Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 6.27.2025 5:04 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Congratulations to Sam Bray and Will Baude, Cited in the Universal Injunction Case
Hide Comments (580)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
R.I.P. Bill Moyers, dead at 91.
He started as as an aide to JFK if I am not mistaken.
I haven't checked it, but with your record you probably are
Fire trUCK you. I looked it up -- Peace Corps and Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- Ed was right.
And the St Louis Browns pinch hit a Midget once, good for you, Midget!
Eddie Gaedel, one appearance in 1951, walked on 4 pitches, with a Career OPS of 1.000, no “Happy Endings” for this Ed, murdered in Chicago, 1961. Wore number 1/8
Frank
Sounds to me like someone was upset with how the strike zone was being called. Check further because 1/8 is not a legal number and I believe teams were limited to a 26 man active roster and a total 40 man roster back then.
Are you really that dense, any baseball fan of a certain age (i.e. yours and mine) knows how Browns owner Bill Veck(as in Wreck)loved publicity stunts (see Gray, Pete) and the Midget was one of them, “26 man roster??” It was 25 for years until just recently, unlike you I don’t pretend to know everything
And rosters are limited to 40 players today, no "back then" needed, and have been for a long time.
Whatever the truth about changing roster sizes, we are observing one of those rare events, not unlike the appearance of Haley's comet, when our most prolific resident liar and fraud is offering a true historical fact. Not only is it true, it's a rather entertaining, and somewhat absurd, story.
St Louis Browns, one of the MLB franchises which has called three cities home (Milwaukee Brewers, St Louis Browns, Baltimore Orioles). Others are the Atlanta Braves and the Sacramento Athletics (now up to four and scheduled for five). I'm not sure how to count the Angels.
Of course, St Frances, honorary pope of the Divine Church of the Holy Dildo, gets something wrong. The Browns left St Louis and became the Orioles in 1954. No baseball fans of his age remember the Browns and few are even aware that the modern Baltimore Orioles used to be in Milwaukee and then in St Louis.
"The Browns left St Louis and became the Orioles in 1954."
Thanks, I was wondering why I had never heard of that team...
Name changes and, especially, moves, are far from uncommon. They are, in fact, embedded in the history of the game. The first professional team was the Cincinnati Red Stockings.
The Yankees were the Highlanders, and there was some back-and-forth over names in Boston before t, now in their hey settled on Red Sox and Braves, now in their third home.
Did you miss the "I believe"?
I suspect that Bill Moyers, like Bill Cosby, started out as a child. (Republicans start out as embryos or zygotes.)
+1
I don't know if Moyers ever worked for JFK, but he came to prominence as a close aide to Lyndon Johnson, serving him in the Senate and later as press secretary during his presidency.
Correct, he started as a LBJ aide and got drawn into the Kennedy/Johnson Admin, and then back with Johnson after Dallas.
And The Corporation for Pubic Broadcasting survives!!!!!!!!!! LBJ's Joseph Goebbels, just goes to show the really Evil ones often live to ripe old age (Ayatollah Khomeini died at 89, Castro 90, Jimmuh Cartuh 100)
Frank "63 next Friday, "Born on the 4th of July Baby!!!"
One of his claims to fame is "The Fire Next Door" about the Bronx burning down in the 1970s. Growing up around that time I thought most of New York City always had been and always would be a burned out wasteland.
Yesterday marked the tenth anniversary of marriage equality becoming nationwide in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), is now more than two decades old.
Will the Chicken Littles now admit that the sky has indeed not fallen in the interim?
Perversion is on the increase and the prod was Obergefell. You remind me of Lincoln's assessment of slavers: They don't want you to say it is legal they want you to say it is a social good.
============= Well, It is lust and perversion and that's that. Homosexual acts are immoral and a cancer on society.
It's not saying that it is a social good as much as forcing everyone else to acknowledge and consider it legitimate. Obergefell led to trannies and that will lead to Lord only knows what next.
There will always be a line that people try to cross, and back when it was men with long hair and women wearing pants, while it truly was silly to draw such a line, at least that is where the line was drawn.
This won't end with trannies, the next generation will come up with something even more bizarre...
"Obergefell led to trannies and that will lead to Lord only knows what next."
Is that as true as everything else you have said? That is one weird theory of causation.
Obergefell was not about sex; it was about fairness. No one needs a license to have sex -- we don't even require lesbians to obtain a lick her license. Men and women -- both opposite sex and same sex attracted -- have been coupling since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. That began long before governments were organized to license marriage.
Do the critics of Obergefell and Goodridge somehow prefer unmarried buttsex to married buttsex? That is perverse.
Not only is homosexual conjugation about as old as our species, but non-conformance with societal gender norms, including what we call transgender, is probably as old as gender norms. Different societies over the history of humanity have judged that non-conformity differently.
Have you never heard of "living in sin" and the social (and legal) pressure against those who did so? I remember hearing about a female lawyer whom the bar didn't want to permit to be a lawyer because she was living with her boyfriend. (I was told this by a lawyer, and we all know no lawyer would ever lie.)
But there was a time when it was customary to refuse to rent to unmarried couples. Remember the '70s show "three's company" and how the guy had to pretend to be gay -- in the 1970s, in California, a gay guy living with two girls was acceptable, but a hetero was not.
272 MGL 18 was only repealed seven years ago -- it said: Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.
It was actually enforced in the early 1980s, SJC said that just because a law isn't routinely enforced doesn't mean it can't be.
My Torts professor like to use the phrase "where the river of Man's memory runs dry."
"liked"
You leave my perversion alone and I'll respect yours. Is that a deal.
He talks like somebody who [acts like he] has no perversions. It's as if his house is not made of glass, and he enjoys hearing other people's houses shatter.
Some people get off on shit like that. I think it's something about demons.
Exactly, I agree
Freedom from imagined gods has increased.
One down, mostly. One to go: politics.
$30B a year on AIDS. 30% of young children identify as LGB. Trans-hysteria permanently ruining countless children's lives. Social cohesion at all time lows. Birth rates declining under replacement levels. Rates of marriages plummeting.
---- I'd say "Damn, that was fast, faster than I had guessed".
I will admit that the Court’s lawless redefinition of marriage stands brightly as a disgraceful example of judicial hubris and abuse of power,”…a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”
Goodridge would have been defeated via a constitutional amendment had the people been able to vote on it. And I still say that had Romney a scintilla of the principles he claimed to have (and not the ones he actually had) he would have simply stopped issuing marriage licenses. Excepting the Cape & Islands, no part of Massachusetts is more than 30 miles from another state -- NH, RI, CT, NY, or VT -- and Romney could have said "get married in the next sic months or get married out of state.
The rainbow people crossed the Rubicon with this, and history will show that it eventually came back to bite them.
And I still say that had Romney a scintilla of the principles he claimed to have (and not the ones he actually had) he would have simply stopped issuing marriage licenses.
And I still respond that you're a retarded bigot who doesn't know that the governor doesn't issue marriage licenses and that there was no discretion not to issue them.
(For those of you who think this is harsh, he'd just be a bigot — note that he has no trouble using various slurs but can't bring himself to use profanity — except that he has said this like 5 times before and each time I've quoted the applicable Massachusetts statute that does not permit this, and he just goes back to saying it again, which makes him a retard.)
Have you ever actually read the decision? (Can you actually read?)
Margaret Marshall knew that she was on very thin ice and hoped that that the legislature would bail her out by legalizing gay marriage and it didn't. Her decision was based on the MA ERA and that wouldn't have held up if people realized that.
Mitt Romney could have simply ordered the DPH to stop issuing marriage licenses -- heck, to stop buying the forms -- and said "make me."
He would have become President (his lifetime goal) had he done that. Even if Marshall had then ordered him to, and she wouldn't have had a 4-3 majority on that because of another portion of the MA Constitution, which explicitly recognizes the balance of power.
Repeating the same retarded lie won't actually make it true. He could not have ordered that, if for no other reason than that DPH does not issue marriage licenses. And of course the issuance is mandatory, not discretionary.
Who was the defendant???
Hint, the citation is Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)
The court ordered the Dept of Public Health to stop discriminating against persons on the basis of sex, or the sex of the other partner.
1: Marshall didn't say anything about not issuing marriage licenses to *anyone*, which would be in compliance with her order not to discriminate.
AND
2: Her order -- by its very existence, recognizes DPH's ability to not issue marriage licenses. Without that, the nondiscrimination order would not have been necessary.
1) In Massachusetts, the DPH records marriages. That is different than issuing marriage licenses.
2) There is no fucking discretion in Massachusetts law to not issue a marriage license to eligible people. The statute says that the clerk shall deliver the license. Therefore, the court did not have to say anything about not issuing marriages to anyone, because that would be illegal.
Dr. Ed, as I told you at the time, Romney should have announced that an official mass wedding ceremony would be held on November 19th on City Hall Plaza. All would be granted status; simple paperwork to be completed later. Then Romney would order the 20 snowplows deployed on to Tremont Street to 'proceed'. Right?
The plaza is not a vehicular way.
The neighborhood kids shovel the snow!
Not only did the Goodridges divorce, but the Mass Teacher's Association successful defeat of legitimate referendum attempts to put the decision on the ballot showed them how to defeat Education Reform, which they have now done with the MCAS being defeated in last November's election.
Marriage was always about father's obligation to children, and father's rights, and intergenerational obligations of children to their aging parents and all of that is now gone, replaced by the fiats of f*cking social workers. Hitler would have been proud.
But the real question, that I have never seen a serious answer to, is why would gays and lesbians want to give the government the power to deny them their relationships?!? Not only is a license the government granting permission to do something (e.g. a Driver's License) but also inherently having both the power to deny it (i.e. revoke the license) and to punish doing so thereafter (i.e. Operating after Suspension).
The Massachusetts State Police arrested two (male) Smith College English teachers in 1964 for "suspicion of homosexuality." Forty years later, homosexuals want to give that same state government the power to deny them the right to love each other and live with each other?
Do they not remember history?
And there was no glacial change -- 50-60 years before the arrests, there were the so-called "Boston Marriages" of educated women.
So why would a minority, with a long history of persecution, WANT TO give the government this authority over them? Anyone want to answer THAT question?!?
For the first ten years of my married life, my then-wife and I committed a felony carrying a penalty of five to fifteen years in prison each time we engaged in oral sex. I have repeatedly asked on these threads what business that was of the State of Tennessee, and no one has given a satisfactory (or even responsive) answer.
The "crime against nature" statute was repealed in 1989 as part of a complete overhaul of the criminal code. Homosexual acts then remained a minor misdemeanor until that statute was found to violate the state constitution in Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn.App. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 853 (Tenn. 2008).
Government should not be in the business of criminalizing adults' voluntary sexual acts.
"Government should not be in the business of criminalizing adults' voluntary sexual acts."
True. The joke that I used to make was that if you had sex with your spouse and didn't commit a bunch of felonies while doing it you were doing it wrong. Then they changed the law and I lost another bad joke.
"Government should not be in the business of criminalizing adults' voluntary sexual acts." Amen to that, brother!
Nor should it e licensing them.
The government doesn't license sexual acts. As I said upthread, lesbians don't even have to get a lick her license.
"For the first ten years of my married life, my then-wife and I committed a felony carrying a penalty of five to fifteen years in prison each time we engaged in oral sex."
So you were basically law-abiding citizens.
Uh, no. The statute of limitations having run, I can say that without risking prosecution.
Gay sex is the disgust of most of the nation. IF the sky has not fallen you would not need to post QED
Most normal men go out of their way to avoid anything going up the Poop Shute, now it’s questionable if I’m “Normal” (They said Manson was crazy too) but I picked out an XX Urologist entirely because if someone’s gonna stick their finger up there I’d prefer it not to be Rob Gronkowski (for some reason most male Urologists are built like Tight Ends)
As if the notion of male homosexual sex doesn't trigger enough uncomfortable images in one's head, there are all those health care practitioners (like you) who do more hardcore shit while claiming to do so as "professionals." Every hole is fair game for the pros. They reach in deeper than anybody else, and more times than not, they throw in a device or a tube to broaden the exercise. Are blue latex gloves supposed to sanitize that image for me? Hell no! The gloves just make it quicker and more convenient for them to do another nasty deed in the room next door 15 minutes later. (Small rooms, with steel fixtures, no windows, and a super bright feature light.) OK. So they call them "patients" instead of "partners." I don't imagine homosexuals having to routinely admonish their partners, "You're going to feel some discomfort here." (While knowing well it'll be a lot more than "some" discomfort.) I don't imagine a partner turning away to his side, silently, compliantly, resignedly, as a rolled out sheet of sanitary white paper crackles beneath him. ("Let me just run some paper under you here to catch any residues.") Is it supposed to comfort me to know they've made a half-assed attempt to hide every part of my body except their point of entry? (And my eyes? Why do they insist that they be able to see those too?)
"Incoming! For your own good!" ("You're going to stick *that* *where*???!!!")
In the screening room that is my mind, the homosexual imagery is relatively tame stuff. I'm keeping it clean here.
In that my experience with anal insertion is limited to prostate exams, I don't associate that with pleasure, but there are women who have told me that they enjoy anal sex. Why should the government restrict their choices?
I'm sure there are women who enjoy having anal sex with you, ramming a Dildo up your (redacted) beats doing the Missionary position, and no pregnancy worries.
Soooooieeeee!!!!!
"Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."
No VC conspirator interested in the Emil Bove judicial appointment?
No conspirator cares to comment that the Trump administration has sued the Maryland federal judiciary as a whole, arguing among other points that judges are flouting democracy?
Bove does resemble Actor Fred Gwynne of “Car 54 where are you”, “the Munsters”, and “My Cousin Vinny”. I hope he gets to use the line “What is a Yute?” From the Bench
Looks more like Count Orlok in Nosferatu.
I think Bove looks more like Ted Cassidy -- Lurch on the Addams Family -- than Fred Gwynne.
An Addams Family bit of trivia that I became aware of recently: Uncle Fester was played by former child actor Jackie Coogan, most famous today for having been screwed out of his child actor earnings (estimated at $3 - $4 million) by his mother and step father.
Dude managed to get married [briefly] to Betty Grable, even though kinda ugly and poor.
When he married Grable he wasn't bad looking. Not nearly as hideous as Trump at his best. Of course, Trump has never been poor.
Trump!
DT was a pretty good looking guy through his 30s/40s, which you could admit if you weren't an obsessive hater.
Of Course "Looks" are about #17in order of importance in what women consider when they make that decision to (Redacted) you
Why?
It's a fantastic appointment, and Trump's case against the insurrectionist judges is rock solid.
They claim quite correctly that the standing order providing automatic injunctive relief to any alien filing a habeas petition challenging removal is an lawful abuse of equitable power in derogation of S.Ct. precedent and federal law.
It is, of course, none of those things.
Non-responsive comment. Do better.
History suggests he's not going to.
Nor is he able to.
Odd but the government asserts otherwise and has the case law to back it up. ' '[S]everal hundred years of history,' Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944), teach that injunctive relief “is an ‘extraordinary’ equitable remedy that is ‘never awarded as of right, even where a plaintiff claims or shows that he will suffer irreparable harm without one, Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 345 (2024).
I've not paid attention to it. Other priorities, the past couple of weeks.
A 34-year-old man wakes up today, in a solitary confinement cell at the Tokyo Detention House. Prison guards lead him to a room, where he meets the chaplain for the last time.
