Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 9.3.2025 8:56 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: How Would You Know If a Justice Issues A Wise, Solomonic Ruling?
Hide Comments (685)
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.
Welcome to the camp, I guess you all know why you're here.
Hey Somin, foot voting by Gringos not welcome by Mexicans. They are replacing Mexican culture with their stinking high prices.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/03/protests-in-spain-mexico-target-travelers-as-overtourism-anger-grows.html
That's the same complaint they make about poorer inner city areas in the US. People flee the crime and rising taxes, bad!
They they make revitilization areas with lower taxes, they flood back in. This drives increasing prices, which they call "gentrification".
Also bad!
I suppose it's due to no role in being an ameliorating hero saving the poor in any of this, so must be disdained.
This is enough to get you arrested in the UK, if you post it on X:
“If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”
Finally it was too much for even Kier Starmer:
"The PM told the force to concentrate on tackling serious crime after the writer was arrested by five armed officers after he arrived at Heathrow Airport following a flight from Arizona."
It wouldn't have been too much a few months ago, but I think he's starting yo feel the hole he is in is deep enough already.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/starmer-father-ted-police-5HjdBnf_2/
I did see a rather funny cartoon strip in the X thread about this.
"Jim: How do you like the UK John?
John: I can't complain.
Jim: I'm glad you like it.
John: No, I mean I literally can't complain or they'll arrest me for it."
Oh by the way the bail conditions for Graham Linehan, the writer and comedian who got arrested for the tweet forbid hin from posting on X at all, so he wrote about his arrest on substack.
Kazinski, what makes you suppose abysmally low-quality commentary about this nation will persuade anyone to value your commentary about nations elsewhere? Am I supposed to conclude you are better informed about Britain than about the United States?
Am I supposed to conclude that Britain is remiss to the extent that it does not conform itself to your takes on what ought to happen in the United States? What would it take to make you think you ought to withhold an opinion from time-to-time, on the basis of judging yourself ill-informed?
Hi, Stephen. Lawyers are Dems. Dems are Commies. It's welcome to Cuba and to North Korea wherever you stinking Commies win elections.
yawn
"What would it take to make you think you ought to withhold an opinion from time-to-time, on the basis of judging yourself ill-informed?"
Well if I was ever wrong I might think about it.
And in this case, I can confidently say if Kier Starmer, Nigel Farage, and I are all in agreement that the arrest was at least ill advised we are probably right.
Did you hate free speech when you were a journalist too?
Of course he did. He's a Lefty.
At least this is refreshingly shorter than your usual abysmally low-quality commentary about this nation Steve.
If you wax apologetic and look glowingly on censorship (self-righteous censorship, like book burning) in nominally free nations, your dirty underpants are showing.
Keir Starmer seems to think that he can win the 2029 election by campaigning to the right of Nigel Farage. I am utterly mystified why he should think that.
Meanwhile:
The government's net approval rating has fallen to -59, Labour's lowest score to date Approve: 11% (-2 from 23-25 August) Disapprove: 70% (+3) Net: -59 (-5)
The government's net approval rating has fallen to -59, Labour's lowest score to date
Approve: 11% (-2 from 23-25 August) Disapprove: 70% (+3) Net: -59 (-5)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/government-approval
In the last 15 years, the only time a sitting government did significantly worse than this was when Liz Truss was prime minister. Just before she got kicked out she polled at -69.
In the 1993 Canadian election, the Progressive Conservative party fell from an outright majority down to two seats. Let's see if Labour can beat that.
At this point he's focussed on surviving to 2029.
Starmer is on the moderate wing of Labour, at some point the base is going to say "We're looking at another 12 years out of power so we may as well go for broke while we can", and put one of the more radical lefties in.
And I do mean go for broke.
Martinned is talking about politics, you counter with some policy vibes based on a misunderstanding of how parties work in the UK.
The Labour coalition doesn't really map well onto moderates and radicals right now. That's the thing about parlaments. LibDem, Reform, and Greens have the fringes well locked up. Conservative voters [which is quite different than in the US other than also being anti-immigrant] are kinda homeless right now since the Torie brand is so messed up.
If you get all your news about abroad from right-wingers pushing narratives you're going to get a pretty reductive and distorted view!
There's some weird project to unify right-wingers globally. But given the differences of national politics, nativism, nationalism, and white supremacy are the main common causes.
Bannon is pretty into this international coalition of bigoted populists idea; I'm not sure if that's why we're getting so many terrible hot takes about the domestic politics of other countries, but something's going on.
Well, they're all Limey Pricks or most of them for their degeneration into arresting people who don't violate laws. One must be within their borders to violate a law. Speech is free here.
To think my family ever came from a stink pot as the UK is now. I'm glad they left long, long ago.
The UK is another developmentally arrested country. Home of the Enlightenment no longer. It was apparent 30 years or more ago that the drift into intolerance was happening. What's next, reverting to Catholicism and popery ?
