Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

Celebrate the 4th of July!

It has become customary on this blog, on this anniversary, to see interpretations of the Declaration of Independence which insist the document announced rights pre-existing government.

As always, invocation of rights-first ideology is a present-minded notion, without a long historic provenance, and notably unreflective. The usual, and historically accurate review of the ideology of rights begins with a state of nature.

In a state of nature, rights remain unimaginable. Thus, government gets instituted to deliver collective force greater than any individual trapped in a state of nature might enjoy. That force may serve various interests, but life under governance improves upon no-governance. It suppresses to some measure the capacity of the strong to oppress the weak. Alas, governance itself can also prove oppressive—and oppressive in a worse way, because of its preponderant capacity for force.

It is at that point of political evolution that the notion of rights gets invented, and may take hold. A right gets defined as a commitment by a sovereign—a political entity wielding force greater than government’s—to stay the hand of government, lest government oppress the sovereign’s subjects. It is only after the invention of the notion of a sovereign to rule government, and to rule government’s subjects as well, that the notion of rights becomes meaningful.

The final step in that evolving train of thought on governance was invented in America. It was the invention of the notion of a joint popular sovereign, comprising a populace with a dual character. In that notion, members of the public as individuals were at once subjects of government (as in other sovereign systems), but newly in the American system, jointly sovereign over government.

That final step in the evolution of government, and in the notion of rights, for the first time joined the self-interest of the sovereign to the individual interests of the subjects. In principle, that arrangement was meant to constrain a likelihood of inherent conflict of interest between a bad sovereign, and that sovereign’s subjects. In the American system, the joint popular sovereign would ideally prove incapable to harm the interests of the subjects without harming itself.

The American system worked better than previous ones, and became a widely imitated model in world politics. It proved adaptable to accommodate extensive variations among the systems of government chosen in different places.

The American system is, of course, a sovereignty first, government second, and rights third sort of system. It is emphatically not a rights-pre-existing-government system.

Advocates to the contrary abound, but disqualify themselves by insistence on what amounts to a contradiction in terms. The notion of a right as a power to stay the hand of government abuse self-evidently makes no sense unless government has already been imposed.

[Kazinski]

The OG No Kings day!!!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Unless they're true believers in "God-given rights", of course, which by definition would have superseded both government and sovereignty.

You know, the same way God gave the Jewish people the eternal right to the land of "Judea and Samaria".

[Kazinski]

Or as a believer in "god given rights" might put it:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson, the author of that passage, was not a believer in "god given rights."

[Kazinski]

I am an atheist but I believe in god given right's, because it means nobody can take them away, including god, because there isn't one.

[Riva]

Glad to see you reject the leftist antisemitic trope that Jews are colonizers. Now go tell your little buddies.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What makes you think I'm a "true believer"?

[Riva]

Not a rights pre-existing system? I’ll pass on your version and stick to the original:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

...to which, the logical response is, "Amen!"

[Riva]

Not logical the logical response to anyone at any time in history but you apparently.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Thanks, but I doubt I'm the first person in history to have recognized the catechismic quality of the declaration.

I believe the popular term for it these days would be "manifesto".

[Riva]

Perhaps I painted with too broad a brush? Yes, I suspect that Robespierre, Stalin, Castro and more than a few other past and present communist tyrants and just plain old tyrants would concur with you. Fortunately our Founders didn't.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which is why it is so sad that it's come to this.

Long live the King!

[Don Nico]

Fuck the King.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Careful, the Internet remembers...

[Don Nico]

Indeed, fuck the King. Iused to be opposed to the Queen

[Michael P]

The left longs to be ruled again by a king, apparently.

[Riva]

And they seem to be obsessed lately with coronating a certain radical socialist antisemitic slob who hasn't yet discovered the fork, or any other eating utensil.

[Malika the Maiz]

There is this President who literally refers to himself as a king,…

[Don Nico]

Learn what "literally" means as opposed to "actually."

[LexAquilia]

Is that not typical of the modern Leftist to believe rights flow from government?

Government is nothing but in institution of man, my rights do not come from another man. Modern Leftists, however, worship the State, an institution of men. Modern Leftists worship the men who govern them. Meanwhile, the Leftists in the State see themselves as benevolent gods, protectorate of the peons who serve and worship them. Just look at Sarcastr0 and his non-stop Mother Hen routine he does around here.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s doubtful most “Leftists” think this because they are often upset that this or that government’s laws and policies are violating all kinds of what they deem human rights.

[LexAquilia]

Which is weird why Leftists keep demanding the government take more control and grow ever powerful.

It's like the Leftists brain's are broken and they default to the ideal and ignore empiricism. Religous-like.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s like how anyone would trust an agency that conducted the “Tuskegee Experiment” with anything related to their health

[Malika the Maiz]

Don’t throw your back out moving those goalposts (all that time in the bean bag in your mom’s basement is poor training for that kind of thing)!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Remarkably, I write to show rights do not come from government, but are instead enforced against government. Then LexAquila replies as if illiterate, to accuse me of insistence that rights come from government.

That is reflexive blather from Lex, another among the myriad who imagine every man a king. Which is an assertion little different in substance than a demand for a return to the state of nature, where every man's liberty, property, and very life will always remain at hazard that some other man who commands greater force will take them all.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Remarkably, I write to show rights do not come from government, but are instead enforced against government. Then LexAquila replies as if illiterate, to accuse me of insistence that rights come from government."

I would recommend that you take the appropriate lesson from this: When everybody, not just one guy, takes from your writings the exact opposite of what you meant, you're a really bad writer.