After a short moment, to another room the man is brought. Facing the Buddhist altar, the guard reads aloud an order signed by the Minister of Justice. He is then blindfolded and handcuffed, and the guard opens the blue curtain.
The man stands above the trapdoor, with a leather noose fixed to his neck. Watching through the glass window are the warden, fellow guards, and junior prosecutors - who are legally mandated to attend the site.
Three prison guards at the small Button Room wait for the moment. After receiving the command, they push the three buttons on the wall. The trapdoor opens, and the execution succeeds.
The man was Takahiro Shiraishi, also known as the Twitter Killer. Convicted of robbing and murdering nine people (including eight victims who he raped before death).
Notably absent from the execution chamber are the victim's' families, the press, and the public.
IOW, Takahiro Shiraishi faced justice. And is no more.
Hope the victim's families are Ok.
This comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65F6lRdUU_c
It’s not so much the drop as the sudden stop at the end of the rope
Demonstrating the wisdom of the founding fathers, DemoKKKrats new rising star Mullah Zoran Mandamus ineligible for the Presidency due to his Ugandan birth (unlike our first Moose-lum POTUS at least the Zoran’s upfront about his Shit-ite-ism)
imagine what some of his victims must have thought before this animal raped and killed them, then dismembered the bodies.
Many people forget or are not aware that Japan has the death penalty.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-executes-twitter-killer-takahiro-shiraishi-serial-killer/
Most of the larger Civilized nations do
And the civilized parts of the US.
<i.'Notably absent from the execution chamber are the victim's' families, the press, and the public."
That was more to confirm to the public that he was really killed -- executions used to be public festivals in the UK & US.
I am not a supporter of Trump's tariffs particularly in relation to third world countries, but so far they do not seem to be effecting inflation, but do seem to be providing substantial revenue:
"President Trump's tariffs are pouring billions more into US coffers in June, putting the revenue supplied by importers on pace for another monthly record.
The latest measure of government receipts for "Customs and Certain Excise Taxes" stood at more than $26.7 billion for the month of June, according to the Treasury Department’s latest daily statement dated June 24.
June’s total so far has already topped May’s total haul of about $22 billion — not to mention April and March totals of $17.4 billion and $9.6 billion, respectively.
The new data also comes after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected earlier this month that Trump's tariffs could reduce primary deficits by $2.8 trillion over the coming decade — but with a significant assumption that current duties stay constant and in place even after Trump is scheduled to leave office."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-tariff-revenue-is-on-pace-for-another-monthly-record-in-june-170536916.html
Coincidentally 2.8 trillion is what the CBO tabbed the cost of the Big Beautiful bill at.
"Congressional Budget Office digs further into 'Big, Beautiful Bill' and now says it will raise deficit by $2.8 trillion"
I know Trump always chickens out, except i guess for almost 30 billion a month.
^ Trigger Alert for the usual suspects 🙂
Kaz, the equities market are giving a huge boost to POTUS Trump's economic strategy via record performance. This is starting to look like 2017, from an investment perspective, for US stocks.
Int'l stocks have been on a tear (glad I have a healthy slug of intl).
Int'l stocks have been on a tear
Might be due to the weak US dollar, of course
I'm just doing very rough math, but since Trump's inauguration it looks like the S&P is up about 2.5%. If we look at the same five month period in 2024, it was up 13%. Not sure what kind of record you're talking about, but it doesn't seem like a very good one.
Maybe Yahoo finance can explain what kind of record XY is referring to:
"US stocks rose on Friday, on track for fresh record highs as trade talks remained in focus and optimism on Fed rate cuts boosted spirits.
The S&P 500 (^GSPC) added 0.3% and was on pace to close at its first record high since February. The benchmark index touched a new record intraday high just after the open, though it pared gains midafternoon after President Trump said he was halting trade negotiations with Canada."
If the stock market steadily went up .0001% per day it would set a record high every day and still only grow at .04% per year. Every President since at least Kennedy has presided over a record high in the stock market.
You seem to have missed the int'l portion of my comment.
You're also ignorant on market history.
That might make sense if jb had replied to your comment rather than Kazinski's.
The biggest effect I have noticed that might be attributable to tariffs is that the Nintendo Switch 2 is very scarce in the US but was widely in stock when I traveled to Canberra recently. That might reflect demand rather than supply, though.
Even the fake democrat accounting service has said the tariffs "have had no measurable effect on prices."
1. Tariffs raise prices, by definition, and also by definition, inflation is an increase in the money supply, which triggers price increases, but is not caused by price increases.
2. The revenue you speak so highly of is a tax increase. Did anyone who voted for Trump want or expect a tax increase?
Okay, just let's not let such Economics nonsense pass unnoted.
Tariffs raise prices for some but not for others. Inflation is many things, not just an increase in the money supply. Biden's huge throwing of trillions of spending eg was the cause of recent inflation.
And wrong about that last sentence on price increases as sometimes under cover of inflation a manufacturere raises prices. Why ? Because he can....Though discredited this is exactly what Biden said study by 3 Ph.D. economists at the San Francisco Fed has found that “price markups for goods and services” — aka, price gouging — has “not been a main driver” of recent inflation. Instead, the root causes are “large” federal government “fiscal transfers and increased unemployment benefits” (aka, social spending) and Federal Reserve policies like lowering “the federal funds rate target to essentially zero.”
, Joe Biden, and other Democrats have been blaming inflation on “corporate greed.” The Fed study confirms that the real cause of inflation is the big government spending agenda that Warren, Biden, & Co. supported and enacted.
Revenue is not a tax increase. And those who voted for Trump were not expecting a revival of your "right of instruction" of Representatives !!! DEF A right of instruction permits a majority of constituents to direct a legislator to vote a particular way
Revenue is not a tax increase.
If revenues arise from tariffs, that is assuredly a tax increase. Who do you think pays tariffs?
In answer to Stupid Government Tricks here: Did anyone who voted for Trump want or expect a tax increase?
Many probably thought that tariffs would be paid by exporters, and so voted in ignorance.
"Biden's huge throwing of trillions of spending eg was the cause of recent inflation."
First, assuming you're talking about the Covid stimulus under Biden, that was an increase in money supply because it was all deficit spending. Also worth keeping in mind that the stimulus passed in the Trump administration was considerably larger than Biden's.
Second, though, there's been lots of research on the topic at this point and it's pretty clear that most of the inflation in Biden's term was caused by supply chain disruptions due to Covid.
Jumping back to Stupid Government Tricks, though: "2. The revenue you speak so highly of is a tax increase. Did anyone who voted for Trump want or expect a tax increase?"
Trump did campaign on the idea that he was going to impose a lot of tariffs. He also lied and said that the exporting country paid the tariffs, though, so who knows what people thought they were voting for.
"Second, though, there's been lots of research on the topic at this point and it's pretty clear that most of the inflation in Biden's term was caused by supply chain disruptions due to Covid."
Huh? The inflation rate is determined by the relationship between the money supply and the amount of goods and services available.
During covid, the money supply (numerator) increased, and the quantity of goods available (denominator) decreased.
What you're saying is that the price increase was caused by the decrease in the denominator and not the increase in the numerator.
And we have more control over the money supply than the quantity of goods available.
"Huh? The inflation rate is determined by the relationship between the money supply and the amount of goods and services available."
That is a theory of inflation, yes.
For the purposes of what we talk about as inflation, though, it's generally an increase in the CPI. And it turns out that there's not a very strong correlation between the money supply and the prices that people pay, so the theory isn't very good.
And specifically, most of the price increases that happened at the start of Biden's Presidency were caused by issues in supply chains:
https://www.nber.org/digest/202404/supply-chain-disruptions-and-pandemic-era-inflation
They find that the drop in inflation at the onset of the pandemic was due to a drop in aggregate demand due to mobility restrictions, and that the subsequent rise was mainly due to adverse shocks to supply chains. By 2022, the main driver of inflation shifted from supply chain shocks to constraints on productive capacity, likely due to reduced levels of labor supply. In late 2022, inflation began to decline as a result of weakened demand, strengthened capacity, and supply chain recovery.
There's generally a strong positive correlation between money supply and prices, so it's a pretty good theory. And money supply isn't the only driver, but how fast people spend it.
And supply shocks usually decrease the velocity of money, and thus demand. But if you're handing out money so people can continue to consume in the face of diminished ability to produce, you're not going to reduce demand.
Maybe you should write your own paper with some actual data and get it published by NBER and then we can compare your results to what the actual economists found.
Too busy commenting here.
Thanks for the encouragement though.
"But if you're handing out money so people can continue to consume in the face of diminished ability to produce, you're not going to reduce demand."
True, but the supply shock had an outsized effect during covid compared to normal times. That was sort of a perfect storm as it were. FWIW I work in the container trade and have some insight to trade volumes and such.
Late 2001/early 2002 saw a large spend on durable goods, drawing down the inventories of all the big box stores mostly at the same time. They reacted of course by placing large resupply orders, which arrived late due to port congestion, leading to large price increases**. Fast forward a few months, the supply chain eased and the goods became readily available - just as demand dried up since people mostly had what they needed. This resulted in drastic price drops, for which Biden did not get credit.**
A personal story - I placed an order for a wall oven in May 2022, cost was $4,400 and had a six week delivery time. Had to cancel, re-ordered the same oven five months later. Cost was $2,700 and second day delivery.
** For some mysterious reason, presidents get outsized credit and blame for economic performance. Also, for mysterious reasons, the vehemence of said credit/blame is dependent on political affiliations. Why that is, who can say...
It is a tax increase, in fact a consumption tax.
Taxes are a necessary evil, but if I had to choose between these tarrifs, and reverting back to 2017 tax rates, ill choose the tariffs.
Of course. Convenient, that.
if I had to choose between these tarrifs, and reverting back to 2017 tax rates, ill choose the tariffs.
Because?
Because consumption taxes encourage savings, and income taxes disincitivize investment.
Nice loose change, but hardly serious money.
I thought 2.8 Trillion was serious money, at least when it comes to extending the 2017 tax cuts.
Tax increase produces revenue. Film at 11.
"Tax increase produces revenue. "
Not according to Trump suckers. According to them, cutting taxes increases revenue.
This week the Times has been listing the 100 best movies since 2000, based on ballots submitted by industry luminaries. Thinking about it, these are my top five:
1. Parasite 2. No Country for Old Men 3. WALL-E 4. The Wolf of Wall Street 5. Life of Pi
I can't call it for you, you have to call it. Allright, time for Frankie to go to Hollywood I'll give you "NCFOM" but just off the top of my head I've got (and unlike alot of Pretentious Cine-files, I actually have seen the movies (HT to Hobie for not calling them "Films") 1: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly 2: The Godfather Part 2 3: Gone with the Wind (no fair h8-N if you haven't seen it) 4: Goodfellas 5: Dirty Hairy what am I saying, #1 "Dr. Strangelove (Or "How I learned to stop worrying and love the Bomb*) * "The Bomb, Demitri.....the Hydrogen Bomb"
"...since 2000", Frankie. Were we allowed to go back further in time, Pulp Fiction would be my number one. And Goodfellas probably number two
OK Smarty, go to a Party, Girls are scantily clad and showing Body, so I missed your “Since 2000” qualifier Just off the tip of my Shiny head, 1: “Dude, where’s my Car” 2001 2: “A Walk to Remember” 2002, Mrs Drackman loves this movie so I have to love it, and who didn’t cry when Mandy dies at the end? 3: “Ghost World” worth it was 16 yr old Scarlett J OK, these next 2 might officially not be “since 2000” but I saw them in 2000 4: “Fight Club” prescient, “I am Joes Prostrate, I get Cancer, I kill Joe” 5: “Amurican Beauty”
1. Learn how to read. 2. Learn how to write.
Your tasks for then weekend.
"2. Learn how to write. [Your tasks for then weekend.]"
sigh
Example 13,981 of unintentional irony.
1. Hot Tub Time Machine 2. Hot Tub Time Machine 2 *End List*
'What color is Michael Jackson?'
Most recent movies are shit and there is no way to sugar coat it. I tend to grade movies based on how often I rewatch them and sad to say not a lot after 2000 make that list.
I really like Sin City, No Country For Old Men, Kill Bill1 & Kill Bill2, Serenity (I loved Fire Fly on TV), Inglorious Bastards, and Gladiator none of which are close to being what I call recent. The only really new movie I liked is The Menu.
Hunt for Red October Ghostbusters Backdraft The Sound of Music.
"Right-wing Republicans in Congress attack Mamdani with Islamophobic comments."
Must have graduated from Columbia or Harvard. Off to El Salvador they go!
Bowdoin College.
Not surprised, Joshua Chamberlain is spinning in his grave.
Posted this earlier in the wrong spot, got the Jet Lag, Seattle to Miami 🙁 (it's like you died and went to Jew Heaven) "Demonstrating the wisdom of the founding fathers, DemoKKKrats new rising star Mullah Zoran Mandamus ineligible for the Presidency due to his Ugandan birth (unlike our first Moose-lum POTUS at least the Zoran’s upfront about his Shit-ite-ism)"
Why, Frankie. This would appear to imply that MAGA's bizarre, fierce condemnation of hatred directed towards a religious group has not been sincere at all!
You promise to globalize the intifada and some people go crazy. Go figure.
+1 Dark humor is the best.
Okay, but not one of those congressmen used the word 'Islamophobic" so Hobie must be a liar, what a surprise.
Suppose I reported your post and said hobie made Islamophilic remarks. See how stupid you are 🙂
Anti[insert religion] terrorism for me but not for thee, eh? Some religions are just a little too brown to be afforded condemnation of bigoted thoughts and words directed at them...ain't that right, bye?
On Wednesday, the Department of Justice announced the filing of a complaint against the U.S. District Court of Maryland for implementing a “Standing Order” that automatic injunctions be issued for federal immigration enforcement actions. This order requires the court clerk to automatically enter an injunction against removing or challenging the legal status of any alien detained in Maryland who files a habeas petition.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1404566/dl?inline
IANAL so wondering if this is a normal procedure and why didn't DOJ instead ask for an injunction (or what's the correct term?) at the Fourth Circuit?
why didn't DOJ instead ask for an injunction (or what's the correct term?) at the Fourth Circuit?
That essentially is what DOJ is doing. You can't ask a random court for an injunction; an injunction is a remedy available in an existing lawsuit. So they filed a lawsuit. But of course you can't file a lawsuit in the 4th Circuit; you have to file in district court, and then appeal if you lose.
Ordinarily, the appropriate approach would be to wait until one of these habeas actions is filed and the automatic stay is entered, and then it could be appealed. But of course because these automatic stays only last 2 days, that wouldn't work very well.
The procedure you are referencing is seeking a Writ of Mandamus. The application for a Writ of Mandamus is filed with the appellate court.
As far as I can tell, an injunction against a Federal court, which is what the Trump Administration is seeking, would be unprecedented. The complaint cites cases ruling that Federal courts can issue injunctions against state courts. But an injunction is not all that different from a Writ of Mandamus, so a lawsuit against a Federal court doesn’t seem to violate any fundamental principles.
The reason for filing a lawsuit rather than seeking a Writ of Mandamus is because the automatic TRO’s are being issued by multiple judges in multiple cases. A Writ of Mandamus only applies to a single case, and therefore might be dismissed as moot when the TRO in that case expired. Procedurally, it makes sense to address all of the TRO’s rather than choosing one.
