Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

CECOT, the Hotel California of prisons.

[not guilty]

How is your dog, Mr. Bumble?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not getting better or younger but hanging in there. He's not in pain (that's good) and still eating and drinking. Just hoping that when the time comes it's peaceful and at home.
Thanks for asking.

[not guilty]

I hope that he and you do well in his remaining days. The loss of a beloved pet can be quite distressing.

[Martinned]

Funny how human empathy works.

(See also JD Vance's dispute with the late Pope a month or two ago.)

[Speaking for normal people]

As a longtime reader of St Augustine V.'s harangue about Ordo Amoris is dead on. IF I rush into a burning building and save the cat but not my child I do NOT deserve praise but condemnation.

Pope and Vance answer to Church teaching

we rank our love of others based on likeness and union. You are more responsible for your family than your co-workers. You should love your countrymen more than people in a nation you have no connection with.

[JasonT20]

You should love your countrymen more than people in a nation you have no connection with.

Yeah, that isn't what I take away from anything I've ever seen or read that presents the teachings of Jesus.

As a practical matter, you can do more for people that are close to you than people farther away and more removed. And it is human nature to feel stronger connections to people close to you. But making a conscious effort to actually rank your love or empathy for other people based on proximity and familial connections is not consistent with any moral philosophy I've ever heard of.

[Ridgeway]

Ordo Amoris provides a legitimate structure for making decisions on how to allocate limited resources, and is grounded both in human nature and widely-accepted notions of duty and responsibility.

It is not, however a license to say FYIGM.

[JasonT20]

That's what I mean, basically. I don't know the theology behind Ordo Amoris, or what it really says (as opposed to how JD Vance and others that agree with him view it). You, correctly, in my opinion, point out the practical and psychological factors that lead reasonable people to focus their resources for helping others on those close to them. And I don't think that there is anything wrong, morally or otherwise, with actually prioritizing resources that way, all else being equal. (Meaning, that the need for help is comparable.)

The criticism I'm giving to what Speaking for normal people wrote is that his expression of that idea really does come across as selfish in nature (and nationalistic), not practical or moral.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As a Puritan (i.e. Protestant Congregationalist), I look at it as who is a saint and who isn't -- St. Augustine *is* and Pope Leo is merely a recently-elevated Cardinal. And as to Cardinals, I remember 20 years ago when there was discussion of an extradition treaty with the Vatican so as to extradite Cardinal Law to Massachusetts to stand trial relative to the pederasts in the priesthood.

A lot of mixed marriages go Catholic because the Catholic church is more like McDonalds with a national structure while Protestant churches are independent (some more than others depending on the denomination, but most hire and fire their own ministers).

Vance is Scotch-Irish -- an actual Orangeman -- and those are the Protestants in Northern Ireland. I can see the couple going Protestant if the Pope attacks him enough -- it will be his wife's decision.

[Martinned]

That, right there, has always been the problem with the American free market for religion. It means that American clergy have to tell their congregations what they want to hear, otherwise they go to the church next door. And that doesn't seem like how you'd want to run a religion.

[JasonT20]

And that doesn't seem like how you'd want to run a religion.

Of course not. If you want to run a religion, you want to be sure that you're the unquestionable authority.

More seriously,

It means that American clergy have to tell their congregations what they want to hear, otherwise they go to the church next door.

The flip side of that is how the clergy have an incentive to actually provide meaningful support to their congregations. The free market has its benefits as well as its negatives. In the short term, a believer looking for a church might want to be told what they want to hear, but they also want a social group to belong to. There is a social cost to leaving a group one is part of in order to seek a different group.

Religious leaders exploit that at least as much as they try and play to people's desires. No different than politicians, on that, really.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It means that American clergy have to tell their congregations what they want to hear, otherwise they go to the church next door"

That's not necessary, we simply vote at the annual meeting to fire them. It's a town meeting just like the annual town meeting because it was once the same meeting.

But the important thing to remember is that in our church, the minister (clergy) is considered a teacher and not a priest.

[Bwaaah]

It's comforting to have a dog in a home so you'll always know there's at least one good person in the house.

[bernard11]

True.

Two quotes about dogs I like:

"If you find a hungry dog in the street, and take it home and feed it and give it a warm place to sleep by the fire, it will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain

"Friends, in Washington? If you want a friend in Washington go get yourself a dog. The dog will be your friend." - Harry Truman, on being asked who his friends in Washington were.

[Bwaaah]

Nice. I'd put the two together like this...

You want a friend? Skip the people; get a dog.

[Supremacy Claus]

Sorry. The dog will love anyone else that feeds it just as much. Hooer.

[Bwaaah]

Correct. Which is consistent with my point. No need to apologize. The sense of betrayal is all yours.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not always.
My sister got a Doberman when she was in high school, and then went to college, visiting home on breaks. One time she had her bags packed by the door as she prepared to leave and the dog -- very quietly -- unpacked them. Quietly took each and every piece of clothing out of the bags and walked it elsewhere in the house -- so she couldn't leave.

[bernard11]

Wait. The dog unzipped or unlatched the suitcases? Did it know the combination to the locks?

[Magister]

I can't remember traveling with a locked bag; my rare flights have only involved a carry on bag and personal item. Most frequently I have traveled by car, and (some but not all) bags would just be open. I have known dogs that were capable of pulling open a zippered bag, not that any of them cared to unpack my bag for me.

It may be that this is only as true as the usual Dr. Ed 2 story, even if it's missing the "what people forget is" tell. (E.g., "what most people forget is that Dobermans were originally bred to be butlers and valets".)

[Commenter_XY]

NG is right about the emotional impact of losing a dog. They're a family member with 4 feet, and a personality of their own. Hope your family does well when death comes.

Why not write a letter to your dog, and seal it? After 1 year has passed, open it up and read it on the dog's yahrzeit.

You will be very surprised at how you have changed. If you are a retiree, think long and hard before getting another dog.

[Brett Bellmore]

I still recall as a child huddling with my dog while he had seizures from the cancer that was killing him, just wishing I could take that pain for myself. I think I might have been 10 at the time? A few days later I came home from school and my parents told me he'd been put to sleep.

It was a long time after that before I had another dog, and then it wasn't even my idea, my wife wanted one. Then we ended up having to adopt him out when I was forced to move South; You can't take a Jack Russell raised in the country on 16 acres, and stuff him into an apartment. We wound up giving him to a family that raised Jack Russells for acrobatic shows; They were impressed with how high up he'd scratched out the screens on our house! 😉

Family tradition is to bury the dog and plant an apple tree over it, in memory. You can remember the dog every time you pick one of those apples.

[bernard11]

Nice tradition.

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome South African refugees.

[Martinned]

...only the white ones, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

Pre-Judge much?

[hobie]

Oh? Were black Africans also included? If so, Martin apologizes

[RedheadedPharoh]

Were there any black farmers being genocided by militant black Leftists?

[Frank Drackman]

I don’t know, I don’t notice peoples colors

[Speaking for normal people]

There's racist Martin deciding who is officially white ???
So predictable. Any interracial marriage involving a white Martin will attack even if the spouse is Black. Is that racism, readers?

[Riva]

Is that the way to show you're not a vile racist? By being a vile racist? Similar to how democrats showed their support for democracy. By trying to jail their main political opponent.

[EllaWilson]

I did not vote for "judge" boasburg.

[Kazinski]

Absolutely excellent inflation report yesterday:

"The consumer price index rose a seasonally adjusted 0.2% for the month, putting the 12-month inflation rate at 2.3%, its lowest since February 2021.

The core CPI also increased 0.2% for the month, while the year-over-year level was 2.8%.

Egg prices tumbled, falling 12.7%, though they were still up 49.3% from a year ago."

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/13/cpi-inflation-april-2025.html

2.3% inflation is getting very close to the Fed's target, although their preferred measure of PCE hasn't been released yet.

[Mr. Bumble]

Still waiting for Paul Krugman's "recession".

[Kazinski]

Krugman got this wrong in 1998:

"By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

But to be fair, I don't think cat photos and videos were a thing yet in '98. That changed everything.

[Mr. Bumble]

You could crash the server listing things that Krugman got wrong.
He's the Paul Erlich of economics.

[bernard11]

Sure, Bumble. You know more about economics than Krugman.

Fucking joke.

[Martinned]

Are you sure he was wrong about that?

[Michael P]

Yes, we're sure: https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/magnificent-7-stocks-explainer

You just have to keep Democrats away from the presidency: https://www.bls.gov/productivity/

[Martinned]

Imagine thinking that the stock exchange measures "the economy"...

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems Estrogon said that yesterday.
See inflation reports, employment etc.

[Michael P]

Why should we share in your putrid imagination? Nobody here said it did.

[Martinned]

Then why did you bring it up in the middle of a conversation about the economy?

[Michael P]

Internet-based companies have large economic impacts, in ways that fax machine companies do not. The stock market doesn't measure the economy generally, but it does reflect economic conditions and drivers. Which, again, include the Internet but not fax machines. Or Paul Krugman.

[Martinned]

Internet-based companies have large economic impacts, in ways that fax machine companies do not.

Well, that was exactly the question. If you assume that, it's easy to prove that your claim is true.

The stock market doesn't measure the economy generally, but it does reflect economic conditions and drivers.

It reflects *future* *expected* cash flows, and not just in the US but everywhere where the company operates, yes.

[Kazinski]

Well things are different here where we do have a functioning private sector, but its not just the Wall Street its Main Street too.

[TaioF920]

One place where we agree. The stock market doesn't measure Main Street or the general economy. Since 2009, all it measures how much the top 1% feels the government and fed will bail them out.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's an element there that represents accumulation of profits that were never disbursed, though. One of the maybe unanticipated consequences of using stock options to incentivize management is that they prioritized raising stock values over distributing profits to shareholders.

[TaioF920]

To a point, yes. Buybacks and the lack of dividends means higher share prices. But it doesn't change the fact that since the bailout regime started, stocks have traded at double their historic valuations.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't mean that as a positive thing. It's actually pretty distorting in its own way.

[TaioF920]

Got it. The "hate Trump at any cost" mainstream media combined with the "We need to gaslight America into thinking that a rising stock market is a good thing for all Americans, and not just the top 5% or so" financial media have tricked people into thinking that it is a good thing. But clearly most people don't care about the stock market, or 70% of Americans wouldn't have said the economy was poor in November 2024, leading to Trump's re-election.

[Speaking for normal people]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIkwIzpuRYE

Okay !!!!

[Armchair]

Yes, we're sure...

How does the internet impact the economy? Numerous ways, but let's start with a few.

1. Online shopping. By far, it exceeds any "fax based shopping".
2. Remote working. By far, it exceeds any "remote working" facilitated by the fax.
3. Online media. When's the last time you got a full newspaper through the fax.

There are plenty more.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's "impact", but admittedly a lot of that is displacement of otherwise existing economics, not an addition to the total, which is another way of measuring "impact" that's more favorable to Krugman.

I think he was still wrong even by that measure, but not AS wrong.

Krugman is a typical left-wing economist, he likes regulation. So he was hardly going to anticipate the explosive growth of the internet, that came about largely because... it wasn't yet regulated!

[TaioF920]

It's also completely destroyed print media and many online producers, as Alphabet and Meta have basically monopolized the advertising market.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back in the 1990s, all of UMass Amherst only had ONE T-1 line connecting it to the internet. That was 64 pair copper wires back then, now there is fiber and compression and you can have the equivalent of a T-1 in your house.

HAD fax bandwidth expanded to the same extent (and paper/toner costs not been an issue) you COULD have the entire newspaper faxed to you.

I believe that the large national newspapers (e.g. NYT) was already doing regional printing in the '80s -- dead trees are heavy and dragging them around the country is expensive...

[Dr. Ed 2]

And newspapers are emailed to the printer as .pdf files.

Maybe more complicated for big papers, but 8-16 page student newspaper -- we laid it out in InDesign and then emailed the .pdf to the printer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What none of us expected was that credit cards could (or would) be used to pay for things on the internet. When people started talking about doing this in the '90s, I thought they were insane and said "I never would" and now do.

That said, what is Amazon or Walmart on-line but a quicker version of what Sears or Montgomery Ward was circa 1960. Remember that Oswald bought his rifle, surplus Italian military, from Montgomery Ward's catalog and they mailed it to him.

The only difference is that instead of sending a hand written letter to Sears with the item numbers and a check to pay for it/them, you now send that electronically with an electronic check.

While this is more efficient than having someone manually read incoming faxes, had the payment been addressed, ecommerce could have been done with faxes. Heck, I think you can still send in a LLBean order by snailmail...

[bernard11]

Oh gee.

He made a mistake 27 years ago. What a moron.

[Commenter_XY]

S&P 500 now up for the year. Economic ignoramuses hardest hit.

[Martinned]

It's May. If the market is going to achieve its required return on equity for a beta of one, it'd better be up by now.

[Commenter_XY]

You're one of the economic ignoramuses. 😉

[Martinned]

I'm not the guy reading Newsmaxxx

[TaioF920]

That's because Trump largely caved, as the Wall Street shills and apologists got to him.

[jb]

Well it is true that if Trump keeps reversing his really dumb policies then the general market dynamics that were in place before he was elected will allow the economy to continue to grown and for companies to be successful, just like before he took office.

[Speaking for normal people]

jb, you might as well wear a sign, I hate facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIkwIzpuRYE

[jb]

What facts do I hate? I agree she's put her finger on a problem, but (a) tariffs aren't going to fix it, and (b) my whole point is that Trump keeps undoing his tariffs so even if you believe that they're the right tool they're not doing anything right now.

Brett may be onto something when he says the tariffs are just a negotiating tactic, but what does Trump have to show for his negotiations so far? Other than a super fancy private jet and various places for him to develop new Trump properties...

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have an issue with the jet.
Would we accept one from Israel? (And Israel has enough money to buy one...)

NB: I support Israel, but I would say "thank you, but no....)

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, I kept saying that the plan wasn't to keep the really high tariffs in place long term, that they were just an incentive to get other countries to the negotiating table, and would be coming back down again.

I thought that much was pretty obvious.

[David Nieporent]

Not only was it not obvious, but not true. The plan was to raise enough revenue to cut income taxes. The plan was to establish such high import taxes that companies would build factories in the U.S. And the plan was to use them as leverage. Yes, all of those are contradictory, but all of those were stated justifications for the taxes.

[Josh R]

I think the overarching plan was to balance trade.

Perhaps the end result will be a lower level of increased tariffs (e.g., 10% on the UK and likely the rest of the world) which sound good (but shouldn't be treated that way) after you have raised them to ridiculous levels. How that impacts the balance of trade, revenue, domestic production, prices and growth remains to be seen (but won't likely be known for years).

[bernard11]

I think the overarching plan was to balance trade.

A stupid goal, and a stupid way to try and reach it.

[Kazinski]

I think there were competing visions in the administration, Navarro probably permanently high tariffs, Bessent wanted to negotiate deals at much lower levels.

Looks like Bessent is in charge, for now at least.

At 10% baseline we could still get significant revenue, perhaps up to 400 billion annually, or in 10 year budget terms 4 trillion, enough to significantly cut the deficit, but not enough to significantly cut income taxes.

[Commenter_XY]

David, both can be goals; namely, tariffs implemented to raise enough revenue to eliminate FICA for anyone making <150K annually, AND, incent foreign investment in manufacturing w/in US. It is not either/or.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, it really is. The only way to raise revenue is for consumers to pay the tariffs. But manufacturing in the U.S. involves people choosing not to pay the tariffs.

[bernard11]

Where are the foreign manufacturers going to get the dollars to invest in the US?

[bernard11]

Sure, Brett, and Trump has made hundreds of trade deals since.

Man, you are good at self-delusion.

Look, Trump does not remotely understand tariffs, or trade. He thinks the exporter pays the tariff, so we can raise trillions (I think he's said we've already done that), and that when we import goods and pay for them we are being ripped off.

He's said those things, multiple times. They are really stupid, but somehow he's got a terrifically clever (actually rather juvenile and transparent) plan for negotiations.

[TaioF920]

Except the economy was only "growing" for the top 5-10%.

[David Nieporent]

False.

[TaioF920]

Not false. Nearly all of the "wealth" gains of the past 20 years went to the top.

[Brett Bellmore]

Income Before Taxes: Wages and Salaries by Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Lowest 20 Percent

You can see continuous growth from '84 to 2007, a precipitous drop, and then it just stalled for a couple decades before resuming growth.

Second quintile? Stalled
Third quintile? Stalled.
Fourth quintile? Stalled. Albiet as you moved up economically, the stall was less pronounced.

Income Before Taxes: Wages and Salaries by Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Highest 20 Percent

Oh, look: It just grows continuously, right through the period the other graphs stalled.

[TaioF920]

Exactly. Thanks for providing the charts, because I don't have the energy to do so because David is too lazy to use Google.

The problem I think is one of groupthink. The top 10-15% largely associate with each other. They see huge stock "gains", house appreciation, and what not, and think they're doing really well. All of their friends and family are similarly situated, and they think that America as a whole is largely doing well. But they're not. You've demonstrated that the bottom 80% has really seen none of the QE/Fed put growth. So that's why the economic mood was so sour, and that's why Trump won.

[David Nieporent]

I love how putative conservatives are adopting Bernie Sanders economic positions. But the claim that the top percentile is doing better than the bottom percentile is not even remotely the same as your claim, that "the economy was only 'growing' for the top 5-10%."

One might be able to pick selective endpoints to find some years when any percentile did badly, but over any extended period of time, there's been income growth across the board.

[Ridgeway]

Someone quipped recently that the MAGA right and Sanders/Warren left share the same economic principles, and just use different pronouns.

[TaioF920]

Not real income growth. The cost housing, education, health care, child care, insurance, and all other necessities has skyrocketed. Only the top 10-15% are really doing better, and boy are they doing better, because of their stonk portfolios that are inflated by reckless monetary and fiscal policy.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, real income growth.

I happened to come across this twitter thread today, containing bunches of graphs all reflecting that the far left/far right narrative about the economy is untrue.

https://x.com/LettieriDC/status/1922704137088577873

[TaioF920]

Great. So the average is up 35% over 40 years. What's the breakdown between different economic strata?

[Martinned]

Well yes. If there's one thing the people making investment decisions in the real economy love it's government policy that goes back and forth wildly on a daily basis.

[bernard11]

If you think a .1% gain over 4 1/2 months is a wonderful return, you're one of the ignoramuses.

[Commenter_XY]

I think you need to stay invested. 😉

[bernard11]

Thanks for the advice, but what does that have to do with the return this year to date?

I read that, possibly mistakenly, as praise for Trump's economic policies when in fact it was his retreat from those policies that gave the market a boost.

[Kazinski]

The stock market has hills and valleys, in the last 10 years the SP500 was negative for the whole year 3 times:

2015 −0.73%
2016 9.54%
2017 19.42%
2018 −6.24%
2019 28.88%
2020 16.26%
2021 26.89%
2022 −19.44%
2023 24.23%
2024 23.31%

If the current changes and volatility set us up for more robust gains in the future then it will be worth it, if it doesn't then it won't be.

I'm staying invested because I think it will be better for the long term, but admittedly I am pretty heavy into bonds now, because I think the market is overvalued and over the next 2 years I will get a safer and higher return from bonds.

If you don't think the changes will be beneficial there is always real estate.

[TaioF920]

Not "absolutely excellent." Core services was at 3.6%, and sticky inflation in services is much harder to get down than durable goods.

Inflation still a major problem.

[Stephen Lathrop]

One more objection to the Air Force One fiasco. Trump has a model on display in the Oval Office, to show what he wants in a paint job for his new personal toy. It is nothing like the current color and design. The current color and design have become a brand. They brilliantly announce to the world the arrival of the President of the United States. It is a brand for the United States, not for any particular POTUS. Trump is looking to change it, because he wants a personal brand instead. The existing design is a work of graphic genius which never gets old. To throw it away would be an act of vandalism.

[Kazinski]

I'm glad you have something less important to worry about than what's usually on your mind.

Not that airplane paint isn't important, I don't think I have ever felt so humiliated in my life as when I found out I had to fly back into the United States from Taiwan on a jet with a Hello Kitty paint job.

[Mr. Bumble]

I didn't know Buttigieg had his own plane.

[Frank Drackman]

I think Booty-Judge prefers Trains

[CountmontyC]

Off by one letter.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop shouldn't stress on it too much, at age 79, he doesn't have a hell of a lot longer to contemplate the AF1 paint job. There are far more important issues to be contemplating.

But, to each their own.

[hobie]

Classy. You keep descending lower every week, XY

[shawn_dude]

I agree.. just one correction, Trump isn't 79 until June. He's currently 78. It's only 4 weeks but I guess he hasn't crossed the "too old to contemplate paint colors" age line yet.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The existing design is a work of graphic genius which never gets old."
Everything gets old.
Good thing he isn't looking at a 24 karat paint job.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would that be allowed? I'm thinking safety and the reflection off it.

[Martinned]

Imagine being to the right of Laura Loomer...

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/12/media/maga-media-shapiro-loomer-levin-trump-qatar-plane-gift

[Moderation4ever]

I cannot think of anything more Trump than accepting that plane. It does a better job of encapsulating his corruption than any court case.

[Krayt]

Like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Theory of Evolution, my Fundamental Theorem of Government makes another successful prediction, passing all tests thrown at it.

"Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one."

[Martinned]

It is for Trump anyway, which makes him an odd choice to vote for.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, that theory you keep trumpeting so proudly is a museum-quality example of the fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Taking the Latin out of it, it means if corruption is commonplace under many systems, that does not deliver reason to suppose anything but commonplace corruption. It cannot mean those systems caused the corruption. It cannot even mean those systems do not reduce corruption.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gerry Ford did the same thing -- Ford repainted it with a "Spirit of '76" color scheme to recognize the Bicentennial.

I can't remember if it was Carter or Reagan who changed it back, and by 1977 the Bicentennial was over anyway.

[Krayt]

"In 1977, with the Bicentennial, the associated Freedom Train, and first ever national million dollar bicentennial lottery shrinking fast in the rear view mirror, Americans' attentions were about to be overrun by a new pop hit, the likes of which had never been seen before. For young men, anyway everyone! They said it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gtQck24Nf8

The winning ticket, by the way, was sold at our local drug store. We were about 200 numbers away.

[David Nieporent]

It happened while Ford was president, but Nixon was the one who made the decision.

[Riva]

Confine yourself to nonsense like this in the future to fully cement your party's descent into irrelevance.

[Riva]

Such idiocy deserves one more response. "The current color and design have become a brand. They brilliantly announce to the world the arrival of the President of the United States." Uh no. What announces to the world the arrival of the President of the United States is the President of the United States, usually through his press secretary. Planes can't speak.

[Kazinski]

I oppose Trump's tariffs, but they do have one positive side effect:

Record $16B tariff inflow helped ease the US budget deficit rate
The April receipts saw the federal government post a $258B budget surplus for April, up 23% from a year earlier

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/record-16b-tariff-inflow-helped-ease-us-budget-deficit-rate

Of course the surplus isn't just due to the increased tariff income, and April usually sees a surplus.

Doing the math a 23% increase in the April surplus is 59billion so the extra tariff revenue is only 13.5% of that, so I guess the other 86.5% is due to spending cuts.

I'd prefer to just cut more spending and forego the tariff revenue.

[TaioF920]

Right, tariffs are a tax on corporations. So why do you oppose them?

[SRG2]

tariffs are a tax on corporations.

Passed onto consumers

[Mr. Bumble]

Then why do Dems always call for increasing the taxes on corporations?

[SRG2]

Ask them

[TaioF920]

No, that's the media's lie, which you've bought hook, line, and sinker.. For things with huge margins and elastic demand curves, they almost definitely cannot be passed on to consumers. If consumers are price insensitive, why aren't companies raising their prices even more?

[SRG2]

You must have stayed awake for econ 101 and fallen asleep thereafter.

I don't need the media to tell me how to think about economics -I am satisfied with my own competence.

You are failing to distinguish between an exogenously-compelled price rise to which every company in an industry is subject, and how competition functions without such compulsion. Yes, in a market with little competition - an oligopoly - inelastic demand leads to higher prices even in the absence of an explicit cartel - but where there is competition, inelastic demand within an industry does not translate to inelastic demand for a specific company. Further, theory suggests that even in a market with little competition, current prices will already reflect what companies can charge.

[TaioF920]

No, you're the one who fell asleep. First, "every company" is not subject to it, as there are plenty of American manufacturers who could then undercut their competition. Second, if as you say, current prices already reflect what companies can charge, what makes you think they can charge more, rather than have to swallow the costs themselves? We're not talking about goods with a 5% margin, but some have a 60% gross margin. There is plenty of "profit" in there for the companies to absorb the costs.

[SRG2]

Second, if as you say, current prices already reflect what companies can charge, what makes you think they can charge more, rather than have to swallow the costs themselves?

Because if they don't charge more they could very well go under, and they know that their competitors are in a similar situation.

Ay least you accept that tariffs are damaging.

[David Nieporent]

I want to know which goods he think have a 60% profit margin.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, that's a little high:

"Apple's gross margin climbed to 46.9% in the latest quarter, topping the prior record of 46.6% reached in the period ended March. This means that for every $100 in revenue generated from an iPhone 15 sale, Apple retains around $46 as profit. However, it's important to note that this profit margin has been declining in recent years, with the iPhone 15 series showing a decrease compared to previous models. "

" Apple's gross margin in the first quarter of 2025 was 58.28%"

[TaioF920]

No, I don't accept that they're damaging. They're damaging to corporate profits and the shylock's stocks, but not to America as a whole.