[Nelson]

Or that the respondent hears what he wants to hear. Jesse is constantly accusing me of being a Marxist when every post I’ve ever made has supported capitalism. That’s Jesse being intellectually deficient, not me being unclear about my position.

I can struggle to understand Lathrop’s point sometimes as well, but I read it as “government exists to protect rights”, not the other way around.

But Lex is one of the knee-jerk hard right folks, so it’s not surprising he jumps to a hard right interpretation.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It has become customary on this blog, on this anniversary, to see interpretations of the Declaration of Independence which insist the document announced rights pre-existing government."

Look, you are free to disagree with the DoI if you want, but the fact remains that anybody who can parse English sentences at a 5th grade level can tell that the Declaration of Independence did, indeed, announce that rights pre-exist government.

So, you don't agree. That's fine. It still means that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Amen.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — To repeat historical misinterpretations does nothing to make them come true. Among the founders were several with profound insight into the history of rights and governments. One of those, James Wilson, who was among only 6 founders to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, also happens to be the first who put these ideas on paper, in 1774:

All men are, by nature, equal and free: no one has a right to any authority over another without his consent: all lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it: such consent was given with a view to ensure and to increase the happiness of the governed, above what they could enjoy in an independent and unconnected state of nature. The consequence is, that the happiness of the society is the first law of every government.

You must recognize that, because it is the only conceivable basis for your outlandish misinterpretation. Jefferson, of course, cribbed those ideas, and improved their eloquence, for that most famous passage in the Declaration, which is the basis of your misinterpretation.

Here, of course, is Wilson's further extension of that thinking, with regard to American constitutionalism:

There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable . . . Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions . . . This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

I have put that up quite a few times. You must be incapable to understand it. Maybe you do not know what, "positive institution," meant in founding era context. You at least ought to be able to understand, "whenever and however they please." Which is to say, "at pleasure." Meaning, "without constraint." Pre-existing rights, if they existed, would, of course, be constraints on constitutionalism.

As you can read above, Wilson expressly denied any such constraints. Thus, the purpose of the Declaration, as Wilson who not only signed it, but also inspired it in critical part understood, was to announce to the world a new conception of sovereignty, shared jointly among American citizens. They intended that sovereignty would empower them to decree and protect whatever rights they pleased. And not incidentally, to omit claims to rights they disapproved—such as claims by any person to rule as a sovereign by divine right.

If you want to assert anything to the contrary, please come to the table with something beyond repetitions of empty blather. Use founding era citations to critique Wilson, if you think you can.

[Longtobefree]

Maybe at a fifth grade level when you went to school, but even post-graduates of the current indoctrination system can't figure that out.
After all, they "think" men can become women - - - - - - - -

[Don Nico]

Happy 4th of July Stephen.

[Bwaaah]

I'll go with that, and to you and all.

[Nelson]

Agreed. Let’s take at least one day to marvel at the amazing country we live in and the incredible document that started it all.

[Krayt]

In the American system, the joint popular sovereign would ideally prove incapable to harm the interests of the subjects without harming itself.

You're a well-known vox populi vox dei guy.

The US system is no such thing. The People knew demagogues with the gift of gab could sway them, so girded all operations of government to thwart them, and make their self-motivated agglomeration of power difficult.

In a state of nature, rights remain unimaginable.

Sez you! In your defense of vox populi vox dei, as argument to empower demagogues.

It is at that point of political evolution that the notion of rights gets invented, and may take hold. A right gets defined as a commitment by a sovereign

How putridly, vilely wrong and historically evil. Your rights are not a gift from anyone, you have them inherently.

They are not a gift from a king.

They are not a gift from the rich.

They are not a gift from the powerful.

They are not even a gift from the The People.

They are inherent in you, and The People institute governments to secure those rights.

Why do you start from a notion The People must get on bended knee to the powerful and beg to be granted rights by someone else?

We know why. Vox populi vox dei, not because of concerns for The People, but so the demagogues might hot air that into growing their power under cover of vox populi.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — If you want to make up pretend history, nothing says you have to do it with empty blather. You could do it better. Make up pretend citations. Consult an AI. Tell it to string together your imaginary sources, and serve up some kind of hallucinatory narrative.

That way, your verisimilitude would improve. An AI could also mimic judicious consideration, to help you keep your emotional upsets out of sight. You could even tell it not to be gratuitously rude.

[Jerry B.]

Happy Treason Day!!!

[Nelson]

LOL!

[Kazinski]

Had some bad news, finally, on the economic front for Trump, the June employment report came in better than expected, the unemployment rate dropped to 4.1% from 4.2%, and employment increased by 200,000 jobs.

The reason it's bad news is it will take a little pressure off the Fed to lower interest rates, and the pressure has been building because of continued modest inflation, And lackluster, but by no means bad previous jobs reports.

And now with the OBBB passing then the economy will likely start showing even more signs of growth even without a rate cut.

[jb]

Funny how Republicans were blasting the idea of MMT a few years ago but seem to be fully embracing it now.

Also funny how a year ago high interest rates were decried as such a drag on the middle class, but now they're just a cost of doing tax cuts, I guess.

[LexAquilia]

That's not what the Right is saying about high interest rates.

They're saying Powell is being a typical Democrat and intentionally hurting millions with high interest rates to serve political purposes, namely undermine the Trump administration and to influence the upcoming midterms.

[Malika the Maiz]

Sure, this is why the Fed jacked up the rates in Biden’s term!

[LexAquilia]

It's why Powell cut rates heading into the election.

[Malika the Maiz]

You mean the several cuts heading into the 2020 election? Lol.

[Nelson]

Responding to economic data is a leftist conspiracy? Ooooookay.