(For people interested in following the case, the docket is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70627303/united-states-of-america-v-russell/ )
"Court decides against Planned Parenthood" SCOTUS is beginning to correct their past failures. They know there is a new sheriff in town, the American people, and they'd better get back in line with the constitution. The constitution is back in charge! Amen!
Didn't Conservatives champion the concept of being able to choose your own doctor?
You can choose whomever you like, just don't expect the government to pay the bill.
But ain't the government paying for all the other doctors? Kinda makes your assertion sound dumb.
Don't mean they got to pay for every procedure some hack performs in association with the vile and repulsive planned parenthood. The government doesn't automatically pay for all other doctors. I guess in NY the islamist socialist may plan to change that though. Because the extreme socialist practices he advocates have worked out so well everywhere else. On second thought maybe not, even failed socialist regimes don't automatically pay for all medical care.
This is a post by a purportedly serious person who thinks they have good ideas about how the rest of the country should live their lives. How are normal people supposed to take this rambling nonsense seriously?
Who are your "normal" people again? Radical socialists? Islamists calling for a global intifada?
Correction: it's a post by a bot.
As noted before, I found the Buffalo Bill character in Silence of the Lambs to be rather repulsive. But you seem to enjoy emulating his sick rhetorical style of referring to others as "its." To each his own I guess.
Riva (bot or not) can't tell the difference between it's and its apparently.
Children need an explanation. Buffalo Bill used "it"; others prefer "bot." Both reflect a sick perverse dehumanizing rhetoric. I guess it's true that the left really is unbalanced. And given your response, rather stupid.
Seems weird to be calling "the left" stupid since you're the one that couldn't successfully parse a seven word sentence.
Could be you're playing dumb? I mean could anyone be this stupid? Let's try again. In using "its," I was not referring to a sentence element in the comment. I was referring to the sick rhetoric. Again, Buffalo Bill used "it"; others prefer "bot." Both reflect a sick perverse dehumanizing rhetoric that refer to others as "its."
Mental illness is not your fault. And, perhaps, on reflection, neither is a lack of intelligence. But generally being an asshole, well you own that.
The "it" in question was the post, not the bot.
You don't really understand many things I suspect so I guess there's no point in explaining. See above if you're curious.
Actually, you're making up a rationalization after the fact rather than just admitting you were wrong. You wrote:
But you seem to enjoy emulating his sick rhetorical style of referring to others as "its."
No mention of the word "bot" in your original note about Buffalo bill. It was only after you were called out for being unable to tell that the use of the word "it's" referred to the post rather than to you did you decide that being called a bot was the actual thing that is dehumanizing.
Wow. Perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe being an imbecile is your fault?
Given his aversion to the word "it", one could be forgiven for speculating that Riva is one of the Knights who say "Ni".
In view of the maxim that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I don't understand the antipathy toward funding Planned Parenthood's non-abortion services through a state's Medicaid program.
By furnishing contraceptive services, PP prevents unwanted pregnancies from occurring. That makes a whale of a lot of sense. (For one thing, it reduces the number of abortions that would otherwise occur.) An embryo/fetus which is never conceived will never need medical care, food, shelter and all other expenses associated with birth and child rearing.
The organization also provides prenatal and postpartum services, wellness and preventive care, mental health services, STD testing and treatment, along with other services to improve the life of its patients. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-care/our-services
Ignoring that "contraceptive services" could encompass a lot of morally objectionable treatments like "Plan B" medication, money is fungible. Funneling money to this vile organization just subsidizes its sick agenda. And I think mothers to be, and mentally disturbed adults or children, and everyone else would be far better off without planned parenthood's questionable services.
'morally objectionable treatments like "Plan B" '
"Plan B contains levonorgestrel, a hormone that delays the release of an egg from the ovary. This prevents the egg from being fertilized by sperm."
Why is this any more morally objectionable than, for example, using a rubber?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Members of any religious sect who take the doctrine of transubstantiation seriously -- thereby practicing cannabalism -- are gullible enough to believe anything that their clerics tell the parishioners.
Because life begins at conception and Plan B acts as an abortifacient by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg, aka, the aforementioned new developing life.
Riva, a significant percentage of fertilized ova naturally fail to implant and are washed away with the menstrual flow.
If you have women in your household, (God, I hope not!), do they give their feminine hygiene products a Christian burial on the chance that one may contain a microscopic "human being"?
That is a biological reality. There is no moral culpability because it is not the intentional destruction of life.
And, just as an aside, doesn’t it get tiring being an obnoxious anti-Christian bigot all the time?
I would also add that I cannot speak to the accuracy of your “significant percentage” claim or other specifics of that biological process. With respect to medical issues, I frankly wouldn’t trust you to read a thermometer.
Like Justice Jackson, I am not a biologist. But an estimated 40 to 50% of fertilized ova fail to implant. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/35/4/743/5820646
Here is a more detailed analysis. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5443340/
"And, just as an aside, doesn’t it get tiring being an obnoxious anti-Christian bigot all the time?"
I am myself a Christian believer. It saddens and angers me, however, to see how the teachings of Jesus the Christ have been subverted by those who claim to be his followers. Jesus was an observant, socialist Jew. I admire his teachings and the way he lived his life.
He also understood the distinction between spiritual matters and secular political concerns, as well as the impossibility of serving both God and mammon.
"That is a biological reality. There is no moral culpability because it is not the intentional destruction of life."
Let's flesh that out a bit. Suppose there was a set of identical twins born to Christian parents, one of whom was murdered, and the other of whom died an unexpected and unpreventable crib death. Is only one deserving of a Christian burial?
Like I note above, it is a biological reality for which there is no intentional destruction of life. Plan B, however, is a specific action to prevent the implantation of a viable fertilized egg. It is the intentional destruction of life. That is the difference and that is why it is immoral.
But feel free to go on with your irrelevant musing on the menstrual cycle. This obsession with irrelevance is rather fitting for you given your reliance on dicta.
And I don't know what you are but given your bigoted anti-Christian comments and your continued characterization of Christ as a mere "teacher" rather than Savior, its hard for me to believe you are a Christian.
"Plan B, however, is a specific action to prevent the implantation of a viable fertilized egg. It is the intentional destruction of life."
A viable fertilized egg?? You lie, Riva. Viability occurs more than five months after fertilization.
Plan B, a/k/a the morning-after pill, is a form of emergency contraception that can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or when protection might have failed, while the abortion pill, a/k/a medication abortion, is used to terminate an existing pregnancy. Emergency contraceptive pills work by inhibiting or delaying ovulation; the goal is to prevent pregnancy, so it will not work if someone is already pregnant. https://www.today.com/health/womens-health/is-plan-b-abortion-rcna36796
Plan B can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a40253736/is-plan-b-abortion/ That is a far cry from "the intentional destruction of life" -- no pregnant woman can intend to destroy what she does not know to exist.
I have long wondered whether "Riva" is a clever parody of a MAGA cult member written by a devotee of Nathan Poe, intended to show just how stupid, ignorant and gullible that crowd is. If so, that is remarkably well done.
I lie? An insult you like to parrot but you're rather confused. I am clearly NOT referring to fetal viability, the ability of the fetus to survive outside the uterus. your rant is really quite absurd. I am simply noting that Plan B is an intentional action to prevent the fetus from attaching and developing in the normal course of the pregnancy.
What is also absurd is your fixation on menstrual flows or burial practices. Your insulting comments are irrelevant to the irrefutable logical fact that life begins at conception. Obviously there are steps in development but these simply nurture and facilitate the growing life, they don't create it. Plan B acts as an abortifacient. It is grossly immoral. And that has nothing to do with my political affiliations.
"I am simply noting that Plan B is an intentional action to prevent the fetus from attaching and developing in the normal course of the pregnancy."
No, you are the one confused. There is no fetus until about eight weeks after fertilization. What (ordinarily) attaches to the uterus is a blastocyst. https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/women-s-health-issues/normal-pregnancy/stages-of-fetal-development#Development-of-the-Embryo-and-Placenta_v809193
"Viable" and "fetus" are terms of art. Your flagrant misuse of them shows that you have no regard whatsoever for the truth or falsity of what you say, Riva.
I am obviously referring to the new created and developing life that attaches to the uterus. Whatever technical medical term is used at that stage does not change that reality. A reality you pointedly fail to address with your childish responses. And the reason is simple. You know you are wrong and have no response so you persist with these absurd distractions.
Riva, your consistent refusal to use accurate language means you don't give a damn whether you tell the truth or not.
Dogma über alles. If you are a person, you are a horrid one.
What did someone once say, "Let's flesh that out a bit." My point that began your tirade was that life begins at conception. That reality is not affected by whatever medical term is used to describe that growing developing life at any stage in the process. That process nurtures the growing life, it doesn't create it. Kindly elaborate on what exactly changes the DNA structure of that new implanted life? Does some third party as yet unnamed infuse its DNA into the mix at some stage after conception?
No, Riva, truth or falsity is the overriding issue. That includes using accurate verbiage. To knowingly do otherwise is lying.
Your earlier comments falsely asserted that "Plan B acts as an abortifacient by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg" and that "Plan B, however, is a specific action to prevent the implantation of a viable fertilized egg. It is the intentional destruction of life." There is no such thing as "a viable fertilized egg." [Emphasis added.]
Plan B works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation; the goal is to prevent pregnancy, so it will not work if someone is already pregnant. I acknowledged that in some cases, Plan B can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. The woman necessarily ingests the medication, however, before she knows whether an ovum has or has not been fertilized. Ingestion of the pill therefore cannot be "the intentional destruction of life." [Emphasis added.] Intent is a peculiar thing -- no one can intend to destroy what she doesn't know to exist.
You are a shameless liar, Riva.
You don't seem to appreciate that this silly evasion only highlights the incontrovertible truth that life begins at conception. Using Plan B is an intentional act to prevent that conceived life from developing.
But thanks for demonstrating that the incontrovertible truth that life begins at conception by your inability to muster an argument against it.
The use of accurate terminology is not evasion. The willful use of accurate terminology, which you have repeatedly engaged in on this thread, is falsehood and deception, a/k/a lying.
There is no such thing as "a viable fertilized egg."
A "fetus" cannot attach to the uterus.
No woman can "intend" to destroy an organism which she does not know to exist.
And begging the question does not determine as "incontrovertible truth that life begins at conception" -- a philosophical question as to which there is no definitive answer. For example, those who take literally the biblical account of creation at Genesis 2 (I am not among them) may believe based upon theology that one does not become a human being before drawing breath:
4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- 7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Genesis 2:4-8 (RSV). It is no answer to say that a zygote or blastocyst is "alive." So are an unfertilized egg and a single spermatozoon alive. No one would call either of these single cells a human being. A zygote lacks certain characteristics, such as consciousness or the ability to feel pain.
There are various views on "When Human Life First Begins" from various perspectives. https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=42726 Merely begging the question doesn't feed the bulldog.
The religious and philosophical perspective that believes that life begins at conception is 100 percent consistent with the biological reality that the inception of life takes place at fertilization. Those views that deny this reality are inconsistent with biology and science. And you consistently fail to address this point although for some reason are obsessed with denying science to promote an apparent abortion agenda. Are you invested in Plan B?
Government pays for about 50% of healthcare, we should probably reduce that.
Maybe, but wouldn't the principled way to do that be to reduce the number of people the government is paying for, or the extent of their coverage? Instead they're targeting which doctor is being paid, and not because they're too expensive.
Since it's a fundamental right, probably, but it's because of the Liberals my daughters Pediatrician asked how many guns were in the House ("Umm, let's see, I think 64....oh wait, make that 63, "64" is in my holster") Frank
"But ain't the government paying for all the other doctors?" No.
Choose what you want, without government subsidy.
NO, you are thinking of Obama !!!
“And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”
– Obama, remarks in Portland, April 1, 2010, after the health care law was signed into law.
BIG MISTAKE THERE
I remember those days. I had a catastrophic, high deductible plan ($10k) for my family of four at a cost of $310 a month.
Now, thanks to Obamacare, I have a high deductible plan that costs $1600 a month with only $12,000 out of pocket limits. But the good thing is that atleast my family gets to cover the costs of gay party drugs like PReP which cost over $1000 a month. Fuck providing for my kids when some homosexual wants to bareback strangers in a bookstore's backroom without consequence!
I agree -- why can't the gays pay the same copays as the rest of us?
Why can't gays pay risk rated premiums and normal people pay risk rated premiums instead of community rated ones?
Why should normal people be required assume the risk of homosexuals who deliberately engage in high risk acts?
Uh, EllaWilson, Medina v. Planned Parenthood is a decision interpreting federal statutes, not the Constitution. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1275_e2pg.pdf
And not even deciding whether Planned Parenthood should be funded, only whether a private party can get around 11th Amendment immunity by claiming a right to be funded. The next Democratic administration can demand South Carolina fund Planned Parenthood.
Trump v. CASA - the power of federal district courts to issue “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions The profoundly democrat party federal judges are about to get slapped down. The constitution is back in charge!
Been seriously contemplating going up to my boss (FAANG, software engineer) and just quitting on the spot. Between the … over the past 3 years they removed basically any opportunity for advancement and they won’t let me change internally.
I’ve been told multiple times things like “oh your doing great but for *corporate politics* we’re gonna have to wait another quarter before we give you your promotion, and pretty directly too those are pretty close to my managers words. There is only so much of this I can put up with.
I knew going in that this particular company had a … a reputation for this, but I didn’t think it would get this bad.
Would be nice to have something lined up but I’ve tired and just a constant string of rejections. I’ve make it to the final round fairly consistently in interviews but no offer. So Idk what to do /vent
Promotion? You seem to be working in the private sector. Therein lies your error. Now, if you really want promotion and benefits beyond the dreams of avarice, get some government work.
Just buckle down, do your job, don't make waves, while you seek another job. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
+10 work even harder/smarter, and add a second part-time job of taking your talents elsewhere. When asked why you're leaving, you have the perfect reason: I'm ready to do more, but my old company was not.
You must be a White male watching less qualified diversity hires take your rightful promotions.
Actually +100,000
It's gonna get ugly when reconstruction ends this time too.
I'd strongly recommend finding a new job before you bail. My employer watches Linkedin and at least used to consider making improvements when someone started looking for a new job.
Just for the record....
Iran, 1979: 80,000 Jews Iran, 2013: 10,000 Jews
Egypt, 1948: 75,000 Jews Egypt, 2022: 3 Jews
Syria, 1945: 15,000 Jews Syria, 2024: 3 Jews
Iraq, 1948: 200,000 to 400,000 JEws Iraq, 2025: 3 Jews
British Palestine, 1945: 1.06 million Muslims. Israel, (not including west bank or Gaza) 1948: 156,000 Muslims Israel (not including west bank or Gaza), 2021: 1.7 million Muslims
Remember, Israel is committing ethnic cleansing and genocide though.
Every point you made is bad - including the last one.
And since the last point is actually current and not 40+ years ago, shouldn't we be addressing that to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide?
ethicnic cleansing and genocide isnt happening except in your delusions. At least not by Israel. Though the arab countries were quite active with expulsions after the 1948 war.
Oh, so we should ignore past ethnic cleansing and just concentrate on potential future ethnic cleaning? Ignore trends in population?
Russia must be scared of ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians from Russia then.
Sheesh...
No, we should LEARN from past ethnic cleansing while addressing current (and hopefully preventing) potential future ethnic cleaning.