Apple's margin on iPhones is 40%, and Louis Vuitton's is almost 70%.

[SRG2]

No, I don't accept that they're damaging.

Of course you can't. You're an economic Millerite.

Meanwhile, we know that the gross margin on a few products is high, but for the overall economy? Nah.

[TaioF920]

Profits have skyrocketed in the past few years. Most companies have a lot of room to absorb increases. And Apple should be taxed more, but all you are about is your stonks, being a typical bankster.

[bernard11]

For things with huge margins and elastic demand curves, they almost definitely cannot be passed on to consumers.

Except things with huge margins generally don't have elastic demand curves. If they did they wouldn't have huge margins. There would be substantial price-cutting.

If you have low margins you have to pass the tariff on, and if demand is inelastic you might as well.

[TaioF920]

Do you really think consumers will pay $2,000 for an iPhone?

[bernard11]

Demand elasticity is not a constant. As you raise prices demand becomes elastic.

If Apple charged $2000 they would, as you suggest, not sell very many phones, which means, broadly, demand has become elastic at that price level or below.

[bernard11]

so I guess the other 86.5% is due to spending cuts.

Um, there is another reason the government tends to show a surplus in April. If you think hard you can probably figure out what it is.

And what is so wonderful about a tariff-based surplus. I mean, it's hardly surprising that a tax increase raises revenue, unless you share Trump's delusions as to who is paying the tariff.

[Kazinski]

Yes, that's why the comparison is April 25 to April 24.

In the end its always going to be people that pay the taxes whether its consumers or shareholders.

But in any context the 8 billion in one month spread over one year is still just a 96 billion tax increase, that's not a huge hit on the economy, and if it reduces the deficit may well be beneficial.

But as I said I mostly disapprove of tariffs.

[bernard11]

If you want to increase taxes by $96B to reduce the deficit, go ahead, but tariffs are a lousy way to do it.

[TaioF920]

I'd rather raise the corporate income tax on BigTech and the banks, and institute a transaction tax on trades.

[Krayt]

Record income to government.

Everyone remember my prediction. I did not think this would happen, but if there was a windfall, like with the Internet boom, government will do the same thing as they did then: quickly ratchet upnspending back into the red. The amount government spends is severed from rational analysis of needs, and rather is tied to formulas of what they can get away with borrowing. This is a chronic issue, searching for unending dollars to lavish to get votes.

An unexpectedly balanced budget will not be taken lying down!

[shawn_dude]

Is it a record it this happen every April? Almost like there's this thing on the calendar in April that guarantees this...

[Kazinski]

See above Shawn, its an April to April comparison so it is not skewed by seasonal factors.

And the reason we are talking about April is because its the latest data. We can talk about May when its in the books.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe the AEA is properly invoked...

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/aea-venezuelans-gangs/2025/05/13/id/1210819/

Legally, what constitutes 'notice'.

Could DHS run newspaper ads nationwide and call that notice?
Send a nationwide text message?
Make a statement from the Oval Office in Prime Time?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Could DHS run newspaper ads nationwide and call that notice?"
Newspaper ads? How quaint. One assumes people can read and two how many languages would the courts require?

[Commenter_XY]

Could be a bi-lingual commercial ad?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Massachusetts welfare stuff has to have "this is important, have someone translate it" in something like 20 different languages with everything they mail.

They DON'T include it in Mass DOR (state income tax) stuff....

[not guilty]

"The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.'" Nathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976), quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). "This right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., 39 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. . . . The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, . . . and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance . . . The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. The reasonableness and hence the constitutional validity of any chosen method may be defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform those affected." Id., at 314-315.

On April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees subject to removal under the AEA “are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard.” Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U. S. ____, 145 S.Ct. at 1006 (2025). Specifically, they “must receive notice after the date of this order [April 7, 2025] that they are subject to removal under the [AEA],” which “must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” Id. The Court held that habeas relief must be sought in the district where the alien is in custody, and accordingly vacated the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which had enjoined the Government from removing these aliens, since they were not in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of that district court. Id.

More recently, on April 19, 2025, the Supreme Court enjoined the deportation of a putative class of detainees confined in the Northern District of Texas under the Presidential Proclamation and AEA, citing the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 145 S.Ct. 1034, 1034 (2025).

Commenter_XY, what do you fancy that your rhetorical questions add to this discussion?

[Riva]

For the enemy aliens, any review can be administrative, if they want to continue further with habeas, go ahead but the only question is are they an enemy alien? If so, good bye. And if they're illegals, they can be removed in expedited proceedings. No immigration judge. As noted, Clinton did it a million (literally) times. Illegals have NO due process right to remain in this country. Period. Paragraph. End of story.

But in the end, I encourage democrats to align with the TdA gangbangers and all illegals. This will help keep them in the minority. Where they can be safely laughed at.

[Drewski]

For immigration court proceedings, notice may be accomplished electronically, by hand-delivery, by U.S. Postal Service, or by commercial courier.

[David Nieporent]

Legally, what constitutes 'notice'.

Could DHS run newspaper ads nationwide and call that notice?
Send a nationwide text message?
Make a statement from the Oval Office in Prime Time?

No. The notice has to be given to the specific person that he or she personally is being targeted as one of the president's victims. A general announcement that the government intends to use AEA to kidnap TdA members is not notice, because it would not inform any person that the government considers him or her to be a TdA member and intends to use it.

[Commenter_XY]

So specifically naming them in a broadcast commercial stating they're subject to deportation b/c they're members of a terror group is not good enough...well, why not scroll through a list of their names in a commercial? Sort of like the side effects portion of a TV pharma commercial.

Now there is personal notice.

What stops the Fed gov from doing that. Seems legit. Is it?

[not guilty]

No, that is not legit at all. SCOTUS opined per curiam on April 7, 2025:

"It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law" in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard "appropriate to the nature of the case." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.

406 U.S. ___, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

In that SCOTUS cited Mullane with approval, it is prudent to review what that 75 year old decision says about the contours of what kind of notice due process guaranties require:

"This right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest. . . . An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. . . . The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, . . . and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance . . . The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. The reasonableness and hence the constitutional validity of any chosen method may be defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform those affected."

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., 39 U.S. 306, 314-315 (1950).

To misunderstand that requires a high degree of motivation.

[Michael P]

ACLU dismissed its lawsuit falsely accusing DHS of deporting a US citizen: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/10/aclu-supported-lawsuit-over-false-claims-ice-deported-us-citizens-dropped

[Kazinski]

Honest mistake I'm sure.

A cynic might think they were hoping the right judge would issue an injunction not allowing deportations of Parents with children who are citizens.

[Mr. Bumble]

David Notsoimportant, Estrogon and Zarniwoop(?) hardest hit.

[tylertusta]

I don't think even the ACLU would be so stupid as to bring such an incendiary and meritless claim that they knew was false.

I think it's more likely that the plaintiffs lied to their own attorneys, and once DHS showed the ACLU evidence that the mother opted for the child to remain with her that the ACLU realized that having a hearing on May 16th was going to result in them getting a beat down by the judge for wasting everybody's time.

The disappointing thing about this ordeal is that half of the country (including the judge!) is so primed as to believe anything that the case got as far as it did with just a wild accusation alone.

What's next? Another alleged pee tape?

[Martinned]

I can see how you'd be confused by someone admitting they were wrong.

[Michael P]

As usual, you are the only one who is confused here.

[Kazinski]

It's easier to admit you are wrong when the alternative is presenting evidence you don't have.

Here we never have to admit we are wrong.

[Joe_dallas]

Western district of Louisiana
perhaps they didnt get an anti trump administration judge

[Life of Brian]

Ah, thanks. I saw the parties had jointly moved to dismiss a few days ago, but didn't surface this when looking around for the back story.

Figured the wheels had to have come off in some spectacular way, since it was dismissed just a few days before the evidentiary hearing that the usual suspects around here were gleefully anticipating.

[SRG2]

What they should have done was said, yes, we made a mistake, but we're not going to reverse it because FYTW. That's the approach the cultists would have approved of.

[JasonT20]

Just in case anyone cares about what the lawyers for the family have to say about it and not just what the Trump DHS spokespeople have to say:

Gracie Willis, an attorney for the family, said the decision to dismiss the case was made to give the family time to consider their options.

“Given the traumatizing experiences the families have been through, they are taking a step back to have full discussions about all their options, the safety and well-being of their children, and the best ways to proceed so the harms they have suffered can be fully addressed,” Willis said.

https://yournews.com/2025/05/14/3440919/deported-mother-drops-lawsuit-over-u-s-citizen-childs-removal-with/

[Michael P]

Like father, like daughter?

https://nypost.com/2025/05/08/us-news/georgia-dalton-state-college-student-ximena-arias-cristobal-faces-deportation-after-arrest-for-running-red-light/

[Martinned]

I hope you're having fun living in a police state.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that why you left the UK?

[Martinned]

No. In the UK most police don't even carry guns, and (at least until this week) they weren't constantly threatening to deport people. Why would I worry about UK police?

[Kazinski]

It looks like Kier Starmer has had a change of heart about how loose immigration and work visa laws should be.

I'm sure that had nothing to do with Reform leading in the polls now, although he certainly doesn't have to worry about an election anytime soon.

[Martinned]

That strategy makes absolutely no sense.

[Kazinski]

Perhaps it doesn't, but when a leader sees headlines like this:

Reform would now beat Labour to be largest party, poll shows
Pollster predicts Nigel Farage’s party would win 180 seats at a general election, with Labour and Conservatives tied on 165 seats each
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/04/20/reform-labour-more-in-common-opinion-poll-largest-party/

Then he starts thinking about how to co-opt the other parties biggest issue.

Nobody believed this either but she tried it and probably was forced into it by the political hacks:

Kamala Harris tough migration pitch border points shifting national mood
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/kamala-harris-tough-migration-pitch-border-points-shifting-national-mo-rcna172850

[Martinned]

He might start thinking that, but that would be dumb. You don't win elections by saying your political opponent is right, you win elections by moving the conversation to the topics where you are strong.

Kamala Harris losing is, of course, an illustration of my point.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Which neatly distills the twin trends in the non-law enforcement that afflicts that benighted country: the less attention the coppers pay to anything that matters - smartphone snatching, vehicle theft, house burglary, glassing, grievous bodily harm, rape, murder - the more time it frees up for policing your tweets. In the latest indictment of the UK's execrable plods, Kent Police came round to one of their own - a retired septuagenarian special constable called Julian Foulkes [top right] - and pronounced that his bookshelf looked "very Brexity".....
"The "policemen" examining Julian Foulkes' "very Brexity" household goods then handcuffed him and put him in a cell for eight hours."
https://www.steynonline.com/15295/england-police-state

[Michael P]

https://nypost.com/2025/02/21/world-news/germans-cant-insult-politicians-which-is-why-we-need-to-protect-free-speech-in-the-us/

https://www.gbnews.com/news/free-speech-row-kent-thought-crime-tweet-police-brexit-books

You seem to be confusing enforcement of immigration laws with actual police states. Not surprising, given your history.

[Martinned]

No amount of misrepresenting or misunderstanding stories from other countries will change the fact that the US is on a rapid descent into fascist police state.

[Michael P]

"The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe." - Tom Wolfe

[Martinned]

Yes, you said that. And then I pointed out that this year it seems to be landing pretty heavily in the US too.

[Kazinski]

That's actually pretty funny considering that some of your fellow commenters on the left side have been dinging Trump, at least until lately for lagging Biden and Obama in deportations.

Which is it, lax enforcement, incompetence, or a draconian fascist dragnet?

Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

[Martinned]

I'm only left from the perspective of a commenter who is to the right of Laura Loomer.

[Kazinski]

She is hardly right or left, but loony.

[Martinned]

That just suggests that you're more of a loon than she is, which hardly seems like something you'd want to brag about.

[shawn_dude]

"Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Kill them all and let God sort it out!

[Don Nico]

" living in a police state."
Martin that is such nonsense that you destroy any credibility that you might have

[shawn_dude]

ICE can grab someone off the street, without a bench warrant, move them around the country without giving them access to legal representation, fly them to a foreign country for US-contracted imprisonment, all without trial.

The President of this country is publicly contemplating suspension of habeas corpus. Border patrol is now interrogating US citizens regarding their views of Trump and political speech.

Is your disagreement with Martin's comment merely that he's assuming we've completed the transition to police state already and you feel we're still in transit?

[Commenter_XY]

Adios, amiga.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wrong place, wrong time. If it had been TN and she had 8 people in the truck she would have been on her way after a few hours.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If she'd actually HAD her International driver's license, that probably would have been the end of it. And if she had obeyed the traffic laws, she'd never have been stopped...

[Mr. Bumble]

Like I said wrong place, wrong time.
There is a story out there that she was actually mistakenly stopped when the cop confused her truck with the one which ran the red light, so yes if she had a proper license she would probably been free to go on her way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The OK City bomber was caught when stopped for not having a license plate. The Son of Sam killer in NYC was caught with a parking ticket.

If you are breaking the big rules, you want to be cautious about not breaking the little ones.

[Krayt]

If you are breaking the big rules

What big criminality was she, dastardly woman, perpetrating? Blowing up a building, including a daycare? No, seeking a better life for herself, brought here as a kid, not killing them. Remember when you got all bent out of shape the Democrats sent a kid back to Cuba? The Dems stunk on that one, and Repubs stink now, for the same reason.

Serial killing young women? No, seeking a beter life for a young woman, not killing them. She was even paying the outrageous out of state tuition rate.

Not bad for a kid brought here as a 4 year old and raised as American as any other kid.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Violating immigration law is a more serious offense than a rolling stop...

[David Nieporent]

At the least the latter potentially presents a public safety issue.

[Martinned]

Despite what American fascists like to claim, free speech is alive and well in Europe. (Although this case might not quite give a compete picture of how free Russians are.)

On March 3, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) released its final judgment in Yevstifeyev and others v. Russia. The decision concerned two applications against the Russian government, claiming that the domestic authorities had failed to comply with their obligation to “respond adequately” to homophobic messages and thus violated the applicants’ right to private life under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. One of the complaints involved a homophobic video of a satirical nature. It was submitted by an openly gay Russian activist who claimed that the video “provoked in him feelings of humiliation, anxiety, and fear.” The application was rejected on inadmissibility grounds, with the Court explaining that the video “must be considered as a political satire on a matter of public interest,” and the applicant “cannot therefore be considered a victim of the alleged violations.”

https://verfassungsblog.de/yevstifeyev-ecthr-humor-free-speech/

[Kazinski]

Because they knew Russia would laugh at them.

In the UK that complaint wouldn't get to the ECHR because who ever made the video or posted it would already be in jail.

[ThePublius]

"Despite what American fascists like to claim, free speech is alive and well in Europe."

Does "Europe" include the U.K.? If it does, then you are sorely mistaken. People are being jailed in England for tweets and FB posts. There's no more freedom of speech in England.

[Martinned]

Does "Europe" include the U.K.?

It does. Here, have a map of Europe: https://www.loc.gov/item/2004621193

There's no more freedom of speech in England.

Keep saying that, if it makes you feel better about the dismal state of free speech in the US. It isn't true, but if it makes you feel better who am I to deny you that little comfort?

[ThePublius]

"dismal state of free speech in the US."

More unsubstantiated America hatred from you. We have genuine freedom of speech here. And, they do, indeed, jail people for speech in the U.K. that would be quite benign and even ignored in the U.S. Why do you lie about this?

[Sarcastr0]

We don't have free speech here. Not if you're a federal employee, or a law firm, or here on a visa, or a university, or a news channel.

If you truly believed in America as the home of the free, you wouldn't be supporting Trump.

But you do, so going at the UK hits pretty hypocritical.

[ThePublius]

That's nonsense. To argue that there is more freedom of speech in the U.K. than the U.S. is patently ridiculous. And to say that if you support Trump you don't believe America is the home of the free is equally ridiculous. You can only make your supposed points by being ridiculous, I guess.

I'm not "going at" the U.K., I'm simply refuting the assertions that there is free speech in the U.K. and that the state of free speech in the U.S. is dismal. Just look at the evidence, at the record. Can you be arrested in the U.S. for silently praying in your own home? Will the police knock on your door, search your house, and arrest you for a social media post lamenting increased antisemitism? Be real.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a one-dimensional problem - regulations come in all shapes and sizes.

But no, we don't have free speech here; we're cracking down incredibly hard on quite quite a few groups' speech and choice, as I noted above.

I'll admit it's a pretty impressive cognitive feat to ignore America's assault of freedom of people who aren't you, while getting very mad on behalf of third parties an ocean away.

But then you want the left delt with while worried about swears on this website bringing down the tone...so you're kinda used to very weird priorities.

[ThePublius]

You're delusional. Do you realize that just things said in these blog comments could get your thrown in jail in the U.K.?

Lay out the supposed assault of freedom of speech in the U.S. for me. I must say it's a pretty impressive cognitive feat on your part to assert "we don't have free speech here." Utter nonsense.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you are taking anecdotes and generalizing. As planned for suckers like you.

We have a guy living in the UK who posts in this blog regularly.

I laid out the assault in my post of groups whose speech is being openly curtailed above.

[ThePublius]

So, are you saying that speech is more free in the U.K. than the U.S.?

[Sarcastr0]

"It's not a one-dimensional problem - regulations come in all shapes and sizes."

[Kazinski]

Well then lets go beyond anecdotes, earlier this week in this very blog we had a professor give us stats on the scope of the problem.

"Europe Really Is Jailing People for Online Speech," by Prof. Yascha Mounk
Eugene Volokh | 5.12.2025 12:23 PM

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/12/europe-really-is-jailing-people-for-online-speech-by-prof-yascha-mounk/

Click though and you will see this down the page:

As a result of these broad prohibitions and the ease of enforcing them, Britain has quickly become one of the continent’s leaders in prosecuting—and even jailing—people for speech. As the Times of London recently reported, “officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests [under section 127] in 2023.” This means that, on average, over 33 arrests are made every day for what people in the United Kingdom have said on the internet. "

Now Martinned will say "Of course they were arrested, they broke the law".

Is 12183 in one year in a country less than 1/4 our size enough anecdotes for you?

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius, read the op ed published in a college newspaper by Rümeysa Öztürk. That got her snatched off the street in Massachusetts, and held without due process in detention in Louisiana for more than six weeks, until a judge ordered her freed—over the objections of the Trump administration.

Many comments on this blog have gone farther than anything Öztürk said. You apparently think this nation enjoys expressive freedom so long as you do, and care not a bit whether everyone has it.

That is the thinking of pro-police state advocacy. Police states cannot gain a foothold by oppressing everyone. To get started they need a constituency. They begin by suppressing some people to advantage others. In short, the very political practices you have been supporting.

[Brett Bellmore]

The "nation" doesn't enjoy expressive freedom, the citizens enjoy it.

But expressive freedom has never been a thing when it comes to an employee's work related speech, so spare me the outrage over the government telling its own employees and contractors what they can say on the job.

That said, Trump has gone a bit too far in targeting legal immigrants for non-criminal speech. Just a bit, so long as they haven't been naturalized. I'm never going to give up on my position that the rights of citizens and aliens are NOT the same.

Maybe I'd be more shocked if cancel culture hadn't been a thing already for so long, but that doesn't make it good. I'd much rather Trump stuck to more defensible actions.

[bernard11]

The "nation" doesn't enjoy expressive freedom, the citizens enjoy it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does the word "citizen" appear? I don't see it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I say:

Police states cannot gain a foothold by oppressing everyone. To get started they need a constituency. They begin by suppressing some people to advantage others.

Bellmore says:

Sign me up.

[Krayt]

I though "you too" was frowned upon around here?

Note I don't say that. I "You Too" all the time, but it's not in a context of justification. It's in a context of both sides are worthless, rationalizing goal-oriented, power monger pieces of shit*.

* A technical term

[Don Nico]

"We don't have free speech here"
As a Fed, you seem you run your mouth a lot, denying by your actions, what you proclaim with your mouth and keyboard.

The UK has degraded from the bulwark of democracy (at least for white people) as it was in WWII. You are in gross denial of the ridiculous prohibitions of speech by UK citizens.

[ThePublius]

"Over time, Britain’s speech authorities have become more powerful while the offenses have become more vague. According to Rowley, prohibited communications include “incitement, stirring up racial hatred, [and] numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material.” In practice, this has led to thousands of arrests and prison sentences for social media posts, publicly displayed signs, shared memes, personal insults, and even prayers by pensioners." [emphasis mine]

Free Speech Wobbles in the U.K.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/free-speech-wobbles-uk

[ThePublius]

I'll let you know the next time someone in the U.S. gets a door knock by the police for a Facebook post. Yet this happens with increasing frequency in England, and even results in jail time for some. Like the retired cop:

"Julian Foulkes, a 71-year-old retired special constable from Kent, England, was arrested in November 2023 and had his home searched after one of his posts on X was reported to law enforcement, according to the Daily Mail."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/retired-uk-police-officer-suing-after-being-arrested-over-thought-crime-post-social-media

[Kazinski]

Well at least the knock on the door can happen here, but not the arrests.

I don't think the FBI is doing this anymore though, new management:

FBI Agent Says He Hassles People 'Every Day, All Day Long' Over Facebook Posts
"It's just an effort to keep everybody safe and make sure nobody has any ill will," he claimed.

https://reason.com/2024/03/29/fbi-agent-says-he-hassles-people-every-day-all-day-long-over-facebook-posts/

[Commenter_XY]

Martinned represents the Continent's ingrates, the very people we bailed out twice last century, and currently defend. They have short memories.

Freedom of speech has fallen by the wayside in Europe, UK and Germany are replete with examples.

The danger is that we are growing apart, they have cast aside some of our shared values. That is a problem.

[bernard11]

The danger is that we are growing apart, they have cast aside some of our shared values. That is a problem.

Not the fault of anyone over here? Really?

[Krayt]

I recall, under Thatcher, but I may be wrong, where the UK banned speeches by an MP and the leader of the political wing the IRA, Sinn Fein, from giving speeches. Ban an MP's speech? Disturbing.

Don't worry! No need for the US's blanket ban on laws against speech. No slippery slope here!

Again, if you don't build it, it can't be abused.

[Krayt]

Note the granularity of the slippery slope. Not years. That doesn't even show up on radar.

Decades, 4 in this case. I wonder what will happen in another 30 years, when someone with the gift of gab gives another rationalization to functionary cogs who parrot the censorship expansion, faceting about on its justification, as fed to them by that demogogue.

So eat your wheaties, old men, and you may live the 20 or 30 years. No doubt some of you will come down on the side of censorship, as today. As 40 years ago.

[Martinned]

Sinn Fein doesn't have MPs, because they don't want to swear loyalty to the monarch.

As for banning terrorist speech: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-16-providing-material-support-designated-terrorist-organizations

[Martinned]

they have cast aside some of our shared values

We used to agree that fascism was bad. I'm not sure who cast that value aside though...

[tylertusta]

... free speech is alive and well in Europe ...

If you define 'free speech' downwards like Europe is doing, then even the Soviet Union had free speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, look at this country. And all the people who don't get free speech now because of their job or immigration status.

We're defining *people* down. Binding all the outgroups, protecting the few and the proud.

I'm not saying the UK is off the hook, but we have a huge mote-beam problem and you don't get to ignore it.

[TaioF920]

Not having free speech because of a non-citizen immigration status is entirely legitimate.

[bernard11]

Not according to the First Amendment.

[TaioF920]

The First Amendment was not intended to apply to non-citizens. Read the Federalist Papers.

[David Nieporent]

The Federalist Papers do not say anything about that, not surprisingly (given when and where they were written). The only real discussion of a bill of rights in the FP were Federalist 84, where Hamilton argued that there was no need for one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Again, look at this country. And all the people who don't get free speech now because of their job or immigration status.”

Now? Your side has the government punishing people for saying that there are two genders. And you’re OK with it.

[ThePublius]

"Despite what American fascists like to claim, free speech is alive and well in Europe."

By the way, who are these "American fascists" of whom you speak? And what makes them fascists?

I suspect you are just throwing the term around as a general insult, without really knowing or appreciating what the term even means. You know fascism is a phenomenon of the left, don't you, that it's an outgrowth of, and extension of communism? Or do you subscribe to the leftist nonsense, the leftist projection, that fascism and Nazism are right wing phenomenon? Much like the false narrative of the Democratic and Republican parties switching in the South with the civil rights movement? That the KKK wasn't a Democratic party movement, at least not now, since they 'flipped?'

You guys are so desperate and full of it that you have to invent history that never occurred to cover your atrocious pasts and rationalize your current hate.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — You are an American pro-fascist. A point which ought at least to satisfy you that you are mistaken in your stupid assertion that fascism is communism.

[ThePublius]

I am not a pro-fascist. And name calling or branding one's opponent isn't a logical approach to argument. Just make your case.

Benito Mussolini was a socialist and journalist before he became a fascist. He was initially a socialist politician and journalist at the Avanti! newspaper, later founding and leading the National Fascist Party (PNF). While he eventually embraced and became the dictator of Fascist Italy, he had a socialist background before that.

Read up on the beginnings of fascism, the invention of fascism in Italy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — Long since read all that stuff. Don't need any of it in your case. You are an anti-communist. You are an American pro-fascist. Hence, you embody personally a contradiction in your own advocacy.

As for those taxonomies of fascism. About twenty years ago the best of their authors gave up, and proclaimed the project futile. They came to recognize that the best way to discern fascism is case-by-case, without reference to traditional notions of left and right in politics.