[jb]

Kazinski just wrote above that the OBBB would make it less likely the the Fed cuts rates! Maybe read the post I'm responding to for context?

Also, who appointed Powell to be Fed chair? I'm struggling to remember which Democrat was involved.

[Kazinski]

Yes, because there is no reason to cut rates when you are already getting at least average or better growth with low inflation and full employment.

Not to mention interest rates are only high in context of 2009-2022 rates, as Google AI might put it:

"The average mortgage interest rate since 1971, when Freddie Mac began tracking them, is just under 8%, according to Freddie Mac. Specifically, the median 30-year mortgage rate is 7.33%. While rates have fluctuated significantly, with peaks in the early 1980s and lows in 2021, the long-term average provides a good benchmark."

We are slightly below that now.

While we all might long for 2.5% mortgages again, do we really want to go through a global financial crises (liquidity crises specifically, not an inflation crises, currency crises, oil shock, or pandemic or other crises) to get them?

[Kazinski]

We aren't embracing MMT, and you can tell that because next years deficit will be smaller (as a percentage of GDP) than this years deficit, and please note this year is Biden's last budget and began in October.

[Enrique]

Check out my new paper "Evidence and Belief: David Hume in the Library of Babel": https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5243003

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I've received my first government propaganda email:

"Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is celebrating the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.

The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation's economy.

“This is a historic step forward for America’s seniors,” said Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano. “For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans. By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned."

The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned.

Social Security remains committed to providing timely, accurate information to the public and will continue working closely with federal partners to ensure beneficiaries understand how this legislation may affect them."

It isn't even a law, yet!

[Kazinski]

What are the odds Trump is going to veto it?

He said he will sign it today on July 4th.

So you still have a few hours to continue your bizarre claim that the 2016 tax rates, that were superseded by the the 2017 TCJA tax cuts, are still current law.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Quadrupling down now... So sad.

[Kazinski]

Sad is dying on the hillock where Jeffries gave his epic speech, after you've lost the war.

[darkknight9]

Are you new to Social Security? Government activity will of course dictate how many of those they send out each year but its usually about 1 a year in addition to the "Social Security Statement" email.

Now the Medicare emails... that's where the excitements at Jack. (Smile) 🙂

[Riva]

If you want to pay more taxes, feel free. Don’t take any deductions or credits, including the SALT deduction. That’ll show ‘em you’re not taken in by the “propaganda.”

[LexAquilia]

These people never seem to voluntarily pay more taxes, yet always demand others be forced to.

By most moral frameworks, that's wrong. It's wrong to demand others to do what you won't freely do yourself.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That it is propaganda is not in question. I'm sure previous Administrations have issued similar press statements directly to voters (or, as in this case, to anyone with an email in the SS database). I'm not sure any of them have been quite so blatantly political, though.

The bigger issue, of course, is that it is intentionally misleading, which, coupled with its undeniable political aspect, makes it "election interference" if nothing else. Welcome to the New America.

[Riva]

I think "accurate" is the word you're looking for, not misleading.

But good to see you generally don't support exploiting social security as a campaign issue. Though it doesn't seem that democrats got the memo.

[Malika the Maiz]

Another CAPTCHA fail by Riva-bot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ObviouslyNotSpam — It's also jiggery-pokery. According to the Congressional Budget Office approximately 70% of seniors are already paying no income taxes on Social Security Benefits. Depending on what, "nearly 90%," means, that will not likely be a change to revolutionize the well-being of seniors. To the extent it matters, it will benefit only the best-off seniors anyway, mostly those with substantial income in addition to their benefits.

Also? Be on the lookout for a repeat of Trump's first-term scam, where he trumpeted lower withholding rates as if they were tax benefits, and hurt suckers who did not understand that lowering their withholding had nothing to do with the size of their tax burden—a burden which in blue states tended to go up, not down, because of changes to the mortgage interest deduction. Result, less taxes withheld, more taxes owed, and a huge surprise hit at tax time. I partly saw that coming, and told my employer not to lower my withholding. I was still blindsided by the mortgage hit.

[Commenter_XY]

According to the Congressional Budget Office approximately 70% of seniors are already paying no income taxes on Social Security Benefits.

I think I will call BS on that one. The taxes come out, either monthly by SSA or quarterly by the recipient (to avoid penalty).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, if your aggregate withheld benefits are so small that your personal deduction exeeds them, you get it all back after you file your return. Net payment, zero. Apparently, that already applied to most seniors on Social Security.

[Commenter_XY]

Well now, seniors do even better now, under this bill. Seniors receive stackable tax deductions which, in the aggregate, insures that ~88% of seniors pay no effective tax.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/big-beautiful-bill-delivers-relief-social-security-tax-cut-ushers-new-era-seniors-what-you-1737503

Adding it up...
31.5K standard deduction (MFJ)
6K senior deduction
2K charitable donation deduction
At a minimum, the first ~40K income is effectively tax free. That is the big headline for seniors.

It represents a golden opportunity to convert 401K into Roth at a lower fed rate, or possibly at zero fed rate. That is significant for middle class America.

[Josh R]

According to The Hill, the percentage of seniors effectively owing no taxes on their SS benefits goes up from 64% to 88%. But note, like no tax on tips or overtime, these provisions sunset after 2028.

There will of course be pressure to keep them, but the effect of keeping them on the debt is not included in this bill. The same held in 2017 for the tax cuts that were made permanent in the OBBBA. And yet for qualification of subjecting the law to reconciliation, the Senate computed the impact on the debt relative to current policy (assuming the tax cuts did not expire after this year), not current law (the tax cuts expire). Bottom line: in the combination of 2017 and 2025 bills, the Senate never accounted for the impact of the tax cuts on the debt from 2026 on.