Ape - Israel is not engaging in ethnic cleansing or genocide. Quite making s.... up. You lose credibility (though you likely gain credibility with other delusional leftists)
Learn from past Ethnic cleaning?
Here's what I "learned." If a minority population in a country has gone up more than 10-fold in the last 80 years.... (IE, Israel's Muslim population going from under 200,000 to more than 1.5 million)...It is in no way "ethnic cleansing". Actually the opposite.
And people who claim that Israel is engage in it are lying their asses off to cover for actual ethnic cleansing.
Israel is engaging in a never-ending occupation of the West Bank, denying the non-Jewish residents of basic political rights. At least two members of the Israeli cabinet advocate for ethnic cleansing by annexing the West Bank and kicking out the Palestinians.
"denying the non-Jewish residents of basic political rights."
Not sure what you mean by this. The Palestinians who live in Israel and are Israeli citizens can, and do vote in Israeli elections. The Palestinians who live in the West Bank have the right to vote to vote in Palestinian elections (Or, well...they did before Hamas and Fatah kept putting off the election. But that's a different issue).
Are you implying that Palestinians who live in the West Bank should have the right to vote in Israeli elections? Despite the West Bank not actually being part of Israel?
Palestinian votes only make a difference for administrative tasks within Area A. Borders, security, access to water and the ability to move about are controlled by Israel.
So you are implying that Palestinians who live in the West Bank should be able to vote in Israeli elections....
Did the Japanese in Tokyo in 1946 vote in US elections? Did the Germans in Hamburg in 1948 vote in British elections?
But personally I see the bigger problem as Palestinians don't currently "have" a vote....their "ruling parties" seems to keep putting it off. You seem to ignore that little issue.
The people in the West Bank should be voting in the elections of whatever country they live in. Right now, they are de facto stateless thanks to Israel's endless occupation (the USA left Japan after 7 years).
Josh,
They are not stateless. They live in the country of Palestine. Palestine is a non-Member observer state in the UN. Palestinians vote in Palestinian elections. Which they last did in 2006, on a country-wide basis. Voting for one of two major parties, Fatah or Hamas.
Now....the Palestinian people made some poor choices in who they voted for...especially in Gaza, where they voted for Hamas. Because Hamas...decided that it wasn't in their interest to have any further elections. And despite Israel completely leaving Gaza, Hamas decided it would be a good idea to attack Israel with Rockets. Then attack it again. Then again. Then Hamas (the elected government of Gaza) decided to invade Israel to rape, torture, and kill innocent civilians.
So Israel needed to occupy Gaza again.
It's like if the US invaded and occupied Germany. Then the Germans had elections, voted the Nazis BACK into power, and they invaded France and Poland again.
His point is that the jews are the real victims of ethnic cleansing. Shouldn't we be addressing that? Well, I mean not the way the Muslim communities are, I mean by stopping it.
Bad because you said so 🙂 now there's egotism-cum-stupidity in Macy's window
Where is ethnic cleansing and genocide going on?
Israeli Soldiers Ordered to Shoot at Unarmed Palestinians Waiting for Aid: Report
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israeli-soldiers-ordered-to-shoot-at-unarmed-palestinians-waiting-for-aid-report/ar-AA1HygYh?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6304fb21681947a089ffa7a672c6086d&ei=75
Haaretz exists solely to give people anti-Israel talking points. Its less reliable than Al Jazeera.
Any on the record quotes?
That s correct about Haaretz, especially when talking about any actions of the Netanyahu government
correct - mass expulsions of jews from iran, iraq, syria, egypt, libyia, etc shortly after the 1948 arab israeli war.
Here's a concept. Maybe...just maybe...smart Jews chose to immigrate out of those shithole countries. Unless you're making another baseless MAGA assertion that a bunch of good old fashioned mini-holocausts occurred in each country of which no one has ever heard any accounts of
In October 1956, when the Suez Crisis erupted, the position of the mutamassirun, including the Jewish community, was significantly impacted.[183]
1000 Jews were arrested and 500 Jewish businesses were seized by the government. A statement branding the Jews as "Zionists and enemies of the state" was read out in the mosques of Cairo and Alexandria.[184][185] Jewish bank accounts were confiscated and many Jews lost their jobs. Lawyers, engineers, doctors and teachers were not allowed to work in their professions. Thousands of Jews were ordered to leave the country and told that they may be sent to concentration camps if they stayed.[184] They were allowed to take only one suitcase and a small sum of cash, and forced to sign declarations "donating" their property to the Egyptian government. Foreign observers reported that members of Jewish families were taken hostage, apparently to insure that those forced to leave did not speak out against the Egyptian government. Jews were expelled or left, forced out by the anti-Jewish feeling in Egypt.[186] Some 25,000 Jews, almost half of the Jewish community left, mainly for Europe, the United States, South America and Israel, after being forced to sign declarations that they were leaving voluntarily, and agreed with the confiscation of their assets. Similar measures were enacted against British and French nationals in retaliation for the invasion. By 1957 the Jewish population of Egypt had fallen to 15,000."
But sure...no one has heard any accounts of it.
Basically you plagiarized this Wikipedia entry and swapped 'palestinians' for 'jews'. No hands are clean in the revolting nest of savages known as the Middle East
"The Nakba (Arabic: النَّكْبَة, romanized: an-Nakba, lit. 'the catastrophe') is the ethnic cleansing[14] of Palestinian Arabs through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society and the suppression of their culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations.[15] The term is used to describe the events of the 1948 Palestine war in Mandatory Palestine as well as the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel.[16] As a whole, it covers the fracturing of Palestinian society and the long-running rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.[17][18]
During the foundational events of the Nakba in 1948, approximately half of Palestine's predominantly Arab population, or around 750,000 people,[19] were expelled from their homes or made to flee through various violent means, at first by Zionist paramilitaries, and after the establishment of the State of Israel, by its military. Dozens of massacres targeted Palestinian Arabs and over 500 Arab-majority towns, villages, and urban neighborhoods were depopulated.[20] Many of the settlements were either completely destroyed or repopulated by Jews and given new Hebrew names.[20][21] Israel employed biological warfare against Palestinians by poisoning village wells. By the end of the war, 78% of the total land area of the former Mandatory Palestine was controlled by Israel."
"Basically you plagiarized this Wikipedia entry and swapped 'palestinians' for 'jews'."
That's a lie. Why do you lie?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world
Why does he lie?
He is a leftists - its ingrained
https://www.mena-researchcenter.org/the-emigration-and-expulsion-of-jews-from-arab-countries/
https://www.gov.il/en/pages/jewish-refugees-expelled-from-arab-lands-and-from-iran-30-november-2021
No.... I took an actual wikipedia entry and copy-pasted without editing.
Israel's Muslim population has gone up more than 10-fold in the last 80 years. Not including the West Bank or Gaza. It's not "ethnic cleansing."
Israel proper has a higher Muslim population today than the entire British mandate of Palestine did in 1945. It's not ethnic cleansing. The Muslim population is increasing. Dramatically.
That's good to hear. Are they gonna get all their land a belongings back?
"It's not "ethnic cleansing."" Nowadays it ain't (except in the settlements). But, oh brother, back in the 40's it was a doozy. But that's just too long ago, so we shouldn't really care anymore
Are they gonna get all their land a belongings back?
Simple, Arab countries who stole property from Jews pay compensation for those thefts into a fund which is then used to pay compensation to Palestinian Arabs.
Ah, the ol' they did it so we can too. Always a winner when addressing the subject of human subjugation and inhumanity. It can alleviate a lot of guilty feelings
I never said that. I provided an economic solution to a pre-existing issue. You are the one, it seems, who fails to recognise the overall situation. What stopped the Palestinians from having a second state after the establishment of Israel? It wasn't the Israelis.
"Are they gonna get all their land a belongings back?" spoken like a typical antisemite. There is no "right of return.
I wasn't aware that my concern for equal justice also meant I hate Jews. How am I gonna break this to all my Jewish friends?
You know, Don; being the Boys Who Cried Antisemitism at anything and everything is eventually gonna cause antisemitism fatigue across the greater American polity, coarsening people's opinions against the very - manufactured - concerns you now pretend to hold dear. America's Jewry is right in distancing themselves from conservatism; because abusing them and their cause for political gain is perhaps the most antisemitic thing of all.
Blah, blah, blah.
Annnnd, you're done, Don. Thanks for playing
"Some of my best friends are Jews" (trad.)
Your ignorance of the actual history makes your apparent concern for equal justice suspect
There were a lot of mass expulsions and migrations 1945-1950, by far the biggest was 12 million to 14.6 million Germans expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia and other enclaves in eastern Europe.
Lets address that one first, or maybe the Palestinians should do what the Germans did and get over it.
Back in the 40's it was a war. Lots of transfers of population. There was a sizable Jewish presence in the West Bank (for example Hebron) in the 1930s. It was completely eliminated by 1948. Not a single Jew remained in the West Bank.
By comparison tens of thousands of Muslims remained in Israel.
If you're comparing apples to apples...On one side, you had the complete elimination of the Jewish Population from the West Bank. On the other side, you had tens of thousands of Muslims remain in Israel...
Your argument is like two parties that get in a fight. Party A punches Party B. Party B stabs Party A with a knife. And you put all the blame on Party A.
Being willfully stupid isn't a positive.
non-so-smart, antisemitic snark!
a bunch of good old fashioned mini-holocausts occurred in each country of which no one has ever heard any accounts of
Except people who read. You can find some accounts in Martin Gilbert's book In Ishmael's House: a History of Jews in Muslim Lands
Rumor has it that the FBI is close to identifying the Dobbs leaker.
What then?
Another laptop found in a pawnshop, Ed? Comer can get right on it, and Green can revenge porn some photos in public. It strains belief that we will get a credible, non-clown car investigation from MAGA these days.
What pawn shop are you talking about?
Since we don’t really use Capital Punishment anymore, maybe a Moe-Saad Cell Phone?
Let me guess: a police officer told you.
Is this the same FBI they wanted to defund?
Trump's no income tax on tips, overtime and Social Security is going to backfire badly because it will become a major benefit to the wealthy.
A lot of government workers (not just police) routinely make six figures of overtime and how do you not tax that while taxing someone whose total income is only a third of that?
And taxing social security is only an issue because of the other income that people have.
So this will become the poor subsidizing the rich.
No one is serious about "taxing the rich"; if they were, the issue of SALT deductions would never come up.
The salt cap is a nothing burger. the increase in amt exemption, the increase in the standard deduction resulted in only a very small subset of taxpayers actually paying more federal income tax.
The removal of the SALT deduction was Trump targeting states he didn't like.
The salt cap is a nothing burger.
Not to me.
run the 2018 numbers using the 2017 tax law and compare with the actual tax for 2018. Run the 2017 numbers using the 2018 tax law and compare against actual 2017 tax liability.
The difference was most often was slightly lower tax even with the salt cap.
Are you talking about my numbers or the overall effect?
Run your numbers as outlined above. If you were paying amt, it is unlikely that the salt cap caused you to pay more tax. For a valid comparison, you need to compare the tax costs with both the salt cap and the amt change
In the same way, a wealth tax on billionaires would affect very few people, but they would have the money to raise a huge ruckus about it. Having the wealthiest people in a state unhappy would have implications for that state.
your response is not related to the discussion
It explains why the SALT cap is not a nothing burger. Ask Sonja T to explain it to you, or create a new sock puppet.
I don't think it's reasonable to characterize these three as a group. I disagree with no tax on tips and no tax on overtime, but I agree social security benefits shouldn't be taxed. But know that the BBB doesn't eliminate tax on SS benefits, it only includes a temporary enhanced deduction for seniors. This deduction is an extra $4,000 for filers 65 and older.
" social security benefits shouldn't be taxed."
I see no reason why social security benefits should not be taxed. Other retirement income, financed form working-life income just like SS benefits, is taxable as well--SS benefits shouldn't be special. Estimates I have seen indicate that eliminating the tax would cost the SS "trust fund" (ultimately a cost realized as an increase in the national debt) about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Of course, as noted above, Trump's promise to eliminate taxes on SS income is not honored in the Big Beautiful Budget Busting Bill. The $4000 increase in deductions for couples with AGI less than about $150k probably isn't too bad (maybe even a good thing with a cost of about $23 billion/year) as it will not benefit high income SS recipients very much.
I admit that the idea of eliminating taxes on SS income is sort of drool inducing as it would benefit us about $15k/year. But, it would be bad policy and I'm glad it's probably not being seriously considered.
In any event, the better way to reduce AGI by about $200k/year and mostly eliminate taxes on SS income is by using QCDs to contribute that $200k to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Pretty much eliminate federal tax liability entirely and the reduction in taxable income won't have any affect on our life style. Won't even be noticed.
I see no reason why social security benefits should not be taxed.
Well, FICA withholding is taxed. Seems like a good reason.
"FICA withholding is taxed"
Half of it, I think.
"Seems like a good reason."
I don't see it that way. I see no good reason why having paid taxes in the past to finance government operations should entitle me, or anyone else, to favorable tax treatment today. Particularly when we're talking about blowing a $150 billion/year hole in the budget. But, I recognize that my opinion is probably a minority opinion.
We are talking past each other.
A certain amount is deducted from my paycheck for FICA. This does not reduce my taxable income at all.
Hence that amount - all of it - is taxed as regular income. The tax arrangements are similar to those for a Roth IRA.
"We are talking past each other."
I think that's true and I certainly don't want to get into any sort of argument over it.
My point about the taxability is that only half of the contribution appears on your paycheck. With a Roth IRA, your employer doesn't ge to make tax free contributions.
As I intimitated, I recognize that my opinion on this is probably a minority opinion.
The whole BBB is the poor subsidizing the rich. Cutting SNAP and Medicaid so that you can keep the top end marginal tax rate low is a much more obvious example.
But yes, as far as tax policy goes, the new tax cuts are particularly terrible.
Would someone please explain the rationale for not taxing tips and overtime pay? Thanks.
I don't think there is any good rationale for not taxing overtime pay.
As for tips, I'd guess that the rationale would be that tip income is mostly relied on by people without a lot of income and taxing tips places an unfair burden on them not only because of the tax cost but also because of the compliance costs on people who are probably not sophisticated in complicated tax law compliance. It's also difficult to fairly enforce.
It seems to me that if the goal is to reduce the tax burden on lower income people that there are more fair ways to do it. As pointed out by others in these comment sections, eliminating taxes on tips has economically distorting affects and is unfair to people with similar incomes not reliant on tips.
> So this will become the poor subsidizing the rich.
Does anyone doubt that this has been Republican policy for decades? It’s not particularly popular, but while other Republican policies come and go, this one is the hill that Republicans are willing to die on.
“Takahiro Shiraishi, known as the "Twitter killer," was sentenced to death in 2020 for the killings in 2017 of the nine victims, most of whom had posted suicidal thoughts on social media. He was also convicted of sexually abusing female victims.
The execution was carried out as calls grow to abolish capital punishment in Japan since the acquittal of the world's longest-serving death-row inmate Iwao Hakamada last year.
Shiraishi was hanged at the Tokyo Detention House in high secrecy with nothing disclosed until the execution was done.
Police arrested him in 2017 after finding the bodies of eight females and one male in cold-storage cases in his apartment.
Investigators said Shiraishi approached the victims via Twitter, offering to assist them with their suicidal wishes. He killed the eight women, including teenagers, after raping them, and also killed a boyfriend of one of the women to silence him.“
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5448572/japan-execution-man-killing-9-people
Friend of yours? Whammo! (HT (Dr) Bill Cosby) You just got ranked by a fictional character!