The cases to look for are defined by lack of due process, lack of institutional constraints on government, a blood-and-land style of populist politics, a personal leadership cult, and extreme political opportunism.

It is that last bit, the opportunism, which throws the taxonomy effort into a useless jumble. Where those five characteristics prevail, you get fascist governments, but in styles so various they scarcely match. Spanish fascism was unlike Nazi fascism which was unlike Italian fascism.

So five boxes to check. MAGA/Trump checks them all, as do other current national governments. American fascism is unlike Russian fascism, which is unlike Hungarian fascism, which is unlike Korean fascism. But they all check all the boxes.

Curiously, whatever style of authoritarianism now prevails in China, it looks less fascistic then the others. Chinese communist institutionalism may be so influential that it takes the edge off a cult of personality, and also delivers a twisted-but-recognizable simulacrum of checks and balances. Of course that does not make China any less authoritarian. Maybe the opposite. Maybe authoritarianism better-entrenched and better-organized.

Actual fascism shows conspicuous weaknesses which the Chinese government may have found a way to bypass. I think that may be the reason so many agree that China is far-and-away the most imposing rival the United States faces on the international scene. And also the reason for concern that MAGA/Trump style fascism will diminish U.S. capacity to prevail in that rivalry.

[Sarcastr0]

This is really funny and all, but you don't get your own words. I think you're saying authoritarianism=the left? Unless you're just saying political things you don't like=left.
Either way, you're profoundly ignorant.

Fascism was on the right. Everyone said that *at the time* and didn't stop, even if Jonah Goldberg tried real hard.

When you get a chance, look at how the words left and right for political ideologies. Bad news for monarchical outgroup-targeting folks like yourself!

But most importantly, you want the left 'taken care of.' I'm not one to overuse the word fascist - it's got some pretty particular historical specificity. But if anything today is fascist, your bloody purge politics is.
So is your fragility about properly not swearing.

Oh, and I didn't forget you were the main 'Haitians are eating the pets!!' shit-pusher. Not really fascist, more you generally being a gullible racist.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's really a stupid argument, as though there were a material difference between 'left' and 'right' by the time you arrive at totalitarianism. The necessities of being totalitarian force all totalitarians to converge on basically the same set of behaviors, regardless of where they approached it from.

The NAZIs were to the 'right' of the Communists, but it was arguably just a factional dispute on the left, as you can see by the name: "National "Socialist"".

That said, 'fascism' as an economic doctrine is not distinctively right or left-wing. It basically just stands for the idea that it's more efficient to let the private owners of the means of production keep at least nominal ownership of those means, while the government takes control of those means through regulation, not assuming nominal ownership as the socialists advocate.

Economic fascism was all the rage before WWII, a lot of FDR's economic program was frankly fascist, the left in America are fascist, not socialist. They're quite content to let the private sector "own" things as long as the government is calling the shots.

That's not enough to make them "right wing", as the right has largely rejected that level of government control in favor of free market economics.

[Sarcastr0]

a lot of FDR's economic program was frankly fascist

You don't get your own words.

[Brett Bellmore]

You exhibit a profound ignorance of economic history. The National Recovery Administration was centralized planning accomplished through the creation of industry cartels.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it didn't create industry cartels any more so than other business regulations did and do.

You want a pre-Lochner world. Doesn't mean you can to call regulations inherently fascistic and be taken seriously.

You well know that no one else defines fascism like you do. You don't care; it makes you feel righteous.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, you really do NOT know any economic history, do you?

And, yes, I do want a Lochner world, where peoples' economic liberties are secure, too.

[Sarcastr0]

That's the second time in a row you've appealed to incredulity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, dude, just do a search on "National Industrial Recovery Act cartels" and stop embarrassing yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

I stand corrected about the National Recovery Administration and creating a cartel, but of course the New Deal was a lot more than that. And that was struck down anyhow.

Your thesis was this: "a lot of FDR's economic program was frankly fascist."

Miles left to go on that one, Brett.

[Commenter_XY]

Go and learn. If you don't know about NIRA cartels, then you cannot have an informed discussion on American fascism (which exists, and predates POTUS Trump by at least a century...assuming you define fascism as government regulatory control over industry for governmental purposes).

If you want real American fascism, look at the Confederate government during the Civil War.

[Kazinski]

How about Roosevelts?

"Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”

https://www.cato.org/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt

It's not a huge stretch to think the man who interned Japanese citizens might not be all that appalled by fascism.

That's at least fascist adjacent isn't it?

[bernard11]

it was arguably just a factional dispute on the left, as you can see by the name: "National "Socialist""

Why are you trotting out that stale, silly, high-school level argument? Do you think that "People's Republic" describes a republican form of government.

Whatever Nazism was, it wasn't an economic ideology.

'fascism' as an economic doctrine is not distinctively right or left-wing.

But it isn't an economic doctrine. It's political, based on the ultimate authority of the Leader, hypernationalism, etc.

[ThePublius]

So I'm a profoundly ignorant fascist shit-pusher. That's your compelling argument, eh? Jerk.

[Sarcastr0]

you want the left 'taken care of.'

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You really are out to lunch. It is difficult to think of anyone more of a fascist than Joseph Stalin, except for Hitler. Mussolini pales in comparison. Stalin was a right wing opportunist in contrast to the infantile Leftists such as Trotski who preached perpetual revolution (a tack not so dissimilar heading to American to the Sanders-AOC wing).
Don't claim that I called those two Troskites; I'd didn't.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mussolini was the father of modern fascism and admired by Hitler.
One of the reasons he stuck by him until the end.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, you know how some folks say others have tin ears? In like manner, you bring a sort of tin contextualism to your historical analysis. If every tyrant has to be a fascist, then history becomes an unrecognizable jumble. If your method equates Henry VIII, and Louis the 14th, with Franco, Stalin, and Pol Pot, then your method is ill chosen.

The test of a historical method is whether it surpasses others to help develop insight into what actually happened in the past. Not seeing much of that in your comment above.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

As an American who has been living in Europe for many years, I have always compared and contrasted the local protection of "free speech" with what I was used to back home. During the pre-Trump era, it was easy to see the differences--my favorite examples being those relating to restrictions on Nazi-related speech in Germany and other EU countries. More recently, the UK has implemented some rather worrying speech restrictions which have been interpreted by police as prohibiting speech in support of Hamas or even Palestinians, as well as speech (even silence) opposing abortion.

My standard comment relating to these restrictions was always that they vividly illustrate the value of having a robust and enforceable Bill of Rights (in contrast with the relatively weak ECHR knock-off version).

However, such European "infractions" have long existed, and Europeans are generally okay with their (in my view) weaker speech protections, which they justify using various arguments, including that Nazism and Holocaust denial are "special" problems requiring "special" solutions. And, although I disagree, I'm generally okay with living under those conditions as well--I chose to live here, so I accept I must live by their rules.

So I am concerned by free speech restrictions in Europe, and I believe they are becoming more common. But, as I said above, they have always been more common in Europe than in the USA, so while I believe "alive and well" paints them in too-bright a color, it is generally true in the sense that little has actually changed.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know about that; I think the recent trend towards going after people who just criticized public officials, or silently prayed in public, IS a new and worrying development. I mean, this isn't exactly going after neo-Nazis!

The worrying thing, and what makes it look like a slide towards a police state, is that they're going after mainstream views and expression, not outlier. Brexit actually got voted on and passed, and the government is treating support for it as suspect?

It's the same thing here, of course, until Trump took office and suddenly censorship became a concern again: People being 'canceled' over mainstream views on things like male participation in female sports.

This somehow wasn't a free speech issue, where it becomes a free speech issue if support for a genocide in Israel gets aliens in trouble.

Censorship is a problem which ever direction it's pointed, but when it's pointed at popular views, it's more concerning, because it indicates a government that is actually opposed to its own public, rather than going too far in enforcing orthodoxy.

[Sarcastr0]

I think the recent trend towards
One data point makes a trend, eh? Because I can trace each evil you're talking about to a specific anecdote that was a sufficient outlier to make headlines.

Trump took office and suddenly censorship became a concern again
Your cannot escape your baseline conviction that what Trump's doing is in any way normal. It is not! The number of EOs, the specific targeting, the spite, the scope, the methods.
You blind yourself. And then wonder why people think you support Trump.

gets aliens in trouble. Listen to how you downplay getting thrown in prison. Getting your visa yanked *secretly* so they get to pick you up as a surprise. And specifically targeting speech in a way that hasn't been done since McCarthy.
This is new.
It took the slightest pressure for your support of free speech to crumble into active hostility to speech you don't like.

when it's pointed at popular views
Principles don't have levers making them go up and down based on populism.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Key words: "I don't know about that".

I agree, government assaults on free speech are getting worse, but not yet significantly, and not in completely new ways (as is the case in the US).

British police seem to be specifically selected for their obstinacy and stupidity (with equal emphasis), but fortunately are not as likely to kill you as American cops.

British governments are, of course, responsible for passing the laws, but I doubt either Labour or Conservative governments ever expected the police to implement those laws quite as stupidly as they always manage to do. In other words, the UK is not a "police state" in the sense of the government sic'ing the police on the people, but it is increasingly one in which the police seem to act in randomly authoritarian ways--much to the dismay of the people as well as the government.

But, Jesus fucking Christ, you're really mainly concerned with censorship of "popular" views? I suppose I have to agree that a government suppressing "popular" speech is probably worse than one which "only" suppresses unpopular speech, but the best time to become concerned about the latter is probably when it begins with the former!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm concerned with censorship, period, but I think that censorship of mainstream views says something about a government that censorship of outlier views doesn't. (And I say that despite the fact that I personally hold a lot of outlier views.)

The government that censors outlier views, enforces societal consensus, is a problem, but it's a problem of the government going too far in doing, in a general sense, what governments are supposed to be doing: Maintaining societal stability.

The government that censors mainstream views, attempts to force a CHANGE to mainstream consensus using censorship, is a government that's doing what governments AREN'T supposed to be doing. It's government set in opposition to the people, not doing the people's will too enthusiastically.

So you might hope that the former government would set some limits on what it's doing, but the latter is at war with its own people, and headed in an ugly direction.

[tylertusta]

but the latter is at war with its own people, and headed in an ugly direction.

It runs the risk of creating a false consensus, as we're on the cusp of seeing in Germany. It almost happened in Romania- and still may yet happen there as well.

[Kazinski]

Last week the Trump issued a new Executive Order titled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.” The order is aimed at curbing the overuse of criminal penalties in federal regulations by requiring agencies to spell out just what would trigger criminal penalties in the regs.

I can't imagine anyone would be against this, but I am sure they are probably quite a few.

"The purpose of this order is to ease the regulatory burden on everyday Americans and ensure no American is transformed into a criminal for violating a regulation they have no reason to know exists.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States that:

(a) Criminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored.

(b) Prosecution of criminal regulatory offenses is most appropriate for persons who know or can be presumed to know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and willingly choose not to comply, thereby causing or risking substantial public harm. Prosecutions of criminal regulatory offenses should focus on matters where a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful.'

[Martinned]

As per Monday's Open Thread, when our friend Brett mentioned this EO, it certainly did make me wonder what happened to Trumpists' anger about prosecutorial discretion. Is prosecutorial discretion OK, or does the DOJ have a legal duty to prosecute any and all crimes that it can prove?

In any case, if Trump thinks there are too many crimes I'd agree, but I'd suggest giving Congress a list of criminal statutes that it might want to repeal. After all, Congress is in charge of lawmaking last I checked.

[Mr. Bumble]

Congress ceded that to the courts and the executive.
Mostly they just like to preen before the cameras as they hold hearing, promise to do their job and raise money to be re-elected.

[Martinned]

That sounds like one of those "only when Trump is in the White House"-sorts of arguments. At least, I don't remember you talking like that under Biden or Obama.

[Kazinski]

Well if you read the EO it applies to regulations which have the force of law, not to actual statutes.

Some courts have held that the rule of lenity applies strictly to regulations, that no deference is due to the government when there is an ambiguity in a regulation, but this does seem to go further in making it clear that while people are presumed to know what the law is, its too much to expect they will know every federal regulation.

[Martinned]

I did read the EO, when Brett mentioned it. If Trump thinks there are too many regulations that are enforced with criminal sanctions, he should instruct the agencies to start the process of repealing them. But he didn't do that.

[Michael P]

Regulations can be backed by civil enforcement, not only criminal enforcement. The process of repealing bad regulations entirely takes a long time, but the process of using only appropriate and authorized enforcement mechanisms is much easier.

[Commenter_XY]

That distinction escapes Martinned.

[Martinned]

I understand that distinction just fine. Does Trump?

[Martinned]

Regulations can be backed by civil enforcement, not only criminal enforcement.

Yes, I know that. But the EO only talks about the latter.

The process of repealing bad regulations entirely takes a long time

All the more reason to start sooner rather than later.

the process of using only appropriate and authorized enforcement mechanisms is much easier

Yes, simply not prosecuting people is much easier. But I thought Trumpists were against that sort of thing? Or are you only against prosecutorial discretion when it concerns "those people"?

[Michael P]

Donald Trump didn't tell regulators to stop pursuing civil enforcement, or even all criminal enforcement. The EO was narrower than that. You keep trying to make it about something quite different. You should spend more energy on reading comprehension and less on desperately looking for things to be angry about.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think the EO does anything; it's already the norm to not reach for criminal penalties if at all possible.

DMN thinks the EO is an invitation for corruption - Trump's friends get to avoid criminal charges; everyone else gets The Law.

That does seem to have plenty of precedent.

[Stephen Lathrop]

(a) Criminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored.

Yup. Got it. Knew it since Inauguration Day, but the forthright statement is useful, however mendacious. Left out the selective targeting. Ask Harvard.

[JasonT20]

This is the comment I posted under the article about this that Sullum wrote:

https://reason.com/2025/05/14/the-proliferation-of-regulatory-crimes-turns-the-rule-of-law-into-a-cruel-joke/?comments=true#comment-11045755

My takeaway from this EO is to wonder if the point was really to stop prosecuting ordinary people for violating stupid regulations that shouldn't exist, or to make it easier for corporations to avoid criminal penalties for willfully violating things like environmental and worker safety regulations.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in "this is what the rule of law looks like"-news: the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled

The Court recalls that the purpose of the Access to Documents Regulation is to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents held by the institutions. Thus, in principle, all documents of the institutions should be accessible to the public.

[Commenter_XY]

Syria to join the Abraham Accords?

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-853885

US President Donald Trump urged Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa to sign the Abraham Accords with Israel during their meeting ahead of the GCC summit in Riyadh on Wednesday.

[Martinned]

Hang on, I thought that the talking point was that Syria had no government? Or at least that the US considered the Syrian government a bunch of terrorists that it would not negotiate with?

[JasonT20]

Yep. A couple of weeks ago, all I heard about Syria was how its new government was letting Islamists murder Christians.

[Don Nico]

It is not even clear that Syria is a nation state any more.

[Michael P]

I was told not to worry about Hogg doing crazy things because he might just buckle down and focus on parliamentary procedure or whatever. How's that working out?

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/12/dnc-panel-opens-the-door-to-removing-david-hogg-from-his-national-post-00343653

I think his recent observation that the Democrat Party is abandoning young men was true, but that seems to have been a bridge too far for the party mandarins. Or maybe it was his threat to primary so many incumbents in "safe" districts (and risk turning them into battleground districts). If he was spending time on parliamentary procedure, it isn't evident.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who told you something that silly?

Putting Hogg in that position was an obvious self-own by the Democratic party. I guess they were reasoning that the other side hated this guy, so he had to be alright despite all contrary indications?

But it's still hilarious seeing them eject him over something like this.

[Michael P]

I think Sarcastr0 was the one who claimed David Hogg might focus on being a good parliamentarian. Maybe it was Nieporent. It was laughable precisely because Hogg's likely path was patently obvious from the moment he was selected.

[Sarcastr0]

I said get mad at him for things he's done, not things you'll be he will do.

So far you still don't seem mad at him for anything he's done.

You do seem pretty obsessed with him, though. I don't hear much about him at all except from you.

Shades of AOC...much bigger on the right than the left for a while. Nowadays it's equalized.

[Michael P]

I wasn't mad about anything. I thought it was funny because I fully expected things like this to happen. And I did give him credit for observing that Dems insist on alienating men -- which they proceeded to demonstrate in even more hilariously ironic fashion.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe not mad, but certainly weirdly focused on the dude.

alienating men
Big Tate fan?

[Michael P]

I don't think David Hogg is a fan of either Andrew or Tristan Tate. Do you, or are you just weirdly focused on the dude(s)?

[Brett Bellmore]

I was mad at the time over things he'd done, (That you probably liked.) and just predicted that he'd do more of the same in his new position. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." is a really stupid way to pick important policy making positions.

No, sometimes the enemy of my enemy is just a loose cannon.

[Kazinski]

I don't like him because he pushes gun control.

But its not personal, if he wants to go out and get laid and have fun, I'm ok with that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Hogg's likely path was patently obvious from the moment he was selected."

Some of it was patently obvious, but I didn't see him making sensible observations about why the Democratic party was losing young men.

[rloquitur]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/05/released-from-custody.php

Because they release aliens who killed someone's mom.

[Frank Drackman]

Hogg could be the poster boy for White Privilege (and Birth Control)

[David Nieporent]

Or maybe it was his threat to primary so many incumbents in "safe" districts (and risk turning them into battleground districts).

He did indeed receive a rebuke for that, as being against party rules.

But the redo of his election is based on silly rules about gender balance (which, to be clear, the RNC also has).

[Bwaaah]

"But the redo of his election is based on silly rules about gender balance"

Well then couldn't he bypass that issue by simply declaring himself to be a woman?

(Of course he couldn't, but I'd love to see them twist themselves into Gordian knots explaining why not.)

[apedad]

"Ahead of a Gulf Cooperation Council meeting (Tuesday) morning, Trump held a half-hour meeting with the new president of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, who came into power after the fall of the Assad regime in 2024."

al-Sharaa? You mean this guy?!?

A former Al Qaeda commander who "was arrested by American forces while planting explosives[26] and imprisoned for over five years in various detention centres,[28] including Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, Camp Cropper and Camp Taji prisons."

And, "(a)fter the start of Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S.-led coalition's airstrike campaign against the Islamic State in Syria, al-Sharaa, in a rare public declaration, described the airstrikes as an assault on Islam, and warned the Western public: "This is what will take the battle to the heart of your land, for the Muslims will not stand as spectators watching their sons bombed and killed in their lands, while you stay safe in your lands." In his audio message, released five days after the U.S. strikes, al-Sharaa said: "Do not let the West and America take advantage of the injustice of the Islamic State upon you … Those who are unable to repulse the Islamic State or others, then let them do so without being a partner with the crusader alliance." Al-Sharaa also warned that al-Nusra will fight any group which takes American cash and weapons, condemning "the traitorous factions that were bought by the West with some money and ammunition so as to be a pawn in its hands."[64] In an audio statement released on 28 September 2014, al-Sharaa stated that he would fight the "United States and its allies" and urged his fighters not to accept help from the West in their battle against the Islamic State.[65]" wiki

[Bob from Ohio]

The French President welcomed the dude to Paris last week.

Sometimes in diplomacy you have to meet with bad people.

[apedad]

There's bad people then there's people who were, " . . . former Al Qaeda commander who 'was arrested by American forces while planting explosives[26] and imprisoned for over five years in various detention centres,[28] including Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, Camp Cropper and Camp Taji prisons.'"

[Don Nico]

The guys has scrubbed up on the outside. But it is foolish to assume that he has renounced his jihadi ways. Trump is a fool for meeting with him.

[Commenter_XY]

We don't always get to pick who we have to deal with, Don Nico.

[Kazinski]

Seems to me if we can co-opt him now its better than a war, and if he can't become respectable we can always kill him later.

Churchill negotiated with Michael Collins.

[Michael P]

apedad will be shocked when he finds out which US former elected official studied at the knee of the Weathermen and told his leftist acolytes to bring guns to a knife fight.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts now allows tenants to seal most records of eviction cases. If the tenant wins or is evicted not for cause (e.g. landlord wants the unit back) the record can be sealed as soon as the judgment is final. If the eviction is for unpaid rent, the record is sealed once the rent is paid. If the tenants can't pay back rent, the record is sealed after four years. Otherwise, if the tenant is at fault, the record is sealed after seven years.

https://www.mass.gov/news/sealing-eviction-records-coming-in-may-2025

It is illegal to include a sealed case in a credit report. If a case is not sealed a credit report must disclose whether the eviction was for cause. Tenants need not include information about sealed cases when filling out an application form. I believe (by negative implication) that interviewers and references are not bound by sealing. You can call up a tenant's former landlord and get all the dirty details.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It is illegal to include a sealed case in a credit report. .... I believe (by negative implication) that interviewers and references are not bound by sealing. You can call up a tenant's former landlord and get all the dirty details

So if the landlord goes to court and the tenant successfully disputes rent being owed, it can't go into the credit report, but where the slumlord merely puts it on the tenant's credit report, it can be?

And what real redress would such a tenant have? Statute of Limitations on libel is one year (?), or would it being reported be considered an ongoing libel? And then the tenant shows up as someone who sued a landlord...

IANAA but wonder about employers calling landlords, past or present. If you can't use credit reports for employment, how can you use the underlying data (if you admit it)?

[John F. Carr]

I think you're right that reports of unpaid rent are now less regulated than reports of lawsuits over unpaid rent.

The usual statute of limitations for torts in Massachusetts is three years. Ordinarily this period starts with publication of a defamatory statement. In some cases the period may start with discovery of the defamatory publication. The Supreme Judicial Court recently stated:

Claims for defamation, violation of the right to privacy, violation of the right of publicity, and related claims that arise from material posted to social media platforms accrue when a plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know, that he or she has been harmed by the defendant's publication of that material. Given how vast the social media universe is on the Internet, and how access to, and the ability to search for, social media posts may vary from platform to platform and even from post to post, that determination requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances regarding the social media posting, including the extent of its distribution, and the accessibility and searchability of the posting. The application of the discovery rule is therefore a highly fact-specific inquiry, and the determination of whether plaintiffs knew or should have known that they were harmed by a defendant's post on social media must often be left to the finder of fact. If, however, the material posted to social media is widely distributed, and readily accessible and searchable, a judge may determine as a matter of law that the discovery rule cannot be applied.

Credit reports are subject to more regulation than ordinary speech. I have not researched whether courts make a speech/conduct distinction or a commercial/noncommercial speech distinction.

[Sarcastr0]

Nick Bagley on the Trump administration's bill that attempts to let you pay to get out of judicial review of your environmental impact statement:
https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/defanging-nepa

He's no fan of NEPA (actually, neither am I!) but cash to get out of judicial review is a level of pay-for-play thusfar unseen. Luckily it's incompetently drafted.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s just AlGores “Carbon Offsets” with a different name

[Brett Bellmore]

"And so a law that was supposed to protect the environment has become one of the chief impediments to the transition to renewable energy."

LOL! The chief impediment to the transition to renewable energy is that it's, technologically, just not ready for prime time. It sucks on important metrics like reliability and dispatchability. It would never be adopted if it weren't so heavily subsidized and mandated. Outside niche applications, of course.

If 'renewable' energy were ready for prime time, it wouldn't NEED help taking over!

The pay to play aspect is not, by the way, so much paying to get out of judicial review, as that they had to make the avoidance of judicial review look like a revenue source to shoe horn it into reconciliation. Otherwise I think they'd have been glad to hand it out for free.

[Sarcastr0]

Neato off topic rant. Not going to take the bait.

You can not like NEPA - even I think it's not worthwhile! - and still think that a legal regime that lets you buy your way out is awful policy.

they had to make the avoidance of judicial review look like a revenue source to shoe horn it into reconciliation
Don't be an idiot. Paying to fast-track is a common thing and would have answered that mail.

Your made-up apologias are getting dumber by the day.

[Brett Bellmore]

Somebody didn't read his own link, I guess.

"The language is crafted like this to wedge it into the rules governing reconciliation. By creating a fee, the House Natural Resource Committee can say that the bill will affect the budget. "

[Sarcastr0]

Read the very next paragraph.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, what is the difference between paying $100K to a lawyer and paying $10K to the government? Other that the govt gets $10K?

[Brett Bellmore]

I did. It didn't start with, "just joking!".

[Sarcastr0]

You really do lean into ignorance when you want to ignore obvious counterarguments. Here, the piece points out that "In other pay-to-play schemes—I’m thinking here of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, where pharma companies pay FDA to accelerate review of their drugs—the money goes into the agency’s coffers."

So Congress knows how to wedge in reconciliation with fees that would make sense here, and are other than the novel pay to bypass judicial review bit.

Your postulated motive is not needed.

[Frank Drackman]

Got this from the late great Vin Scully (Lefty btw) that as a typical baseball game has around 300 pitches each with multiple outcomes(called strike, swinging strike, ball, hit by pitch, foul ball, and that’s not even considering the different hits, pickoffs)
The number of possible different baseball games is more than 5 times the total number of Atoms in the Universe
You can make a similar argument for NBA games, but they suck

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

And, as a first approximation, all of those different games will be boring.

[Frank Drackman]

Boring? That's what Queen(ie) Elizabeth said after attending a Baseball game,(I believe the exact quote was "Nothing much happened, did it?") you have to look at the game behind the game, like when the catcher drops a handful of dirt on the plate, the ballet-like dance of runner and shortstop on a slide into second, Dallas Green scratching his balls waiting for the new pitcher to come in.....
OK, watching 20 minutes of a parade of tattooed freaks shooting free throws (badly) for the last minute of an NBA game.......