[Jerry B.]

Yep. You're basically loaning the government your withholding without interest until you file your return and get a refund.

[bernard11]

The taxes come out, either monthly by SSA or quarterly by the recipient (to avoid penalty).

No. They don't have to if you don't owe them.

All the various withholdings, estimates, etc. are not what you owe, they are approximations of what you will owe at the end of the year. When you file you get any excess back.

I thought everyone understood this, but I guess not.

[Kazinski]

Yep, Bernard has it correct.

[Frank Drackman]

The whole “withholdings” thang is just a tool to keep the Sheeple in line, thinking they’ve put one over on Uncle Sammy when they get their “refund” (which the Pawn/Jewelry Shop I’m a “Silent Partner” in will gladly give you early, with a slight “Service” Charge, Insurance, and of course Interest)
Yes Queenie, I’m a Doctor who likes to dabble in Diamonds and Money Lending, it’s in my genes, like your people and Basketball
I pay my taxes Quarterly, lets you see exactly how far Sammy’s got his hand up your (Redacted)

Frank

[CountmontyC]

Withholding was designed to hide how much in taxes you pay. Most people only look at their net paycheck so don't see how much is taken out and even when they look they have been, as you point out, conditioned to think of the refund ( which is really just an interest free loan to the government). Nor do they often look at the total paid in taxes until they actually file ( at which point they are distracted by the refund( interest free loan the government is finally repaying).

[Krayt]

I've received my first government propaganda email:

I assure you, it wasn't the first!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, I just searched my Inbox, thinking I must have received something from the US government at least during Covid, but I found nothing.

Nope, this was the first.

[Kazinski]

The curious case of Department of Homeland Security v. D. V. D. seems to be over. The Supreme Court stayed a district court judge preliminary injunction forbidding DHS from deporting 6 criminal illegals from other countries to South Sudan.

The district court judge then citing Sotomayors dissent, said "not withstanding" the courts saying of the injunction it was still in effect.

The Supreme Court was not amused.

"On June 23, we stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction pending disposition of any appeal and petition for writ of certiorari. Later that day, however, the District Court issued a minute order stating that the May 21 remedial order “remain[ed] in full force and effect,” “notwithstanding” our stay of the preliminary injunction. ECF Doc. 176. The only authority it cited was the dissent from the stay order."

"Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable."

Notably Kagan wrote a concurrence to the latest order, after she joined Sotomayor's original dissent.

Orders are orders.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

Good for Kagan, anyway. Sotomayor and Jackson, instead, essentially took the position that the Court should let the lower court ignore the stay because the majority had been wrong to issue it in the first place.

[LexAquilia]

Activists not jurists.

[Stephen Lathrop]

How could the Court even be wrong, without an opinion to say on what basis it decided? Maybe that establishes a new judicial principle: totally arbitrary is always right.

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

Have you ever seen a lower court use a higher courts dissent to ignore an order from the higher court?

[Kazinski]

It lifted the injunction, it didn't say why.

Obviously Sotomayor was dissenting against something.

[darkknight9]

I hope Randy does his annual re-posting, but if not here's an interesting read on today:

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/04/what-the-declaration-of-independence-said-and-meant-6/

[Commenter_XY]

When I think about America, I often wonder what was the defining factor in our becoming the greatest country that humanity has ever known. For me, it boils down to having our written Constitution, and the American civil ethos of doing our best to remain faithful to it. It is, in many ways, a contract between the Founders and Americans today (and the future).

There is no other country that gives as much, does as much, sacrifices as much, for the betterment of humanity on this planet than the United States of America. This place, America, is almost miraculous; you can come here with nothing, and become a billionaire. Or a Constitutional law professor. And that doesn't depend on the POTUS in office, or political party in power. We've been around for almost 250 years, doing fantastically. The next 1,000 years looks pretty good to me, considering the last 250 years.

I hope our distant great, great, great grandchildren retain that passion and zeal (e.g. American civil ethos) for our written Constitution that we still possess today. And yes, we Americans still possess that ethos. Consider, The Volokh Conspiracy is evidence of that (and you're reading this); why?. Our fidelity to that written Constitution made us what we are today; I am so proud of America, and what we Americans have accomplished.

May God bless America and everyone in it.

Happy Independence Day!

[Riva]

Too bad you couldn’t have been the first to comment here.

[Frank Drackman]

Back when National Pubic Radio wasn't just the Media outlet for Ham-Ass, the Mobile AL station would play Patriotic tunes every July 4th, including all 4 Verses of the Star Spangled Banner (gets a little dark with
"No refuge could save the hireling and slave,
from the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave..."

Which pretty much sounds like the 2025 Atlanta Braves season so far.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a dream, that during one of those sports events where they bring in a guest singer to sing the national anthem, they belt out the first stanza as usual, the band stops playing, and the singer continues on to the next. The band hastily resumes playing, and all four get heard for the first time in years.

[Jerry B.]

I was at an Atlanta Falcons game once where the anthem singer started by asking everyone to join them in the anthem, and they did. brought chills to hear tens of thousands of folks singing it out loud instead of lipsynking.

[CountmontyC]

One of my favorite moments of someone singing the national anthem was at a Portland Trailblazers game when the very young ( 13 years old) lady forgot the words. But the Portland Trailblazer coach, Maurice Cheeks, came to her rescue and stood beside and helped her along with the crowd sing the tune. He may not have been a great coach but that moment made him a great man in my eyes.
Btw it is on youtube.

[Krayt]

This would be a good time to put out my theory on the difference between the US system and the European parliamentary systems.

