilty. Texas obviously thinks that David Wood is likely innocent, else they wouldn't have resisted DNA testing.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That's something of a leap, given the facts of the case.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas-execution-david-wood-desert-killer

The guy already was a repeat offender (rapist) when the crimes were committed. There was good evidence for conviction. I won't assume a lack of any doubt. Saying it is "obvious" is a reach.

[SRG2]

Oh, up until the DNA issue I would have agreed. But it's a reasonable heuristic, given how cheap DNA testing is nowadays, to assume that if the prosecution doesn't want DNA tested, it's because they're not confident of the conviction.

And the reality is that many people who are eventually freed from DR are not nice people, which is how they came under polict scrutiny in the first place. Indeed, the worse the person, the more likely the polict are to assume wrongly that they're guilty.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Again, I'm not going to assume there is no good evidence of innocence, but my general stance is that it is good to be generally agnostic about things. This includes the "usual suspects" being wrongly accused. OTOH, it does help find guilt in many cases.

It is not too "obvious" including that DNA evidence is not going to be magical in various cases. It can provide some evidence of innocence [which can lead states to be wary] without being a magical elixir of innocence in many cases.

The article also shows there was past attempts to prove innocence that failed. The state can reasonably (if sometimes wrongly) say "okay, he is trying THAT again."

[dwb68]

Trump: We are slicing and dicing and cutting government. DOGE is shutting lots of departments!

House Democrats: We'll show him. We'll SHUT IT ALL DOWN.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We'll SHUT IT ALL DOWN."

Don't threaten me with a good time.

[Bwaaah]

"Hold it, men. They're not bluffing."

"Listen to them, men. They're just crazy enough to do it."

[Commenter_XY]

Go ahead, make my day = Govt shut down. LMAO.

The memes just make themselves.

[SRG2]

Well, we can be confident that XY et al will approve of a government shutdown.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, nobody really 'wants' a shutdown.

It is the incongruity of Team D suddenly wanting one, after years of crying that it would be the end of the world as we know it. And crying about current budget reductions, but wanting to shut it down. LMAO.

Be real: It is performative politics. We both know that.

[SRG2]

I am sure you cheered when the GOP engineered a shutdown with a
Democratic president

[Commenter_XY]

It was performative politics then, too. Who are you kidding?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Democrats want to:
Give you free stuff to keep you from getting pregnant.

And if you do, they want you to abort your baby.

And if you don't, they want to chop your child's genitals off and have them live a life of shame and suffering.

And if that wasn't good enough, they will help you commit suicide.

Are Democrats not proof enough that Satan is real? If Satan is real, doesn't that mean God is real?

[SRG2]

Are Democrats not proof enough that Satan is real? If Satan is real, doesn't that mean God is real?

No. Couldn't get your haloperidol prescription refilled?

[Kazinski]

Stock market is having a steep sell off today with the SP500 down 3.4% and the Nasdaq down almost 5%.

But the stock market was up 67% over 2 years from its October 2022 low so it certainly seemed due for a correction. The economy has been running on a sugar high based on the Biden spending spree and mos of the "investment" the IRA was making in the economy was actually making it less efficient.

For instance "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for electricity were 30.04% higher in 2024 versus 2020 (a $30.04 difference in value)."

Its hard to see any market fundamentals that would justify that 67% jump in valuations since 2022, well other than everyone was fleeing the Bond market. The Vanguard Long Term Corporate Index fund is down over 30% since the beginning of 2022, so that money had to go somewhere.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, it is a tax loss harvesting opportunity. And a good time to buy! Stocks just went on a mini-sale. 😉

Ignore the noise.

[Sarcastr0]

Folks should not invest based on their partisan vibes about the economic outlook.

[Bwaaah]

Good advice. Stick to ESG funds.

[Commenter_XY]

We completely agree. For the long term investor, you should never invest based on politics, or short term economic considerations.

That said, when an opportunity presents itself, take it.

[grb]

Kazinski : "Its hard to see any market fundamentals ...."

I take a step back to look at Kazinski's comment and know what I see? A really, really lame attempt to pretend this sell-off has nothing to do with Trump's bizarre economic policies and performance chaos.

But everyone knows better. No one is fooled.

[Kazinski]

I've been saying it for months. I said this on the Inauguration day Monday open thread:
"It wouldn't surprise me if the stock market takes a breather in the next 2 years, just because it was up 66% in Trumps first term and 57% in Biden's term."

It seems a little overvalued now, but if things go right like reducing the deficit, and getting some significant deregulation initiatives, it may have some more room to the upside."

https://reason.com/profile/comments-history/#comment-10875195

So if I'm just making excuses, at least I start making them months before the event, so I have them ready when I need them.

[grb]

A straight question : What caused the sell-off?

1. Trump's economic policies.
2. Market adjustment.
3. Lizard people from outer space impersonating humans by wearing a rubber mask.

Let's see if you can stomach picking #2.

[Commenter_XY]

I'd say 1 & 2, and note that it is normal market behavior.

[Kazinski]

I'd say #2 and fear of #1, since we don't actually know what #1 will do.