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I understand that somebody who's into baseball won't find it boring, somehow. 😉

No, really, just like there are an astronomical number of losing hands in poker, that differ from each other in no way that makes any real difference, and a much fewer number of winning hands, most of those differences in that calculation are differences that won't make a difference, and so will go largely unnoticed.

It reminds me of the time baseball statistics nearly killed me. I was doing the long drive from Michigan to Florida, to visit my mom for Christmas, and had a book on tape to keep me awake, Gould's "Wonderful Life".

Everything was fine until he launches into this endless digression on baseball statistics in order to illustrate a point about the evolutionary implications of expanding into a larger state space that I had gotten immediately, thank you, and about 15 minutes later the rumble strip woke me as I was going off the road. I'd fallen asleep, it was so boring.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Good advice: if someone invites you to play poker, do not take a seat.

For a writer who makes baseball statistics interesting, go with Bill James.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not much for games of chance as a usual matter, though in college I had the President of the chess club for a room mate one year, and we'd alternate at chess and backgammon.

He'd win the chess, of course, though occasionally I'd pull off a stalemate. I generally won the backgammon. For some reason he just couldn't reason out strategy in a probabilistic game.

I was never into poker, though.

[bernard11]

Poker is not nearly the game of chance you think it is. One need only note that there are consistent winners, even at the big money tournaments, to realize this.

Nor is backgammon, which also has consistent winners.

[Brett Bellmore]

Poker is a game of chance and strategy, just like backgammon, (Except that poker is more complicated.) which I fairly consistently beat the chess club President at. But, of course, there's not a lot of bluffing in backgammon, and I do NOT have a poker face, nor did I have enough interest in card games to learn that strategy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — With either bad strategy or unsound tactics, you can count on losing at poker, unless your opponents are also chumps like you. If they are, the outcomes get kind of random.

Unfortunately, the converse is not true. Good strategy and sound tactics will not make you any better than an unlikely winner, especially if your opponents are not chumps like you.

Yes, extraordinary good luck can make anyone a winner in any particular poker session. Great luck happens when multiple players hold great hands, and one of those can decide the outcome of the whole session.

But even in a situation like that, most players become big losers. You have to hold the best of those hands to win, and to maximize the win you have to play it right.

The best play I ever made at a poker table cost me plenty. I folded my pat kings full in five card draw. Turned out I was behind two four-of-a-kinds, but stood ahead of a straight, and a flush, whose owners chose to call out a final round of enormous bets. I pitied the guy with 4 threes, who lost to 4 sixes.

When poker sharks get hungry, they try to round up as many math and statistics nerds as possible. Those are the marks with the kind of misplaced confidence necessary to prolong a major feeding frenzy.

The only thing better is a math and statistics nerd who is also a cheater. If one of those shows up, the sharks threaten to turn on each other. With an opportunity like that, no one is permitted the blunder of an interruption, lest anyone make the mistake to bust the cheater, and drive him away before he can be cleaned out.

[bernard11]

Poker is a game of chance and strategy, just like backgammon,

In that sense almost all games, certainly all sports, are games of "chance and strategy," plus skill, of course. Balls, especially footballs, bounce in unpredictable ways, but that doesn't make football a game of chance. Bridge is played with a deck of cards, distributed randomly among the players, but if you think it's a game of chance you know nothing about it.

I'd say, as I did above, that a game where some players win consistently is not a game of chance.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Baseball was never intended to be watched, sober...

It was first a community social event, and then an excuse to get drunk. It thus replaced militia drills, which had been both.

[Armchair]

NIH director temporarily closes NIH lab.

Those dastardly Trump administration officials! Why would they do that! They hate science!

"“About three weeks in, I got a report that there was a lab—a BSL four lab, that is a high-security lab that deals with, like, really nasty bugs, you know, Ebola, whole bunch of other bugs—that there had been a safety incident…[that] involved a contractor cutting a hole in the bio containment suit of another worker with the intention of that, getting that worker sick with some nasty bug and potentially spreading it outside of the lab itself,” Bhattacharya said,

https://justthenews.com/nation/science/nih-director-says-confrontation-between-lab-contractors-precipitated-fort-detrick

Oh..

[Sarcastr0]

What’s your point here? That sometimes bad shit happens and it’s not Trumps fault?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Also, we had some "got to give Trump credit" stuff in which his role in the positive developments (to the degree they were) were far from clear.

[jb]

You know, it's the very definition of a strawman to bring up a topic, invent a reaction to it that no one actually made, and then "successfully" beat back that argument.

But have fun debating with yourself, I guess.

[Ska]

It's more fun mass debating than debating with yourself.

[Swede425]

A group of 4 Amish guys, with 1 Mennonite who could drive the truck and trailer, cut down 106 very tall red pines on my property. It took them all of one day and 3 hours the following day and they had the trees cut down, topped, cut to length, horse dragged to the truck, and back to their sawmill. They piled the tree tops in several large piles (which I'm using for deer bedding on other parts of the property), and paid me in cash. The commercial guys came out and would only take the job if they could cut at least 20 acres of trees. But they'd pull stumps and get rid of the tops. Glad I went with the Amish.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've heard the argument that a horse is cheaper than a skidder.

[Swede425]

I have a two wheeled skidder that can pull a log that's 16in diameter and 16ft long weighing up to 1000lbs. So far it's been able to handle these tree tops pretty easily without being too hard on my back.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How do you make deer bedding out of tops needing a skidder?
And if the ground's soft, a skidder makes ruts..

[Swede425]

I stack them at right angles about 5 feet high in areas that already have some cover. Vines and other vegetation grow on and around them. Rake out the corners so no rocks or branches hinder access to laying down. They seem to like it as long as they have more than one access point to them. They don't like to feel trapped.

[Armchair]

Biden family gravy train running dry...what are the risks?

Well, now that Joe's out of office, there's no influence left to sell.

"During the Thursday edition of his podcast, The Morning Meeting, veteran journalist Mark Halperin reported that, according to a source “very familiar with the Bidens,” the family’s financial machine known as “Biden Inc.” has dried up. “The trough is empty, the spigot is turned off,” he remarked.

Halperin continued, “Biden Inc. has collapsed. All those Biden grandkids had a lavish lifestyle which they very much liked. Hunter made … millions of dollars. Joe, as a former president is not in a position to get the same kind of paid speeches, corporate boards, book deals.”

The source told Halperin that the family “needs a source of revenue” because “Joe’s earning power is not sufficient” and “Hunter does not have great earning capacity.”"

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/05/report-biden-familys-financial-pipeline-has-run-dry/

Hmm. But Joe may have all those classified documents left "around". Should we be worried that China or Russia will offer some money for them?

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd think they'd have seen this coming, realized that the track the gravy train was riding had an obvious end, and banked most of it. Instead of acting like the train ride would go on forever. They could have been quite comfortable, still, and had a big pile of annuities.

I don't know that Joe actually has all that many classified documents at this point, and certainly not documents that haven't already been leaked. There came a point in the program to go after Trump over HIS retention of documents, where they had an "Oh, shit!" moment, and realized their exposure on that front.

I think at that point they got rid of most of them. At the very least, after the 2024 election they would have, in anticipation of a vengeful Trump having the DOJ available to sic on them.

If Joe has any now, it's just because he genuinely forgot about them.

[CountmontyC]

Why do you think Hunter and Jill wanted him to run so badly despite his obvious mental infirmities? They knew that the gravy train was over as soon he was out of office ( he can't even give speeches for money because nobody would pay to hear his addled thoughts).

[bernard11]

You'd think they'd have seen this coming, realized that the track the gravy train was riding had an obvious end, and banked most of it. Instead of acting like the train ride would go on forever. They could have been quite comfortable, still, and had a big pile of annuities.

How do you know they didn't "see it coming?" Despite the BS about "the Biden crime family," there is no evidence Biden himself profited from Hunter's activities. So there was no million dollar spigot.

There came a point in the program to go after Trump over HIS retention of documents, where they had an "Oh, shit!" moment, and realized their exposure on that front.

No exposure, whereas Trump's behavior was plainly intentional and criminal.

[tylertusta]

Now that Biden's usefulness has ended, reality is now winning against politics. It turns out that the emperor wasn't wearing clothes after all!

And people wonder why trust in the media is so low.

[SRG2]

Of course, when Trump continues to enrich his family as president, that's (R)ighteous

[Mr. Bumble]

Now tell us the story of how a poor bi-racial kid from a broken home went on to become a multi-millionaire.

[CountmontyC]

To borrow a phrase from many on the leftist commentators.
That is pure WHATABOUTISM!!!!

[SRG2]

It's a cultists' sacrament.

[hobie]

I find it amusing you hayseeds are still flogging Hunter and his 10 million and his oil paintings. A normal person would find it quaint compared to the massive, multibillion dollar influence peddling operation of the Trump crime family. I know you're hoping you'll win the lottery and get that Wonka ticket for access to the new Qatar jet along with the paying crypto sheiks, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you

[CountmontyC]

More whataboutism.

[apedad]

Do you point out whataboutism from the right too?

Michael P 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
apedad will be shocked when he finds out which US former elected official studied at the knee of the Weathermen and told his leftist acolytes to bring guns to a knife fight.

Or are you just a Trump sychophant?

[CountmontyC]

Now, enough leftists shout when a rightie does it that don't need to .

[apedad]

But you only point it out when a lefty does it.

The Cult is strong with this one.

[CountmontyC]

More whataboutism.

[shawn_dude]

Too bad he didn't start a meme coin so that foreign governments could pour bribes into it, amiright?! The Biden library won't have a free plane for him to use, either.

[bernard11]

Note that the author of the piece is Elizabeth Stauffer. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Not someone I'd much rely on for accurate reporting about Biden, especially as the information she reports partly comes from Halperin, who got it from an unnamed source "very familiar with the Bidens."

[jb]

Wrong place!

[tylertusta]

A follow-up to Monday's thread about Xi trying to mediate peace between India and Pakistan.

Some commentators here believed that Xi was somehow behind the peace deal.

In response to their statements, I brought up that in 2020, India and China fought a battle in Kashmir. I used this as evidence that India would not accept Chinese mediation in the recent Pakistan-Indian conflict as China does not have clean hands in the region.

To prevent any border clashes from escalating, both sides deliberately patrol the border without firearms. Instead, troops bring sticks, clubs, or other blunt instruments. Occasionally troops will skirmish each other at the high altitudes, bringing in reinforcements from nearby encampments.

Yesterday, a Chinese soldier posted to Twitter a picture of him and a broom that he carried in 2020 in the battle against Indian troops, where he was involved in the capture of several Indian soldiers. It was a sort of "and I still have the broom!" moment of pride for the Chinese.

https://x.com/OedoSoldier/status/1922288507487154593

This would be funny, except that ≈50 men died in the skirmish.

An analogous event occurred in 1976 when US Army soldiers were attacked by North Koreans armed with clubs and axes, resulting in the deaths of two US Army officers in the DMZ.

[Sarcastr0]

I said China *wants* to be seen as a peacemaker.

If you thought I was sharing the China Times for the truth of what it asserts you need to go to remedial media literacy training.

I also know enough about foreign policy to know none of what you described matters if things get serious, the US isn't there, and China is.

[hobie]

Nothing I like better than a Spanish tortilla. I par deep fry the potato and onion slices until just tender, then combine them and the beaten eggs and chives into the skillet and slosh it all around until the eggs are half cooked...folding and folding the whole time. Then into the oven until set. In Spain, they are absolutely nuts about having mayonnaise with everything, so I whip up garlic aioli for the condiment. Yum

[Sarcastr0]

I know it's authentic, but I don't care for corn flour tortillas.

Gringo wheat is my jam though.

[hobie]

Both have their places

[Brett Bellmore]

Back when we lived in Michigan the nearby town had a very authentic Mexican restaurant, run by real Mexicans.

The food authentically sucked. Man, were those refried beans watery.

OTOH, that old lady across the street taught mom how to make real tortillas using a piece of broom handle, and they were pretty good.

So I guess authenticity and taste are orthogonal.

[Frank Drackman]

Cheech and Chong had a song called “Mexican Americans” where they joked that Mexican Americans actually love Taco Bell

[Ridgeway]

Tortillas (corn or wheat) in Mexico are completely different animals from tortillas in Spain.

In Spain, a tortilla is essentially a frittata -- a mixture of potato, egg and various other goodies cooked in a pan.

[Ska]

Every time they try to hand me a sardine on a potato chip, I blurt out tortilla. I'm cool with the old sausage slice on a bread round, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An ethics question for the law professors:

Mass Bar Rule 4.3 reads (in part)
"The lawyer shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person, other than the advice to secure counsel, if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such a person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client."

Would that include a demand (i.e. threat of lawsuit) that a third party do something that (a) is beneficial to the client and harmful to the client, (b) that there is absolutely no basis for demanding, and (c) is based on a complete ignorance of both the facts and law involved?

In other words, if a mentally ill client somehow manages to convince a lawyer to send a letter threatening litigation to a third party on the basis of facts which don't exist and some legal myth that a nominee trust with succession language instead expires on the death of the first trustee, and neither advises the party to obtain legal representation nor gives the person time to do so (i.e. expects action within four business days), is that outrageous enough to justify a BBO complaint?

I know the joke about lawyers wearing ties is to prevent their foreskins from showing, and know that his client is mentally ill (and has been on SSDI for over 30 years), but where is the line between a lawyer being an A-hole and a lawyer being unethical?

(NB: I know there are also rules 3.1 & 4.1 but I am leaving as much out of this as possible because I am asking an ethical question here -- when is a lawyer being too much of of an A-hole to be accepted by his peers?)

[ReaderY]

You appear to be referring to a specific case rather than some sort of general hypothetical. Since any answer would depend on the facts of the case, it might be best to share the case and its details.

And of course, nobody here could give you legal advice, just a general opinion.

[David Nieporent]

This is an oddly specific and yet totally vague question. Threatening someone with a frivolous suit would not be a violation of 4.3, no. It might be a violation of other rules (or even, as Prof. Volokh has noted in the past, a violation of criminal laws against, e.g., extortion).

[ReaderY]

A totalitarian takeover needs an organization of loyalists outside the state and its controls; a loyal paramilitary; a secret police; a network of concentration camps outside the prying eyes of the regular law; and a slush fund of money outside regular controls and accountability available for personal disposal.

We have the outlines of most of these elements. We have DOGE as an extra-state quasi-governmental organization staffed with personal loyalists: folks like the Proud Boys who organized January 6 as the outlimes of a loyal paramilitary; ICE as the cadre of a secret police trained to work outside the restrictions on regular police; and a network of concentration camps in El Salvador.

My question for the Conspiracy is, where is the slush fund? Is Trump redirecting money saved from refusing to spend it as Congress provided? From outside schemes like his cryptocurrency? From gifts from foreign leaders and other donors? Where is the money coming from?

Or perhaps he doesn’t need a private slush fumd. Maybe he can spend government money on ICE, the El Salvador camps, rewarding his supporters, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think as a starting matter you need to distinguish between "totalitarian" and "authoritarian". Authoritarianism is much more likely in the US than totalitarianism, we have too many competing power centers outside of government, and they are not all loyal to the same political causes, and so will not unite in favor of one faction. So there really is little prospect of all power being united in government.

Even authoritarian governments are pretty reliant on the absence of substantial power centers outside of government, and some pretty important non-governmental power centers hate Trump's guts.

So, while I certainly think it's possible Trump will continue our drift towards authoritarian government, he's certainly not going to achieve it himself, and totalitarian is right out. And that's without even addressing some of your hilarious misconceptions.

[Sarcastr0]

I think as a starting matter you need to distinguish between "totalitarian" and "authoritarian".

Not how you start a winning defense of Trump!

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you somehow missed the fact that I don't actually LIKE Trump, I just thought he was less awful than the alternative? So, why would you expect a winning defense of him out of me?

I have been worried for decades now about our gradual drift towards authoritarian government, and the way we were putting all the parts of a police state together. But I don't think Trump has all the parts at hand, and a totalitarian government is just out of reach.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, we all hear you say it. No one believes it. Because we all see you defend him to the hilt, including all his authoritarianism.

We watch what you step up for, and what you don't.

Hell, you cheer for more and more authoritarianism! And you use the standard authoritarian playbook of gotta be authoritarian to avoid those other authoritarian.

And if a little terrorism is needed, well, that's regrettable but necessary so the government doesn't feel invulnerable.

[Bwaaah]

Brett (for the nth time):

[Bwaaah]

Brett, consistently, yet again: "I don't like Trump."

Sarc: "Yeah, we all hear you say it. No one believes it."

Gaslight0 living under his unfalsifiable rock of denial, declaring everyone else to be of like mind. (As if Brett's positions are difficult to comprehend, dummy acts like he can reconcile them by selectively substituting his own beliefs.)

[bernard11]

Well, let me say this. If Brett doesn't like Trump, why does he continue to offer defenses, including some pretty far-out ones, of Trump's behavior.

I mean, Trump is President, and will be for 3+ more years. So if Brett really doesn't like Trump, and only prefers him to other possibilities, he has all the room in the world to criticize him without risking that it will cost Trump anything politically.

But he doesn't do that. Instead, he defends everything Trump does, with ferocity.

So no, I don't believe him.

[Bwaaah]

bernard11: "If Brett doesn't like Trump, why does he continue to offer defenses [...] of Trump's behavior."

Brett defends many of Trump's objectives, but not much Trump's behaviors.

Still, some of Trump's behaviors are defensible. No? None?

Brett never indicated anything like he "only prefers [Trump] to other possibilities." And he doesn't "defend everything Trump does."

Despite Brett's defenses of Trump, he expresses little like for Trump's ways of doing things. And yet, you and many others can't seem to get past any expression of regard for Trump. It's kind of like some kind of original sin for some people. As the shibboleth would go, "If you truly don't like Trump, you wouldn't try to justify what he does."

Believe what you will. But if you don't believe what Brett says about his own positions, I don't know what your point is in trying to argue with them. You're just talking to yourself, addressing what you'd like to think Brett thinks.

[not guilty]

Brett's blather calls to mind the words of the poet Maya Angelo: When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

Brett has shown himself to be a Trump sycophant, a dilettante dabbling in result-oriented legal theory, and a weenie who lacks the combination of brains and testicular fortitude required to walk around unarmed.

[Bwaaah]

You cite Maya Angelo: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." And yet, as Brett describes himself is not liking Donald Trump, you describe Brett as a "Trump sycophant."

You, like others, conveniently enjoy your nonsensical hyperbole.

[not guilty]

Sure, Brett claims that he doesn't like Trump. The point of the Maya Angelo quote, however, is to look at one's behavior instead of taking at face value what they say about themselves.

Brett's history here shows him to be a partisan shill. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) His claims to the contrary are simply unworthy of belief.

[shawn_dude]

Suspension of habeas corpus would resolve most of these issues. If he can arrest judges, journalists, and opposition party leaders, he can consolidate power pretty quickly. Look at Turkey, for example. And we're seeing similar moves in Georgia and Serbia. He's apparently been negotiating with other autocratic governments to expand his foreign prison system and provide more opportunities to put people he doesn't like outside the reach of US law.

[hobie]

You forgot antipathy towards - and sidelining of - the press. As well as compromising the judiciary with insurrectionists. Let's hope we don't see that.

[ReaderY]

While I don’t disagree, I would classify this as some of the tasks it needs to accomplish. I was thinking more of the resources it needs to accomplish them. In order to threaten judges and the press or for that matter any other opposition, you first need resources to threaten them with, capable of carrying the threats out.

By way of historical analaogy, Hitler first had to get the GeStaPo staffed and functioning and the concentration camps up and going before he could be in a position to arrest opposition members of the Reichstag and throw them into the newly-established concentration camps in order to get a 2/3 Reichstag majority for the Enabling Act. In order to intimidate any opponents, not just the press and judges, you have to first have the resources in place to make good on the intimidation.

I’m talking about this earlier stage, when things are in an embryonic state, and the resources are still being gathered together and/or tried out on a small scale.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When the Proud Boys start patrolling with police officers, as the SA did, you might have a point.

[bernard11]

It also helps to have a leader who is exempt from the law.

[Bwaaah]

No, it doesn't. But it does help to have a leadership position that is sufficiently empowered to be more than Chief Follower. Such a unique position requires unique authority, or it won't be able to fulfill the unique role it is intended to serve.

Alternatively, consider all power vested in committees of people armed with thick volumes of regulations and lawyers to represent them, and at the end of the day, no single person strictly responsible for any of the committees' [in]actions. (Tyranny that goes down, publicly, like butter.)

I understand how unfit you find Trump for that role. But I don't think that's a good reason to change the role, nor its unique authority. Unless you think such executive authority shouldn't exist, it makes sense to preserve the power of that seat for a future in which someone you find more suitable uses that power to address more of your preferred objectives.

Don't kill the position; kill the man. (I kid. I kid.) More seriously: don't subvert the position; subvert the man. That seems fair, in oppositional politics.

[David Nieporent]

Strongly disagree. You can't structure a government based on the hope that the people in office will be good. You have to do it based on the assumption that they're not, and try to hem them in as much as possible. The founders knew that, but over the last century Americans forgot it, which gave us Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

You seem to be describing the government as envisaged by Wilson and entrenched by FDR.

[David Nieporent]

And?

[Magister]

A Bumbling attempt at whataboutism, I think.

[David Nieporent]

I suspected it was an attempt at a gotcha, but if so, it rests on the stupid notion that I'm a liberal.

[Magister]

It's also stupid to think that a liberal or even any Democrat would think well enough of Wilson for the gotcha to work; but of course it's Bumble.

[Mr. Bumble]

When did Wilson get thrown under the bus? How about FDR?

[Magister]

Oh, Bumble. How would you feel if commenters tried to ding you with Warren Harding and Teapot Dome? We could have a discussion of Wilson's virtues and flaws if you want, but it's not going to make me feel bad about any Democrat elected to any office in my lifetime.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying the assumption of regularity in administrative law is a bad prudential policy?

[Bwaaah]

David:
As I opened, I do _not_ believe the President should be above the law, in any sense. But the Constitution and statutes grant that seat unique authorities. Simply stating he's "not above the law" does little to acknowledge that this guy does indeed have granted authorities that no other human (nor god) has been granted.

But yes, reign in these ever-expanding, ever-more-far-reaching Presidential actions. In law, there should be no presumption of "goodness" in people (or in their institutions, or in rhinoceroses).

[Magister]

The presidency has operated for centuries with an understanding of its limitations; when a president violates that understanding, the rest of government imposes limits to make what was previously implicit into an official rule. Trump has blown past previous limits, even to trying to bypass very explicit restrictions, and his cult and the craven GOP in Congress and the very partisan conservative Supreme Court have all enabled it.

[Kazinski]

This seems a little different from your description of DOGE:

"Renamed United States Digital Service
Formally known as the United States DOGE Service, the organization is a rebranded version of the United States Digital Service, which was established in 2014 under the Obama Administration with the aim of improving and simplifying government digital services. As with the original USDS, the new organization, which also bears the same acronym, will be housed within the Executive Office of the President, according to the EO that Trump released on Monday."

https://executivegov.com/2025/01/executive-order-department-of-government-efficiency/

ICE and Homeland security and the Executive Office of the President all have budgets appropriated by Congress.

[ReaderY]

You really think that’s all DOGE has been doing? You really think the nominal head of DOGE or any of the actually legally appointed officials has any say in the matter?

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz, you have no idea what DOGE is doing on a daily basis in the US government.

Policing scientific results for ideological alignment is where it begins.

[Life of Brian]

<ctrl-f>predatory *BEEP*
<ctrl-f>Pennsylvania *BEEP*

No hotheaded screed from Ilya yet.

Am I overreading yesterday's decision?

In light of all of the foregoing, this Court reaches the following definition of "predatory incursion" under the AEA: "a hostile entry into the United States by a cohesive group of individuals, such as a military detachment or a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, who are united by a common goal of causing significant disruption to the public safety — whether that be the safety of persons, property, or pecuniary interests — of those within the United States.” The Court finds that that definition is faithful to the meaning of "predatory incursions" in 1798, but it also accounts for new applications given "changes in the world."

When this Court applies that definition to the Proclamation and its finding that TdA is committing a "predatory incursion," the Court holds that the Proclamation complies with the AEA.
* * *
Second, the Court finds that the Proclamation and the documents it references support the finding that TdA is committing a "predatory incursion" as that term is defined in the AEA. Indeed, an FTO is a cohesive group of individuals united by a common goal of causing significant disruption to the common safety of the public..."
* * *
Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Proclamation meets the definition of "predatory incursion" under the AEA, and the Court finds that A.S.R. has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits on this issue.

[David Nieporent]

It was discussed in a thread yesterday (probably the Monday Open Thread). Bottom line is that while the judge found that the administration was lying about some things relating to the plaintiff himself, she decided that she had to accept the lies in Trump's proclamation as true. And she decided that if those statements were accepted, then there was a "predatory incursion." (She rejected the administration's definition of predatory incursion,¹ but found that even under a less crazy definition it qualified — again, assuming the proclamation — not to mention the designation of TdA as a terrorist organization — wasn't just lies.)
​
​
¹Which literally was — paraphrased — "any person coming into the U.S. who we don't like."

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

"literally was — paraphrased"

lmao what the fuck is this? You've reached a new low David Notimportant

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that high of a concentration of spittle confirms I didn't overread it at all.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Menendez Brothers Are Resentenced to Life With Parole, Paving Way for Freedom"

They have been in prison for 35 years. That's a long time.

People who commit horrible crimes should get long prison sentences unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Maybe, we will advance as a society when putting people in cages isn't the way to address the situation. But we aren't there yet.