The US was birthed in a unique circumstance of busting free from tyrant kings. They (literally) enumerated the abuses, and went about creating a government where those things were blanket forbidden, or if necessary, like criminal investigations, gated before warrant requirements and habeus corpus.

Europeans grew under millenia of corrupt kleptocratic dictatorship, right back to caveman days, and finally said...

Not "Nope, that kind of infinite power is wrong!"

No, they said "We The People need to get ourselves some of that for us!"

It was a half step, and no proper kleptocrat would ever let that go to waste and allow themselves to be so girded. Put Vox Populi on a pedestal, shine lights on it, and then wield infinite power anyway.

Can't have actual rights getting in the way of anything.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The difference is that the US now appears to have just taken two steps, instead of one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

George Washington refused the crown -- he would have been king had he wished. And then he didn't run for a 3rd term.

[Riva]

in case anyone is tempted, how about taking a break today from the trolling TDS BS today? I guess if you’re being paid OT trolling rates today, it will be hard to resist.

[LexAquilia]

Most of these are paid foreign actors and do not share this holiday.

[Malika the Maiz]

Another prime example of every accusation….

[Frank Drackman]

A Big Beautiful Bill?? on my Birthday!?!??!? You Shouldn't have!!
OK, maybe there's some things I wouldn't have included, it's like when I was 8 and my Aunt Ethel gave me a Righthanded Baseball glove, it's the thought that counts, and here's hoping for another 250 Uncle Sammy!!!!

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Happy birthday, Frank.

[Malika the Maiz]

Happy 4th! A day I hope everyone will have some good eats, though food prices have continued their climb (“day one” indeed!).

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIUFDNS

[Frank Drackman]

Most Amuricans could do to eat a little bit less anyway, peoples pay other peoples to deliver them Taco Bell for crying out loud, and think they're being "Green" because they didn't drive there themselves

[Kazinski]

Kind of hard to tell from that very tip of that graph of a 100 years of monthly urban food price inflation, that the last 4 months of food price inflation has average. 0.2%.

This might be an easier source to see what the recent data is.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf

[Malika the Maiz]

I could have sworn Trump promised to lower food prices, not reduce the percent change increase, on day one. Has the CPI for food been lowered?

[Kazinski]

We will always have eggs.

[Malika the Maiz]

“As he runs for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani has made his identity as a Muslim immigrant of South Asian descent a key part of his appeal.

But as a high school senior in 2009, Mr. Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, claimed another label when he applied to Columbia University. Asked to identify his race, he checked a box that he was “Asian” but also “Black or African American,” according to internal data derived from a hack of Columbia University that was shared with The New York Times…

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Mamdani, 33, said he did not consider himself either Black or African American, but rather “an American who was born in Africa.” He said his answers on the college application were an attempt to represent his complex background given the limited choices before him, not to gain an upper hand in the admissions process. (He was not accepted at Columbia.)“

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/nyregion/mamdani-columbia-black-application.html

[Mr. Bumble]

At least he didn't cite high cheek bones.

[Frank Drackman]

A-rabs are Caucasians, in fact the word "Aryan" is derived from the original name of Ear-Ron.

[Malika the Maiz]

His parents are from India.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and he was born in Uganda.
Does that make him an African-American or does that only count for blacks?

[Malika the Maiz]

Your comment is irrelevant as to whether he is Arabic.

[ThePublius]

As your comment that his parents are from India is irrelevant as to whether he is Arabic.

He is a liar, trying to leverage claims of being black and asian to get into Columbia.

[Malika the Maiz]

Plenty relevant. Arabs are .56% of the population of India. His mother is Hindu and his father Gujarati, not Arabic.

“He is a liar, trying to leverage claims of being black and asian to get into Columbia.”

There you go again with your jump to accuse people of lying. He’s a citizen of an African nation and the child of Asian parents, so where’s the lie?

[ThePublius]

"He’s a citizen of an African nation and the child of Asian parents, so where’s the lie?"

He said black. Being a citizen of an African nation doesn't make you black. My grandfather was from South Africa, so can I say I'm black?

[ThePublius]

Correction: he checked off "Black or African American." Both of these are untrue in his case. We know what Black is, and he's not black. And we know what African American is, and he's not that, either. Just coming from Africa and becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen doesn't make you African American, any more than my Dutch South African grandfather was African American, or Elon Musk, for that matter.

[Malika the Maiz]

Oh no, it looks like *you’re* the one lying:

“Asked to identify his race, he checked a box that he was “Asian” but also “Black or **African American,**”

Emphasis mine

[ThePublius]

Yes, I corrected that before you replied. But you fail to note that he is neither Black nor African American.

[LexAquilia]

Don't worry, he has a cognitive out. Even though it is still incorrect, since you made an error, he doesn't have to contemplate your claim.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Yes, I corrected that”

Why did you lie at first?

[ThePublius]

I didn't lie, I made an error. There's a difference. Filling out a form and checking a box that doesn't apply to one is not an error, it's a lie.

[Malika the Maiz]

Why is an error on a form a lie but your error (about the same thing here) not?

[TwelveInchPianist]

" but your error (about the same thing here) not?"

Where did TP make an error? African American is a subset of black. By claiming you are African-American, you are claiming you are black.

[Malika the Maiz]

If I ask if you’re stupid or disingenuous is one necessarily a subset of the other (and he’s conceded he was in error anyway)?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"he’s conceded he was in error anyway"

And you've conceded he's fallible.

He made an error. He thought he was wrong when he wasn't.

I linked to a definition of African-American below that shows it includes black. Can you support your claim that it doesn't?