But lets not get ahead of ourselves here, YTD the market (sp500) is down 4.54%, a day, a week, a month is a blip on the market, even the -19% market return in 2022, has completely receded into the rearview mirror.

And don't forget the market crashed during covid losing 40% of its value in March 2020 before fully recovering by September. The lasting impact of that is nil.

[grb]

I have no issue with it being a combination of factors but would find it strange if you ignored the clear obvious one.

[Kazinski]

For a 2.7% 1 day drop? I made a lot of money on #1 in 1987, putting all my ready cash into the market a couple of days day after, it completely recovered in 3 months. Nobody ever came up with a good reason why it either dropped or recovered.

This isnt my first rodeo.

Here's the top 20 1 day drops of the SP 500:

1 1987-10-19 224.84 −57.86 −20.47
2 1929-10-28 22.74 −3.20 −12.34
3 2020-03-16 2,386.13 −324.89 −11.98
4 1929-10-29 20.43 −2.31 −10.16
5 1929-11-06 20.61 −2.27 −9.92
6 2020-03-12 2,480.64 −260.74 −9.51
7 1937-10-18 10.76 −1.10 −9.27
8 2008-10-15 907.84 −90.17 −9.04
9 2008-12-01 816.21 −80.03 −8.93
10 1933-07-20 10.57 −1.03 −8.88
11 2008-09-29 1,106.39 −106.62 −8.79
12 1933-07-21 9.65 −0.92 −8.70
13 1987-10-26 227.67 −20.55 −8.28
14 1932-10-05 7.39 −0.66 −8.20
15 1932-08-12 7.00 −0.61 −8.02
16 1932-05-31 4.47 −0.38 −7.84
17 1934-07-26 8.36 −0.71 −7.83
18 2008-10-09 909.92 −75.02 −7.62
19 2020-03-09 2,746.56 −225.81 −7.60
20 1940-05-14 10.28 −0.83 −7.47

[Estragon]

You forgot “globalists”

[RedheadedPharoh]

"According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for electricity were 30.04% higher in 2024 versus 2020 (a $30.04 difference in value)."

It's a good thing that isn't included in the inflation calculation or our inflation would be through the roof!

[Armchair]

I mean, pure inflation accounts for at least 15% of it.

[RedheadedPharoh]

That's a lie.

Energy prices have nothing to do with inflation. If it did then the government would include it in the inflation calculation!

[SRG2]

If it did then the government would include it in the inflation calculation!

Which they do, fuckwit.

[Armchair]

Mispost? I mentioned nothing about energy. This was about the increase in the stock market prices.

[SRG2]

RHP is a fuckwit, so such fuckwittery is to be expected.

[Commenter_XY]

A sign of the times....

New Jersey city declared 'capital of Palestine' by mayor in fiery speech

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-845479

I am just gonna say...Paterson is a dump. Atrocious. You come off route 80 westbound into Paterson and does it look like a third world shithole, and smells like it too.

[John F. Carr]

Still better than Gaza these days.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Paterson is a dump"

Good movie though : https://bleeckerstreetmedia.com/paterson

[grb]

Elon Musk called Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly a "traitor" after Kelly posted that he had visited Ukraine over the weekend. Kelly posted photos of his visit to Ukraine and wrote "Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine's security and can't be a giveaway to Putin." In a reply to the thread, Musk responded, "You are a traitor."

Kelly, a former Navy pilot and astronaut, responded:

"Traitor? Elon, if you don't understand that defending freedom is a basic tenet of what makes America great and keeps us safe, maybe you should leave it to those of us who do."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/musk-calls-sen-kelly-traitor-trip-ukraine/story?id=119640282

[Zarniwoop]

sounds like President Musk is bangin' fat rails of Ketamine again

[Absaroka]

Musk is waaaay off base.

(as an aside, if I were Ukraine right now, I'd cool it with congressional visits. Trump/musk are who they are, and pissing them off will do more harm than stroking congressfolks. I don't think Kelly would support Ukr less if they said it wasn't a good time for a visit)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Elon's problem is that he knows a lot about a very small number of things. But he thinks that means he knows a lot about everything. He very much does not, and he doesn't have the self-awareness to realize that.

There's a lot of that going around.

[ThePublius]

Who are you to say what Musk knows or doesn't know? You're some kind of genius who's run the biggest EV company, started a rocket company, started a payments company, advises the president? Give me a friggin' break. Talk about a lack of self awareness.

[Estragon]

The guy cheats at video games to look cool and brag. You get the heroes you deserve.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Democrats are out there trying to subvert our Foreign Policy.

[Armchair]

My thoughts when Sarcastr0 and friends say how much they support Ukraine.

https://babylonbee.com/video/army-announces-people-with-ukraine-flags-in-bio-will-be-drafted-first

[grb]

Wanna know my thoughts when Putin's apologists claim to be protecting all those U.S. soldiers who aren't fighting in Ukraine and never will be?

1. Logically, I note their talk is pure deflection. They're too ashamed to defend Trump's policy on its "merits" so pretend we're about to send troops into the war. Let's say you ask one why he wants to stop sending support so the Ukrainians can continue to fight for their freedom. If they reply, "because I don't want to die on a Ukrainian battlefield", you know you're dealing with someone attempting to duck his real position. It's all deflection all the time.