If they get out soon, it would not be appalling to me. Richard Glossip also should just be released. He was in prison for a long time & his case was repeatedly screwed up. Cut bait.

[rloquitur]

Until it's your kid that gets offed. Glossip is so guilty.

[ThePublius]

Yea, I don't think the Menendez brothers should be in prison for life, I think they should have been executed.

"Putting people in cages" - ha, you are ridiculous! How about not murdering your parents? That would be a better way to address the situation.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People are going to commit crimes for a variety of reasons arising from human nature and other things. Ideally, we do more to prevent crime in the first place, though we won't totally unless we revolutionize things that currently seem unlikely.

The question is how society addresses the situation. Putting people in cages -- we aren't going to kill all the murderers even if people think those two should be -- for years, sometimes decades, is a rather imperfect solution. They are cages.

Prisons often lead to more crime. They are unsafe places. They are cruel in many ways, especially in this country.

Hopefully, some day we will move on from them.

[not guilty]

I have heard that Lyle and Eric Menendez first considered suffocating their parents, but decided on using a shotgun when they realized that they didn't want to be known as the smothers brothers.

[CountmontyC]

Have mercy on them. They are orphans.

[MoreCurious]

The brothers were not children -- they were 19 and 21 -- when they murdered their parents, supposedly because they were abusive. That may be true, but the brothers were old enough to know that they had other options. For example, they could have notified a family friend, a relative, a neighbor, a police officer, a social-services official, a cleric, a teacher, etc. Or they could have simply moved away from home. Instead, they spent time and resources to acquire shotguns. The brothers should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

...until Trump pardons them.

[rloquitur]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/05/released-from-custody.php

You can never ever ever hate Democrats enough.

[jb]

You're mad a prosecutor was trying to keep a criminal in jail?

[rloquitur]

I think you need to read the link a little more closely. The prosecutor argued for bail because he was afraid the feds would take this drunk driving POS into custody. The guy had already skipped bail.

Once again, you can never ever hate Democrats enough.

[jb]

Bzzt. Here's the quote the article is using for rage bait:

“The state was concerned there was ‘significant risk the federal government may take’ Llangari Inga if he is released from jail.”

See? That's an argument against bail.

[Brett Bellmore]

That is misreading things, but he got the fundamental right: The prosecutor WAS trying to keep the feds from taking said POS into custody.

And the conditions of release were starkly insane for somebody who has already skipped bail once. Insane enough that you wonder if it's actually intended that he skip town to avoid that custody.

[jb]

The prosecutor was trying to make sure that the guy was around to be prosecuted. The Feds deporting him is the same as him leaving town to get away, as far as the prosecutor is concerned.

I agree the conditions of release seem pretty lenient. Would be interesting to hear the judge's rationale, but obviously that's left out of the blog entry because they're trying to trick dummies like rloquitur into thinking that's what the prosecutor was asking for.

[rloquitur]

"The prosecutor was trying to make sure that the guy was around to be prosecuted. The Feds deporting him is the same as him leaving town to get away, as far as the prosecutor is concerned."

That's an awfully generous assessment. Feds aren't gonna deport some dude who killed someone until he serves his time. What would happen in a sane prosecutor's office is that they'd just want the feds to hold him until trial. Don't have to worry about bail.

[David Nieporent]

Feds aren't gonna deport some dude who killed someone until he serves his time.

This is the Trump administration; they absolutely would do that. We discussed a month or two ago that they were dropping all charges against someone they had previously called an MS-13 leader, just so that they could deport him. They are more fanatic about deportation than Torquemada was about heresy.

[rloquitur]

Different issue--that MS-13 guy is going to CECOT, and he's NEVER getting out. This Ecuadorian guy will see the light of day someday. He's gonna do his time (what little it will be) in Minnesota, then he's going bye-bye. Or Homan may convince Bondi to charge him with some immigration crime, then he'll be deported.

[David Nieporent]

1) According to Trump and his sycophants, we have no say in what happens to anyone once sent to El Salvador, so you have no idea if the guy is getting out in a week, a month, or twenty years.

2) Gloating over someone being sent to a foreign torture prison without that person having been convicted of anything doesn't really do much to dispel the accusation of fascism. Or sadism.

3) Again, you have no basis whatsoever for claiming that Trump is going to let this drunk driver go to trial before deporting him. (If he were, he could avoid all this controversy by just formally saying that. Where's the Executive Order saying "It is the policy of this administration to require those accused of crimes carrying possible prison time to be tried — and if convicted, to serve their sentences — before being deported"?)

[hobie]

How's all that hate working out for ya, bro?

[rloquitur]

Works quite well. Democrats love alien criminals.

And as for the Ecuadorian criminal, um, the prosecutor was obviously NOT asking that the criminal be held without bond. He's just concerned that he'll face federal consequences.

This is a problem, and here's the deal, if this guy harms someone else, while on bond, it should happen to those who support this crap. Hopefully, Bondi and crew will make an example out of this fucker after he serves his state time. Hopefully, he will be returned to Ecuador as a senior citizen.

[Sarcastr0]

Seeking hate is not healthy behavior.

I very much hope this is internet performance and you're not as miserable and constantly angry as you seem.

[rloquitur]

There's always some performance art. But it's easy to hate people who release an illegal who killed an innocent person and then skipped town.

[Sarcastr0]

As noted above, you're needing to paper over a lot of stuff, and then massively generalize.

It takes work to be a hater.

[David Nieporent]

killed an innocent person

Look, dead is dead, but this isn't a Laken Riley situation; it was a DUI. Tragic for the family of the victim, of course. But not evil.

and then skipped town.

No idea where that comes from.

EDIT: Oh, I see; Powerline claims that. But that appears to be something they completely made up. Best guess I can offer for where they got that from is that the Star Tribune coverage says, "When charges were filed on May 2, Llangari Inga could not be located and a warrant was issued for his arrest. On Saturday, Hennepin sheriff’s deputies arrested him inside his home on Penn Avenue N. in Minneapolis. He did not resist, a spokeswoman said." But if that's what Powerline means, it's essentially lying; not being home when the police come to arrest you does not mean that one is a "fugitive." In fact, he's been free since August, and did not flee in that time.

[rloquitur]

"Look, dead is dead, but this isn't a Laken Riley situation; it was a DUI. Tragic for the family of the victim, of course. But not evil."

Nice insight into your way of thinking. Powerline did embellish. But I don't know why you'd not hand over a fucking drunk driver who killed someone if he's an illegal. But whatev. Let them drink and drive and hit someone you care about. (I am not hoping for that, but if an illegal is going to harm someone, let it be those who seem to want them here.)

[hobie]

Letters from a Cleveland Jail:

Some of the things you hayseeds have pre-supposed about black people are true. Like Orthodox Jews and hillbillies, they have tons of kids, they don't work and they're all on the dole.

But the presiding tenet here is: trust nothing. All windows in every house are covered in black out curtains. No one sees in. No one sees out. Entering a home is like entering a tomb. As a white man, I have zero curtains and it freaks everyone here out. They are legitimately scared for me. 'Ain't you afraid people will know your business?!!'. 'No. I like sunlight and I like to see out.'

In fact, I'm so famous for this that last yer - at a convenience store 30 blocks away - two teenage girls in line said to me, 'Excuse me, aren't you the guy with no curtains?' Same with their cars. No one wants to be seen.

I was also surprised to find that many households here wash both their meat and vegetables in soapy water. Food deserts are real, and the few supermarkets and the food in them are so exorbitantly overpriced and near rancidity that it kinda makes sense.

Few people know the actual first names of their neighbors, and hardly anyone knows the last names. Nicknames are de rigueur even with the grandmas.

No one cares. Trash is dropped from the hand without a thought. Pajamas worn to the store. Sagging. When society has no expectation of you, you don't have it for yourself.

These are the people and this is the culture you hayseeds have cultivated from centuries of hate and subjugation. A permanent class of insecure, frightened people. Hate on them all you want, but YOU did this

[Swede425]

Is there a gas leak where you're at?
Because I think there's a gas leak where you're at.

[ThePublius]

You don't have both skates on the ice, buddy.

[Brett Bellmore]

"When society has no expectation of you, you don't have it for yourself."

Or maybe the causality runs in the other direction? Probably both directions, actually.

What you're looking at are the consequences of the 'war on poverty'.

In the normal course of things, if there is no work to be had in an area, people move out, because, what else are they going to do, starve to death? So the persistent existence of places with lots of people who don't have jobs is fundamentally unnatural. As a temporary thing during economic upheavals, sure. But persistently? Not normally a thing... absent the dole.

But if you subsidize them, they can afford to stay where there is no work. And while the people who find being on the dole intolerable will move out anyway, the people who stay will be the people who didn't find that intolerable. And the next generation grow up seeing it as normal, and lacking role models for self-sufficiency.

Like cave fish ending up blind, because traits that aren't needed atrophy, after a few generations the traits necessary to be gainfully employed atrophy, it's cultural evolution. People aren't born with some instinct to show up on time, and so forth. They have to be raised to it.

Once that has happened, what can you do? That's a serious question, what CAN you do with people who are acculturated to be unsuitable for employment?

And this didn't happen on account of "centuries of hate and subjugation". Blacks were coping with that, it was horrible, but it wasn't the sort of horrible that turns people into what you're seeing.

It happened after the subjugation ended, because indiscriminate kindness can be more destructive, in the long run, than hate.

[shawn_dude]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about poverty. A poor person without a job in an area where they have friends and family is less poor than they'd be if they moved to an entirely new city where they didn't know anyone and also had no job. Moving away from one's social support network isn't always the best choice. The working poor, who work full time and still qualify for food stamps and other public safety net programs, are just one pregnancy or one accident away from total poverty. You ignore all of the people who work multiple jobs and are still poor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And you fail to understand why some of us detest the illegal aliens who deflate wages...

[bernard11]

I know exactly why you and others detest illegal aliens, and it has zip to do with wages.

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

So a group governed by and beholden to Democrats for generations is failing and that's somehow the fault of us 1776 Patriots?

In the immortal words of Kanye. NHH

[Bob from Ohio]

An insane comment. Its not remotely an accurate picture of inner city Cleveland and its residents.

More evidence that Hobie does not actually live in Cleveland.

[Frank Drackman]

First you steal my Valor, now you’re stealing my racial material????? (George Washingon Carver, Martin Lucifer King, and Jackie Robinson get to the Pearly gates, Saint Peter says “how many times do I have to tell you people?! Servants entrance is in the back!)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Seriously. Did you check for a gas leak?

[Kazinski]

There are definitely different cultures in different areas, that may or may not correlate to race. Blacks that are raised in poor inner cities may have a lot more in common with the whites raised in similar neighborhoods, than blacks raised in middle or upper class integrated suburbs.

And military families raised on base have a lot more similarities than blacks or whites or hispanics raised in other environments.

I've been around black friends making fun of more "inner city" black culture, they can be pretty funny, but I know when I don't have much to contribute to the conversation.

[ThePublius]

Episcopal Church Bishop Sean Rowe: "It's against what we stand for to help white refugees fleeing South Africa."

Isn't that blatantly racist? What is he thinking?

[hobie]

Nobody wants refugees from shithole countries

[Estragon]

What is the source for that quote please?

[ThePublius]

The video he posted:

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1922522083566715080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1922603133345104003%7Ctwgr%5E32ae83724dbbb076393b535ec4757213855643b8%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F719549%2F

He's a flat-out racist.

[Estragon]

So, not a quote?

Here’s a quote:

“It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years”

And another:

“Virtually no new refugees have arrived [since January], hundreds of staff in resettlement agencies around the country have been laid off, and funding for resettling refugees who have already arrived has been uncertain. Then, just over two weeks ago, the federal government informed Episcopal Migration Ministries that under the terms of our federal grant, we are expected to resettle white Afrikaners from South Africa whom the U.S. government has classified as refugees.”

And one final one:

“I am saddened and ashamed that many of the refugees who are being denied entrance to the United States are brave people who worked alongside our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and now face danger at home because of their service to our country. I also grieve that victims of religious persecution, including Christians, have not been granted refuge in recent months”

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

" Well, the reality is, we don't feel like we can be ourselves in the Episcopal Church and take the step of resettling white Afrikaners from South Africa. Our church has a commitment to racial justice and reconciliation."

Weird how you forgot that part. The racist part.

[Riva]

They're showing a commitment to racial justice and reconciliation the same way Nazi collaborators showed their commitment to anti-semitism by turning fleeing jews over to the Gestapo.

[Bob from Ohio]

A very cost effective way by the government to get this nest of liberals off Uncle Sam's gravy train. 50 people let in, millions saved.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't put things in quotes that aren't what someone actually said.

[Riva]

Putting aside the quotes, those words accurately convey the meaning of the remarks. Disgrace, hypocritical racist remarks. But continue to defend the indefensible, it's a good look for you little communist girl that never smiled.

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

What Sacastr0 does is classic midwittery.

He's above the median line but not really smart enough to engage the big boys on actual topics, so he picks nits and attacks the messenger.

Anything to appear smart while not actually being smart. He doesn't have imposter syndrome... he is an actual imposter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well stated.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Crimea Riva, in full flow...

[jb]

Seems pretty weird to put some words in quotes and attribute them to someone if that person didn't actually say those words.

[ThePublius]

It's paraphrased. Watch the video I linked above.

[Sarcastr0]

The video is itself taken out of context.

EndWokeness isn't above selective editing.
You shouldn't trust them, even if they make feel angry in all the ways you like.

[ThePublius]

That's bullshit. He DID say what he said in the video, didn't he? And you're saying the broader context might alter that, make it O.K.?

Would you please provide that context here, so we can evaluate it?

[Sarcastr0]

Estragon posted it above.

Do you feel Estragon's post relates something blatantly racist?

[ThePublius]

Estragon omitted the racist remarks Rowe made. He selectively edited Rowe's comments.

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

There's a video posted of the dude saying it one comment above yours.

[jb]

Not sure if you're aware of how timestamps work.

Actually, maybe you should go look it up because you clearly do not!

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

Right, his comment came right around the same time as yours, if not slightly after. Hence why I was notifying you that there is a comment with a link for you to review.

HTH

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, isn't that standard journalistic practice at this point? To paraphrase people deceptively, and pretend you were quoting them?

Facially, his complaint is that these particular refugees are being fast tracked ahead of other refugees. But then he says, " Well, the reality is, we don't feel like we can be ourselves in the Episcopal Church and take the step of resettling white Afrikaners from South Africa. Our church has a commitment to racial justice and reconciliation."

Man, sure sounds like their being white is his big complaint. Or else he really could have phrased that better. Of course, you can have a commitment to 'racial justice', or you can have a commitment to "justice", but not both, and he's made his choice.

Oh, by the way, I have South African friends who keep up with events there, and, yeah, there's a genocide going on, even if acknowledging it isn't politically correct.

[Sarcastr0]

Handwaved Whattaboutism to justify lying.

Fuck you.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, by the way, I have South African friends who keep up with events there, and, yeah, there's a genocide going on, even if acknowledging it isn't politically correct.

Or sane or honest.

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

As far as you understand it, is there anything going on with White farmers in South Africa?

[David Nieporent]

Sure.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, isn't that standard journalistic practice at this point? To paraphrase people deceptively, and pretend you were quoting them?

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

[bernard11]

by the way, I have South African friends who keep up with events there, and, yeah, there's a genocide going on, even if acknowledging it isn't politically correct.

Can't help but wonder about the political leanings of those friends.

[jb]

Here's an article that includes what he actually said.

[ThePublius]

I just read that, and what he actually said in the video I linked doesn't appear in that interview transcription.

[ThePublius]

To put a sharper point on it, the article you link is NOT what he "actually said" in the video I posted.

[jb]

You're right. Looks like he did two different interviews. Although the language is similar enough in both that you get the same gist either way.

[ThePublius]

I have transcribed his statement in the video:

"We can't be ourselves in the Episcopal Church and take this step of resettling White Afrikaners from South Africa. Our church has a long commitment to racial justice and reconciliation, and we have historical ties the Episcopal Church of South Africa. Desmond Tutu has been a partner in this work for us, so we're just not able to take this step. It's not in line with anything that we're about and...."

[Sarcastr0]

Neato elipsis.

Almost like you know it's deceptive.

[ThePublius]

That's where the video ended. Feel free to augment it.

[Estragon]

“where the video ended”

Well, no— that’s where whoever edited this stopped. Did you think that Rowe just stopped speaking mid-sentence?

[ThePublius]

I searched for the whole video, to no avail. If you can find it, I'll view it. But, honestly, I don't think any additional context can alter what he says in the clip I linked, unless he just goes on to repudiate what he just said.

[Estragon]

“Feel free to augment”

See, even you implicitly acknowledge there is more to the video than what you have provided here.

For someone who seems very engaged with this topic, it’s a curious kind of intellectual curiosity to be satisfied by something so obviously truncated without seeking out the full context. But you go do you.

The nice thing about “libs are the real racists” is that it is evergreen and doesn’t require much, if any engagement. Reflexive in a way— like tying one’s shoe. It’s also convenient in that it obviates any need to grapple with what the person is saying.

[ThePublius]

There is no additional context that could alter the fundamental message Rowe communicates here - that he can't condone or support resettling white South Africans. That's racist, on its face. Period.

I don't have the rest of the video, but if you do, I'm happy to view it.

[David Nieporent]

The context shows that he meant that he can't condone or support resettling white [as I understand it, actually just Afrikaner] South Africans instead of far more desperate people.

It's one thing (though false) to say that we don't have the capacity to accept refugees at this time. It's quite another to say, "Yeah, except the well-to-do white ones." That's just pure trolling to the extent it isn't pure racism.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that he didn't quite express it that way, he expressed it in terms that appear to make the resettlement of whites a separate issue, an additional objection.

If he'd just said they were dropping out of the program because too many people were being rejected, that would have been different, but it really does sound like he also objected to these people being included.

[Sarcastr0]

You're taking the deceptive editing as the real meaning, aren't you?

[Estragon]

“he can't condone or support resettling white South Africans”

Well, not really. I think what he’s saying is accurately reflected in the quote above— they are ending their participation in this federal program because they view the widespread, broad based rejection of deserving refugees in dire and dangerous conditions in order to have these South Africans jump to the front of the line to be against their values.

At some point this gripe also runs into one of the internal contradictions so common in the MAGAverse— I thought you guys were completely in favor of eliminating these programs? See, e.g. Bob’s comment below. So it’s another grant that doesn’t have to be made! Isn’t DOGE happy with that? And if the plight of these poor benighted South Africans is so pressing, one would expect other denominations— perhaps yours?— to pick up the slack and apply for these grants. What’s the big deal?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Not our problem", wasn't it?

[grb]

ThePublius : "Feel free to augment it."

Questions:

1. Didn't you anticipate your phony quote would be immediately exposed?

2. The U.S. is no longer accepting Afghan refugees who worked with us during the war. They face a strong possibility of imprisonments or death if returned to their country. And we are no longer accepting refugees facing worst oppression in Central and South American than these South Africans. So why the exception from them? Can you come up with any excuse for your Cult God other than the obvious one: This is a direct play to the sizable racist component of Trump's political base.

3. And what's your opinion, ThePublius? Are you fine with - say - the Afghans rejected but (white) South Africans getting a special exception? If so, why?

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

Better question:

Why are you fine with millions of brown illegals, but 50 Whites is just a bridge too far?

[ThePublius]

It's not a phony quote. It was the headline of the widely distributed video of Sean Rowe, and I put it in quotes since they weren't my words. I should have been more careful in that people took it as a quote from Rowe, and it wasn't an exact quote. But, it exactly represents the gist of what Rowe said.

Search for "It's against what we stand for to help white refugees fleeing South Africa" and see for yourself.

I don't know about the Afghan situation. If it's as you say, we should help them, too.

I do know that the situation in SA for the Boers is dire. To say that there are others facing worse oppression - worse than being driven off your farms and murdered - is disingenuous.

The left always sees everything through the racist lens, it seems. You would presumably be happy if Trump only helped non-white people, but then, I'm sure you'd find something to rail against even in that case.

[Sarcastr0]

You use "widely distributed video" as though that gives it credibility.

When I Google, I see a great list of twitter accounts and right-wing blogs that are irresponsible to trust without checking further.

The fact that you not only didn't check, but are *still defending the lie* says a lot about you.

Your pivot to attacking the commenter calling you out for passing off a lie is another demonstration that you're not a serious person.

[ThePublius]

What lie? What are you talking about? Are you saying that Rowe didn't actually say those things in the video, that it is a deep fake or something?

[ThePublius]

Rather than attack me, call me a liar, and so on, why don't you weigh in on what Rowe has said and what he says he will do. Do you support his racist stand? If so, why?

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

Classic midwittery.

Picking nits and insulting the commentor.

Easy way to think you look smart while not actually being smart.

[JohnSmith97]

"Kill the boer" is just a slogan, right?

"What the instigators of this falsehood seek is not safety, but impunity from transformation. They flee not from persecution, but from justice, equality, and accountability for historic privilege."

I guess killing someone is a kind of transformation.

[David Nieporent]

I do know that the situation in SA for the Boers is dire.

Sure it is. To quote Wayne Campbell: Not!

Did you see the staged photo op where the first "refugees" arrived and were given American flags to wave? Did they look like they were fleeing for their lives with nothing? I'm not saying that it's a bed of roses for them there, but they're not facing anything like the suffering that Latin Americans and Middle Easterners who MAGA sneer at are.

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

This, from the European Parliament in 2018:

"In South Africa, white farmers have for years been exposed to an unprecedented wave of violence. Statistically, a farm is attacked every day in South Africa. South Africa has the world’s highest murder rate, but the murder rate among white South Africans is three times higher than the national average, while that of white farmers is six times higher. Often, the victims are tortured and ill-treated for hours before being killed.

Since the end of apartheid in 1994, up to 4 000 white farmers have been murdered. The police investigate these crimes only half-heartedly. The organisation ‘Genocide Watch’ warns of the threat of genocide."

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-000476_EN.html

(Copy & Pasted from ThePublius so David Notimportant can't continue to ignore it)

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, as with generative AI, you have to check everything these trolls say.

That report from the European Parliament on the situation in South Africa (7 years ago) sounds pretty bad, yes. Ah, but is that a report from the European Parliament? It is not.

That is a question posed by one neo-Nazi member of the Parliament to an EU official.

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

Oh I see. It's just nazi propaganda and nothing is happening to White farmers in South Africa.

Sure thing, David Denileporent.

[David Nieporent]

Correct.

If there were a burgeoning genocide somewhere, I would not expect 100% of the target group to react. Denial is a powerful force, and people who have built lives somewhere often prefer to be optimistic and assume that if they just put their heads down and try not to attract attention, the threat will pass. But I would expect a significant percentage to try to escape. Especially if they were given a safe and easy way to do so.

And yet, according to the Trump administration's own figures, about 0.3% of Afrikaners even inquired about Trump's generous totally non-racist offer to let them come here without any bureaucracy or delay.

[ducksalad]

My question is why are there 49 of them?

Option 1 - 4.5 million white South Africans are facing genocide, but Trump, in an act of heartless cruelty, is only admitting 49 of them for show while leaving the other 4,499,951 to die horrible violent deaths.

Option 2 - Out of 4.5 million white South Africans, a total of 49 believe they're going to be killed and need to take the US refugee offer. I'd be surprised if the percentage of white Americans who believe the same was that low.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I thought Trump wasn't taking in people from "shithole countries"?

[Mr. Bumble]

On the bright side:
"RNS) — In a striking move that ends a nearly four-decades-old relationship between the federal government and the Episcopal Church, the denomination announced on Monday (May 12) that it is terminating its partnership with the government to resettle refugees, citing moral opposition to resettling white Afrikaners from South Africa who have been classified as refugees by President Donald Trump’s administration."
https://religionnews.com/2025/05/12/episcopal-church-ends-refugee-resettlement-citing-moral-opposition-to-resettling-white-afrikaners/

[ThePublius]

This, from the European Parliament in 2018:

"In South Africa, white farmers have for years been exposed to an unprecedented wave of violence. Statistically, a farm is attacked every day in South Africa. South Africa has the world’s highest murder rate, but the murder rate among white South Africans is three times higher than the national average, while that of white farmers is six times higher. Often, the victims are tortured and ill-treated for hours before being killed.

Since the end of apartheid in 1994, up to 4 000 white farmers have been murdered. The police investigate these crimes only half-heartedly. The organisation ‘Genocide Watch’ warns of the threat of genocide."

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-000476_EN.html

[Sarcastr0]

This is NOT a statement from the European Parliament.

It is a question submitted by Udo Voigt.
He's a Neo-Nazi.

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

[ThePublius]

Indeed it is. Is any of it untrue?

[Sarcastr0]

You just lied to launder a neo-Nazi's take as though it was from the EU.

Don't try and pretend otherwise.

And yes, of course it's not true. Nazis are liars.
"https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.36ZD7HY"

[Brett Bellmore]

And you probably think it was the Boers who were necklacing people, not the ANC.

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course led by the likes of Nelson's wife.
From Wiki:
Madikizela-Mandela endorsed the necklacing of alleged police informers and apartheid government collaborators, and her security detail carried out kidnapping, torture, and murder,[18][19][9] most notoriously the killing of 14-year-old Stompie Seipei[5][20][21] whose kidnapping she was convicted of.[22]

[Brett Bellmore]

He just can't believe that a government founded by a terrorist movement like the ANC would do anything that bad.

[Sarcastr0]

TP lied to grant unearned authority to a neo-Nazi.