[ThePublius]

"African Americans, also known as Black Americans and formerly called Afro-Americans, are an American racial and ethnic group who as defined by the United States census, consists of Americans who have ancestry from "any of the Black racial groups of Africa".[3][4] African Americans constitute the second largest racial and ethnic group in the U.S. after White Americans.[5] The term "African American" generally denotes descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States.[6][7]"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So, your argument is that "Black or African American" actually just means "Black", so the "African American" part of it has no meaning other than "Black", and was included to (a) confuse people or perhaps (b) to placate black people who didn't like being called "Black"?

If I had been an American high school kid born in Africa, I can assure you I would have self-identified as "African American" all fucking day long. If that's not what the university "had in mind" when they drafted their mandatory racial classification questionnaire (to facilitate the sorting of applicants along racial lines), perhaps they should have taken more care in drafting the questions?

(And yes, Elon Musk is an "African American", unless you want to be racist about such things.)

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's a cunning plan that wouldn't raise questions at all.

I know your threshold for what's believable is really low but this is pathetic.

[ThePublius]

Is Mamdani black? That's what he claimed.

And I don't know the details of the Columbia questionnaire, but there's a difference between East Asian and South Asian. Did it distinguish or specify these?

[ThePublius]

Correction: he checked off "Black or African American." Both of these are untrue in his case. We know what Black is, and he's not black. And we know what African American is, and he's not that, either. Just coming from Africa and becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen doesn't make you African American, any more than my Dutch South African grandfather was African American, or Elon Musk, for that matter.

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s African and he’s American. Neither of these is untrue.

Even if there’s some crazy classification a la David Bernstein system where Asians born in and citizens of an African American nation who then come to live in America are not in some technical sense African American it’s certainly possible he reasonably applied to him. You just want to jump to ascribe “lying” to anyone who is ultimately incorrect about anything and who you disagree with.

[ThePublius]

"He’s African and he’s American. Neither of these is untrue."

That doesn't make him African American!, any more than Elon Musk is African American. African American has a very specific meaning, and it's not just having come from Africa to America.

[ThePublius]

"Gerard Kassar, chairman of the state Conservative Party, accused Mamdani of exploiting affirmative action to try to gain college admission.

“Mamdani has got a lot of explaining to do. This is part of the fraud he has perpetrated on New Yorkers throughout the primary campaign,” the Brooklyn resident fumed.

“His focus was to get admitted to Columbia on affirmative action. It just didn’t work out. He was trying to get into a school by lying about his racial background. Race is a scientific specification, not the country you’re from,” Kassar said, adding that Mamdani, whose father was a Columbia professor, knew exactly what he was doing.

His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a professor of anthropology, political science and African Studies at the Ivy League, while his mother, Mira Nair, is an Oscar-nominated filmmaker.

“Being from Uganda doesn’t make you black. You can’t assume it makes you black,” Kassar charged."

[Malika the Maiz]

“African American has a very specific meaning, and it's not just having come from Africa to America.”

Dude, you were wrong about the form saying just black, so maybe a little grace for someone who was literally both born in Africa and then an American checking a box that says “African-American.”

[Malika the Maiz]

“Being from Uganda doesn’t make you black.”

Holy shit, you compound your lie by quoting a partisan opponent of Mamdani who says he claimed to be black (rather than black *or African American!*). Is there no end to your lying?

[ThePublius]

At the end of the day it is you, Malika, who is wrong, and Mamdani who has lied. Calling me a liar is pretty thin gruel as arguments go.

No, you are not African American by virtue of having come from Africa to America. Don't you get that you are making a mistaken syllogistic argument?

Let me ask you, is Elon Musk African American? Is he a potential beneficiary of affirmative action? Is he eligible for reparations? Are the Afrikaners who immigrate to the U.S. African Americans? For that matter, are wealthy black Ghanans who immigrate to the U.S. African Americans?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He’s African and he’s American."

His race/ethnicity is African-American? How so?

And I guess Elizabeth Warren is Native American because she was born in America, amirite?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Holy shit, you compound your lie by quoting a partisan opponent of Mamdani who says he claimed to be black (rather than black *or African American!*)."

Sounds like your the one who is lying. Dictionary.com's definition of African American:

noun
an American with Black African ancestry.

So claiming to be African-American is claiming to be black.

Is there no end to your lying?

[Bwaaah]

Elon Musk is an African American.

And for the purpose of clarity, Malika is a shit-talker.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Calling me a liar is pretty thin gruel as arguments go.”

It’s just sauce for the gander. You claim Zohran must have lied by checking a box las African American (when he is both African American) but you are not a liar when you concede you were in error about what he checked.

See, when you or someone you agree with is wrong you say they were “in error” but if someone you don’t agree with is wrong you scream “liar!”

For someone wrong as much as you you may want to check that kind of approach.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"when he is both African American"

Sigh. He's a liar because he is not African-American.

[Malika the Maiz]

“ Sounds like you’re the one who is lying. Dictionary.com's definition of African American:”

I see your Dictionary.com and raise you a Merriam Webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/African%20American

an American of African and especially of Black African descent

So given dictionaries disagree and literally it says African American claiming a guy who is literally African and American *must* have lied to check that box is a stretch worthy of Plastic Man.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How do they disagree? Thanks for providing another source that proves my point.

And in any event, he is not of African descent.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't care how he identifies. Mamdani advocates Marxist policies that have never worked wherever they have been tried. That is a fact. Don't believe me? Fine, ask North Koreans how Marxist policy is working out for them.