2. Viscerally, they're full of shit and reek thereof.

[Armchair]

Hey, look, it's one of Sarcastr0's friends....

Tell me, do you support...

1. Going to fight in Ukraine yourself? No?
2. Donating $100,000 of your own money to Ukraine? No?
3. Having US troops actively fight in Ukraine? No?
4. Having the US Airforce actively engage targets that are attacking Ukraine? No?
5. Giving Ukraine large quantities of the types of strategic munitions that can engage targets over broad swaths of Russia, without limit (ie, Tomahawk missiles). No?

What exactly do you support? Beyond doing bare minimum and putting up an "I support Ukraine!" flag on your Facebook profile?

Be specific. Use numbers. Tell us what you're willing to sacrifice....

[grb]

Do I want the U.S. to continue economic & military assistance to Ukraine so they can defend their country against a brutal invader?

Yes.

Do you want the U.S. to continue economic & military assistance to Ukraine, so they can defend their country against a brutal invader?

(please provide answer)

See, Armchair, that's how simple the question gets once you stop deflecting, flailing, weaseling, and equivocating. Compare my simple questions to the garbage you spew-out above. Who's trying to run from his position? You are. Who's trying to hide? You are. Who's laying down smokescreens to evade substance? You are.

[Sarcastr0]

You strawman by insisting I must agree with all your predictions and assumptions.
And then you sealion when called on it.

I didn’t bother with your accusations. But grb has your number.

[Armchair]

Stay happy. Put your "I support Ukraine" flag up on Facebook. Don't bother yourself with actual support beyond that. You're a good person. You support Ukraine. With your strong Facebook post. You just don't need to actually commit anything concrete to support it. Be proud.

[Sarcastr0]

'you can't have an opinion unless you're an activist' is a swerve I did not expect.

[grb]

Dude is pulling out all the stops. Apparently being an obedient docile Cultist is harder than it looks.....

[Bwaaah]

He didn't say that. Of course you can have an opinion without being an "activist."

He said you reflect the vacuousness of a person who says good things but has no skin in the game, a person who cheers throwing [other people's] money he doesn't have at the problem, a person who, with no stated goal, still finds it easy to justify a continued stream of dying [Ukranian and Russian not American] people.

How much more money and how many more bodies is it worth to attain what? WHAT? Sustaining your pride as a supportive person?

"I will not give Putin, or Trump, the satisfaction."

Kazinski asked the question the other day: What is your plan? How do you want to play this (beside keepin' on keepin' on)? I don't recall you having had an answer for that. Did I miss it?

I think this is the part where you call me (or anybody who entertains a non-left perspective) names. grb does a good drop-in replacement for you.

[Sarcastr0]

He did say that. It was his whole argument.

And replacing his argument with ‘your specific opinion is the bad one’ is no less stupid than his more general take.

[Absaroka]

I'll take a swing.

It's unfortunate we/Europe have been so slow out of the gate. We should have used this as a drill for ramping up production on a WWII timeframe, as in telling someone (Musk!) "do whatever is necessary to produce 100K 155 shells a month within six months". I'm talking Willow Run here. We did it once - and if we can't do it again we have a problem. The objective, IMHO, would to be have Russia decisively thrown back within a year, so obviously defeated that the notion of wars of conquest would be out of style for a couple decades at least. Alas, that's water under the bridge at this point.

So, today: I would absolutely keep up all the intelligence sharing. I would have people (contractors? CIA?) on the ground asking, e.g., 'are there things needed for this new kind of war that US companies ought to be building, like drone ECM' or cheap drone defense or whatever. If there are, it's a chance to do R&D we might need in the future.

I would sell them old Tomahawks for $1 each. Hey, we sell arms to lots of people; what they do with them is their business. My advice would be to not target the Kremlin unless you're sure what room Putin is in, but the Kerch Strait bridge, refineries, munitions factories, have at it. Nice oil funded economy you have there, Putin, be a darn shame if something happened to it.

I'd start publicly training Ukrainian crews on some modern non-nuke subs. Sinking enemy tankers anywhere on the high seas is perfectly legit. Basing might be a prob, might have to get creative about that, but let Putin worry while the crews train.

Air defense seems like a priority, so I'd light a fire under Patriot and NASAMS production.

For a lot of the rest, I'd ask what they need. A bunch of containerized gensets so essential stuff can keep going during grid outages? Trucks for if the electric railways are down?

I'd lean on Europe to dig deeper for aid, and do it faster, Willow Run again. I'd have deep discussions with Korea about how much we'd appreciate them ramping up production, etc.

Putin's problem is that he's not sure he can survive a defeat in Ukraine. I'd try to make peace seem less risky to him than war. The sooner that happens, the sooner young men (well, in this war, geezers, too) stop dying. Not to mention women and kids in Ukraine. We've been trying to rip the bandaid off slowly; that's not how to fight wars.

Putin won't like this. Fair enough; we didn't like MIGs and SAMs getting sent to Vietnam or Korea. Funny how life turns sometimes.

[Kazinski]

I agree with all that, but only if ceasefire and negotiations don't work.

Now 3 years after the war started, and preliminary talks have already started, now you want the US to fuel a major escalation?