Wonder what character the writer of the Frank Fakeman persona performed here performs on X?
If he bugs you so much, why not put him on must instead of subjecting everyone to you Fakeman shtick.
Apparently he's already on Queenie's "must". Trolls gotta troll.
Indeed. There's even a good bit of envy tucked in there.
Envy? That's bizarre.
If Malika the Maiz bothers you three so much, why don't you mute him?
I don't even mute you. That's how unpleasant I expect people to be with me. Why encourage me to mute? With posters like Malika, you're not so shrill.
(Speaking just for myself here, not "you three")
You certainly do love to pile on when the complaints fly.
If he bugs you so much, why not put him on must
People already do! Interesting typo!
Illinois Gun Possession Statute Upheld by State High Court
Illinois’ highest court upheld a statute frequently used to charge felony gun possession, finding that a requirement to obtain two separate permits—one to own a gun and another to carry it publicly—doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.
Five of the seven state Supreme Court justices joined in an opinion finding that the US Supreme Court’s decision in NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen explicitly endorsed 'shall-issue' licensing requirements like Illinois’.
“Licensing decisions in shall-issue states, like Illinois, turn on objective criteria, not on a licensing official’s subjective opinion or an applicant’s showing of some additional need for self-defense . . . . ”
(Bloomberg Law but I don't have an account for the full article.)
Fully agree that 2A shouldn't be a suicide pact and that lawful weapons owners should have some basic training on law and usage.
"Fully agree that 2A shouldn't be a suicide pact and that lawful weapons owners should have some basic training on law and usage."
I don't understand the suicide pact comment. On the latter comment, sure, firearms owners and carriers should get training and know the law as well as they can; know that the law can be complex and confusing, sometimes contradictory, and open to interpretation. But I am opposed to mandatory training on usage and law. We don't require that for any other constitutional right. No mandatory training on the law and usage for the first amendment, for example.
Many states have mandatory training for a license to carry. Massachusetts requires a safe handling course completion. I had to fire when I took mine 30+ years ago. Rhode Island has a rather draconian requirement which restricts one's carry rights to the largest caliber used in their live fire test. I think it's to discourage people from pursuing the license.
I can justify RI's caliber rule -- qualify with a .22 and then fire a .45 for the first time in a real situation and you will be freaking dangerous. Qualify with that .45 if you intend to carry it.
Straw horse - you assume that someone who obtains a 45 fires it for the first time when they need it for self defense? Ridiculous.
That seems entirely possible, even though most people wouldn't.
I know several people who own 45s but have never fired one. I once owned about 1500 rounds of .380 apc without owning a 380 pistol.
Well, that proves it then, doesn't it! /sarc
"We don't require that for any other constitutional right."
Actually 1A has restrictions - there are no absolutes.
Particular Governmental Regulations that Restrict Expression
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/13-particular-governmental-regulations.html
And I agree with Justice Thomas in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton which was just published.
"Fundamental rights that turn on age are no different. Texas, again like many States, requires proof of age to obtain a handgun license; to register to vote; and to marry."
"Actually 1A has restrictions - there are no absolutes."
You missed the point. I know there are restrictions, but there's no government mandated training before you speak.
" I know there are restrictions, but there's no government mandated training before you speak." Of course there is in every one of the 50 states. (I almost wrote "57 states" but then realized that there are people here who wouldnt get it and I'm too tired to explain.)
Are you saying there's mandatory training before you exercise your 1st amendment rights???
I guess that would be compulsory education.
Stupid response. You got nothing.
"Many states have mandatory training for a license to carry. "
Texas still does. Even though law changes in the last few years have pretty much eliminated the advantages of having an LTC, there are a few advantages including expedited background check approval.
Looks like the training requirements have been significantly reduced. Now the requirement in Texas is a 4-6 hour class available online and a range "class" of 1-2 hours. Back about 25-30 years ago, the required classroom instruction took a couple days. The range class lasted about an hour and basically just verified that the license applicant was not outrageously incompetent and dangerous-- a good thing. My recollection is that if an applicant went to the range with a revolver, the LTC would be restricted to revolvers, but I don't know how that would have been enforced. With Texas going to near universal concealed carry with no competency requirement at all most of the old stuff just doesn't matter.
Getting rid of the Second Amendment is far closer to a real suicide pact. Countries glibly blabbering about not having one, and those here who look fondly thereon, have no assurance of long-term stability, and many such have had gun-outlawing tyrannies in living memory, and fortunately, for them, currently have the US' firm big brother hand to keep them free, after freeing them from the gun-outlawing tyrants.
See also "We don't need no stinking First Amendment!", same argument by the same tyrant enablers.
"Illinois Gun Possession Statute Upheld by State High Court"
Really? I'm completely shocked.
Why can't Illinois issue one permit and endorse it like a driver's license? License to own. Check this box if also a license to carry in public. Check this box if restricted to magazine/cylinder capacity of no more than 5 rounds. Check this box to stand your ground. Check this box if corrective lenses are required.
The Boston Globe reports on use of driver's licenses as debt collection tools:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/06/09/metro/impacted-drivers-massachusetts-licenses-expire-unpaid-tolls/
In New York, and I believe also in Massachusetts, if you have a transponder linked to an expired credit card you will get a big fine every time you drive through a toll. If you didn't have a transponder you would get a bill in the mail and pay a couple dollars more because they had to look up your plate. So why don't they bill the plate if the transponder account is empty? They make more money off of fines, fees, and surcharges.
The federal government could fix this problem if anybody in Washington cared.
I get a blank page when I go to that link.
https://archive.ph/20250609094652/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/06/09/metro/impacted-drivers-massachusetts-licenses-expire-unpaid-tolls/
Thank you!
I thought that Tall Deval "fixed" this.
Many states have outlawed robo-ticketing. All it does is emphasize the highway robber nature of it, and no, We The People decline to be financially preyed on by machinery.
Sounds like a ripe moment for state legislatures to correct another issue of automated looting.
I have a reserved rhetoric should anyone come out in defense of it.
When will the SC drop the results of the remaining cases?
A complaint with the Department of Education accuses Smith College of violating Title IX by admitting students based on female gender identity rather than biological sex. My first reaction is Smith is within the law. Gender identity is not an explicitly protected status. If gender identity earns protected status by piggybacking on sex, then Smith has the benefit of the exception in Title IX allowing discrimination in admission based on sex. Title IX did not ban single-sex schools.
I gather Smith is following the Biden administration's guidance.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/06/27/metro/smith-college-transgender-students-complaint/
Smith is clearly no longer a single-sex school and they are discriminating against females who identify as men by banning them from admissions.
Smith is discriminating. Smith is not violating Title IX as I understand it. Smith has the benefit of the exception in 20 USC 1681(a)(1):
in regard to admissions to educational institutions, this section shall apply only to institutions of vocational education, professional education, and graduate higher education, and to public institutions of undergraduate higher education;
Private undergraduate institutions are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex in admissions.
They aren't discriminating on the basis of sex. They are discriminating on the basis of gender.
They admit males and females. They ban males who identify as men and they ban females who identify as men.
Last I checked, Smith admitted biological females who identified as male, to the point that Smith no longer refers to its students as "her" and "she" -- by policy.
The discrimination is amongst men -- they are treating men who identify as women differently than men who identify as men.
One has to wonder how they treat men who identify as furries...
As an aside -- Massachusetts law prohibits single sex GRADUATE education because, when it passed in the early '70s, the female colleges were only undergrad-only. Hence Smith's social work program is required to be coed and has been for decades.
No, Smith allows males who identify as women, females who identify as women, but ban males who identify as men and females who identify as men. It's in the complaint.
Discriminating based on "gender" is still discriminating based on sex, or a trait inextricable linked with sex.
It's like only admitting people with breasts, and saying you're not discriminating based on sex, but breast size.
Gender is not linked with sex. Gender is anything anyone wants it to be at any time and can change by the minute.
Gender is an unrelated cultural concept of roles.
Carolyn McCarthy, a former nine-term congresswoman from Long Island who became a champion of gun regulation after her family was shattered by a deranged shooter on a commuter train — transforming herself from a nurse and homemaker into a national symbol of unflinching, if largely frustrated, advocacy — died on Thursday at her home in Fort Myers, Fla. She was 81.
https://archive.ph/ekc8K
This is a current headline on Reddit's frontpage:
"Did Donald Trump steal the 2024 election? A legal challenge in New York could reveal the truth behind allegations that last year’s election result was “consistent with vote manipulation”
It wasn't too long ago when headlines like that were attacks on our Sacred Democracy and got buried by the gov-backed censorship complex.
Weird.
We know the story can't be true because it's impossible to steal a presidential election, right?
We know it's entirely possible. In fact we saw it happen before our very eyes in 2020. But if you stated that in 2020 or 2021 or 2022 or 2023 you were harming our Sacred Democracy.
" In fact we saw it happen before our very eyes in 2020. " No, we saw, before our very eyes, a concerted effort by the enemies of democracy to steal the election thwarted.
16M missing Biden voters. Where did they go when Kamala needed them?
lmao. 2024 was too big to rig
Are you a dope or just pretending to be one?
For LexAquilia? Yes to both.
2020 was even bigger, and yet there was an insurrection and fake electors, plus it continues to generate claims that it was rigged to this day.
There were no "missing" Biden voters, let alone 16 million of them.
The difference is neither Harris nor any major elected Democratic official is making the claim the election was stolen. Even better: no one used the theory of a stolen election to encourage their supporters to break into the Capitol building and disrupt Congress in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power.
Or put another way: there are kooks in both parties. It just turns out in the Republican party they let the kooks be in charge.
Also, it doesn't look to me like anyone is actually suggesting that the odd voting results that are being examined are indicative of illegality sufficiently pervasive to put the legitimacy of the 2024 results in question. There's also the possibility that the supposed anomalies vanish upon brief investigation. Sort of like when Republicans claimed that voting results in Minnesota indicated fraud in Michigan.
edit: To be clear, the probability that Trump's election in 2024 was the result of illegality is vanishingly small.
Jonathan Braun, a buddy of Jared Kushner whose sentence Trump commuted, is back behind bars. He is charged for assault of an elderly man; assault of his wife; groping his nanny’s breast without her permission; assault of a 3-year-old child; and menacing a hospital staffer. In his arraignment he threw a tantrum and flipped off the gallery.
Will Trump pardon him again? Make America Great for Violent Felons?
An apparently unreported scandal of the US bombing of Iran is that the bunker-busting bombs did not perform as they were supposed to.
Why don't you volunteer to go check out the site and report back?
The problem is that if the bomb makes a entry hole and only explodes within the structure below, the damage will not be visible to someone standing on the surface, let alone looking down from a satellite.
Unreported? Lots of your leftist media got burned by reporting that a highly classified (but "low confidence" and apparently wrong) assessment claimed exactly that.
Highly classified but apparently wrong is not very likely given the content doesn’t appear to reveal sources and methods.
There’s not much threat to national security from low confidence probably wrong info.
More likely the administration is lying to save face.
Of course, my favorite gaslighter vomits his usual partisan BS: "More likely the administration is lying to save face."
Also "Highly classified but apparently wrong is not very likely" is another comment based on knowing nothing about the weapons or the operation.
More likely he will claim that any action by this administration is a failure or worse.
I think it's wilful ignorance. For example, classified assessments infamously came down on both sides of the COVID-19 "lab leak" question, so some of them were necessarily wrong (although I don't know what clarification level they had).
And https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Iraq_NIE_Excerpts_2003.pdf, representing a view that Iraq continued its WMD programs past 2000, was presumably based in large part on highly classified sources.
Maybe the guy issuing grants for indigenous basket weaving has some idealized view of how the DOD and IC operate, but not all of us do.
lol citing Iraq WMD reports as legit intel assessments is the real ignorance. Cheney would settle for nothing less.
Low credibility assessments that don’t reveal sources and methods aren’t going to be TS. Maybe Secret.
A comment made by a child.
Be better.
"methods aren’t going to be TS" False. That depends on the sources and methods.
The entire sentence was "Low credibility assessments that don’t reveal sources and methods aren’t going to be TS." So the sources and methods that are not revealed would have no effect on whether the assessment is TS.
That sentence is fundamentally wrong, though. Classification is based on the level of identifiable (potential) damage due to unauthorized disclosure of information, not whether the particular information derived from a source or method is worth a lick.
I don't claim it's right or wrong; I was just observing that Don Nico's comment misrepresented it.
But fundamentally wrong seems excessive; there is a reasonable observation that low credibility and giving nothing away regarding sources and methods is less likely to be highly classified, simply because it wouldn't have much value to someone not authorized to know it: it doesn't compromise methods or sources, and anyone could have asserted the assessment in the same way that anyone can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Don Nico said the same thing I did, just in fewer words.
For example, suppose HUMINT source X provides a rumor that goes into an assessment. If X's identity is TS, the assessment as a whole will be TS to protect that identity, even if most of the evidence says X's rumor is wrong. That's why classification depends on the method or source, not how reliable the document is.
And "sources and methods" are very broadly defined. If, say, the government is building system S, then it's possible that it's unclassified that S performs function F, confidential that it is expected to score at least 1 (on whatever scale) doing F, secret that it should score at least 3, and top secret that it is expected to score 3.14 -- even before S is ever used as a source or it employs method F to collect intelligence.
Michael, you do not have the correct understanding of derivative classification.
‘Revealed by’ is not nearly as broad as you argue.
I can only imagine it’s more restrictive at the TS level not less so.
Your thesis requires that credibility is a marginal part of the classification determination. Absent direct sources and methods directly contained in the material, you are flat wrong.
If I have the time I may try and dig up the unclass training on derivative classification.
Gaslight0's imagination continues to be wrong. I wonder if he's ever even read a classification guide. https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/scg-handbook.pdf is illustrative, particularly the "Project Three Little Pigs" example. https://www.dami.army.pentagon.mil/site/ARTPC/docs/Classification%20Mgmt%20Tutorial.pdf is much more verbose, but the decision guide on pages 27-29 and list on pages 31-34 show how broad "methods and sources" is; see also the table on pages 15-16. The first two bullets on page 31 are exactly aligned with my earlier example.
Magister, My statement is accurate. The level of confidence does not determine the level of classification. The sources and methods do unless and until the level is the document is officially downgraded in level.
You dishonestly quoted only a part of the sentence -- "methods aren’t going to be TS" -- even though the full sentence said nothing about the methods, which were not revealed, being TS.
If we has a credible assessment that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons in his bedoom closet, then the credibility indicates that someone close to him told us that and that asset would be in danger if this were revealed; a low credibility assessment could be just a lie from someone unreliable that was stovepiped past actual analysis.
Magister,
First, you seem to be conflating low confidence and low reliability (or credibility). The former generally refers to an assessment; the facts on which it is based can be 100% accurate but insufficient for a firm conclusion. The latter means that the facts may not be accurate.
Second, neither of those has anything to do with classification status, which is based on the harm it could do if the information were revealed. And, as noted, even entirely false information can reveal sources & methods. Even if turned out that we had Iran's version of Dr. Ed telling us a lot of entirely false stuff, the manner in which we recruited and communicated with him could still be revealed by revealing the information he provided.