Beware, the English Inquisition !
I think maintaining a cohesive majority to govern is at least tangentially related to politics. After all he is comparing Starmer's disapproval rating to Liz Truss, she got kicked to the curb by her own party, and they installed Richie Sunak.
You can't talk about politics in the UK without considering whether a party dropping like a rock in the polls would replace their leader. Its only happened a half dozen times in the past 10 years.
As for hot takes on other countries politics, don't take shots at Martinned, he's entitled to his opinions.
Yes, Starmer should be worried about making it until 2029. He came out of the election in an unassailable position, and managed to squander it in a year through indecision, lack of vision and a weird insistence on talking about the one policy area where he and his party don't have issue ownership. (And saying stupid things about it to boot.)
What probably saves Starmer for now is that the two people who might replace him, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves, have both managed to shoot themselves in the foot in various ways. So there isn't an obvious replacement PM waiting in the wings.
""The man in his 50s was arrested on suspicion of inciting violence."
This is why the Brandenburg test is so important. Petty tyrants will take any provocative speech as "inciting violence." No way were his statements an incitement.
I noticed this during the era of threats to section 230 unless social media companies toed the line on censoring harrassment (a Democratic presidential debate even had a discussion unit on it, where they fell all over each other to virtue signal how hard they'd twist arms using governnent power. Section 230 changes was the baseline starting point.)
Eventually, after much discussion and debate over a year, the "harrassment is bad yo!" argument fell on its ass. Plus he had won the election in spite of mandatory trigger warnings on political statements of their opposition (JFC, US, you really did this? Trigger warnings on political opposition? Hiding it via scary click-thrus?)
So they moved on to "it's dangerous speech!". Around here, and the Supreme court, this has a very tight, limited definition. They sought to adopt it's rhetorical cachet, but apply "dangerous" to statements nothing like that recognized by the Supreme Court.
Because it's ok to ban dangerous speech! Get to it, social media!
Why do I fight so hard against those who push side memes they are the good guys? Trump is a known quantity. You guys, every breath you take, spouts motivated power arrogation reasoning, in the face of the spirit, and sometimes the words, of the Constitution.
This is the world you built. Thanks.
Then why are you fighting so hard against Sullivan?
For the record, the origin of this situation is that Elon Musk has decided to wipe his ass with US, UK, and EU law about content moderation on social media platforms. There is no reason for anyone to get the police involved if the platform will simply ban assholes, like they used to, and like they're legally required to.
Of course, it's Musk's fault.
On Twitter? Yeah, stuff that happens on Twitter is quite frequently Twitter's fault. I'm not sure why you find that a strange idea.
And I thank Elon for that.
The point of having "Fuck You" money is being able to say fuck you:
Elon Musk Says Bob Iger, the Disney CEO He Publicly Told to “Fuck Yourself,”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/elon-musk-bob-iger-should-be-fired-immediately?srsltid=AfmBOopD2dg58UrQ1lWGrGJJcLrn4mipCwvTdC2Ryn_VQEdeY8PL2Bp7
And I thank Apple after they told the UK to FO when the UK told them they had to provide a global back door to the UK government to every IPhone user's data, and couldn't tell anyone about it, and of course the Trump administration for backing Apple.
So it's Elon's fault for not censoring on behalf of the UK government that the UK government must censor on it's own.
You filthy demented bootlicker. It must also be Elon's fault that the UK government lets brown rapists and pedophiles go for letting people share on X that the UK government lets brown rapists and pedophiles go.
"Legally required to"?!?
Seig Heil!
Why did we (US) spend all that blood & treasure in the 50 year effort to rescue from both Nazism & Communism if you are going to be that way anyway?
Remember Martinned still hasn't denied his ancestors were NSB during WW2.
The better question is who is going to rescue you from Nazism in the next decades.
Not the UK, as they are bending over for the sand Nazis.
Still not denying your Nazi past I see and projecting your Nazi present.
"the origin of this situation is that Elon Musk has decided to wipe his ass with US, UK, and EU law about content moderation on social media platforms"
As anyone should. I'm sure that Martined's comment sounded better in the original German, but places like Europe and North Korea tend to forget that people have a fundamental right to express themselves.
"The origin of this situation is all this hoi polloi having the ability to say what they think. Even things I don't like! So irritating. Anyway that's why we have to prosecute them."
Why, Kazinski, I'm surprised at you. We've been arresting and suing people here right and left for speaking about Israel/Jews. And now here's this other form of hatred/discrimination that the UK wants to address but you're...against it??!
Poor Ken White appears to believe that this is borderline prosecutable in the US, never mind that it doesn't even arguably meet the criteria of intent, likelihood, and imminence.
Many hatemongers are prone to label transgender folks as mentally ill.
I am not a mental health professional, but I wonder what an obsession with what is or is not inside other folks' britches says about the critics' own mental health.