That makes little sense to me.

Putin is a bad guy, but so was Stalin, and it was a much better strategy to try to contain him than go to war with him, even though he virtually annexed half of Europe for the Soviets for half a century.

Ukraine has stopped Putin and significantly weakened him, with our help, both of us should just take the win.

[Bwaaah]

There's a position. It's a dangerous one (not that that's wrong; life is dangerous). It would be expensive. And it would be recognized by Putin as the U.S. vs. Russia. He would consider the merits of exposing Americans to the feeling of spilling their own blood. I don't like playing bluffing games; we'd have to be willing to go the full distance if he is to understand our position as such.

I don't see it in us. I don't see the resolve. I don't see the commitment. I don't see the willingness to sacrifice, if that's what it takes to go the distance. I see Ukrainians dying, Russians dying, and Americans going shopping. That's not a winning stance.

Most Americans who "support" this war are not interested in war, at all. I'd be glad to see otherwise, to change the game. But I don't see it.

[Absaroka]

Bwaaah, Kazinski: Dangerous, expensive, absolutely. But IMHO[1] less dangerous that letting Russia win. As is often the case, there is no safe choice, only various risky ones. Trump's approach seems the maximally risky one to me, and the one with the least reward.

I don't see a ceasefire as viable; Putin has been and currently still is insistent on terms tantamount to a surrender. I don't think the Ukrainians (and I mean the people, not just their leaders) will accept rule by Russia. My sense is that the war has hardened their attitude towards Russia.

Time will tell.

[1]StdDisclaimer: making accurate predictions is hard, especially about the future

[Bwaaah]

I don't disagree with your analysis or your position. It's consistent with my de facto views. But I'm skeptical, of everything, especially my de facto views. I've tried to lean on Afghanistan as an analogous situation, as you did elsewhere in this discussion. But as I understand it (which is little) the ethnic affinities are very different here, particularly in eastern Ukraine, much of which is described as "ethnic Russian" (and mainly speaks Russian). Still, a war of attrition worked in Afghanistan and [I believe] can work here. The outcomes and risks/benefits of all approaches I've considered are quite uncertain. Conclusion: I don't know [near] enough to stake a confident position.

[Absaroka]

"particularly in eastern Ukraine, much of which is described as "ethnic Russian" "

I haven't traveled there, ever, or recently. I have tried to follow things closely. My **sense** is that even the ethnic Russians, even in eastern Ukraine, don't much like Russia anymore.

In the occupied territories Russian troops have acted very badly. It's reminiscent of the Germans being greeted as liberators in WWII, but the German behavior quickly changed that to burning hatred.

In unoccupied Ukraine, the constant drone assaults etc have hardened resolve. This is the lesson of strategic bombing, whether of Britain or Germany; contra Douhet it hardens civilian resolve rather than breaking it.

Then there are the stories like Bucha. Prior to that my sense was that many ethnic Russian Ukrainians viewed closer ties, or merger with, Russia as acceptable. That, and similar stories, have changed those views.

"Photos showed corpses of civilians, lined up with their hands bound behind their backs, shot at close range. Many bodies were found mutilated and burnt, and girls as young as fourteen reported being raped by Russian soldiers."

That's the kind of 'liberation' most people can do without.

"I don't know [near] enough to stake a confident position."

My crystal ball ain't 20/20 either, alas.

[David Nieporent]

I haven't traveled there, ever, or recently. I have tried to follow things closely. My **sense** is that even the ethnic Russians, even in eastern Ukraine, don't much like Russia anymore.

Well… yes and no. My sense is that so many have fled from the Russian occupied areas that the rump population that's left is probably relatively pro-Russia. But if you mean to survey the people who lived there before the war, then yes.

[Commenter_XY]

Re: Willow Run.

No, we could not do it again today. Draw your own conclusion from there.

[Absaroka]

An America that is too weak to risk supporting Ukraine is an America that is too weak to support Israel. If you are going to accept an American future as a minor power, be consistent.

[David Nieporent]

Given that the U.S. manufacturing base is much bigger now than then, why couldn't we do it again today?

[Commenter_XY]

Let's think about this a minute. You need site selection, pull permits, then do environmental assessment. Next, you need to hire union help for building. They of course, will want a negotiated contract. And more permits.

It would be a year before the first concrete slab is poured, if you are lucky.

[grb]

All the Right-wingers here are twisting themselves into rubbery knots trying to be good obedient Cultists for Dear Leader. Half are going the 60s flower-child hippie route, and the thread resounds with choruses of "Give Peace a Chance" and their wailing anguish at the sordid stuff of war. And what a spectacle that makes! After all the ghoulish bloodthirsty cheering of Palestinian civilian dead, who knew the Wingers on this site could reinvent themselves as tender-hearted peakniks at the snap of a finger. But when Dear Leader commands, they obey.....

And then there's the most tired trope of them all : The "if you're not ready to get on a plane right now and go fight in Gaza, you have no right to support Israel" malarky. Who on Earth takes that braindead bullshit seriously ?!? The "if you're not ready to write Israel a check from your own bank account, you have no business supporting U.S. armament deliveries to Israel" shtick is similar and similarly moronic. Does supporting Trump automatically cut your IQ in half? That's the only possible explanation for the embarrassing contributions from Armchair and Bwaaah above.