When I pointed this out, you attacked me with a 'you probably think' which is so weak I wonder why you bothered.

Except you really wanted to support the Nazi guy's take.

[JohnSmith97]

So you actually don't care if it is true or not, you just need to attack the messenger.

Not going to address "kill the boer" or the statement from the ANC?

Or are you waiting for DN to claim those press releases and videos are fakes?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

As if anyone really needs to "debunk" claims made by neo-Nazis...

But he cared enough to provide this rebuttal: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.36ZD7HY

Enjoy!

[shawn_dude]

You do know who Bishop Desmond Tutu was, right? And how that matters here?

[Estragon]

“Taking sacks of goodies from people who support Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Jazeera, all the rest, that’s not America first. Like, please define America first in a way that says you should take sacks of cash from the Qatari royals who are behind al-Jazeera. It just isn’t America first in any conceivable way.”

[hobie]

Don't forget Qatar is a Shia ally of Iran who would love to hack his crypto and Stuxnet the new brib...er...jet

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm sure you will agree with me that we should stop Qatar from spending hundreds of millions funding programs at US colleges, withdraw the Biden designation of "major non NATO ally" and close the forward HQ for Central Command.

[Estragon]

“We cannot accept a $400 million "gift" from jihadists in suits. The Qataris fund the same Iranian proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah who have murdered US Service Members. The same proxies that have worked with the Mexican cartels to get jihadists across our border.”

[Bob from Ohio]

Then I'm sure you will agree with me that we should stop Qatar from spending hundreds of millions funding programs at US colleges, withdraw the Biden designation of "major non NATO ally" and close the forward HQ for Central Command. Right?

[fatnastyretiredguy]

What? No comments about J. Luttig's opinion piece in The Atlantic, "The End of the Rule of Law"

[SRG2]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/law-america-trump-constitution/682793/

Superb article

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

News Headlines No Democrat Has Heard, Part Deux

- Over a Recent Two Year Period, The Artic Gained TWO HUNDRED BILLION TONS of Ice.
- After Provided National Security Information, Judge Rules AEA is Lawful For Deportation of TdA Militants (Current Democrat Heroes and Voters)
- Democrat Lawmakers Assaulted ICE Workers Face Charges
- Democrat Judge Who Insurrected Against ICE/Sacred Democracy Was Indicted

[David Nieporent]

I dunno about the first one, but the doctrine of noscitur a sociis (not the commenter here) says that it's a lie because the other ones are.

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

https://scitechdaily.com/antarcticas-astonishing-rebound-ice-sheet-grows-for-the-first-time-in-decades/

Since the first one is true, the rest must also be true. Noscitur a sociis and all that.

[JasonT20]

The global warming hiatus (or pause) was true, too, right?

Come back when there is more than one research paper about this and after several more years of data have been collected. At least, if your point is to try and say that climate change is no big deal or is not happening.

If, on the other hand, you just want to make a note of a recent report that seems different than the trend from the last 20+ years, to say, "Huh, that's interesting," great. Learning about ongoing research into a major question is always valuable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Frankly, if they could go years and years like that, getting the global temperature wrong, I don't see how anybody SHOULD have been taking them seriously.

[JasonT20]

Frankly, if they could go years and years like that, getting the global temperature wrong, I don't see how anybody SHOULD have been taking them seriously.

You mean we shouldn't have been taking the "skeptics" seriously that were wrong about there being a "pause" or "hiatus" in the temperatures? I would agree with that.

Oh, you seem to think that we shouldn't trust climate scientists because the different groups crunching the numbers to get a global mean temperature over time had been underestimating it. Yeah, that makes sense. Now we can go back to thinking that everything is fine, and that the world isn't getting warmer! Huh?

There is no winning scientific arguments with people that won't argue scientifically.

Scientists: "The Earth is getting warmer. The data is clear on that. The recent trend isn't showing as much as we expected, though."
Climate 'skeptics': "Aha! Told you we don't need to worry about it. Don't believe the Alarmists."
Scientists: "Okay, fine. We'll look deeper into what is going on to see if we can explain why the trend isn't what we thought."
Climate 'skeptics': "Right, like we'll trust what you have to say. We know already that the Earth isn't warming."
Scientists: "Okay, better data and analysis shows that it has been warming consistently for decades, and that the so-called "pause" didn't really exist."
Climate 'skeptics': "Well, we were clearly correct not to trust you to get things right! We're definitely not going to believe you now. You're just manipulating things to get the answer you want!"

People that are actually skeptical don't behave like that. Instead, they want to know what is correct and will put in the work to understand the issue. When the people doing the work come back with an analysis that they say is better and more thorough, a skeptic would be highly motivated to examine that new data and analysis to see if it really is more reliable and accurate.

But you haven't done that. Instead, you've assumed that the fact that they did do more research and came up with a different answer is proof in itself that their conclusions shouldn't be trusted.

If your hypotheses are one or more of the following, what would you accept as evidence that they are wrong?

a) The global climate (on average) is not warming.
b) If it is warming, it isn't due to human activity.
c) If it is due to human activity, it won't be bad, or it might even be good.
d.) If it is going to be bad (for where you live), doing anything about it would be pointless and/or too expensive.

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

So, don't trust the science?

Can you articulate a scenario where the earth's global temperatures are rising to extinction level while also gaining billions in tons of ice?

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, it's fairly easy to square global warming and polar ice accumulation. You don't get a lot of snow at the poles on account of it actually being so darned cold that the air can't hold any moisture. (About 2" of precipitation a year!) A rise in temperature at the poles could quite easily result in a rise in snowfall.

It's the "to extinction level" that's the problem. We're still at a point where more people die of cold than heat, and it would take a huge increase relative to what's currently predicted to generate any risk of human extinction at all.

The extremely unlikely high end projections get the media attention, but the actual consensus prediction for the end of the century, if the models are accurate, is about 2 degrees C.

And what usually gets no press at all, is that this increase in the average doesn't consist of ALL the temperatures moving up. It consists of milder winters and warmer nights, mostly, with the highs hardly budging.

[shawn_dude]

This is a misunderstanding of the extinction risk of global warming.

While more people will die from heat (see 40c temps in Australia), the real impact will be an increase in disease and famine.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, because it's just assumed that any change in the weather will result in disease and famine. Because people never adapt to changing conditions. And balmy nights have always been followed by epidemics!

Look, the connection between CO2 and global temperatures is complicated enough as it is, connecting a slight rise in winter and nighttime temperatures to famine and disease is even more speculative. The "famine and disease" crew are the same people who were trumpeting the unrealistic upper end predictions.

[Sarcastr0]

Adapting sucks, Brett. And at some point you can't adapt.

the connection between CO2 and global temperatures is complicated enough
No, it really isn't. It's a really simple model, and nothing about the physics has been touched in decades of the right trying to.

All they've got is chaff.
----
I'm not an extinction is for sure guy, or a radical about it. I think there's a ton of geoengineering and carbon capture work left to do.

But the arguments that it's not a thing are incredibly thin. And the argument that we should live it up and accept the consequences is just irresponsible.

It's the argument you make about debt, except here it's pretty easy physics and not outcome-oriented misunderstood economics.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, it really isn't. It's a really simple model, and nothing about the physics has been touched in decades of the right trying to."

No, Sarcastr0, it's NOT a simple model. If the Earth were a dry cueball, yeah, it would be simple. Once you add water and especially life, it gets ridiculously complex.

The truth of the matter is that weather is just lousy with all sorts of feedbacks which are ill understood; Depending on altitude, clouds can warm or cool, weather affects plant growth, that in turn affects weather.

The simple Arrhenius warming that any high schooler can model is already basically saturated, you only get significant warming from additional C02 due to its effects on things like humidity levels.

That's why the models actually are chock full of empirical parameters, which actually dictate their outcome.

If it were just simple physics, that wouldn't be the case.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, it's just thermodynamics with a touch of radiation physics.

Your complexity is you jumping to individual weather events. That's you not actually engaging with the material at it's basic level.

I agree, the *effects* of warming are complex. the fact of it, and that humans love of hydrocarbons as a driver, is not.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, it's just thermodynamics with a touch of radiation physics."

Right, just like biology is just chemistry, and chemistry is just particle physics. In exactly that way.

Again, if it were just applied physics, you wouldn't have all those empirical constants and forcing parameters, you'd just enter the actual measured geography, and everything else would fall out of the physics.

Sure, for the world it's just physics. For the models, not really.

[Sarcastr0]

The whole *thing* about thermodynamics is that it's miraculously easy, if you just care about a collective (i.e. average) variable of the system like pressure or temperature then it all evens out to single variable calculous.

That's why thermo if my favorite.

Yeah, if you want localized pressure and temp it gets more complicated very quickly. But that's not the question being asked.

[Brett Bellmore]

As an engineer, I am, of course, familiar with thermodynamics. It does make SOME things about climate absurdly easy.

For instance, I didn't need NOAA to tell me that most global warming would be near the poles, in the winter, and at night. That was indeed basic thermodynamics, it drops right out of the 4th power rule for thermal radiation, and the fact that what we're discussing here isn't increased insolation, but instead a general increase in the atmosphere's opacity in the IR range.

OTOH, basic physics and thermodynamics won't tell you diddly about how clouds interact with CO2 and IR radiation, since clouds can lead to heating OR cooling depending on altitude and time of day. That's just too difficult to do from first principles, which, again, is why the models we're discussing are based on empirical forcing constants, NOT basic physics.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the fourth time I've told you I'm talking about system-wide variables and you've descoped to a different question.

Is the trend of average temperature atmosphere-wide, increasing causally connected to CO2 levels increasing or do you not think that's established?

No clouds fine-grained effects, no weather, no poles.

System wide. Let thermo be thermo.

[JasonT20]

This is the fourth time I've told you I'm talking about system-wide variables and you've descoped to a different question.

We've been wasting our time. It is hard not to engage, when we see bad arguments, but there is no way to beat a pigeon at chess.

I asked Brett this above:

If your hypotheses are one or more of the following, what would you accept as evidence that they are wrong?

a) The global climate (on average) is not warming.
b) If it is warming, it isn't due to human activity.
c) If it is due to human activity, it won't be bad, or it might even be good.
d.) If it is going to be bad (for where you live), doing anything about it would be pointless and/or too expensive.

As soon as we see that someone is switching topics around, not engaging with our points, and generally avoiding evidence that contradicts their beliefs, we need to ask them, "What would you accept as sufficient evidence that what I am saying is at least likely to be true, and/or what you are saying is wrong?" If they dodge or deflect that, then we should just stop. There would be no point in continuing.

Neil deGrasse Tyson tells a story about this that fits what's happening here well.

https://youtu.be/ZPywdAAlLr8?si=fkX5HAOALzJUD5xZ&t=218

[JasonT20]

Can you articulate a scenario where the earth's global temperatures are rising to extinction level while also gaining billions in tons of ice?

Too many false premises and a straw man in that question to answer it directly. I'll summarize what all of this is about instead.

The decades long trend in the mass of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIC, which is basically all of the individual sections and glaciers taken as one mass) seemed to reverse over the last few years (2021-2023, specifically. 2024 data isn't included, yet, if it exists). The GRACE experiment to measure the mass of the AIC was actually two missions that started in 2002. That data shows that it has lost ~2000 Gigatons of mass since 2002. For the first decade of the experiment, it showed the AIC losing ~75 Gt/yr of ice. Then the loss rate increased to ~140 Gt/yr through 2020. So, the two years of gain at a rate of ~100 Gt/yr has not been going on for long enough to offset that 2 trillion ton loss. It also doesn't mean that all parts of the AIC have gained. It also doesn't mean that it will continue for any length of time. Some large sections are still losing a lot of mass, and that will reduce their ability to hold back inland glaciers. Two years of increase out of more than two decades of loss is not something to feel relieved about.

The loss of ice on land inevitably means higher sea levels. The oceans also increase in volume from thermal expansion, so a warming planet means higher sea levels for both reasons. No one I've ever heard is talking about "extinction level" changes on any time scale relevant to us, so that is just a straw man.

What sea level rise we can reasonably project, though, does mean salt-water intrusion of water tables, erosion, less protection from tropical cyclones due to loss of barrier islands, etc. ~15% of the human population worldwide lives within a few miles of a coastline, so I'd say every foot of sea level rise will have a significant impact. And projections put sea level rise by 2100 as at least 1 foot, maybe 3 or more (1 meter or more) at the high end of uncertainties if emissions continue to grow at current rates.

"Extinction level"? Of course not. But it is not insignificant, and given that reducing reliance of fossil fuels has many secondary benefits, I don't see why we shouldn't pursue alternative energy sources vigorously.

[grb]

JasonT20 : "Too many false premises and a straw man in that question to answer it directly."

Look on the bright side: At least were not back in the days when the existence of snowballs disproved climate change:

“In case we have forgotten because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record,” said Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, while holding the lumpy snowball in his hand. “I asked the chair, do you know what this is? It’s a snowball just from outside here. So it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable.”

https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change/index.html

Get the impression right-wingers aren't serious about the overall state of climate science?

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

Dear ChatGPT, please respond this guys ChatGPT copy & paste.

[JasonT20]

Sure. No answer to the facts, accuse me of using a chatbot without evidence. Seems like a pattern.

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

Well, I'm sorry to hurt your feelings. I had assumed it was shitty prompt, because it seemed to defeat an argument not made by me.

Here's the pull quote:
"Then the loss rate increased to ~140 Gt/yr through 2020. So, the two years of gain at a rate of ~100 Gt/yr has not been going on for long enough to offset that 2 trillion ton loss. "

So what? The recent increases in ice mass doesn't need to eclipse the total loss in order to undermine the arguments behind global warming.

They only need to be recent, record breaking, increases.

I had just assumed had a human read my comment and wrote a response they wouldn't create an argument made of straw then proceed to tear it down.

My bad. Sometimes I get lost and think I'm around my peers.

[JasonT20]

So what? The recent increases in ice mass doesn't need to eclipse the total loss in order to undermine the arguments behind global warming.

They only need to be recent, record breaking, increases.

...

Let me explain this simply. Say you're hiking down a trail where the marker at the start showed that the total elevation change is -500 ft. You've been going downhill for a little while, but you know you've only gone down 100 ft or so in elevation so far. Then you come to a point where you have to hike up a rise for a few hundred feet and you can't see over the rim. Would you take that as proof that the trail marker was wrong and that the trail will level off after you get to the top of that rise? Or maybe it will even go up again?

I could go on to all kinds of other analogies where the long term trend in some measured quantity is clearly in one direction, but there is still some variation in shorter time frames where the changes are in the opposite direction. Measured quantities like ice mass, sea ice area, precipitation, and temperature are going to always have reasons to vary from year to year that are independent of the longer trends.

But, I'm sure I'm wasting my time arguing with pigeons.

My bad. Sometimes I get lost and think I'm around my peers.

You're leaving yourself wide open there...

[shawn_dude]

Salt water intrusion, stronger wind events, widely variable rain amounts, and larger swings in temperatures will massively reduce crop yields in even the most technologically advanced countries. In areas where the median low temperature rises sufficiently along with rainfall, tropical diseases will spread. Wildfires will erase forests which will change local growing conditions and could increase desertification. It won't happen overnight, but the cumulative impact will drive migration, border security issues, and armed conflict.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot "the sky is falling" Chicken Little.

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

The only thing that can save us from this parade of horribles?

Giving trillions to a UN agency for the bureaucrats to redistribute in the name of climate justice!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yellowstone Park erupting is a bigger threat.

[Kazinski]

Here's one showing that we are in a current phase with the coldest temperatures in the last 66 million years using Oxygen Isotope temperature proxies.

Chart only
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/a9a08fc5-3272-4263-b7e6-5f7b2efe934f/rog20033-fig-0001-m.jpg

Paper:
Cenozoic climate changes: A review based on time series analysis of marine benthic δ18O records
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013RG000440

The Cenozoic, our current geologic era laughs at your puny 1.5c of warming.

[hobie]

Newsmax just broke this story today:

It was revealed that Hunter Biden and his crime family had been given special dispensations from the governments of the UAE, Qatar, Bulgaria and Serbia to build resorts for the Big Guy. Also, Hunter accepted a jumbo jet from the Qatari government. Also, the sovereign wealth fund of the UAE invested two billion dollars into the Biden crypto scheme. If you add this to his 10 million salary from Burisma and his oil paintings, it paints a damning picture of massive influence peddling by the Biden crime family

[JasonT20]

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2025/05/14/democrats-plan-to-fly-qatar-a-lago-banner-at-trumps-home-in-palm-beach-to-troll-him-over-gift-of-luxury-airliner/

[rloquitur]

'rats are so silly.

[hobie]

My apologies. I completely forgot the $500M Elon paid to the Biden family bank acco...er...Super PAC so he (Elon) could play president.

As well as Hunter selling access to the White House for those buying Biden crypto coin

[grb]

Not to be critical, but you also missed the Saudi government giving Jared ..... I mean Hunter! ..... a $2 billion investment fund to manage. This was in spite of the Saudi fund managers recommending against giving the contract to him:

"A panel that screens investments for the main Saudi sovereign wealth fund cited concerns about the proposed deal with Mr. Kushner’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, previously undisclosed documents show. Those objections included: “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management”; the possibility that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk”; due diligence on the fledgling firm’s operations that found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects”; a proposed asset management fee that “seems excessive”; and “public relations risks” from Mr. Kushner’s prior role as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, former President Donald J. Trump, according to minutes of the panel’s meeting last June 30."

But Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman intervened and the award was made. As a spoiler alert, two years later the fund had (predictably) underperformed :

"The private equity firm run by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former President Donald J. Trump, has been paid at least $112 million in fees since 2021 by Saudi Arabia and other foreign investors, even though as of July it had not yet returned any profits to the governments largely bankrolling the firm."
Mr. Wyden asked why Affinity Partners had not “distributed a penny of earnings back to clients,” and suggested that perhaps it was set up primarily as a way for foreign entities to pay the Kushners rather than a typical fund in which partners reap the returns of deployed capital."

“Affinity’s investors may not be motivated by commercial considerations but rather the opportunity to funnel foreign government money to members of President Trump’s family, namely Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump,” Mr. Wyden wrote in a letter to Affinity this week, asking two dozen questions."

"Mr. Kushner, in interviews with The Times, acknowledged that his firm had moved slowly at first to invest the $3 billion it had collected from its investors since it formed in 2021. He said that was, in part, because a flood of venture capital moving into markets made it difficult initially to find attractive deals. That meant a delay in generating profits to return money to his investors."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/us/politics/kushner-private-equity-saudi-arabia.html

[Estragon]

Kushner went to the Saudis with literally a 2 page deck and they gave him $2b. What a joke.

[hobie]

"because a flood of venture capital moving into markets made it difficult initially to find attractive deals."

So this tells me that Affinity Partners pitched a plan that had no secure deals, such that once they got the moolah, THEN they would start hunting around. Them Saudi's must have been promised something huge by The Big Guy that they would consent to this robbery

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Those stories pre-dated the late-2024 $1.5bn investments in Affinity Partners from UAE and...[drumroll, please]...the Qatar Investment Authority.

I'm guessing Jared--sorry, Hunter!--is still yet to return any profits to any of his "investors" to date.

[Kazinski]

That does seem like surprising news about the Bidens, I thought they were broke.

If they already had a portfolio of 18 golf resorts, 7 of them international in Scotland, Dubai, Oman, Ireland, Indonesia, it wouldn't be too surprising that they would add 2 more hotels to the 7 hotels they already have in 3 countries, in 2 more countries where they are already operating golf resorts.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Arapahoe District Attorney's Office is defending its decision to give probation and community service to a teenager who was driving illegally and, in the country illegally, when he killed a woman.
The accident happened last July in Aurora. The victim, Kaitlyn Weaver, was headed home from work when a Jeep, barreling through a residential neighborhood, slammed into her car. The speed limit in the area was 45 mph. Investigators say the driver was doing more than 90 mph." By Shaun Boyd Updated on: May 13, 2025 / 10:18 PM MDT / CBS Colorado

Needles to say, the DA is a Democrat.

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

You can actually kill a citizen as an illegal and get a wrist slap in Democrat districts.

Imagine if that were a White teen who killed an illegal or a black?

Her and her parents would be facing the death penalty.

[Estragon]

Sean Duffy:

“It’s safe and that’s because we have numerous redundancies in place at the FAA […] So when you have issues with your telecom, we slow down traffic, which is exactly what we’ve done at Newark. And then even if you lose telecom, like you saw twice in the last two weeks, there’s procedures in place with the air traffic controllers and for pilots. And so it’s safe.”

Sean Duffy:

“My wife was flying out of Newark tomorrow. I switched her flight to LaGuardia”

[jb]

In fairness, flights from Newark have been SUPER delayed. So even if you were convinced there wasn't a safety issue you would still want to book away from Newark if you could to improve the chance your flight would be on time.

Having said that, some of the failures seem pretty scary like when the ATC's lost the ability to see and communicate with all of the air traffic entirely. There are fallbacks, but it's incredibly busy airspace where the margins for error are (relatively) low.

[ThePublius]

You would think that since aircraft radio comms are very old, very simple technology, that they should be independent of the radar and other systems, and they shouldn't all go down at once and together; and that they could easily and cheaply have backup radios. Wouldn't you?

[jb]

You might think that, but since all the controllers are sitting in Philadephia and the radar and radio receivers are in Newark they have to run it all through some sort of communication system between the two sites. If that link goes down then you can lose both capabilities.

[ThePublius]

Ah, one egg, one basket. Maybe that's mistake no. 1. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have some real air traffic controllers on site in the control tower at Newark, for just such a case? Or, maybe have some measure of redundancy of communication links, Newark to Philadelphia?

I've worked on data center redundancy systems, and when one client's offices were destroyed at the WTC on 9/11, they didn't drop a single transaction, the system picked up and chugged along at the redundancy site. There's lots of dark fiber available all over the Northeast to support this.

The system is old and vulnerable, and needs to be overhauled, re-done.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, and it's Verizon.
They've had similar problems with FIOS and 911.

[Estragon]

Yes, that is fair.

[rloquitur]

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-prosecutor-offers-unlicensed-undocumented-teen-probation-deadly-crash/

You cannot hate Democrats enough. And now he's applying for asylum. NFW. Deport his ass.

[Estragon]

“You cannot hate […] enough”

Well. I suppose that’s one way to go through life

[rloquitur]

For all the bile in the anti-Trump crowd, I'd say look in the mirror.

[Sarcastr0]

You know, I've never seen Estragon post anything like 'You cannot hate Republicans enough.'

Do mirrors work differently where you come from?

[rloquitur]

Whatev. I think you got the drift.

[Estragon]

“got the drift”

To be perfectly honest, I don’t quite get the drift.

When confronted over your statement that there is not enough hate in this world, your response is to tell other people to “look in the mirror”?

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

Joan of Park has now reached almost $1M.

There's a real backlash brewing. At my rallies we call it "Nigger Fatigue".

[Ridgeway]

How do you hear through the hoods?

[Bob from Ohio]

"LANCASTER, S.C. (WBTV/Gray News) – Six undocumented immigrants, including three minors, were charged Monday in connection with a shooting that left a woman dead during an attempted robbery in South Carolina.

The deadly shooting happened just before midnight on May 2 along Riverside Road in Lancaster.

Officers said they found 40-year-old Larisha Thompson behind the wheel of her Honda Accord, dead from a gunshot wound.

Earlier in the evening, deputies said Thompson left her home nearby and headed to Rock Hill. She was alone. Family members lost contact with her, began searching, and found her dead in her car." WCSC TV 5 By Connor Lomis and Emily Van de Riet Published: May 13, 2025 at 3:39 PM EDT|Updated: 21 hours ago

They don't commit crimes!

[Frank Drackman]

But it was just a Black woman so nobody cares

[Moderation4ever]

So, let's prioritize getting these guys out of the country and not children getting chemotherapy.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, I'm for deporting every ill-legal, but I'd let the children finish their chemotherapy first

[jb]

This conversation is just as dumb and tiresome as when people find isolated incidents of voting fraud and think it proves something about whether or not elections are being rigged.

Hint: you're arguing against a claim absolutely no one is making.

[SRG2]

I have noted that one major difference between conservative thinking and liberal thinking, not restricted to this site, is that conservatives tend look at specific instances while liberals look at general statistics. I have yet to see a counter-instance from conservative posters here.

[Frank Drackman]

You noted incorrectly, every summer when it gets hot, and every winter when it gets cold the liberals go on and on about how that proves "Climate Change". Same with the blithering every time some Cameroonian College student gets into a US Med Screw-el, showing how great Immigration is.

[shawn_dude]

As jb noted, no one is making the claim that undocumented immigrants don't commit crimes. That's strawman weak sauce.

I tried to get the DOJ data on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants but the data was removed and replaced by a note that they are complying with an EO. I guess that data was inconvenient for them.

There's this from the Cato institute: https://www.cato.org/blog/why-do-illegal-immigrants-have-low-crime-rate-twelve-possible-explanations

Anecdotal evidence that specific individuals do commit crimes is not a shocker and doesn't disprove the fact that American Citizens are more likely to commit a crime than an immigrant.

[Bob from Ohio]

"American Citizens are more likely to commit a crime than an immigrant."

Bah. That is just vibes.

We do not have, and have never had, any comprehensive stats at all about who "commits a crime" because many, many crimes are not reported or are done by unknown or unidentified people. People don't wear placards with their citizenship or immigration status as they commit a crime.

We have incomplete, scattered and often unreliable stats on arrests and convictions and current prisoners. Lots of cities do not even ask arrestees about immigration status, the police are not allowed to do so.