Then that would fall under the category of revealing methods or sources, which is not what the original statement included. I am more offended by Don Nico's misrepresentation of what he purported to quote than I have any strong feelings about classification. I am sure that many classification decisions are made for reasons that have nothing to do with national security.
Magister is misrepresented nothing. I call S_O on his usual wrong headedness. The entire comment of gaslight0 was "Low credibility assessments that don’t reveal sources and methods aren’t going to be TS. " My comment is that the classification depends on the sources and methods NOT on the level of confidence of the summary or conclusion. You are just looking for an argument rather than contributing anything positive.
You misrepresented what was said in Sarcastr0's comment, to the point of changing the meaning, and ended up looking dishonest, regardless of the point you thought you were making.
your leftist media
Not mine. I'm not a leftist.
quite a few other leftists claim not to be leftists
Yes, and many cultists accuse people in favour of free markets of being socialists. By definition if you are in favour of generally free markets and free trade, generally opposed to centralised and distributive economies and to the state owning the means of production, etd. you are NOT a leftist. Being opposed to Trump doesn't make you a leftist except in the feverishly ignorant minds of cultists.
Nice - you changed the topic - why ? To hide your being a leftists?
Not exactly - you incorrectly used the phrase "your leftist media" and I am quite entitled to correct you. And you felt obliged to respond though you could merely have done the honourable thing and let is pass, but as you're a cultist POS, you couldn't help yourself.
Is that right? My understanding is they blowed up most of what they were supposed to blow up.
It’s that enriched Uranium is the driver of the development timeline, and wasn’t there anymore. And may be easy to replace through other channels anyhow.
The leak of a TS document to the press is also an independent scandal.
"And may be easy to replace through other channels anyhow." Just more talking through is hat.
"wasn’t there anymore."
Mossad completely penetrated Iranian security so that they could , for example, assemble/launch drones inside Iran, know the home addresses of most senior military offices and nuclear scientists, and call a high level IRGC meeting and kill everyone.
Then it missed dozens [perhaps hundreds] of trucks leaving nuclear sites with uranium.
Your hatred of Trump is affecting your brain.
I know you are ignorantly knee-jerking, but your beef is with the DIA, not me.
Mossad as superpowered superspies is some childish fetishization thing. They win some, they lose some.
"DIA"
There are other agencies and groups [CIA, Israel, France, UN atomic agency] that disagree with the alleged leaked DIA assessment.
I guess the leak served its purpose, it lets Trump haters have a talking point.
"childish fetishization thing"
Or, its based on the best intelligence penetration since The Brits ran the entire German spy ring during WWII.
...and now there is this: "Iranian minister admits airstrikes caused 'excessive and serious' damage to its nuke facilities - hours after Ayatollah accused Trump of 'exaggerating' damage"
"Mossad as superpowered superspies is some childish fetishization thing. They win some, they lose some."
Sounds like a great inscription for a bunch of Iranian military leader's headstones.
True, October 7th was a definite loss.
12 day war was almost certainly a huge win.
October 7th, by itself did not change the strategic balance of power in the middle east, the Twelve day war may have flipped it on its head.
"some childish fetishization thing" This guy has strong opinions, especially when he does not know a thing he is talking about.
"Then it missed dozens [perhaps hundreds] of trucks leaving nuclear sites with uranium."
Were they Mosad trucks?
Seriously -- what would you have to have/do to accomplish that?
We know that the Mosad was able to get all the Iranian leaders into the same place so they could kill them, and it isn't like Iran has an independent media. So if you had the people with the right titles issuing orders to load the stuff onto trucks and trucks showing up for them to load the stuff onto, who would ever know?
And then you could drive those trucks out into the desert somewhere and then bomb them and who would ever know? Heck a few bulldozers could carve out a serviceable landing strip -- the engines would ingest a lot of dust that isn't healthy for them and turbo-props would get dinged up with pebbles, but you could bring in C-130s and fly it all out of there.
The Mosad pulled off the exploding pagers, got the Iranian brass to all into the kill room, and in the past destroyed centrifuges with a computer virus. Is something like this really beyond their abilities?
Spelling it correctly is apparently beyond your abilities.
Your sole ability seems to be useless pedantry.
Who says that irony is dead?
Alanis Morissette?
I have no idea who that is.* I suppose I should congratulate you for having made a joke and I would if I understood it.
* I just looked it up and I guess she is some sort of entertainer, but I still don't get the joke.
She made a ton of money off a song called "Ironic" in which the examples of irony were debatable. It is perhaps ironic that it was quite successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_(song)
'She made a ton of money off a song called "Ironic"'
Ok, thanks for that. Seems like it was not a bad joke. If you are reading this, Pike County Bob, good one.
I don't know how you think they were supposed to function, but apparently the bombs performed as designed.
I'm fairly impressed that they managed to deliver multiple bombs through the same hole; that's a significant technological feat in and of itself.
The French! believe the bombs worked great but some left lawyers here know better.
Note that entering the same hole does not mean it follows it for a couple hundred feet -- think bullets shot into gelatin.
Hitting the same hole was possible 34 years ago -- done during Desert Storm. But does it follow the hole the first one made, or does it waste its energy punching a second hole through the rock?
And how does it know it has found the bunker? Imagine an anti-tank round going out the far side and then exploding downrange...
You're correct in that we were able to do an earlier version of this trick in the 90's- this was the actual basis of the mission in Top Gun: Maverick, actually.
However, modern GPS-guided munitions also allow for pre-programmed terminal impact options. For example, you can program the bomb to impact at a certain angle, speed, heading, and altitude of the ground where it hits.
It's very likely that not only did they hit the same hole at the surface, but they traveled down the same tube in the rock one after the other to dig downwards.
The problem for GPS munitions has always been getting the CEP small enough to hit the same impact hole, and it appears that they solved that problem. This is why the original anti-bunker mission used laser-guided bombs since GPS munitions lacked the precision to hit a target that small.
What do you mean did not perform as they were suppossd to?
They failed to penetrate and/or explode? Or they functioned flawlessly, as designed, but were still inadequate to the mission?
"Gov. Greg Abbott's recent veto of a $60 million state plan to support low-income families through a federal summer food program has sparked concern among educators and hunger relief advocates across Texas.
The program, known as Sun Bucks, would have provided $120 per eligible child to help families buy groceries during the summer months, when school meals are unavailable for many children."
Oh the humanity.
Hunger seems to be a pernicious little entitlement this year. You hayseeds are going at it with both barrels
The government should not be in the business of feeding children, either through the schools, or with summer stipends. That is the responsibility of parents, families.
When I was a kid, a poor kid in the Bronx, we either brought our lunch to school or managed to pay the 70¢ per week for the hot school lunch. Only a ver few got it for free, and those were subsidized by charity - the Catholic church - not the government. We ate breakfast at home, not at school, too.
There's a lot to be said for self reliance and familial responsibility.
Given how utterly corrupt and shitty the school food is too, governments should be banned from providing food to anyone.
For an example see Feeding Our Future fraud in Minnesota.
Remember how you asked below for evidence of social Darwinism in MAGA?
When I was a kid, a poor kid in the Bronx, we either brought our lunch to school or managed to pay the 70¢ per week for the hot school lunch. Only a ver few got it for free, and those were subsidized by charity - the Catholic church - not the government.
You must be older than Joe Biden if they didn't have the federally funded National School Lunch Program when you were a kid.
"You must be older than Joe Biden if they didn't have the federally funded National School Lunch Program when you were a kid." Cite. And yes a law passed in 1946 had that title but was nothing like what exists today.
I can tell you from experience that black people are shitty cooks who cannot feed themselves or their children properly. I can also confirm that food deserts are a very real thing. Those who can cook (the grandmas) are looking at long bus rides to find a grocery store. So basically, out of necessity, kids are fed from the snack aisle of the convenience store. Is it really so awful to give these kids a healthy meal once a day?
And yes, I absolutely think it should be the government's role to use its power to help with hunger
" Is it really so awful to give these kids a healthy meal once a day?"
No, it's not awful. In fact, it's a worthy and probably very cost effective endeavor. Unfortunately, it's not easy.
Of all the things a strict libertarian would want to end, feeding poor kids is on the ass end of that list. We've got $6 trillion a year ahead in line.
Why only single out welfare for the poor. Big Ag and the farmers get loads of handouts and subsidies they don't need yet take anyway and say 'Thank you very much'. My industry (Big Oil) gets loads of free government money we absolutely do not need. But like with Israel (another freeloader), appearing to be sucking our dicks at all times is mandatory for Conservatives. God I love being an oil man.
Outright racism from Hobie. About the only thing missing is an assertion they should never have been let off the plantation, where they could be fed properly.
I might disagree with you, by noting that 50% of NFL players and 70% of NBA players are black, and while that's a small percentage, the colleges and highschools are also disproportionately stocked with Black athletes.
Whatever they are being fed seems to be working, except perhaps there is too much of it.
It "sparked concern" among people whose jobs are to run around with their hair on fire. News at 12.
Texas already doesn't have the Sun Bucks program so it's not like they're losing something they already had.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/summer/sunbucks
But we're the richest state in the Union. Like the gulf states, if it wasn't for oil, we'd be just another backwards state filled with ignorant, religious bigots...basically a gigantic Alabama
Yeah, Alabama where: - U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command is. - U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command is. - Missile Defense Agency is. - Missile & Space Intelligence Center is. - FBI Cyber operations hub is. - NASA Marshall Space Flight Center is. - U.S. Space Command is.
Wow, that's a lot of misleadingly named private businesses.
and don't forget that Muscle Shoals has got the Swamps, woo, woo, woo
If it wasn't for being continent-supplying ports, New York and California wouldn't have become hubs of finance and wealth, allowing parasitic government to flower on that wealth, oddly later declaring itself the cause of that wealth, again leaving it as hickville central.
Very sour grapes.
"If it wasn't for being continent-supplying ports, New York and California wouldn't have become hubs of finance and wealth."
According to this random website, 23% of California's GDP depends on foreign trade.
https://howmuch.net/articles/how-important-is-international-trade-to-the-economy-of-each-state
California's total GDP last years was $4.1T
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-worlds-largest-economies-including-u-s-states/
Excluding trade, that figure drops to $3.2T, which would put them around the 8th largest economy in the world. IMHO, your statement seems...unsupported...
Cheers.
It started somewhere, as ports. Also, I did not say depends on foreign trade, they also sell across America. And trade isn't the same as pass-through shipping.
And none of that is dependent on on the parasitic, bloated, corrupt government that formed around the financial successes, then declared itself the cause of that success.
Nothing to see her folks, the state isn't trying to own your children. First it's lunches for poor kids, then breakfast and lunch for everybody, then doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, etc.
What a lunatic thing to think.
We know what owning someone looks like and it’s not lots of public services.
How much of a racist troll does Blackman have to be before he gets the boot?
Depends who he's trolling.
It mostly seems to be Roberts and Barrett, but thats what law professors do, so I think hes got some rope.
Composer Lalo Schifrin dead at age 93. Try to get that Mission Impossible theme out of your head.
Trump V CASA released; all 119 pages. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Anybody want to guess how Melania got an EB-1 ("Einstein") visa?
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-first-preference-eb-1
"Super model" fits right in.
Melania was not a "super model."
Meh model counts...
She would seem to be closer to falling under the entertainer category, where each entertainer is a natural monopoly of themselves, like bands or actors or Babs Palvin.
"Anybody want to guess how Melania got an EB-1 ("Einstein") visa?"
Attacking a woman because you hate her husband. Very progressive!
Anybody want to guess how the mail man fathered you?
It's more a case of pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump, whose family members benefited from the immigration policies he now despises.
We could use another 100,000 like her.
Good looking, isn't yapping all the time, has a nice kid.
We do need more legal immigration, we could do a lot worse, and have.
Josh Blackman's favorite justice has the big universal injunction opinion. Let's see how THAT JB post will go.
I'm sure he'll jump on how the decision is nakedly political for the current moment, and not originalist at all
It helps Trump, but it's Barrett. Tough call for him.
One of the features of the MAGA movement perhaps exemplified by Elon Musk, but which is no means limited to Musk, is a very strong expression of 19th Century social Darwanism with only a slight veneer of up-to-date sounding scientific-sounding terminology.
Under Social Darwinism, evolution requires the weak to die and the strong to survive and reproduce. It is therefore not just good but essential for society’s and the human species’ survival that the poor, the weak, the disabled, the elderly, sexual misfits, and other useless eaters die as quickly as possible so as not to suck up resources from the Great and the Strong who alone are the species’ future. Rather, society should invest in maximizing the success of the Great, the winners in the evolutionary battle underlying all society, and enable them to maximize their reproductive opportunities.
From this point of view, the entire Western religious tradition of compassion has been not just a profoundly wrong turn but a danger to the human species’ very existence. Society has absolutely no business interfering with nature’s natural redness in tooth and claw. This whole business of propping up the useless eaters and keeping them from meeting their natural and richly deserved fate through government-sponsored welfare, healthcare, insurance, education, civil rights laws, and all the other elements of the liberal administrative establishment represents an eclipse of reason and science by religious superstition. It is time to restore science to its proper place, ensure government of the Great, by the Great and for the Great. It is time to kick all these lilly-livered weak-willed compassion people and all these government programs stealing from the Great and preventing the human speicies from evolving by propping up all these useless eaters out the door and put them all in the dustbin of biology where they belong.
Since I have joined this blog, I have tried to consistently emphasize that the Western religious tradion of conpassion is a critical component of Western civilization and is always a rational basis for essentially anything. Whenever it conflicts with perceptions of science, it is not for courts to declare the religious people wrong. In the past this meant I mostly stood up for the right of people on the religious right to have abortion laws. More recently, it has mostly involved supporting the right of people on the left to have liberal immigration, welfare, and other laws, and also for courts to interpret immigration and other laws passed in more compassionate times according to their original intent.
In particular, I have consistently strongly opposed courts denigrating the western tradition of compassion. It is not for courts to say that people opposing abortion do so because they irrationally hate women. But it is also not for courts to say thst people supporting liberal immigration do so because they irrationally hate their country.
Similarly, the Western tradition of compassion provides a completely rational basis for liberals to be solicitous of the needs of trans people if they want; it is no more the place of courts to bring “truths outside the constitution’s text” to impose their own view of the science of gender on the public than it would be their place to impose more compassion than conservative states are prepared to support.
I recognize that compassion cannot be an absolute, society often has to limit it to be able to get by. But it is never the role of the courts to say compassion has gone too far.
And I absolutely hate and loathe the social darwinism exemplified by the Musk wing of the MAGA movement. It horrifies me. It disgusts me. An America that embraces such a philosophy is an America that has truely become another Sodom, another Gomorrah.
I would far rather pay higher taxes and put up with a combersome and sometimes meddling bureaucracy than live in such a society. Whatever the problems of the liberal order, and there are many, such a monstrosity would be far, far, far worse.
How about some references to support your assertion that what you articulate is the view of Musk and MAGA?
It’s been pretty widely reported on in the press.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/03/05/politics/elon-musk-rogan-interview-empathy-doge
Snopes confirms it: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-yes-musk-said-171900322.html
I was thinking along similar lines when reading the new attempts by MAGA to destroy medicaid. I thought to myself, this won't just affect brown people, it will largely affect its greatest users: white MAGA hayseeds. Coupled with the crippling of domestic food aid, everyone - white and brown - will theoretically be dying prematurely. But when you have this concomitant drive to elevate the super wealthy, then isn't the answer here obvious? The oligarchs are using Congress to eliminate all competition. And congress-creatures' desire for their own personal power and wealth means they will play along...even at the expense of a vast portion of their own constituencies.