[Magister]

Does supporting Trump automatically cut your IQ in half?

Yes, that explains a vast number of the comments in this thread.

[David Nieporent]

Does supporting Trump automatically cut your IQ in half?

Really, it's not clear which way the causal arrow runs there. Or maybe it's just an ongoing spiral.

[David Nieporent]

"If you haven't picked up a weapon and traveled to the Mexican border, shut up about illegal immigration."

[Armchair]

"What exactly do you support? Beyond doing bare minimum and putting up an "I support Ukraine!" flag on your Facebook profile?

Be specific. Use numbers. Tell us what you're willing to sacrifice...."

grb...No response beyond "I support Ukraine".

There's only one person deflecting here grb. It's you. (Oh, two people. I see Sarcastr0 joined in)

[grb]

Hey - no problem. I'm happy with my simple question set beside your scattershot weaselly diversions. Clear choice there.....

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The massive cyber attack on X yesterday is being reported as originating from Ukraine.

Is that a modern act of war?

[David Nieporent]

It is not being reported as originating from Ukraine. You right wing loons do not understand what the word "reported" means. It is true that Musk blamed Ukraine, but that's not remotely the same thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

More semantic antics?

[David Nieporent]

Words have meaning.

[Mr. Bumble]

Often, more than one.

[Purple Martin]

Hmmm. After a quick skim of 500+ Open Thread comments, something I read yesterday seems the most relevant observation:

For a very few people, the first Trump term was a live-action role-playing game; for everyone else, it was a YouTube channel.

And in Trump’s second term so far? Nothing. Even the rally numbers are way down. National conservatives who might have gone out to meet each other in 2017 are hunkering at home alone in their living rooms, swiping back and forth between X and OnlyFans and DraftKings, pumping their fists in the air as they read about how Elon Musk and his band of computer nerds are firing air traffic controllers or Trump is cutting off aid to Ukraine.

“You can just do things”, except almost zero of Trump’s supporters are actually doing anything except passively cheering for their notional team. Unless you’re one of the tiny group of nerds helping Elon Musk dismantle the bureaucracy, the thumos is all secondhand.

[Thumos is ancient Greek, meaning "spiritedness" or "passion", usually incorporating a strong feeling of anger. It's having a moment in the circles you'd expect.]

The MAGA movement, you see, is an internet thing. It’s another vertical online community — a bunch of deracinated, atomized individuals, thinly connected across vast distances by the notional bonds of ideology and identity. There is nothing in it of family, community, or rootedness to a place. It’s a digital consumption good. It’s a subreddit. It is a fandom.

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/this-thing-will-fail

Specifically, it's the bandwagon-riding, front-running flavor of fandom. That is all. Have a nice Monday.

[ThePublius]

What a load of crap.

[Sarcastr0]

Careful if your tone there.

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

Was that a serious comment or were you parodying yourself?

[Bwaaah]

Not enough self-awareness to do parody. He means it, but is surprised by a feeling of trollish satisfaction only after he presses "submit." He enjoys being a dirtbag to ThePublius. (I have come to enjoy being a dirtbag to him.)

[Sarcastr0]

No I am making fun of TP’s past tone policing.

Your telepathy fails again.

[Kazinski]

Well whatever it is it seems to be working the WH, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court.

And 29% of Democrats are satisfied with the direction of their party, 91% of Republicans are.

https://x.com/NewHampJournal/status/1899216213307171219?t=TFCKLAcoHex3umhH5W9LUQ&s=19

And now the Democrats even want to shut down government for us, but Republicans should make one thing clear - if its shutdown then no back pay this time.

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

https://x.com/awsalebadi/status/1899183830424015107

Valeria Costa, a Democrat activist, is on video confessing she's organizing the attacks on Tesla showrooms and it's employees for political retribution against Elon and his reformers.

Is that not the definition of terrorism?

The Left has gone from people like the Weather Underground where you're attacking the government to the modern day activist where you're attacking people who are reforming the government.

Do you think that's because the Weather Underground became the government? That's figurative, but nearly literal given Obama's embrace of the domestic terrorists.

[David Nieporent]

Besides your illiteracy, what is the support for the claim that she's a "Democrat [sic] activist"? And of course the linked video does not actually have her "confessing" any such thing; it's includes a vague statement about "targeting" Tesla; she doesn't say anything about "attacks on Tesla showrooms and its [sic] employees," and she certainly doesn't say "for political retribution," and she definitely doesn't say "his reformers," since there's no reform going on; Musk is just burning stuff down.

[SRG2]

Is that not the definition of terrorism?

No, It's not terrorism what the target of your attack is directly associated with the objective of your attack. It's vile and reprehensible (unless you're at the Capitol trying to overturn a legitimate election, apparently) but it's not terrorism.

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

But what if the President is cognitively impaired and your his staffer and you conspire with others on the team to just take the place of the President and make decisions and sign laws and EO's and play it off as if it were the President without him knowing it?

[SRG2]

Still not terrorism.

And what if the President is cognitively impaired and is an asset of a hostile country currently waging war against an ally?