[SRG2]

"American Citizens are more likely to commit a crime than an immigrant."

If you knew anything about human nature, you'd think it likely, nonetheless.

[Magister]

Is there any reason to believe that immigrants are so much better at not getting caught at crimes, such that the majority of crimes where we never find out who did it are done by immigrants so that the statistics we have would be reversed by full information?

It seems a significant failure of conservatives, who would prefer that the numbers be different and who want more deportations, that they have not prioritized collecting citizenship status for crimes where there are arrests or convictions.

[SRG2]

They think that Bayes was a radical Marxist

[Riva]

No Dugan outrage? Trolls didn't get their talking points yet? Why don't you just use some garbage AI tool to think for you as usual? The silence is deafening.

[jb]

Riva bot is mad that it has a bunch of canned responses that it can't use.

[rloquitur]

I think the left has caved, for the most part on Dugan. First of all, she is a grade-A asshole. She left the victims to sit and wonder what was up. And she prevented law enforcement from doing its job--all to aid a POS criminal. Let him live with her then.

Tactically, I'd accept a no-jail plea from her, but I'd love to see her in the pokey for five years.

[TaioF920]

I would love to see her forcibly poked in her nasty vaginal opening by one of the hispanic gang bangers she so claims to love.

[jb]

"caved"

If you go back to the initial discussion on this, most left-leaning posters agreed that what she did was bad and possibly illegal. I posted a link to the "steelman" version of the argument in her favor, but also said that it seemed pretty hard to defend that she took the defendant out through the jury room. I don't remember anyone lionizing her or justifying her actions. The response to the Letitia James mortgage fraud was roughly the same--I haven't seen a single person from the left trying to defend her.

I know you guys have to instinctively defend anything Trump or other people with (R)s next to their name do, but it turns out the other side of the political divide isn't a cult of personality!

[Riva]

Your parents' subscription to The NY Times must have run out, little parrot troll. They weren't too happy about it.

[jb]

Maybe you should go argue with people in the comments section over there in that case?

[Riva]

I'm not arguing with you. I'm mocking you. Still can't tell the difference after all you must have endured by now?

[Riva]

Wouldn’t really take much effort for me to respond but, apparently, lacking the requisite gang affiliations, she’s not worth defending. As soon as someone tells you what to think little parrot troll, do feel free to pass it along.

[not guilty]

Judge Dugan has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that she is immune from prosecution for actions taken in her judicial capacity. https://mynews13.com/content/dam/News/static/pdfs/wi/0514_Dugan_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

I disagree. Judicial immunity was not designed to insulate the judiciary from all aspects of public accountability. Judges are immune from civil damages actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but they are subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).

I understand why defense counsel are making the motion to dismiss in order to preserve the issue, but the claim appears to be foreclosed by precedent. Who knows what the current clowns of SCOTUS will do, though, if it eventually reaches them.

[Riva]

On current clowns of SCOTUS, I agree that is a generally applicable description as to some members of the Court.

[TaioF920]

Who is silent that shouldn't be?

[tylertusta]

How odd!

Very knowledgeable people in these very comments insinuated that the case against her was so weak that the government wouldn't even show it to a grand jury.

[not guilty]

I surmise that tylertusta is referring to me. I did not suggest that the government wouldn't present the case to a grand jury. IIRC I said that I would not be surprised if the grand jury did not indict.

[Magister]

More likely me; I thought they would stop short of an actual indictment, because the complaint mostly makes the agents look foolish, and the case looks weaker than the 2019 case in Massachusetts. But the purpose is to intimidate judges, and the Trump administration is probably not capable of self restraint.

Dugan's motion to dismiss apparently cites last year's Trump v. United States, which is amusing regardless of its legal effects.

[not guilty]

At arraignment this morning the acting U. S. Attorney reportedly said that he anticipated that the trial might take a week, with the possibility of an extended period of jury selection. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/us/milwaukee-judge-immigration-dugan.html The magistrate judge set a July trial date.

I don't know why a trial would take that long.

[not guilty]

I haven't yet found a pdf of the indictment online, but the FBI agent's affidavit supporting the criminal complaint (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/FBI_charging_document_against_Milwaukee_Judge_Hannah_Dugan.pdf) shows that this prosecution is a dog and pony show brought for in terrorem effect rather than upholding the rule of law.

One of the statutes charged, 18 U.S.C. § 1071, states:

Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. [Emphasis added.]

Actually preventing discovery and arrest of the subject of the warrant is an essential element of the offense. Judge Dugan's conduct did not prevent discovery and arrest of Eduardo Flores- Ruiz. Law enforcement officers at all relevant times knew where he was, and they effected the arrest just outside the courthouse building. Perhaps most importantly, Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the affidavit recite:

33. After leaving the Chief Judge's vestibule and returning to the public hallway, DEA Agent A reported that Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were in the public hallway. DEA Agent B also observed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney in the hallway near Courtroom 615 and noted that Flores. Ruiz was looking around the hallway. From different vantage points, both agents observed Flores-Ruiz and his counsel walk briskly towards the elevator bank on the south end of the sixth floor. I am familiar with the layout of the sixth floor of the courthouse and know that the south elevators are not the closest elevators to Courtroom 615, and therefore it appears that Flores-Ruiz and his counsel elected not to use the closest elevator bank to Courtroom 615. DEA Agent A followed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney towards the south elevator bank. At approximately 8:50 a.m, DEA Agent A alerted other members of the arrest team that DEA Agent A was on the elevator with Flores-Ruiz. While on the elevator, Flores-Ruiz and his attorney spoke to each other in Spanish, Which DEA Agent A did not understand. They exited the elevator on one of the bottom floors of the courthouse and used the Ninth Street public entrance/exit to leave the building. [Emphasis added.]

34. Having received the above-referenced information from DEA Agent A, other members of the arrest team scrambled to locate Flores-Ruiz and arrest him. DEA Agent B and FBI Agents A and 1 took another elevator down 10 one of the bottom floors of the courthouse and quickly exited the building onto th Street. After DEA Agent A notified the team that Flores-Ruiz was in the front of the courthouse near the flagpole, the agents ran towards the front of the courthouse. FBI Agent B and DEA Agent A approached Flores-Ruiz and identified themselves as law enforcement. Flores-Ruiz turned around and sprinted down the street. A foot chase ensued. The agents pursued Flores-Ruiz for the entire length of the courthouse and ultimately apprehended him near the intersection of W. State Street and 10th Street. Flores-Ruiz was handcuffed and detained. Around 9:05 a.m., or approximately 22 minutes after the arrest team first spotted Flores-Ruiz on the sixth floor of the courthouse, FBI Agent A communicated to the surveillance team that Flores-Ruiz had been arrested. Deportation Officer A and CBP Officer A were notified that Flores-Ruiz on the sixth floor of the courthouse, FBI Agent A communicated to the surveillance team that Flores-Ruiz had been arrested. Deportation Officer A and CBP Officer A were notified that Flores-Ruiz was in custody while they were still inside the courthouse speaking with the Chief Judge on the phone.

A DEA agent rode down the freaking elevator car with the subject of the administrative warrant. He could have made the arrest then or at any time before Flores-Ruiz left the building. It appears that the feds deliberately delayed making the arrest solely in order to heighten the drama. Judge Dugan did not harbor or conceal anyone.

[not guilty]

The language of § 1071, "so as to prevent his discovery and arrest," does not subsume a mere attempt to harbor or conceal. There is no general criminal attempt in federal criminal law. When Congress intends to prohibit the inchoate offense of attempt along with the substantive offense, it knows what language to employ.

For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) provides that anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation,” commits an offense.

[David Nieporent]

I am not as convinced as other anti-Trump people about the position you espouse. My areas of agreement:

1) The agents, for either dramatic reasons or out of cowardice, made the arrest of the guy much harder than it needed to be.
2) Assuming the arrest of the judge was legally legitimate, the manner in which they did so was pure politics. They could've gotten an arrest warrant and then called her to come in and surrender, and she would've. Instead, they decided to make a spectacle of it to send a message.

But the claim that she's innocent is less convincing to me. It seems likely to me (assuming the facts are as described) that she was trying to help the guy escape. First she diverted the agents to another judge's chambers. Then, while (she thought) the agents were all otherwise engaged, she cancelled the guy's hearing for no reason that has been explained, and ushered him out through a non-public door, again, for no reason that has been explained.

That her scheme was ineffective (in part because one of the agents had stayed in the hallway rather than meeting with the other judge) doesn't make it legal.

[not guilty]

David, as I pointed out, § 1071 does not encompass an unsuccessful attempt to harbor or conceal the subject of a warrant. The language, "so as to prevent his discovery and arrest," is not mere surplusage.

Judge Dugan's conduct as described in the affidavit was ill-humored and imprudent. It was not criminal according to the federal statutes charged, however.

[David Nieporent]

I have not — and frankly, do not intend to — dug into the caselaw interpreting the first statute, if any. But I think it likely that the courts would interpret the statute such that causing any delay in someone's discovery or arrest would constitute a completed offense; the person need not permanently evade arrest.

And as for the second offense, she obviously did not use threats or violence, but I don't see why the facts aren't sufficient to establish that she acted corruptly. I think you're giving her a lot more benefit of the doubt than you'd give, say, anybody in the Trump administration (up to the apex) on that adverb.

[David Nieporent]

And for future reference, here's the indictment rather than the affidavit: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111896/gov.uscourts.wied.111896.6.0.pdf

[not guilty]

"I have not — and frankly, do not intend to — dug into the caselaw interpreting the first statute, if any. But I think it likely that the courts would interpret the statute such that causing any delay in someone's discovery or arrest would constitute a completed offense; the person need not permanently evade arrest."

If the statute encompassed an attempt to conceal as well, as with 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), I would agree with you. Likewise, if the statute read "so as to prevent or delay his discovery and arrest," I would agree. But as Justice Scalia wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 618 (1992), "The question, however, is not what Congress 'would have wanted' but what Congress enacted . . ."

As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 76, 95 (1820):

The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals, and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the Judicial Department. It is the legislature, not the court, which is to define a crime and ordain its punishment.

[David Nieporent]

Likewise, if the statute read "so as to prevent or delay his discovery and arrest,"

Look, as a matter of pure logic, "prevent" must either mean "permanently prevent" or it means "prevent for a period of time." The first one would be a ridiculous reading of the statute, as one could never be charged with it unless the suspect died.

[not guilty]

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't get you too far.

"Prevent[ion]" here necessarily relates to the defendant's conduct. Here, Judge Dugan's actions delayed the arrest of Mr. Flores-Ruiz from no sooner that "approximately 8:43 a.m." when he entered the courtroom (affidavit, ¶18) until no later than "approximately 8:50 a.m." when he got on the elevator. (Affidavit, ¶33.) Further delay was attributable to the inexplicable timidity of DEA Agent A, who could have handcuffed him before he left the elevator.

Prevent and delay are different words with different meanings. As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other. Congress could have said "delay." It could have said "prevent or delay." It didn't.

[not guilty]

The other statute that Judge Dugan is charged with violating, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, states:

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

The first paragraph of the statute applies only to "any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such [civil investigative] demand" which is "duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act". That plainly does not apply to Judge Dugan's alleged conduct.

The second paragraph of the statute requires that the accused has acted "corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication". Judge Dugan is not alleged to have made threats or force, nor is she accused of having made any threatening letter or communication". Nothing in the affidavit supporting the criminal complaint suggests that Judge Dugan acted corruptly.

Statutes matter.

[Life of Brian]

Nothing in the affidavit supporting the criminal complaint suggests that Judge Dugan acted corruptly.

I take it that proposition must rely on a somewhat narrower definition of "corruptly" than the one you cheered on during the 1512(c) heyday.

[not guilty]

>i>Cui bono? Donald Trump and his cohorts were attempting to obtain a benefit for Trump that he was not lawfully entitled to. (Among other things, $1.6 million in salary for a four year term as President.) Judge Dugan here was not seeking any advantage or benefit.

Pissy and truculent do not equal corrupt.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that's what I figured. Back then, you were just peachy with the Robinson panel flatly rejecting the notion that "corruptly" required an intent to obtain a benefit, and in fact said you found the dissent's reasoning that such intent was required "unpersuasive."

As C_XY sagely predicted at the time, "when the shoe is on the other foot, then we will see what 'corruptly' actually means." And here we are.

[not guilty]

Au contraire, Life of Brian. In fact, I was consistent in saying that even if acting corruptly does require an intent to obtain an unlawful benefit, Donald Trump harbored such an intent.

And FWIW, the majority in United States v. Robertson, 103 F.4th 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2023), (not "Robinson,") approved the jury instruction that stated:

To act corruptly the defendant must use unlawful means, or act with an unlawful purpose, or both. The defendant must also act with consciousness of wrongdoing. Consciousness of wrongdoing means with an understanding or awareness that what the person is doing is wrong. Not all attempts to obstruct or impede an official proceeding involve acting corruptly. For example, a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding. But he does not act corruptly. In contrast, an individual who obstructs or impedes a court proceeding by bribing a witness to refuse to testify in that proceeding or by engaging in other independently unlawful conduct does act corruptly.

103 F.4th at 8. This instruction was substantially similar to the instruction requested at trial by the defense:

To act "corruptly," the defendant must use unlawful means or have a wrongful or an unlawful purpose, or both. An act is done "corruptly" if the defendant acted knowingly and dishonestly, with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the due administration of justice. The defendant must also act with "consciousness of wrongdoing." "Consciousness of wrongdoing" means with an understanding or awareness that what the person is doing is wrong or unlawful. Not all attempts to obstruct or impede an official proceeding involve acting corruptly. For example, a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding, but he does not act corruptly. In contrast, an individual who obstructs or impedes a court proceeding by bribing a witness to refuse to testify in that proceeding, or by engaging in other independently unlawful conduct, does act corruptly.

Id., at 8. After trial, Mr. Robertson shifted gears. In his posttrial motion for judgment of acquittal, he argued for the first time that the government did not prove that he acted corruptly because it did not show that he "acted knowingly and dishonestly with the intent to obtain an unlawful advantage for himself or an associate." Id., at 8.

On appeal Mr. Robertson did not challenge the jury instruction as given, but did challenge the sufficiency of evidence based on his belated theory of acting "corruptly." The majority observed: "Although Robertson previously endorsed most of the district court's definition, he now argues that a proper construction of 'corruptly' holds a different meaning. He claims that the term describes only 'an act dishonestly done "with a hope or expectation of either financial gain or other benefit to oneself or a benefit to another person."' Id., at 9-10.

The dissenting opinion in Robertson was unpersuasive when it wrongly asserted that "There is no evidence in the record suggesting Robertson obstructed the election certification proceeding in order to obtain an unlawful benefit for himself or someone else." Id., at 44. There was ample evidence that Mr. Robertson acted with intent for Donald Trump to obtain a benefit that Trump was not lawfully entitled to.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh...State Judge Dugan acted corruptly. She took affirmative actions to thwart (obstruct) Federal ICE agents present to execute a detention order (and eventual deportation).

It was not simply a matter of passive 'do nothing' resistance (which to me is perfectly acceptable, provided you accept the legal risk and consequence that goes with it).

[not guilty]

How does that evince corruption, XY? Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Ed. (2009) defines "corruptly" as:

In a corrupt or depraved manner; by means of corruption or bribery. • As used in criminal statutes, corruptly usu. indicates a wrongful desire for pecuniary gain or other advantage.

The relevant definition there of "corrupt" as an adjective is "Having an unlawful or depraved motive; esp., influenced by bribery."

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the substance of this debate, how are people here able to find these comments from years ago?

[Brett Bellmore]

You can do a search of your own comment history from account settings, if you remember a reply to somebody else's. But Reason went out of their way a while back to make the comments unindexable by search engines. You can find comments from before they did that, though, using an ordinary search engine query.

But I do get the impression some of us here have resources beyond that.

[Commenter_XY]

In the fullness of time, I was vindicated. 😉

(it drives them wild, LOB)

[Life of Brian]

In fact, I was consistent in saying that even if acting corruptly does require an intent to obtain an unlawful benefit

Sorry, Charlie, but "even if the court used the definition I think is wrong, I still win" is a fundamentally different position than "I agree with the definition, and think that's the one that should be used in all cases." The latter is what you need to have the slightest chance of not looking like a situational partisan hypocrite.

I know you know that, and the screen and a half of banging on trash cans is just an attempt to distract.

[JohnSmith97]

Maybe you should sign up as her lawyer then, NG.

[not guilty]

Well, I enjoyed my work, but I don't miss it. If I were advising Judge Dugan, and if she draws a decent district judge, I would suggest that she consider offering to waive a jury trial. (The prosecution and the District Court would have to agree, per Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(a).)

The impression I get from reading the affidavit is that she was a bit of a harridan.

[JohnSmith97]

I mean, you have been doing so well over the last few years with your "nobody is above the law" multipage "Trump will be in jail soon" posts.

Yet when it is a (D) doing more then slightly questionable things.. they are always pure as driven snow. Amazing how that works.

[not guilty]

I am as subject to confirmation bias as the next fellow. I have never pretended to be anything other than a partisan Democrat. That, however, is why I take care to support my contentions with relevant legal authorities and original source materials.

The contrast to the MAGA cult, I hope, is stark.

[shawn_dude]

The fortunate truth is that liberals are largely sensitive to accusations of hypocrisy and bias. We aren't immune but we see these things as moral failures.

Conservatives circa 2025? notsomuch.

[not guilty]

The District Court judge is a Clinton appointee with 20 years of state legislative experience before taking the bench. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Adelman

The processes of court here are being used for an improper purpose. I hope the judge spanks the DOJ.

[rloquitur]

The judicial immunity argument seems a stretch--was she on the record when she was directly communicating with the defendant? Was this legitimately part of a court proceeding?

[not guilty]

Judicial immunity of state court judges from criminal prosecution is not a thing. It applies only to civil damages actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judges are subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).

[grb]

There's never been any political entity as addicted to lies as today's Right:

"New academic standards in Oklahoma call for the teaching of "discrepancies" in the 2020 election results, continuing the spread of a false narrative years after it was first pushed by President Trump and his allies."

"It says students must "Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities and in key battleground states, the security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of 'bellwether county' trends."

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/14/nx-s1-5384282/oklahoma-education-standards-2020-election

After just a few hours without up-is-down lies, the average right-winger becomes sallow, feverish, & sweaty - like a crack addict who missed his fix.

[shawn_dude]

What about "yesterday's right?"

I think there needs to be more research into whether today's right is really more addicted to lies than all the decades between 1865 and whenever "todays' right official became its own thing. Do we attribute the Tea Party to being part of "today's right?" The Tea Party seemed very MAGA to me, but I'm no political scientist. Did "Today's Right" start with Roe v Wade? Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[grb]

My theory is this : It started back in the early-90s, with the emerging popularity of talk radio. Then right-wingers could enjoy a few daily hours of politics as a consumer product. Sure, facts got short shift and misinformation was rampant, but it was (so the reasoning went) "just entertainment".

Then came Fox News, and spectacle-based cartoon infotainment became a 24/7 commodity. People could sit in front of their TV screens and be continually served faux-outrage and slap-your-knees yuks - all designed & packaged for their viewing enjoyment. There was no need to return to hard news and inconvenient facts. The show they were provided was so much more fun.

Over time, spectacle and theater became all. A right-wing politician had to provide cartoon thrills lest he be tagged a "RINO". If you couldn't produce gaudy fireworks for viewers' consumer delight, you didn't belong on the stage. But this gradually started to warp the political world itself. First, you had the "Decider" with his cowboy cosplay, then followed Sarah Palin. And that ultimately led to the GOP's current freak caucus and our reality-TV president.

Whose endless grotesque lying doesn't disturb his consumer audience a bit. And why should it? By now, politics and governance were like a pro-wrestling match to them. You howl with rage at the villains and shriek with red-faced joy at the heroes. That it's completely fake doesn't change how fast your little heart pounds with excitement. You're getting the show you want. That's all that's important.

Thus Trump : From his scattershot DOGE theatrics with its fraud numbers, to the Liberation Day clown show with a formula written by a third-grader in crayon, to the frenzied chaotic effort to provide brown-skinned victims for MAGA pleasure, regardless of evidence or law, he's providing exactly the WWE entertainment his base wants. It doesn't have to the reasoned, rational, thought-out, productive, or sensible. Follow-thru isn't required. Sensible or factual are irrelevant. In fact, all that stuff just tends to get in the way. It's so much easier to roar with rage & joy over something totally fake.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bingo. And that’s a great irony is that they long for the past except they don’t long for the 3 networks controlling the flow of information. And keep in mind the airwaves were owned by the people and so Congress did have some control over the airwaves.

[not guilty]

I was born in 1955. The struggle for racial equality is the preeminent political and social issue of the years since.

"Today's Right" is the byproduct of desegregation. Prior to the mid-twentieth century, southern states routinely voted for Democrats. Calls for "massive resistance" to school desegregation, as well as passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 shook the roots of that ancestral party affiliation. Barry Goldwater in 1964, George Wallace in 1968 and Prick Nixon in 1972 carried multiple southern states. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was designed to solidify those Republican gains.

The Supreme Court's approval in 1971 of school busing to help achieve desegregation led to a significant increase in the number of private segregation academies. During the Carter Administration the Internal Revenue Service began to revoke the tax exempt status of these schools. Charlatans like Jerry Falwell, Sr. exploited the ensuing backlash to motivate self-styled "Christians" to make common cause with Republicans.

Ironically, the ideological godfather of today's Republican Party was a Democrat, George Wallace. In later years, he repudiated his racemongering and fomenting hatred.

[BrotherMovesOn]

And George Wallace died back in 98 and he's in Hell now, not because was a racist, his track record as a judge and his late life quest for redemption make a good argument for his being at worst, no worse than most white men of his generation, North or South ... But because of his blind ambition and his hunger for votes he turned a blind eye to the suffering of Black America, and he became a pawn in the fight against the civil rights cause.
Fortunately for him the Devil is also a Southerner ... So this song's gonna take place in Hell ... told from the Devil's point of view ... As he does what any good Southerner would do when company's coming ...
He brewed up some good Sweet tea, and he whoops up some Southern hospitality, for the arrival, of the new guest.

[not guilty]

Governor Wallace was an opportunist at heart. He turned race-baiter only after losing the 1962 Democratic primary for governor, when he vowed "to never be out-niggered again." I don't presume to know his current whereabouts in the afterlife.

[Frank Drackman]

Wallace won the black vote in Ali-bama every time he ran for erection, he wouldn't have won in 1982 without them.

[John F. Carr]

He's quoting from the album Southern Rock Opera. In recent years Patterson Hood has gone woke, or at least more liberal, and has changed some of the lyrics. I haven't heard the new version but Wallace might be in another place for another reason now.

[shawn_dude]

To be clear, I avoided "Democrat" and "Republican" precisely because of the change in the party dynamics where their magnetic poles flipped and Democrats ceased being conservative.

[JohnSmith97]

They could even talk about PA ignoring its own state constitution and how SCOTUS didn't care.

Since they won, Democrats didn't seem to care either.

[David Nieporent]

Pennsylvania did not ignore its own state constitution. (Note that SCOTUS is not legally competent to decide what the state constitution means.)

[JohnSmith97]

So wholesale changes to election procedure - which is well described in the PA state constitution - can be forced through without following the amendment process?

Even the legislature didn't think it worked that way. But oh well, (D) Gov, (D) SCoPA = who needs rules

[David Nieporent]

Even the legislature didn't think it worked that way.

The complaint you're raising — which is based on your personal interpretation of the Pennsylvania constitution rather than the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of the Pennsylvania constitution (guess which one is authoritative?) — was a challenge to a law passed by the (GOP controlled) Pennsylvania legislature.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do realize that the reason they write these constitutions and laws down, and make them public, is so that people don't have to take the government's word for what's in them, right? So that you can read them for yourself, and form your own independent opinion of whether or not they're being followed?

So, yes, the Pennsylvania Supreme court's interpretation of the Pennsylvania constitution is 'authorative', in the sense that nobody is in a position to overrule them. But not in the sense that people are somehow obligated to believe the court rather than their lying eyes.

[Martinned]

People can believe whatever they like, it's a free country (for now). But the law is whatever the court says it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only if you're a "legal realist". The rest of us understand the idea of a court being "wrong".

[Martinned]

I don't know that that's what legal realism means.

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

Anyway, it's perfectly coherent to say that a court should have decided differently than it did. I think I'm on record somewhere in this open thread saying exactly that about Trump v. United States. I have the same view about the Section 3 case against Trump and about United States v. Alvarez, the Stolen Valor Act case.

But the law as it actually is today is whatever the courts say it is. If you're advising your client about whether something is legal or not, you have to start from the jurisprudence as it stands. If your client wants to know, instead, whether they would win or lose if they'd end up in court there's room to take into account your best guess of the likelihood that the court will deviate from that jurisprudence, but then you're no longer talking about what the law *is*. That's, for example, exactly the difference between the OLC and the Solicitor-General's office.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's also perfectly coherent to say that the "law" is what got enacted, and court rulings are just judges' (binding) opinions about "the law". And from this perspective, you're capable of understanding that the judiciary can be wrong about what the law is.

Sure, the client wants to know what will happen in a courtroom, and judges opinions are more useful for that than the words of the actual law. But for those of us who do not practice law, it is useful to retain an understanding that judges' opinions and the law are distinct from each other.

[Sarcastr0]

it is useful to retain an understanding that judges' opinions and the law are distinct from each other.

That's not true, though. Plenty of people passionately and confidently thought Brown v. Board was super duper wrong.