This isn't a tribal tit for tat among political parties. This is an obscene, long game, out-in-the-open takeover of the state by the super wealthy, and no one is to be spared
"new attempts by MAGA to destroy medicaid."
Citation?
Uh, pretty much any newspaper for the past week. I forget the news sources in the MAGA ecosystem don't normally 'report' that stuff, so you may be unaware
Are you sealioning? It’s apropos language that has been tying the House in knots.
There is no language in the House that "destroys Medicaid".
Be a better person.
Let's see if LexAquilia was hyperbolic in his comments here today...
{checking posts...checking...now slowly looking upward]...oh dear, Lex. That, and you also seem to have a very hard time dealing with the existence of gay people
"I would far rather pay higher taxes and put up with a combersome and sometimes meddling bureaucracy than live in such a society. Whatever the problems of the liberal order, and there are many, such a monstrosity would be far, far, far worse."
You get a D- in accounting 101.
Even the current level of Medicaid spending gets dinged for not covering enough peeps or treatments and increasing the spending would only decrease the amount of time left in the current unstainable spending. The question is not related to the concept of survival of the fittest, rather it is how long we can keep borrowing/printing money we don't have to spend on things we can't afford before the whole economy falls apart like what happened in pre-WWII Germany (to use a recent example).
The numbers simply don't work. You can't raise taxes high enough to cover the massive national debt that under the current system is increasing at a shocking rate; adding even higher rates of spending only makes things worse. Bottom line is spending money you don't have means no happy ending.
Social Darwinism never went away, ReaderY, since it was identified a century ago. It isn't new, or recently exacerbated.
We have an hour into opinion announcements and dissents from the bench at SCOTUS & still going. If they think this is important enough to do, they should live stream it.
I'd rather livestream the cloakrooms of Congress first.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to opt out of "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks in elementary school. The school board's claimed hardship was of its own making. The school board chose to teach material which a lot of parents in the district would want their children to avoid. The school board chose not to make gay education an isolated unit like schools do with sex education.
Free Exercise law continues to be a mess.
Did you see the exhibits attached to the opinion.
Anything more explicit than G rated should not be in a 5 year old through 10 year old book.
Under American constitutional law "what kind of sick groomer would show that to a kindergarten student?" is not a winning argument. Violation of religious freedom is a winning argument. That's why Free Exercise law is such a mess. Lawyers and judges have to fit claims of government overreach into one of the recognized categories, even as extra-constitutional feelings color their constitutional arguments.
Another leftist embracing school mandates exposing children to content inappropriate for the childs age.
Another rightist with poor reading comprehension.
I fully comprehend how perverted it is to expose very young children to sexual themes that are inappropriate for their age. Then to go through a bunch of BS to justify their perversions.
"Gay people exist" is not a "sexual theme."
Under American constitutional law "what kind of sick groomer would show that to a kindergarten student?" is not a winning argument.
I would disagree. There is a general right of parents to educate their children. Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyers v. Nebraska are in that ball park, and neither dealt with religious rights.
Of course, the rejoinder is that one can always send your children to a private school, which was the issue in Pierce. But the point is, there is a right of parents to raise their children as they see fit that is not dependent on religion or religious rights.
Oh hey an unenumerated general right! Nice to see the right can find them when they want to!
Yes, but that's not really the religious liberty. This kind of education programs might infringe on children's religious liberty, but not the parents.
Also, remember that children have their own First Amendment rights that would be infringed by parents *using government authority* to silence certain speech.
Wrong twice. Children have no rights in distinction of their parents. And you misuse words to assert an independent religious right in children, that makes NO sense.
They certainly don't have 1A in the least. "No more dessert" "to bed now" "turn that off" "Do your homework"
Article 16 section 3 of UN DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
1A has nothing to do with desserts or sleep. And in any case that's a parent imposing restrictions; they're not asking the judicial branch of the Government to issue an order sending the kid to bedroom.
Everything you just said was either wrong, irrelevant, or both.
So slavery and gay people make MAGA children (vis a vis the parents) too uncomfortable. I wonder what the next large swatch of society or history is on the MAGA-discomfort (prejudices) chopping block?
hobies?
*fingers crossed*
Sotomayor's dissent in mahmoud v taylor show how sick and perverted the left has become.
MAHMOUD ET AL. v. TAYLOR ET AL.
Not as dumb as Jackson, not as unqualified as Kagan , but terrible in her own lane
SOTOMAYOR 1) she stated that bumpstocks can enable AR-15s to fire 800 rounds per second 2) During Covid : “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.”
At the time Sotomayor spoke, fewer than 5,000 people under the age of 18 were hospitalized in the US with confirmed or suspected cases of Covid-19; the reported number of child hospitalizations was 4,464 on Thursday, the day before the hearing
THIS IS INDEFENSIBLE AND HATEFUL
Back again, who can forget : giving hormones to 'trans kids' is like taking aspirin <==== She said that with a straight smug face
1'44" mark on this https://youtu.be/uM_RAmVP3PY
Today is the anniversary of the infamous Biden debate collapse for those who celebrate.
That old, retired bastard still lives rent free in there, eh Bob?
Hobie, only you think Biden did great on that debate. Ask around 🙂
That debate turned the course of history. 🙂
Yeah, huge deficits and a recession all because you wanted more mean Truths.
XY, Did it, though? Trump ended up beating Harris--rather than beating Biden--in the general election, so it did change history in that sense, I guess.
(If Harris *had* won the election, then we'd agree that the debate changed the course of history, as the debate would have changed a general election Dem loss into a a win...but since that ended up not happening, I'm not sure how much the debate really ended up mattering. Other than showing America how much Biden had diminished cognitively, I suppose.)
Yoder lives!
Not only is Yoder alive and well, it now stands for the broad proposition that Infringements on the right of parents to direct the religious education of their children IN GENERAL constitute a blanket exception to Smith, and are subject to strict scrutiny.
Not even religion. Anything with a “real threat of undermining” a religions belief.
That’s really broad, unimplementable even.
For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Yoda.
The little bastard withdrew his children from public school after 8th grade to indoctrinate them in hokey religions and ancient farming implements.
And indoctrinated them in weird sentence structure he did.
OSV!
Yes, that's an odd point. A highly intelligent 800 year old can't learn how to speak properly.
Yoda's speech was the sole reason the Thermians did not take Star Wars as a historical record, and not the numerous physics errors or plot inconsistencies.
Is that you, Hillary???
Pitting the unrealizable perfect solution against reality... Is that you, Hillary, the volcanic tent dress of hate
The five opinions so far today all have Thomas-Alito-Gorsuch voting one way and Kagan-Jackson-Sotomayor voting the other way. Yesterday's decisions were almost as predictable.
"Pentagon Strips Harvey Milk's Name From Navy Vessel"
I think this is a good start. We shouldn't be naming boats and bases and buildings after politicians and slavers. It just causes all the hate on display in this rotten blog commentary.
Portugal has the right idea; buildings, streets, parks etc. are all named after - and statues are only erected for - engineers, doctors or poets.
Dunno about doctors and engineers.
Doctors
Bashar Assad (Syrian dictator, ophthalmologist) Hastings Banda (Malawian dictator, surgeon) Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier (Haitian dictator, public health) Radovan Karadzic (Serbian war criminal, psychiatrist) Ayman al-Zawahiri (9-11 chief planner, surgeon)
Engineers
Osama Bin Laden (Al Qaeda chief, civil engineering) Mohamed Atta (9-11 hijacker, architectural engineering) Marwan al-Shehhi (9-11 hijacker, naval engineering dropout) Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (9-11 conspirator, mechanical engineering) Pol Pot (Engineering school but failed his exams)
Well as a largely apolitical, civil, socialist country Portuguese doctors and engineers are not bastards like in other countries
So...we hope for politicians told to use scientists and engineers, who then select people infamous for reasons having nothing to do with their job? Are there any jobs that didn't have a bastard come out of it?
What were the day jobs of Confederate generals? Any happy little painters making happy little paintings cause any problems for a planet?
Naming U. S. military bases for Confederate traitors made as much sense as it would make to rename Boston's Logan Airport in honor of Khalid Skeikh Mohammed or Osama bin Laden.
Don't give anyone ideas.
You do know (apparently not) who was on the Seal of the Confederate States of Amurica? There's a quaint Mid-Atlantic seaboard city named after him, and a Pacific Northwest State. He had a nice estate on the banks of the Potomac, very well tended, he must have paid the Cotton Pickers very well.
Engineers built the concnetration camps. Doctors in China fully oversee the psychological prisons
Poets are famous for rhapsodizing over horrible things for humanity.
And logically , for you to say no engineers or doctors or poets were ever politicians or slave owners --- well you should sue the high school you went to
'Undercuts the very notion of our constitutional democracy': Appeals court disbars Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro 'based on his conviction of a serious crime'
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/undercuts-the-very-notion-of-our-constitutional-democracy-appeals-court-disbars-trump-attorney-kenneth-chesebro-based-on-his-conviction-of-a-serious-crime/
Why would anyone support and especially work for Trump?
Look at his entire career; he's screwed everyone close to him and there's only one goal in Trump's life: Trump.
The court was overly dramatic. In America conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude costs you your law license. Chesebro's crime is at the core of this rule, not a "three felonies a day" kind of mistake.
NY court "rejected the more lenient recommendation issued by the referee in lieu of disbarment". First time offender gets the metaporical death sentence.
He shouldn't have pled, in light of Fani's ethics.
The Chesebro order is here: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter//3dseries/2025/2025_03855.htm
As Groucho Marx said, time wounds all heels.
In 2017 a Wilbraham, Massachusetts police officer pulled over a driver allegedly for speeding. After initially stopping the defendant drove off, crashed, and discarded a bag of cocaine, all within about a minute. A motion to suppress the cocaine followed. After an evidentiary hearing the judge refused to credit the police officer's explanation for the stop. With no legitimate basis the stop was an unreasonable seizure. The judge did not find sufficient evidence that the Black defendant was stopped due to his race, but still concluded that his equal protection rights were violated. That's two separate constitutional violations.
The judge also ruled that the defendant's flight was an intervening act that attenuated the illegality of the traffic stop. One may not resist an illegal traffic stop any more than one may resist an illegal arrest.
The question for the Supreme Judicial Court eight years later is, under state constitutional law is the bag of cocaine excluded as a result of an illegal search or admitted because subsequent events attenuated the illegality?
Conclusion: No attenuation. The evidence is to be excluded on both state constitutional grounds argued by the defendant.
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/06/27/j13635.pdf
For bonus points: Should the officer whose testimony was not credited be put on a list of officers with credibility problems? He was not found personally liable for any wrongdoing. He has no opportunity to appeal the trial court's factual findings in a criminal case against somebody else. This issue was raised by the SJC a year or so ago and not answered. Prosecutors must reveal their witness' credibility problems. What is a credibility problem?
You ask a lot of great questions at the end, JFC. What is a credibility problem?
Rep. Andy Ogles calls for Mamdani to be “denaturalized”. I presume this meets with broad approval in these parts
IIRC, he asked the DOJ to investigate. Based on alleged misrepresentations Mamdani made when immigrating or applying for naturalization. Once you are naturalized, its a tougher, but not impossible, standard. Some ex-Nazis were deported based on similar facts. If the evidence supports it -- meaning he made serious misrepresentations when applying for a visa, e.g., he was a member of a terrorist group -- then, yes, I would support it. If not, not.
“yes, I would support it”
Of course you would.
So if it turned out that he was a member of a terrorist group, and lied about it, you would oppose deporting him.
“Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York. He needs to be DEPORTED. Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalization proceedings”
Calling for deportation based on political views. Of course you would support this. Shades of Kristi Noem vowing the military will remain in LA until the city is “liberated” from its elected representatives.
The writing is on the wall here.
I believe they are calling on Mamdani to be deported based upon lying during his proceedings.
I directly quoted him above. He very clearly articulates why Mamdani should be denaturalized. Handwave it away if you like— but why bother? If this isn’t the majority huckleberry position it soon will be.
You left off the rest. Of course.
“The Holy Land Foundation was convicted in 2008 for providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Publicly praising the Foundation’s convicted leadership as “my guys” raises serious concerns about whether Mr. Mamdani held affiliations or sympathies he failed to disclose during the naturalization process."
If he lied during his naturalization process, should he face consequences? Or should he be immune because reasons?
LOL, he rapped "Free The Holy Land 5 / My guys". Definite terrorist stuff there.
The 100s of millions of victims of socialism/communism may not be laughing as hard about as you.
You joke— but someday soon rapping may indeed be a deportable offense.
"The 100s of millions of victims of socialism/communism may not be laughing as hard about as you."
Wow, that's an especially dumb response. Maybe you could have said "David Boim may not be laughing as hard about as you [sic]" or even "the victims of Hamas may not be laughing as hard about as you" but since Hamas was founded as an explicitly anti-Communist organization you managed to prove that people on the right will resort to calling basically anything they don't like "communist" without having any understanding of what the term actually means.
“You left off the rest”
I’m sorry, no. I quoted the entire tweet. He is plainly calling for deportation based on political views. That he said some other weaselly shit in another context is of no moment.
I think the speaker has the right to determine the context of his statements and not his enemies.
Why do you care about the application? Do you not view him as deportable on the basis of the factors outlined by Rep. Ogles?
“Context”
LOL this is precious. Not a strict textualist, I guess!
The lack of self awareness in using this as a defense for trying to construe someone's rap lyrics as supporting terrorism is really just off the charts.
I just don’t understand this need to perform this beta-cuck tap dance about false applications. If You think he’s deportable because he’s a “antisemitic, socialist, communist” … why be shy? This will be the huckleberry majority position if it isn’t already. No need to be such a pussyfoot about it.
See kiddies. When you can't refute someone, just lie about their position. Truly a sign of weakness.
Where’s the lie?
“I was misquoted” is some real RINO energy. Like Jeb! levels. You’d better be careful.
Do you not view him as deportable on the basis of the factors outlined by Rep. Ogles’ tweet that you replied to?
if it turned out that he was a member of a terrorist group, and lied about it, you would oppose deporting him?
Here is the basis for the "alleged misrepresentation":
According to public reports, including a June 21, 2025 New York Post article, Mr. Mamdami expressed open solidarity with individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses prior to becoming a US Citizen. Specifically, he rapped "Free The Holy Land 5 / My guys".
Definitely sounds like evidence that he was in a terrorist organization. /s
If the evidence supports it -- meaning he made serious misrepresentations when applying for a visa, e.g., he was a member of a terrorist group -- then, yes, I would support it. If not, not.
Yes.
f the evidence supports it -- meaning he made serious misrepresentations when applying for a visa,
Um, he came here when he was seven years old; I don't think he made any representations at all, mis- or otherwise.
Touché
The case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and its top officers was controversial for a variety of reasons. The Foundation did not give money to organizations designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. It did, however, give money to “zakat committees” in Gaza and the West Bank. The Government had evidence that many of these were controlled by Hamas, and that the defendants knew that. The evidence was apparently not overwhelming; the first trial ended with a hung jury; the second with a conviction.