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

What country was China waging war against when Biden was in office?

[SRG2]

You should know :I was talking anout Krasnov. And if you didn't, you know now.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York ordered that the pseudonymous M.K., apparently Palestinian protester Mahmoud Khalil, not be deported until the judge can hear arguments about whether a writ of habeas corpus should be granted. Khalil's lead attorney, Kyle Barron, specializes in rapid response litigation on behalf of noncitizens.

I don't know what proper procedure is in cases like this where the detainee has a green card. When do District Courts have jurisdiction and when do immigration courts have exclusive jurisdiction? And on the merits, does a green card have to be formally revoked before the holder can be deported? Does revocation come with procedural rights?

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69719040/mk-v-joyce/

[tylertusta]

From what I'm reading, Judge Furman may be too late. Khalil was already moved to Louisiana, and the named ICE official (Joyce) can no longer produce him.

Whoops.

[John F. Carr]

The named respondents are Caleb Vitello (ICE), Kristi Noem (head of DHS), Pamela Bondi (Attorney General), and William P. Joyce (acting field director, USCIS). One of them can produce petitioner's corpus.

Khalil's legal team says he was in New York when the petition was filed and he should be returned to New York. See https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/khalil-v-joyce

If I had the government's side of the story I would post it too. No response has been filed yet. I don't know who is legally in the right.

[tylertusta]

We're going to find out fairly soon whether he was in LA or NY when the petition was filed.

[apedad]

I've been watching too much sports.

I read 'LA or NY' as Los Angeles or NYC.

[SRG2]

Max Boot at WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/10/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia/

Unrestrained by any administration “adults,” Trump is executing what may be the most startling U-turn in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Opposition to Russian aggression, after all, has been a hallmark of U.S. policy since the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, with only a brief interregnums during World War II and in the 1990s and early 2000s when Russia was going democratic. But now Russia is more repressive than at any point since Joseph Stalin ruled and more threatening than at any point since Nikita Khrushchev took charge — and yet Trump is making one unearned concession after another to the Kremlin.

Trump is acting as if Zelensky, not Putin, is the main obstacle to peace, even though Putin can end the war at any time by simply withdrawing his troops from Ukrainian territory. On Friday, Trump said Putin “wants to end the war” and even credited him with being “more generous than he has to be,” while adding, “I’m finding it more difficult, frankly, to deal with Ukraine.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Has Boot ever met a war he didn't want America to wage?

[SRG2]

Where is he wrong here?

[Magister]

I'd say that appealing to a history of opposing Russia since 1917 is laying it on a little thick. As he notes, we allied with them in World War II, and had a "brief interregnum" after the Soviet Union collapsed, so it's not exactly a fixed element of US policy. The more startling U-turn is turning on our closest allies, whether it's threatening NATO or starting a trade war with Canada.

But that's just exaggeration, and I see nothing wrong after the first two sentences.

[Commenter_XY]

Progressive warmongers are the worst, LOL. They know so much that isn't so.

[SRG2]

Max Boot is progressive now?

[Magister]

He opposes Trump, and that alone is enough for MAGAmites to call him a marxist.

[santamonica811]

Observation: Virginia female track runners are mean!!!

[Life of Brian]

One particular Virginia female track runner, anyway. Who, in an apparent tribute to Eminem, is now claiming that she tripped, fell, and her baton landed on her opponent's head. Twice.

[Commenter_XY]

I was a skeptic of Senator John Thune as Team R Majority Leader. He has gotten all of POTUS Trump's Cabinet nominees over the finish line, and quickly. I did not think he would do that. No fanfare, either; a rarity for Washington DC.

No rest for the weary....debt ceiling, and a reconciliation bill on deck.

[SRG2]

Translation: "I didn't think Thune would be a coward but I was happy to be proved wrong"

[grb]

Meanwhile, the Trump freak show rolls on. One of Trump's most trolling Cabinet picks was RFK Jr for HHS. It was right up there with the pedophile nominated to head Justice as a ugly joke directed at the country. This guy will see innocent children dead rather than give his tin-foil-hat rants a rest. RFK Jr on the Texas measles outbreak:

"He issued a muffled call for vaccinations in the affected community, but said the choice was a personal one. He suggested that measles vaccine injuries were more common than known, contrary to extensive research. He asserted that natural immunity to measles, gained through infection, somehow also protected against cancer and heart disease, a claim not supported by research. He cheered on questionable treatments like cod liver oil, and said that local doctors had achieved ‘almost miraculous and instantaneous’ recoveries with steroids or antibiotics."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/health/measles-texas-kennedy-fox.html

I wonder if Commenter_XY cares? Probably not. What are some pointlessly dead children compared with a chance to own the Libs via a malicious joke of a Cabinet pick?

[Commenter_XY]

Let's see how RFK handles the outbreak.

I just wonder if the measles vaccines we had as children came with an expiration date; does it lose effectiveness 50-60 years later?

[grb]

Two Points :

1. We've already seen how RFK Jr. handles the outbreak. Is everything that's happened until now part of a timeout until he gets his act together? Jr grudgingly admited vaccines prevent infections, but refused to urge vaccinations to parents whose sons & daughters face serious illness and death. Instead, he lies about children in the Texas community being "harmed" by vaccines.