NYC, be careful about the choices you make, you'll have to live with them. How many billionaires do you want to leave? All in...one billionaire pays the equivalent amount of taxes as thousands of lower income citizens put together. Try replacing that if more billionaires leave. You deserve the representation you elect, remember that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And the left had no problem with Warren lying about her race to get hired at Harvard, so we know they won't have a problem with this either.

They only go after less powerful people who lie about their race.

[John F. Carr]

The statute of limitations has probably expired. I got to thinking of Kousisis v. US from the recent Supreme Court term. Is lying about disadvantaged business status a crime when there is no financial loss?

[John F. Carr]

A federal judge in Massachusetts ordered a pimp to pay $1.5 million restitution to the prostitutes he managed. This may represent the income he got by renting them out. It's hard to tell from the press release. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/court-orders-over-15-million-restitution-survivors-convicted-sex-trafficker

The California Appeals Court ruled that prostitutes were entitled to restitution under Penal Code §1202.4. The trial judge had declined to order mandatory restitution for "value of the victim’s labor or services" because legally sex work has no value. H.B. v. Superior Court 97 Cal.App.5th 341 (2023).

Children could use the same technique to legally get paid for sex videos. A contract to make child pornography would be void as against public policy. Federal law allows minors to sue for $150,000 if they are used in child pornography. So it's like a flat rate per performance set by law. As with the prostitution cases, this only legalizes the income if somebody is willing to risk prison.

[SRG2]

Happy Independence Day!

The liberal elites of the day in Britain supported independence. The conservatives did not - and those liberal elites also supported abolition

See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion

[Malika the Maiz]

Seems a bit relevant on a day we celebrate for breaking with a King…

“Attorney General Pam Bondi told tech companies that they could lawfully violate a statute barring American companies from supporting TikTok based on a sweeping claim that President Trump has the constitutional power to set aside laws, newly disclosed documents show.

In letters to companies like Apple and Google, Ms. Bondi wrote that Mr. Trump had decided that shutting down TikTok would interfere with his “constitutional duties,” so the law banning the social media app must give way to his “core presidential national security and foreign affairs powers.”

The executive branch has the power, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, to choose not to enforce laws in particular instances or to set priorities about what categories of lawbreaking they will prioritize when resources are limited.

Previous presidents have occasionally made aggressive use of that power, including when President Obama temporarily shielded from deportation undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the country as children. But the Obama administration also said such “deferred action” could be revoked and did not claim it made their presence lawful, nor cease to enforce immigration law against others.
In her letters, Ms. Bondi went far beyond that. Because of Mr. Trump’s order, she said, tech firms that acted contrary to the statute were breaking no law, even in theory, and the department was “irrevocably relinquishing” any legal claims against them — including under future administrations.“

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/us/politics/trump-bondi-tiktok-executive-power.html

[ThePublius]

So, all of a sudden, an executive exercising prosecutorial discretion is a king?

[Sarcastr0]

No one thinks this is a case of prosecutorial discretion.

Because zero people are being prosecuted.

Not even Bondi tried to make that argument.

[LexAquilia]

It's as much prosecutorial discretion as DACA is.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lol, It’s exactly not as much, if you could read!

“But the Obama administration also said such “deferred action” could be revoked and did not claim it made their presence lawful, nor cease to enforce immigration law against others.

In her letters, Ms. Bondi went *far beyond that*. Because of Mr. Trump’s order, she said, tech firms that acted contrary to the statute were breaking no law, even in theory, and the department was “irrevocably relinquishing” any legal claims against them — including under future administrations.“

Emphasis mine

[LexAquilia]

What happened when Trump v1.0 tried to revoke DACA?

[Malika the Maiz]

Goalposts moved again.

[tylertusta]

"Deferred" in DACA proves the aphorism that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary program.

[ThePublius]

Zero people being prosecuted can certainly be an outcome of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion! What are you talking about?

[Krayt]

Everyone claims the sophistry it's about making some prosecutions low priority, because of limited resources.

Then they go about proudly blabbering why, as a good policy, to ignore this or that law.

This is what politicians do for a living: do things for a secret reason, then issue a cover justification.

For some reason, people think this is ok. Well, they tell us that it's ok.

"Are you lying?"

(Read in the voice of Withers) "No."

"Is that a lie?"

"No."

"Ok, but was that a lie?"

"No."

[Malika the Maiz]

Are we to add can’t read to your proclivity of lying?

“Previous presidents have occasionally made aggressive use of that power, including when President Obama temporarily shielded from deportation undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the country as children. But the Obama administration also said such “deferred action” could be revoked and did not claim it made their presence lawful, nor cease to enforce immigration law against others.
In her letters, Ms. Bondi went far beyond that. Because of Mr. Trump’s order, she said, tech firms that acted contrary to the statute were breaking no law, even in theory, and the department was “irrevocably relinquishing” any legal claims against them — including under future administrations.“

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

They refused Trump v1.0 the power to revoke DACA, remember?

It was the first case in US history where a previous President bound a future President.

[Malika the Maiz]

So Lex is your sock puppet? See the answer I gave him/you, but I also add it was an APA reversal and certainly not the first one.

[John F. Carr]

Prosecutorial discretion is saying "we don't feel like prosecuting people who spit on the sidewalk, kill socialist Democrats, or fail to report small amounts of cash income." The acts are still illegal but you got away with it this time, or until a new prosecutor takes over. Bondi went further and said Trump can make illegal acts legal by declaring them to be obstacles to his goals.

[SRG2]

...and the cultists agree.

[Malika the Maiz]

Also note yet another “defense” that is 100% pure a whataboutism attempt. If principles were water they could carry theirs in a net.