The U.S. government could have stopped the grants by adding the zakat committees to its list of terrorist organizations. One of the Foundations employees talked with the Treasury Department to ensure that the Foundation was in legal compliance and was not warned about contributing to zakat committees. The Foundation money appears to have been spent on the projects it was committed to, and while money is fungible, the government did not prove (and under the law was not required to prove) that Hamas would have given more money to the zakat committees if the Foundation had given less.
The point is that you can question these convictions without supporting terrorism, so Andy Ogles has no basis for suggesting that Mamdani misrepresented anything during his naturalization process.
You can read more here: https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/blockingfaith.pdf#page=59
He can't wreck NYC if he's deported.
See, BetaBored Lawyer— this is how you do it!
Sounds like lawfare and an attempt to deny people the politician of their choice. Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it. So, no, MAGA will not support this witch hunt. Unless towering hypocrisy is a MAGA trait.
Silencer deregulation is ruled out of order by Parliamentarian. I approve, not because I think silencer deserves the current regulation NFA imposes, but because setting this precedent would allow changing the firearm regulations by reconciliation - such as by classifying all semiautomatic weapons as NFA firearms.
I love democracy! I love freedom more! Anything that slows weasel workarounds is good!
RIP citizenship.
RIP to the power of Congress, which has been abdicated.
RIP to the power of the Supreme Court, which has been ceded.
All hail the demented orange squirrel who will launch bombs at anyone for the modest price tag of false praise.
It will be okay widdle baby. Would you like your baba or a paci?
Do you think today's historical smackdown of a DEI hire put an end to non-merit based hiring and appointments?
Just think, Jackson was the smartest black woman the Dems could find and she is officially, as ruled by SCOTUS, a retard.
But did you intentionally sideline Clarence, one of the smartest Justices in American History., There always has been and always will be 'non-merit based hiring" Is this you, Hillary ?
A Jew Zionist in Arizona crucified and murdered a Christian pastor and had targeted 10 other Christian pastors and leaders before being caught.
Why isn't this getting the same around the clock news that we would be subjected to had the religions been reversed? Is it not newsworthy when Jews do Jew things?
"A Jew Zionist in Arizona crucified and murdered a Christian pastor and had targeted 10 other Christian pastors and leaders before being caught."
Supporting facts?
"Is it not newsworthy when Jews do Jew things?"
If I recall correctly from Sunday School, crucifixion was a Roman thing. The Sanhedrin deemed Jesus to be worthy of death for blasphemy, but it took the order of Pontius Pilate to crucify him for treason.
Do you have a link to a news story? An X post? Tik Tok?
Anything?
Because I would like to see that.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pastors-crucifixion-murder-suspect-says-200555596.html
Nothing in the story you link to identifies the suspect as being either Jewish of Zionist, Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2.
The linked article states:
Sheafe's plan was to crucify 14 more Christian leaders of no particular denomination, he told FOX 10, ascribing his motive to a belief that Christian churches were leading their congregants astray by teaching them to follow Jesus, whom he says is a false God.
For all we know, he may be a militant Unitarian. https://biblehub.com/q/core_beliefs_of_unitarianism.htm
were leading their congregants astray by teaching them to follow Jesus, whom he says is a false God.
"I two religions are in logical conflict, one must therefore be wrong. But if one, why not both?" -- Carl Sagan
Where's the Jewish or Zionist connection?
This guy has a death wish.
I love that song, the Zionist Connection!
Why are there so many Speeches about Zionists?
The haters And dreamers And me
He has a neck tattoo reading יהוה (usually transliterated YHWH for us Gentiles), which is apparently sufficient proof of Judaism and/or Zionism for the antisemitic crowd. To me, he seems more unhinged than anything else.
Neck tattoos are ipso facto unhinged, don't you think 🙂
[duplicate comment deleted]
[duplicate comment obliterated]
Trump v CASA...This is actually a pretty big deal, isn't it?
It reorders the r'ship btwn the judiciary and other branches (Art 1, Art 2). How does this play out over time?
If re-order means restores order it is a huge win. Watch a video of Judge Boasberg and tell me it doesn't scream "I am a man of hate"
"I am a man of hate"
Every accusation is a confession.
Any music fans have suggestions for weekend festivals this summer? I'm in the northeast but any information on even remote locations interests me. I'm mostly interested in Americana, folk rock, bluegrass, jug band, western swing, etc The String Cheese Incident, Merle, Poco, Jerry Garcia Band (defunct), Be Good Tanyas (probably defunct), Allison Kraus, the Byrd's, Billy Strings, NRPS (definitely defunct), Emmy Lou Harris, you get the picture. I failed yet again to get tickets to either Newport Folk Festival or Jazz Festival, just an hour from me, and which are of course now sold out. Thanks!
Rumor has it that Dylan is going electric.
Dylan? Not familiar but thanks for the effort.
You may know him by his give name, Robert Zimmerman. Apparently he’s going electric but the festival says they don’t have the juice for his amps.
Robert Zimmerman? Still ... not getting. Again, thanks for trying to be a helpful person.
“ “[These] inner-city rats, they live off the federal government. And that’s one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt. And it’s time we find these rats and we send them back home, that are living off the American taxpayers, that are working very hard every week to pay taxes.”
The GOP please don’t sound like Hitler challenge. Alas, the difficulty: impossible,
Have you thought about actually contributing once or twice?
Who cares what some rando on the internet says?
It’s no rando, it’s Tommy Tuberville- U.S. Senator from Alabama.
https://www.al.com/politics/2025/06/tuberville-says-inner-city-rats-live-off-the-american-taxpayers-trump-should-send-them-back-home.html
I wouldn’t have guessed unless you told me, and that’s the problem--there’s no difference between a Republican politician and a random internet troll.
So? Was he nominated to be the GOP spokesman?
You've personally made hundreds of comments diminishing and deflecting any fringe statements made by liberals, now do the same here and stop being a garbage human.
Oh man that was a sad attempt once it as revealed not to be nutpicking.
At least you seem to think it was a bad thing to say.
Didn't the Nazis compare Jews to rats?
Rats are very clever…mice are dumb.
In September 2022, Justice Elena Kagan gave remarks in which she denounced nationwide injunctions.
“You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right,” Kagan said. “In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/kagan-supreme-court-legitimacy-00056766
Gee, I wonder what could have changed between 2022 and today to make her change her mind.
1) The ruling in CASA affects both permanent and preliminary injunctions. 2) That ruling likely also affects litigation against states, not just "nationwide policy". 3) And in case it isn't obvious: she is criticizing forum shopping to obtain injunctions, not the universal effect.
"3) And in case it isn't obvious: she is criticizing forum shopping to obtain injunctions, not the universal effect." She is criticizing both.
Indeed, her meaning was as obvious as your spin, sadly, is predictable, as made clear by the contemporary commentary at the time, including that in the linked article.
During her remarks on Wednesday in a conversation with Northwestern Law Dean Hari Osofsky, Kagan took a notably hostile and forceful stand against a practice that hasn’t generated much public debate but has roiled the legal community in recent years: individual U.S. District Court judges blocking federal government policies nationwide.
From the full comments, as taken from the C-SPAN transcript at about the 42-minute mark.
In recent years, some district courts have issued nationwide injunctions, and this happened in the Trump administration, and has happened in the Biden administration, so it has no political tone to it, but some district courts have issued nationwide injunctions that stopped a policy in its tracks, something that the President and/or Congress has determined to be the national policy, and on district court stops it. And then you combine that with the ability of people to forum shop and go to a district court where they think there will be a particular result, and you say, that can't be right, one district court, whether it's in the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years they go to Texas, and one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks, and the years it takes to go through normal process.
https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/justice-kagan-speaks-at-northwestern-law-school/616710
I believe Kagan is quite forcefully condemning nationwide injunctions, as did the author of the above-linked political piece, but I leave it to the reader/listener to interpret her comments. (Or rationalize them, if you must).
I can see how someone could interpret the Politico excerpt that way. I don't see how anyone with adult levels of literacy can interpret the full remarks that way.
...and how do you interpret them?
You wouldn't shop UNLESS you wanted the universal effect.
An election? 😉 = Gee, I wonder what could have changed between 2022 and today to make her change her mind.
We've all seen the stats for nationwide injunctions from district judges during the last few administrations.
G.W. Bush - 6 Obama - 12 Trump (first term) - 64 Biden - 14 Trump (second term, first five months) - 40
John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett obviously don't like Trump very much, but there comes a point when even they are forced to say we've gone beyond the point of insanity. I like the idea of going back to the system we had between 1910 and 1976, where, if you sought an injunction claiming a state or federal law was unconstitutional, you went before a three-judge district panel. After Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk (a Trump appointee) enjoined the FDA's approval of abortion drug mifepristone in 2023, congressional Democrats introduced a bill to that effect, but naturally lost interest after the 2024 election.
Trump is doing lots more legally questionable stuff hence more injunctions.
Perhaps you believe Trump has done "more legally questionable stuff" in five months than Bush, Obama, and Biden did in a combined 20 years, "hence more injunctions", but no sensible person shares that belief. But you do underscore my point. Had these left-wing kook judges been able to contain their TDS just a bit - say, five injunctions in five months, as opposed to 40 - then they may not have forced the Court's hand. As a purely practical matter, I imagine the Court gets quite annoyed having to deal with yet another injunction every three or four days on the emergency docket. Now, it won't have to.
Well said. The number of injunctions is not at all proportionate to the number of supposedly 'legally questionable things' Trump has done. In fact, there have been numerous injunctions for obviously legal things Trump has done. It's clearly a campaign among Democrat-aligned judges to thwart Trump's presidency. It's a judicial resistance effort, and it's wrong. And it's sickening.
I do believe that he’s at that level of lawlessness. All of his EOs are lawless and haven’t been through OLC because of that. Project 2025 is a radical,project at a level unheard of:and done without Cingress.
Your number is high analysis is willfully blind. Thus you need to say like all the judges are left wing. Another sign you are the one who is way out there.
You are not the parliamentarian of the VC and while you are entitled to an opinion you are not entitled to your own "facts". Which of Trump's EOs have been deemed to be lawless?
The ones that judges have issued injunctions and rulings against?
Fail. See SC ruling.
What SC ruling?
"Your number is high analysis is willfully blind. Thus you need to say like all the judges are left wing. Another sign you are the one who is way out there."
What language is this, as it's certainly not English.
It's vibe-ish.
Perhaps you believe Trump has done "more legally questionable stuff" in five months than Bush, Obama, and Biden did in a combined 20 years, "hence more injunctions", but no sensible person shares that belief.
Every informed person does. I mean, maybe not by Brettlaw standards, where the constitution/laws mean only and exactly what he wants them to mean, such that (e.g.) each president who oversaw Social Security or the ATF violated the law every day of his presidency. But if we mean things that are recognized as questionable, not only does Trump obviously do far more, but — as I mentioned above — he does these things unilaterally.
"Every informed person does."
No true Scotsman fallacy.
"Brettlaw standards"
Ad hominem.
"not only does Trump obviously do far more"
No, not obviously! There have been many injunctions stopping Trump from carrying out laws enacted by congress.
We all see your hubris, President is wrong, Congress is wrong, Justices are wrong. People don't like youi mainly for that reason. mabye you are an okay person, but you never make an argument, just an accusation
I like the idea of going back to the system we had between 1910 and 1976, where, if you sought an injunction claiming a state or federal law was unconstitutional, you went before a three-judge district panel.
But, then, we're mostly not talking about state or federal laws; we're talking about unilateral executive actions.
"unilateral executive actions"
Made up term. Of course executive orders are unilateral! What do you imagine, executive orders approved by congress, or the courts in advance?
Give me an example of a non-unilateral executive "action" (meaning order).
I imagine a president wanting to do something — let's say, shut down an agency — and going to Congress to get statutory authorization for doing so.
That wouldn't be an executive order.
executive action might be a good way to describe it!
Ouch ThePublius! Hoisted ... hoisted on ... ? something about 'their own petard'?
It is hoist, not hoisted. 😉
Not at all. And it's "hoist with his own petard." Hamlet.
And by 'executive action' you mean anything POTUS does that is not an executive order? From collaborating with congress to enact or repeal a law, to taking a crap? That wouldn't be what we're talking about, then. We're talking about executive orders.
Um, I didn't say "executive order." You did. And that's the point, anyway! Other presidents don't try to do these things by executive fiat, and thus other presidents don't get enjoined from doing these things.
That's baloney. Biden issued 162 executive orders, for example.
I have to agree with Publius, very sloppy use of words there. Of course they are universal , he is the President !!!!!
California Democrats Push Reform to Stop Refinery Shutdowns
It will be interesting to see how this plays out
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/california-democrats-push-reform-to-stop-refinery-shutdowns/ar-AA1HyhlT
Reminds me of Clinton in the late 90s, when gas went to $2.30 a gallon (I know, how quaint). Anyway, he announced puzzlement as they didn't know why, then demanded more refineries be built.
So spend a billion per refinery to help take the political heat off you, and in ten years, if you get your way, the refinery becomes redundant.
Yeahhhhh.
Reminds me of Clinton in the late 90s, when gas went to $2.30 a gallon (I know, how quaint).
Um, gas is significantly cheaper than that now; that's the equivalent of like $4.60 now.
Drill baby drill... 🙂
Precisely the words that came to mind when I read DN's remark.
We're talking about California gas prices.
"The current average price for regular gasoline in California is $4.598 per gallon, according to AAA Fuel Prices. Premium gas averages $5.009 per gallon. These prices are higher than the national average and reflect factors like state taxes and environmental regulations, according to the EIA."
So, your $4.60 is exactly what regular costs in CA today.
Was it $2.30 in California late in the Clinton administration?
By the way, Gavin Newsom's 65¢ gas tax increase goes into effect July 1st (Tuesday), so make that $5.25 for regular.
The bill marks a reversal from years of regulatory scrutiny by Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Energy Commission that contributed to plans by Phillips 66 and Valero Energy Corp. to shut refineries that account for about one-fifth of the state’s crude-processing capacity. The shutdowns prompted Newsom to adjust course in April and urge the state’s energy regulator to collaborate with fuel makers to ensure affordable and reliable supply.
Which should be more important to Newsom: climate-change obsessed Democratic voters, or the cost of living for everybody in California? The answer, for most Democrats, is obvious. Climate change is non-negotiable. Increased cost-of-living misery for people is the cost of good policy.
Democratic policymakers became numb to cost-of-living pain many years ago. (Nice to be rich, ain't it?) But Newsom fears that voters are catching on to the make-our-lives-more-difficult policies of Democrats. Could it be that Democratic intellectuals (who can afford their self-imposed hardships) will be dialing down some of their deafness to people's lives?
Probably not.
Well, certain sections of CA know how stupid things are. This is old but I can't forget it "California's unfunded pension liabilities were still the highest in the United States at $250 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023. " Those who get the money are happy and vote for you. Those who pay are already crushed to the ground Same with that hideous waste of a railroad and come to think of it stem cell research, A HUGE FAILURE
Proposition 71 ponied up $3 billion for California researchers—nearly $300 million annually for 10 years—with $6 billion to pay back. In 2012, it emerged that CIRM was handing out more than 90 percent of its grants to institutions with representatives on its governing board. State Attorney General Kamala Harris ignored this blatant conflict of interest.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Matt Welch | 8.29.2025 3:16 PM
Eric Boehm | 8.29.2025 1:30 PM
Joe Lancaster | 8.29.2025 12:55 PM
Tosin Akintola | 8.29.2025 10:45 AM
Liz Wolfe | 8.29.2025 9:30 AM