This is very similar to his disgraceful performance in Samoa, where this piece of shit traveled to a country in the midst of a measles epidemic to campaign against vaccination. After eighty-plus children died, this loathsome jackass then lied saying the dead didn't die from the disease; lied saying vaccines caused the deaths; lied about encouraging the local anti-vaxx movement; and lied about his very reason for traveling there - which was at the invitation of local anti-vaxx activists and paid-for by an anti-vaxx group. In early 2021, Kennedy (in a little-noticed blog post), hailed one of those vaccination foes as a “hero.”

Back in Texas, he's promoting a slightly effective treatment (Vitamin A) as a miracle cure, when it has little or no effect in most cases. He's claiming cod liver oil is another miracle treatment, when most doctors say it's useless. He's blaming the measles death of a women on her diet, not her failure to get vaccinated. He's claiming natural immunity to measles through infection, protects against cancer and heart disease, a claim made-up out of the blue. He's claiming a child's death from measles was caused by "malnutrition" which is a crude lie per local doctors in in Gaines County.

So how about it, Commenter_XY: Any sense of shame remaining? Any regard for truth left? I understand your predicament. Show standards or ethics reacting to RFK Jr's disgrace today, and that makes excusing Trump's next sleazy act all the harder. Soon your whole house of cards collapses and you're forced (forced!) to think for yourself.

2. As for your question, apparently the MMR vaccine is remarkably effective for life. There seems to be some minor deterioration in a small sliver of the population, but that's masked by high vaccination rates.

MMR remains highly protective against measles for life, protecting over 95% of vaccinated individuals from measles. However, a rise in measles infections among people who have had two doses of MMR is in line with the effectiveness of the vaccine decreasing by 0.04% each year after vaccination, the study suggests.

https://tinyurl.com/5ca9mra9

[John F. Carr]

The Ninth Circuit refused to block a mass tort lawsuit against Uber. Numerous cases involving claims of sexual assault had been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. Uber asked for a writ of mandamus to sever the cases and make them too expensive for plaintiffs to try. The Ninth Circuit found that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation did not clearly abuse its discretion in consolidating the cases. The court also rejected Uber's argument that its contract with riders bound the JPML. Uber, like most tech companies, prohibits customers from participating in class action lawsuits. But multidistrict litigation is a choice by the courts, not a choice of forum where the parties are in control.

Uber v. JPML, 23-3445

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, though, MDLs are not class actions. (Though class actions can be part of MDLs.) Cases consolidated for pretrial purposes still must be separated for trial.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Married ... with Children fans might appreciate this podcast entry:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/messy-with-christina-applegate-jamie-lynn-sigler/id1734318382

[SRG2]

The Trump White House has still not commented on Russia's execution of one-time Ukrainian leader Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy was executed after a one-day trial following Russia's successful blitzkrieg that swept over Ukraine.

A hastily-convened Ukrainian government in exile under the leadership of Kyiv's ex-mayor Vitali Klitschko denounced the execution as murder. Klitschko said that Ukraine had never been permitted to recover from the peace treaty imposed on it in late 2025, "The US did everything in its power to force us to sign a peace treaty with Russia, securing only a promise from Putin not to continue further hostilities, and then the US refused to resupply us with the resources we needed nor provide any support for existing equipment, even though President Trump had promised to do so," said Klitschko.

The White House had previously acknowledged that it had decided not to resupply Ukraine after promises it would do so, but claimed that Ukraine had not abided by its side of the agreement, though provided no specifics about what Ukraine had not done. Ukraine had denied White House claims.

Western European coutnies had continued to provide aid to Ukraine but could not do so rapidly enough to restore Ukraine to its pre-war strength. Meanwhile Russia was able to refit its military following the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of Russian assets by the US.

Some Republicans expressed regret over the recent invasion and execution, but they generally held that this was an internal matter between Ukraine and Russia. Some right-wing media sources, however, cheered the execution, calling it a just end for a corrupt and murderous dictator.

President Trump was due to visit Moscow next week, and the White House confirmed that the trip would still go ahead, as the president was due to be awarded The Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, the highest civilian award in Russia.

[ThePublius]

Are you off your meds again?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wants to be a paperback writer...

[SRG2]

Well, no fiction writer would be believed if he had the US elect a Russian asset and convicted felon, fraudster, adulterer and sexual harasser as president, but here we are. I am not creative enough for reality.

[David Nieporent]

SRG2 is going to be off to the labor camps next for insulting our Dear Leader by not using his full title, President-For-Life Trump.

[Don Nico]

A question to appellant litigators:
How often do amicus briefs make (or appear to make) a difference in cases?
What is the most influential message that an amicus brief can make?