[John F. Carr]

The quasi-strike by public defenders in Massachusetts continues. The Supreme Judicial Court recently activated the "Lavallee protocol" in two counties. Defendants who do not get appointed counsel must be released from jail within seven days and have charges dismissed without prejudice within 45 days.

The public defenders who are on strike are contract workers, paid $65 per hour for a misdemeanor up to $120 per hour for a homicide. They want the pay scale to start at $100 per hour. The minority of public defenders who are state employees are still on the job. They are taking on the more serious cases so violent criminals don't have to be released.

In Suffolk County, hundreds of people are unrepresented, including dozens in custody, according to the Committee for Public Counsel Services. Of those in custody, more than 20 have been detained for longer than seven days.
The situation is similar in Middlesex County, where hundreds of people charged with crimes still didn’t have lawyers as of this week. Of those, more than two dozen are in custody, including six people who have been held longer than seven days, according to CPCS.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/07/03/metro/bar-advocate-strike-explainer/

I expect we'll find that prosecuting crimes isn't as important as society thinks. Tens of thousands of drug test results were ruled inadmissible and life went on. Tens of thousands of breathalyzer tests were ruled inadmissible and life went on.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Just deport them.

[John F. Carr]

What if they have no criminal records because charges were dropped?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that whether prosecuting crimes is as important as society thinks is very dependent on the crime in question.

[LexAquilia]

Microsoft fired 9,000 US workers while applying for 14,800 H1-Bs.

This is what happens in every company taken over by Indian management.

H1-B needs to go. Pajeets are horrible workers with a garbage culture. Brahmans are a different chaste and have Aryan blood, but H1-B doesn't distinguish between Brahmans and the human and literal garbage that is the rest of India.

[Malika the Maiz]

are a different chaste

Maybe they’re hiring those folks because they can spell caste, unlike some white supremacists here?

[LexAquilia]

As mentioned below:

Do they pay you for typo-pouncing? Or was that a freebie to Jing?

[Malika the Maiz]

Ah, he”s upset now!

[Roger S]

We do not need the Brahman H-1B workers either.

[LexAquilia]

We should also remember on this day that 2.5 years ago President Biden had a nationwide speech where he declared Trump supports to be enemies of Democracy. All 79M of them.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump supports to be enemies of Democracy.

Lol

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

Do they pay you for typo-pouncing? Or was that a freebie to Jing?

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, they are the same, pathetic.

[Roger S]

Biden was a puppet President. That was truly anti-democratic. He occupied the office while others did the job.

[ThePublius]

Narrative fail.

Leftists claim that no illegal aliens are receiving Medicaid benefits. Yet, 20 states are suing to prevent DHS from using Medicaid data to find illegal aliens.

"Those controversial Medicaid cuts come from two basic categories: cutting off able-bodied men who refuse to work, and not using Medicaid to provide health care for illegals.
Democrats downplay the first and deny the second is happening at all, despite massive evidence to the contrary.
But a funny thing happened this week that largely went unnoticed--a number of states are suing to prevent the federal government from using Medicaid data to find illegal aliens."

You couldn't make this shit up.

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2025/07/03/oops-narrative-fail-n3804448

[Frank Drackman]

Congrats to the DOJ turning P Diddy into a sympathetic figure

[Roger S]

Yes. He is currently being held in jail without bail, even though he was only convicted of paying adults for consensual sexual relations.

[SRG2]

And here we are

[Frank Drackman]

50th Anniversary of Arthur Ashes upset Wimbledon win over Jimmy Connors (not surprisingly JC is still my favorite player(McEnroe was second) Left handed, Frank(get it?) speaking, played every match to the bitter end,
Only win Arthur had against Connors
Sadly died too young, caught the Hiv-ie from a tainted blood transfusion during bypass surgery (tell me again why gays should be allowed to donate blood?)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"McEnroe was second"

It didn't quell your enthusiasm when he insulted Serena Williams by saying she was the best women's tennis player of all time?

[Roger S]

Not an insult.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You'd think.

[Frank Drackman]

Well she's a man, so that's a bit of an "Advantage" (get it?, An "Advantage"? in Tennis??)

[Bwaaah]

"tell me again why gays should be allowed to donate blood?"

Because homosexuality is not transmitted through blood. But also, people with [known] blood-borne infections, such as AIDS, are not eligible to donate blood. And all donations are screened for HIV.

Anybody can unwittingly infect a recipient through their blood donation. But in weeding out risky blood donors, we try not to cast a net so wide that it catches us all.

I suspect you know this better than me.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Yankees Not in First Place Day to all that celebrate.

The Yankees now play the Mets (oh look, another pitcher is hurt!) in a "Subway Series." The subway to take is the 7 train.

Today's game starts at 3:10. The Red Sox got the holiday games started and are already playing.

Congrats to Francisco Lindor for being selected as starting shortstop for the All-Star Game.

https://sny.tv/video/francisco-lindor-honored-and-proud-of-first-all-star-selection-as-a-met

[John F. Carr]

Some British politicians, including Jeremy Corbyn, want to form a new political party to the left of Labour. More payments to poor Britons, fewer payments to Israel. The Labour Party is down almost a third in popularity since gaining power. Thirty years ago John Major's Tories also had double digit percentage point loss of support.

I wish the American political parties would fragment. I wish we had a political system that allowed parties to fragment. In modern times the national parties have too much money. The Supreme Court will decide in its next term whether to allow limits on coordinated spending between parties and candidates. If members of Congress felt inclined to undermine the system that brought them power, unfavorable tax treatment of large political parties would be a start.

[Frank Drackman]

One of my favorite lines from "Dazed & Confused" (there's so many)

Ms. Ginny Stroud: "Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes."

Frank