That didn't change what the law is.

So, too, the overruling of Roe. Or any number of seismic decisions. The Court has a place in our society. In it's administration, and it's culture.
Your idiosyncratic takes on the Constitution do not.

[Martinned]

@Brett: A statute (or indeed the Constitution) is just words on a page until they are operationalised by a court in a case. In the court's judgment the words on the paper come to life, and become "les paroles de la loi" (to abuse-quote Montesquieu to say something he didn't believe).

[Sarcastr0]

You're thinking positivist, not legal realist. And you still don't understand how it works.

Lots of folks think the Court is wrong about lots of things. Trump v. US is a great example of this.

But it's you who think disagreeing with you makes the Court's ruling somehow not the law and illegitimate.

Hence BrettLaw.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Plenty of people passionately and confidently thought Brown v. Board was super duper wrong."

Plenty of people thought Slaugherhouse was super duper wrong, too; Were they wrong about that until Brown came along? The Slaughterhouse court was exactly right about the meaning of the 14th amendment, by definition, just like Taney was about the legal status of blacks?

This whole "the law changes on a dime every time a judge changes their mind" thing doesn't bother you one bit? You're not bothered by the idea that law originates with the judiciary, not the legislature?

This is just judicial supremacy thinking. It's meant to transform the judges from the umpires enforcing the rules, into a standing source of rules. The ump is never a crook, by definition!

No, screw that. The legislature originates the law, not the judiciary, who only apply it, and sometimes wrongly.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't get to delegitimize a branch of government because you've got strong opinions.

It appears you've balanced the ledger between Brown and Slaughterhouse.
That's kind of an amazing take - people's opinions don't matter, since there are people who think every court case is wrong.

Somehow your opinion is all that matters. Quite a prideful take.

You are not a branch of government.
The judiciary is.

And the judiciary is not an individual judge - quite the switcheroo you tried there.
It's an institution full of internal checks and balances.

It is not judicial supremacy to believe that it does have a job to say what the law is, and your job is not that. And in that sphere of responsibility it is supreme. That is not judicial supremacy. Even if Blackman keeps saying it is.

Brett is a branch of government. No matter how much you lack humility and think your opinion rules, your sphere of supremacy is you get to decide what you write on the Internet and that's about it.

[Mr. Bumble]

"But the law is whatever the court says it is."
Until it changes its mind?

[Martinned]

Yes. When the court changes its mind, the law changes.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the law changes when the words on the paper are formally altered. You have to retain a conception of the judiciary being "wrong".

[Martinned]

When words on the paper are formally altered, the "statute" or the "regulations" change. The law only changes if/when the courts give different judgments.

Like I said above, that doesn't mean you can't disagree with a court judgment. It just means that what the court says is the law, and what you think it should have said isn't.

[David Nieporent]

You can form your own opinion 'til the cows come home, Brett. 330,000,000 Americans have that right. Hell, billions more worldwide do, too. What you have never been able to recognize is that your opinion is not law, but just a personal opinion. A court's interpretation is law. The PA constitution means what the SCOPA says it means. It's simply not a question of "believing" them; there's no platonic "correct" interpretation that you can point to.

[SRG2]

Which lawsuit do you think Pennsylvania wrongly won?

[JohnSmith97]

Kelly v PA. Who needs to win anything when the court will declare it for you.

[SRG2]

If not a single member of the SC would have granted cert, you're on a loser. Not even a statement from Alito or Thomas respecting the denial of cert? You got nothing.

[ThePublius]

American Slang Terms for Jail

rloquitur prompted this with his use of the term "pokey."

Hoosegow - based on a Mexican Spanish term
Calaboose - based on a Mexican Spanish term
Clink -
Pokey -
Cooler -
Lockup - I live near the Ash Street Jail, the oldest operating prison in the U.S.; where they put Lizzy Borden. It's also called the Bristol County Lockup.

Feel free to add terms, or explain these.

[ThePublius]

Slammer
Joint - more for prison than jail, I think
Big house - as above
Brig - Naval term, I think

[Riva]

Any public school in any Democrat controlled city.

[ThePublius]

The Rock - Alcatraz

[Swede425]

Stockade - the Army.
Also the Army - CCF (criminal confinement facility) but known as the college for cool folks.

[rloquitur]

Big Chicken Dinner=Bad Conduct Discharge

[Ska]

Is Sing Sing known in other parts of the country? Or is it only well known in NY because of its location?

The one thing that Sing Sing has contributed to pop culture is that the phrase "up the river" (for heading to prison/in prison) is derived from being sent up the Hudson River from NYC to Sing Sing.

[ThePublius]

Yes, Sing Sing is quite famous, and also you are correct, responsible for "up the river." I'e seen it several times. I would not want to be imprisoned there!

[ducksalad]

Since you brought up pop culture about prisons....can anyone explain why someone would be in Folsom Prison for shooting a man in Reno?

[ThePublius]

Hello, I'm Johnny Cash
I hear the train a-comin', it's rolling 'round the bend
And I ain't seen the sunshine since I don't know when
I'm stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin' on
But that train keeps a-rollin' on down to San Antone
When I was just a baby my mama told me, "Son
Always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns"
But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die
When I hear that whistle blowing, I hang my head and cry
I bet there's rich folks eating in a fancy dining car
They're probably drinkin' coffee and smoking big cigars
Well I know I had it coming, I know I can't be free
But those people keep a-movin' and that's what tortures me
Well if they freed me from this prison, if that railroad train was mine
I bet I'd move it on a little farther down the line
Far from Folsom prison, that's where I want to stay
And I'd let that lonesome whistle blow my blues away

Well, he doesn't say shooting the guy in Reno is the reason he's in Folsom prison. I assume it was something else. 🙂

[ducksalad]

Well OK.

But while we're at it, it's unlikely any train heading to San Antonio ever passed through Folsom. That includes the small villages named San Antonio in CA and NM.

[ThePublius]

Here's an interesting reddit thread on this topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/folsom/comments/bhmycr/what_train_is_johnny_cash_referring_to_in_his/

[ducksalad]

Thanks, interesting reading. Looks like Cash did some borrowing and editing, like changing

"They're probably having pheasant breast and eating caviar"

to

"They're probably drinkin' coffee and smoking big cigars"

[ThePublius]

Yes, indeed. He 'borrowed' a bit, ha, ha.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Perhaps Reno paid for him to be relocated for a reason. I know of an incident where Mass cops convicted of murder in Mass did their time in Mane where no one knew them.

[shawn_dude]

Manzanar
Minidoka
Tule Lake
Granada (Amache)
Gila River
Poston
Heart Mountain
Topaz

[ducksalad]

Then there's the vaguely Orwellian names they give minimum-security prisons to make them sound better:

ALLE KISKI PAVILLION - CIVIGENICS
BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
BO ROBINSON EDUCATION & TRAINING CENTER
BRIDGES OF ORLANDO
CASA GRANDE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
COMPREHENSIVE SANCTION CENTER
CROSSROADS
ENERGY COMMITTED TO OFFENDER INC
FRESH START
HOPE HALL
LIBERATION HOUSE
MINT/MOTHERS & INFANTS TOGETHER
NEXT STEP
NORTH END HOUSE
PORT I (INTEGRITY)
PORT II (INTEGRITY)
PORT OF HOPE COEUR D'ALENE
REALITY HOUSE
SOUTHWESTERN OHIO SERENITY HALL

Some of them sound downright terrifying.
https://www.insideprison.com/state_federal_prisons_by_security_level.asp?securityLevel=4

[Ska]

Gotta love a prison named Liberation House.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Grey Bar Hotel

[Kazinski]

Is this supposed to be on the 'was FDR a fascist' thread above?

[shawn_dude]

Good call.

[SRG2]

British terms:

Glasshouse (military prison)
Chokey: probably from a Hindi word for "shed"
Nick: gaol - obvious transference of usage
His/Her Majesty's Hotel: obvious origin
Clink is originally British:
The name ‘Clink’ seems to have been attached to the prison in the 14th century. One of the most commonly-argued derivatives is that of the sound of the blacksmith’s hammer closing the irons around the wrists or ankles of the prisoners, although the Flemish word ‘klink’ meaning ‘latch’ (perhaps referring to the latch on the gaol door) could also have influenced its attachment. Whatever the etymology, the prison subsequently bequeathed this name to all others, resulting in the development of the expression, "to be thrown in The Clink."
https://www.clink.co.uk/history-of-clink.html

[ThePublius]

Very good. I always thought it just referred to the sound of the jail door/gate closing.

[SRG2]

Indeed! I do think that was the reason the name persisted it just seems right.

[BrotherMovesOn]

'Clink' is the name of one of the restaurants in the Liberty Hotel in Boston. The quite large building is the former Charles Street Jail. The original bars and cells. Fun spot.

[ThePublius]

Thanks. That's cool. I'll have to visit, now that the commuter rail from the South Coast is running to Boston.

[rloquitur]

Greybar Hilton.

Individual prisons have their own nicknames.

[grb]

On the RFK Jr front :

1. During testimony before a House committee yesterday, he refused to say whether he would vaccinate his children today against polio. “Everybody can make that decision” on whether to vaccinate their kids, he said, and the problem with the health and human services secretary giving advice on vaccinations is that “it will seem like I’m giving advice to other people and I don’t want to be doing that.” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) noted that's his job as head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. What he will do is going swimming with his grandchildren in the sewage-contaminated Rock Creek, which the Washington Post describes thus: “The creek has widespread ‘fecal’ contamination and high levels of bacteria, including E. coli, and the city has banned swimming in all of its waterways for more than 50 years because of the widespread contamination of Rock Creek and other nearby rivers.” There are signs everywhere. People are even warned against letting their pets swim in the water. But grandkids? Sure!

3. Of course that's understandable given RFK's views. Per his own book, he doesn't accept the Germ Theory of disease. Per Jr, it's a tool of the pharmaceutical industry to justify selling modern medicines. Instead, he believes in something called the "miasma theory", where disease is treated through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses. Per that, you'd think there'd be an eden of perfect health back when people ate all-natural, there was much less pollution, and an evil scientific cabal hadn't yet fooled people on germs - say in the Middle Ages.....

4. And his holy jihad against fluoride continues. Rep. Mike Simpson, a dentist from Idaho, said Kennedy’s plan to remove fluoride recommendations for drinking water alarms him. An HHS press release on Tuesday announced the Food and Drug Administration plans to remove fluoride supplements for children from the market, wrongly claiming fluoride “kills bacteria from the teeth.” Simpson explained to Kennedy that fluoride doesn’t kill bacteria in the mouth but instead makes tooth enamel more resistance to decay. “I will tell you that if you are successful in banning fluoride … we better put a lot more money into dental education because we’re going to need a lot more dentists,” Simpson added.

(this fluoride business raises serious concerns about the state of RFK Jr's precious bodily fluids. I hope everything's all right!)

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

I liked what RFK, Jr. said about Democrats and Gavin Newsome.

As soon as the Feds ended their paying for illegals in Medicaid, Compassionate Democrat Newsome kicked off all the illegals from California's "free" healthcare.

lmao

>. And his holy jihad against fluoride continues. Rep. Mike Simpson, a dentist from Idaho, said Kennedy’s plan to remove fluoride recommendations for drinking water alarms him.

I wonder if Rep Mike Simpson is too afraid to travel to virtually most other countries in the world? You know, since most other countries don't flouridate their water either. Only ~5% of the world's population that does.

Just like with tariffs, we have to pretend all these other countries are stupid and the only smart people also happen to be die-hard Trump critics.

[shawn_dude]

#3 sounds a lot like Christian Science.

[hobie]

“it will seem like I’m giving advice to other people and I don’t want to be doing that.”

Since he has no experience in healthcare except that he likes to play with cadavers, I applaud him wanting to keep his yap shut

[Kazinski]

Kinda funny, I'm not a big RFK fan myself, but I was talking about him with my brother who is visiting, he and his wife are Marin County Liberals. They just love him to death, they don't like vaccines either.

As for fluoride, I am not much of an expert, but I hear chorine is bad and should be avoided, and fluorine is more reactive and toxic than chorine is.

However I will concede Sodium Chloride has been approved for use in food, despite warnings about excessive levels, and Sodium Fluoride seems to be stable too, but seems to be somewhat toxic to the bacteria that causes tooth decay.

[Dr. Ed 2]

it's the Sodium ion and blood pressure.
Sodium Fluoride is a neural toxin.

[SRG2]

Sodium Fluoride is a neural toxin.

The dose makes the poison.

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

And how are you able to control your dosing when districts have different standards and put it in your water?

[shawn_dude]

dihydrogen monoxide is toxic in large doses as well. It causes hyponatremia and is often associated with use of the recreational drug ecstasy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I remember when Bill Weld jumped into the Charles River and his staff had to join him.

15+ years ago, I had to pay 10 cents for a bag because it was funding cleaning up rivers, I presume this is one. Well, it's not what the signs say but what the water samples show.

DC averages over 41 inches of rain, more than a meter, and much of it arrives in summertime thunderstorm downpours. What surprised scientists elsewhere was just how quickly East Coast rivers recovered once people stopped dumping shit into them.

I haven't seen the test results on this river -- Kennedy likely has (if not had his own people do tests). Furthermore, he has to know that all kinds of do-gooders would call the child protective people if he did take his grandchildren swimming there, hence he's going to have documentation of it meeting swim specs.

As to Floride, the concern is too much and that includes the Floride from tooth paste. I know someone who retired from the EPA and agrees with Kennedy.

"Recently, epidemiological studies have suggested that fluoride is a human developmental neurotoxicant that reduces measures of intelligence in children, placing it into the same category as toxic metals (lead, methylmercury, arsenic) and polychlorinated biphenyls. If true, this assessment would be highly relevant considering the widespread fluoridation of drinking water and the worldwide use of fluoride in oral hygiene products such as toothpaste. "

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7261729/

[SRG2]

RFKjr is a malign kook, the senators who consented to his appointment are a load of cowardly scumbags, the people who support him are either ignorant, stupid, or themselves malign - without exception here or anywhere else.

[bernard11]

The miasma theory was once quite popular.

I think Walter Reed largely destroyed it. Maybe RFK, Jr. is not au courant.

[shawn_dude]

Perhaps his brain worm consumed that portion of his memory.

[David Nieporent]

So the ACLU has filed a response w/ SCOTUS to the administration's filing of Monday. And it explains exactly why the putative class members couldn't have filed habeas petitions in the last three weeks, as the government insinuates they should have:

The administration:
A) has still refused to give notice to the putative class members of their rights;
B) has refused to identify who it's holding captive;
C) won't let lawyers meet with them unless the lawyers already know who those people are.
D) May not have given notice to the putative class members that they are subject to deportation under the AEA at all, in which case their habeas claims would not even be ripe yet.

[SRG2]

The most fundamental element of due process is that a person be informed of government intentions towards them.

[rloquitur]

Kevin Clinesmith declined to comment.

[grb]

A common problem with modern U.S. presidents is only listening to intelligence reports they want to hear. Too often an analysis which reaches an undesired conclusion is buried and ignored. But in his dishonesty, incompetence, and sleazy bungling, Trump always manages to f**k-up beyond all previous standards. If there's a way to be worse than any president that existed before him, he'll find it.

When he used Alien Enemies Act to "disappear" people into a South American gulag, everyone knew that was a lie. Even this site's cultists knew it, despite their turning-out with the usual wheedling bullshit excuses. So what happened after two senior officials at the National Intelligence Council concluded the Venezuelan government is not directing Tren de Aragua? Was their report ignored and buried?

Sure. That kind of thing is both regrettable & inevitable given human nature and the working of bureaucracies. But the Trump Administration is way too loathsome and corrupt to stop there:

"Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has fired the top two career officials leading the National Intelligence Council, the senior most analytical group in the intelligence community whose job it is to understand and assess the biggest threats facing the United States. Gabbard fired Mike Collins, the acting chair, and his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, on Tuesday, a spokesman confirmed."

The firings come just a week after the intelligence assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on the Venezuelan government and TdA. These firings were spun to Fox News as an effort to block the “politicization of intelligence”, but the intent is clearly the opposite. Trump is signaling to all the country's intelligence organizations that the truth will be punished by this White House.

Of course that truth is obvious in this case. Trump's lying is blatantly transparent. This is only petty politics and childish spite. But there'll probably come a time in his term when the Turd in Chief needs honest accurate intelligence. And it won't be available. Because besides being corrupt and sleazy, Trump is also an braindead imbecile. He can't understand just how harmful this action is. He's too damn stupid.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/14/politics/gabbard-fires-senior-intelligence-officials

[David Nieporent]

When he used Alien Enemies Act to "disappear" people into a South American gulag,

Total lie. It was a Central American gulag.

[Mr. Bumble]

Its been pretty well publicized for a gulag.

[Drewski]

That's a weird and desperate argument. Gulags were never secret. About half of the people there were sentenced to go there in open, public court proceedings.

[grb]

A senior moment. I had Venezuela on the brain....

[Martinned]

This morning I was listening to a podcast interview with Sir Alex Younger, until recently C, the head of MI6.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra5WbypGnmE

It's worth a listen. I didn't agree with everything he said, but it sure seems like a good idea to have a career-spy like him in charge of the intelligence service instead of some weird politician, like in the US, or some career civil servant whose background is in entirely different areas, as is often the case in the Netherlands. (The current AIVD chief is borderline. He has some background at the agency, but he also spent a lot of time elsewhere.)

[BrotherMovesOn]

That is outrageous, even for you.
Genocide? Seriously? You "have South African friends who keep up with events there, and, yeah, there's a genocide going on ..."?
Again, seriously? Those "friends" are probably not quite um ... objective, maybe? I have friends who actually live there, and get the impression that it's nothing like described in the rw press here.
In recent years I've been in restaurants in Rosebank, all 90% white clientele. They looked terrified as they sipped their 45 Rand cocktails.
Almost thirty years after de Klerk and the Afrikaner (or Britain) is still very comfortable and has worked cooperatively with the government to institute reforms for almost 3 decades now.
This is a stunt.
Genocide? LOL
You're usually more precise than this.

[Brett Bellmore]

It surely beats, "South Africa says they're not conducting a genocide, and that settles it!", which is really what the denials come down to.

They're literally singing "Kill the Boer" at political rallies, and the South African court ruled, "Don't take that literally".

[Martinned]

which is really what the denials come down to

Is it? Or do they come down to actually observing what is happening in South Africa, instead of believing whatever Grok says?

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, accounts from people who actually lived there, and watched their friends and neighbors be killed before they got the hell out, are not 'actually observing'. [/sarc] This all goes away if the courts of the regime doing it decide to deny it's happening.

And it doesn't really mean anything, as the SA court ruled, if "Kill the Boer" is sung at political rallies, and the government passes a law allowing white owned farms to be expropriated without compensation.

ANC statement

"What the instigators of this falsehood seek is not safety, but impunity from transformation. They flee not from persecution, but from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege."

Right, 'accountability' in the form of being robbed and murdered, but the ANC thinks that's just justice, not genocide, because if you're white you deserve it.

[Martinned]

None of what you're talking about is genocide, or any other ground for refugee status under the Refugee Convention.

To remind you, because you often seem to be confused about this, genocide is defined as:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

[ThePublius]

And you deny that even one of those things is occurring?

https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/2017/03/25/-bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-esc

[Martinned]

Yes

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

Every African country that was previously governed by Whites ended up with White genocide when they became governed by blacks.

There isn't an exception.

[ThePublius]

Then you are an irrational denialist.

[Sarcastr0]

You posted something from 8 years ago.

I'm more open minded on the 'some element is still happening' issue than Martinned, though from what I've read genocide is gonna be a helluva lift.

And your sources so far point to it being more a white nationalist myth than an active issue.

[David Nieporent]

Again: there's very high crime rates in South Africa. That's not the same thing as genocide. That old anecdote is presumably entirely factual, but that doesn't establish a genocide. Look at the actual behavior of Afrikaners since that 8-year old anecdote: where are the refugees? Where are the thousands or tens of thousands or millions of Afrikaners fleeing South Africa?

[Swede425]

If members of your government are saying they think you should be killed, you should probably take that seriously.
Despite what leftists say.
Or, more accurately, because of what leftists say.

[Martinned]

Now do Israel/Gaza

[Swede425]

No, you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. The Palestinians in Gaza say that they think all Israelis should be killed. They should be taken seriously about that, even if they lack the capacity to carry it out, they sure to try.

[Martinned]

I agree. But no genocide against Israelis has been committed (yet). The other way around, on the other hand...

[ThePublius]

That's B.S. Note Oct. 7. Just because Hamas and the Palestinians are not very efficient and successful perpetrators of genocide doesn't mean they are not perpetrating genocide. Just ask them, they will tell you they are!

[Sarcastr0]

Hamas and the Palestinians

This conflation is a problem right here.

[ThePublius]

"Hamas and the Palestinians
This conflation is a problem right here."

Virtually ALL Palestinians support Hamas and what they did on Oct. 7.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think that's true, but you went farther than that - "perpetrators of genocide."

Take this conflation to it's logical end - and you're basically there - what you're doing here is *justifying* genocide, not calling it out.

[shawn_dude]

Outrage over black South Africans (illegally) over-running white farms.
Zero outrage over Israelis (illegally) over-running Palestinian farms in Palestinian territories.

Brown people hurt white people = Bad. Other way around, meh?

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. This is dumb. Palestinians are as white/brown as Israelis. Stop trying to force foreign conflicts into outdated domestic ones.

[David Nieporent]

Right, accounts from people who actually lived there, and watched their friends and neighbors be killed before they got the hell out, are not 'actually observing'.

Anecdotes are not data. They are actually observing some homicides; they are not actually observing a genocide.

South Africa is a violent country. But the Latin American asylum seekers are also fleeing violent countries, and of course MAGA hates those people (the reasons for the distinction are obvious to everyone, even though you'd prefer to deny it). So South African crime is being relabeled as "genocide" by the administration so it can justify treating these two situations differently.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be committed to a set of facts for ideological/relational reasons, and won't take evidence otherwise. And you attack people who offer evidence otherwise.
And the set of facts is the white nationalist one.

If someone said blacks were a sainted people, virtuous and oppressed, I'd be suspicious.

You don't seem to have that problem in the reverse. You should.

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

Classic midwit response.

Attacking the character of the commenter and not the substance. You believe it makes you look smart.

[rloquitur]

Dude, you realize that this is a massive troll by Trump admin?

[Sarcastr0]

We're not talking about the Trump administration.

[David Nieporent]

It surely beats, "South Africa says they're not conducting a genocide, and that settles it!", which is really what the denials come down to.

No, the denials come down to, "Look at the actual facts: no genocide." One can look both at news reporting and the behavior of the purported victims of genocide.

and the South African court ruled, "Don't take that literally".

It takes incredible chutzpah for Brett "Oh, Trump didn't mean that" Bellmore to complain about this. (Regardless, even if it were literal, a song isn't a genocide.)

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

Wrong

[rloquitur]

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/05/15/trump-hilariously-slaps-pete-buttigieg-around-n2189112

That is funny. Not so funny is the fact that the hotline between DCA and the military was shut down under his watch.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/05/14/after-blaming-trump-pete-buttigieg-implicated-in-washington-national-air-traffic-control-scandal-n2189107

You just can't hate Democrats enough.

[Estragon]

“You just can't hate […] enough.”

Well, I guess it’s an ethos…

[rloquitur]

The passengers on the doomed aircraft could not be reached for comment. RIP.

[Mr. Bumble]

He was probably on "maternity leave" with his "wife" Chas.
Is it sexist to refer to Chas as a "wife"?

[rloquitur]

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18232/israel-europe-gas-pipeline

Hmmm. And Trump was the one that loved Putin??

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/announcement-of-opinions-and-oral-argument-live-blog-for-thursday-may-15/

[John F. Carr]

In today's opinion, when a police officer uses deadly force in a moment of peril the trier of fact can inquire how the police officer found himself in peril.

[David Nieporent]

A unanimous court! When the fifth circuit loses Alito and Thomas on an issue like this, it shows how far out there it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Harvard internal documents proving racial discrimination.

If you thought there was any question about it, you can give up on that idea. Yes, Harvard has continued having racial quotas.

[shawn_dude]

There is no HREF in your anchor tag.

[SRG2]

SC unanimously kills 5th Circuit's "Because I'm a cop" defence.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf

Ok, in the 5th Circuit, when deadly force is used, police have a moment-of-threat defence. No consideration or allowance is made for the events leading up to it, so if a cop creates the danger to himself, e.g., as here jumping on a moving car, it's irrelevant. SC says, basically, fuck off.

Kavanaugh, joined by Barrett, Alito and Thomas, concurred but felt obliged to lay out how dangerous traffic stops are (I don't think the stats bear this out) - which, it's obvious, is to suggest to he cop what his defence at trial should be. "The point here is that when a driver abruptly pulls away during a traffic stop, an officer has no particularly good or safe options."

[SRG2]

Stats supporting my scepticism of the danger of traffic stops: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol117/iss4/2/

Kav, in quoting this: "As this Court noted nearly 50 years ago, “a significant percentage of murders of police officers occurs when the officers are making traffic stops.”", is guilty of an obvious mathematical fallacy...known as the prosecutor's fallacy.

[David Nieporent]

If one looks at all of the actual incidents — and one can, because so few cops are killed each year (check the Officer Down Memorial Page, which lists them all) — the bulk of officer fatalities are not from being murdered at traffic stops, but just from being hit because they're standing on the side of the road. (But if a driver tries to find a safe place to pull over when the cop behind him turns on the lights and siren, many cops will have a tantrum.)