[ducksalad]

This morning on Truth Social.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Based on Ontario, Canada, placing a 25% Tariff on “Electricity” coming into the United States, I have instructed my Secretary of Commerce to add an ADDITIONAL 25% Tariff, to 50%, on all STEEL and ALUMINUM COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM CANADA, ONE OF THE HIGHEST TARIFFING NATIONS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. This will go into effect TOMORROW MORNING, March 12th. Also, Canada must immediately drop their Anti-American Farmer Tariff of 250% to 390% on various U.S. dairy products, which has long been considered outrageous. I will shortly be declaring a National Emergency on Electricity within the threatened area. This will allow the U.S to quickly do what has to be done to alleviate this abusive threat from Canada. If other egregious, long time Tariffs are not likewise dropped by Canada, I will substantially increase, on April 2nd, the Tariffs on Cars coming into the U.S. which will, essentially, permanently shut down the automobile manufacturing business in Canada. Those cars can easily be made in the USA! Also, Canada pays very little for National Security, relying on the United States for military protection. We are subsidizing Canada to the tune of more than 200 Billion Dollars a year. WHY??? This cannot continue. The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear. Canadians’ taxes will be very substantially reduced, they will be more secure, militarily and otherwise, than ever before, there would no longer be a Northern Border problem, and the greatest and most powerful nation in the World will be bigger, better and stronger than ever — And Canada will be a big part of that. The artificial line of separation drawn many years ago will finally disappear, and we will have the safest and most beautiful Nation anywhere in the World — And your brilliant anthem, “O Canada,” will continue to play, but now representing a GREAT and POWERFUL STATE within the greatest Nation that the World has ever seen!

[Sarcastr0]

I feel safer from the Canadian drug cartels already.

[grb]

Trump : ".... — And your brilliant anthem, “O Canada,” will continue to play, but now representing a GREAT and POWERFUL STATE within the greatest Nation that the World has ever seen!"

There's no way to deny it. Trump is mentally ill. His mind is broken. He's a loony-tunes wack-job.

[M L]

I thought Canada was liberal and enlightened? Why are they doing tariffs? Don't they understand that the tariffs will be paid solely by the Canadian people and have no effect whatsoever on anyone else?

Good news though is we have literally bales full of shrill op-eds and posts and commentary here in the US explaining the issue. We can just package these up and ship them to Trudeau - once he sees what all the smart people are saying he'll drop them immediately!

[M L]

The "ICC" seems like a ridiculous exercise in imperialism and global government. They just go around arresting foreign heads of state?

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2025/03/11/former-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte-arrested-for-crimes-against-humanity/

Sounds like Duterte cleared out the drug dealers and criminal gangs in his country, killing a bunch of them without due process. That may be bad surely, but it's not some European bureaucrat's jurisdiction or prerogative to decide what process is due there. It was a relatively short time ago, in the big picture, that frontier justice operated in this country, before more formal and developed legal systems were possible. You can't dictate everyone's rate of progress.

[Commenter_XY]

UKR agrees to US proposal for 30-day ceasefire at KSA meeting. The ball is in Russia's court. Weapons and intelligence sharing have been resumed (after a hiatus of a few days).

This is a step in the right direction. It would be good to end this war and stop the killing.

[tylertusta]

Ukraine willing to accept 30-day ceasefire with Russia as U.S. lifts freeze on aid and intelligence

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia — The U.S. and Ukraine said Kyiv would accept a 30-day ceasefire with Russia after talks in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, with Washington pledging to immediately lift a freeze on intelligence sharing and military aid to Ukraine...

...The statement said the U.S. "will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine." Both were frozen in the wake of an explosive meeting between Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Trump at the White House on Feb. 28...

...In a press briefing following the meeting, Rubio said "the ball is now in [Russia's] court."

"We'll take this offer now to the Russians. And we hope that they'll say yes, that they'll say yes to peace," Rubio said. "The president's objective here is, number one, above everything else, he wants the war to end, and I think today Ukraine has taken a concrete step in that regard. We hope the Russians will reciprocate."

[Absaroka]

A report that "The former U.S. pardon attorney, Elizabeth G. Oyer, was terminated Friday after she opposed restoring actor Mel Gibson’s rights to carry a gun, her spokesperson and two Justice Department officials familiar with the matter told NBC News."

1)The restoration of rights thing has been specifically unfunded for decades. That's a travesty.
2)Congress should absolutely reverse that annual defunding.
3)The supreme court agreed this was constitutional in US v Bean (FWIW, I think the court got that wrong).
4)Until congress changes the law, or the SC reverses itself, the executive ought to take care to faithfully execute the law.

Not the least because the restoration process should be open to everyone, not just famous actors.

[Commenter_XY]

More savings, probably 125K + bennies. Departures here, terminations there....and soon you're talking serious money. 😉

[Life of Brian]

Nice conservative estimate -- she was actually pulling down $205k.

[Commenter_XY]

My, my....the dollars really DO add up.

[ThePublius]

Beautiful weather in the last few days, here in New England. Almost 60º F today.

Off to the range with a few handguns. It's important, responsible, to practice, drill, if you're going to carry.

Ammunition is up, as most other things. I'm fortunate to handload (reload) my ammunition with components I "invested" in several years ago. And cast my own lead bullets. It would ruin it for me if it was $1 ever time I pulled the trigger.

[ducksalad]

Weird weather here in South Texas.

Cool Saturday morning (60s), spiked to 102 in the afternoon, went back down into the 50s by the next morning.

Forecast is moderate (70s 80s) all week except for another spike to 104.

Usually the 100+ stuff doesn't start until May. Usually the 50s and below are over in February.