It's not hate to state a truth. If you believe you can become a different sex by drugs or surgery you are mentally ill. Stop listening to the voices in your head and get help.
Are you a grown man, confused about the difference between male and female? Perhaps you should be institutionalized. Or at least not allowed around kids.
We had a few open thread discussion about how to define a woman.
Lots of discussion; not a lot of agreement even among the righties around here.
Is it based on hormones? Chronozones? Having eggs? vagina-having? What people assume when they see you?
Not even the biology of sex is easy; much less the sociology/psychology of gender.
Sarcastro - Get some roosters for your farm fresh eggs Get a bull to have fresh milk Tell us all about gender tomorrow morning after you milk the bull
'biology is simple - look I have animal words!'
You're playing semantic games because haw haw cum, but have perhaps unwittingly chosen the egg-producing criteria.
That has issues with post-menopause, and does not apply well to the realm of athletics.
Sacastro - not surprising you can not grasp basic biology. My comment was not meant as a joke - it was meant to highlight how deranged and ignorant woke leftists are about basic biology, gender and sex.
clinging to woke delusions is not healthy.
I pointed out 2 different ways your comment was not up to the task of defining what a woman was.
You've engaged with neither. Just your usual insult and flounce.
Man up and try again, or just take the L and quit the field.
Sarcastr0 25 minutes ago Flag Comment Mute User I pointed out 2 different ways your comment was not up to the task of defining what a woman was.
No - you absolutely did not point out anything of the sort. It only highlight a woke persons grasp of basic biology. The only insult was your embracement of a deranged understanding of basic biological facts.
Failing to engage. Table pounding. Empty accusations. Writing basic biology yet again as an ipse dixit (like you do with common sense elsewhere)
Do better.
Failing to engage you with intellectually - Impossible when you cant tell the difference between a male and female.
"how to define a woman"
An adult human female.
I'm not sure at this point if you're playing dumb or being dumb, but switching the question from woman to female doesn't change the clarity issues I brought up.
The point ML made is that biology determines what a woman is. Not some deranged woke concept that is detached from reality.
There is no clarity in the woke definition of the issue of gender.
Sacastro War is Peace Slavery is freedom A male is Female
the only thing dumber is the woke embracement of deranged delusions.
Trump won in 2020...
Female includes animals and babies. Woman is limited to adult humans. Material difference there.
Definition of female - an individual of the sex that typically produces eggs or bears offspring.
As I said above, that has issues with post-menopause, and does not apply well to the realm of athletics.
It also would make for some very masculine-presenting people in womens' restrooms.
Bzzt. The correct answer is:
An adult human of the feminine gender.
The point ML made is that biology determines what a woman is.
Assuming that really is the point you were trying to make, you'll find that only my definition explains Wonder Woman. You must be very curious why that character has "Woman" in their name given that they don't have any chromosomes or genitalia.
You know who's the least confused about male and female? Trans people. It's very very salient for them.
Randal - you are partially correct - Trans people are likely far less confused than you are about biological facts
Are you saying you're trans?
No - I am stating that you and anyone else embracing "gender affirming care" as now advocated by WPATH are delusional idiots.
No
Then shut up your face. I would accept a trans person telling me I'm confused about trans issues, but not your pontificating asshole.
Randal - you comment proves you are an ass - very much an evil ass at that.
Along with being pissed off that I called you out for your embracement of permanently mutilating individuals suffering from a mental illness.
Its a deranged belief that destroying any possibility of enjoying a normal life is somehow compassionate.
EVIL! Followed by some assumptions about Randal, and about trans people.
You're a silly little man, Joe.
Sacastro Chemically and surgically mutilating someone is evil
Not surprising you cant grasp basic biology though its a common problem with woke beliefs
Randal said nothing about any of that.
You made up something to get mad at him for.
Maybe if you type basic biology one more time and add in one more accusation of stuff no one wrote it'll make everyone buy your facile hot take and angry accusation act.
You are a silly man.
Sarcastro - both you and randal have embraced and defended the chemical and surgical mutilation of individuals suffering from a mental illness. That is evil
You simply dont like your evilness exposed for what it is.
Is this a joke?
It's like saying the people "least confused" about who won the 2020 election are Trump people--it's very salient for them, too!
"Are you a grown man, confused about the difference between male and female? Perhaps you should be institutionalized. Or at least not allowed around kids."
No, M L, I am not confused at all. But so long as the clothes are on, I don't fixate on other folks' genital structures. And I am quite happy and content not to do so.
What makes this such an important issue to you?
NG - What makes it an issue is your willingness and embracement of mutilating individuals with a mental illness.
The people on the right actually care whereas you and other leftists operate with the facade of care and compassion while embracing permanent mutilation.
Joe_dallas, what in your background, training and experience do you claim qualifies you to diagnose mental illness as to anyone, let alone in persons you have not examined?
And when do you claim that I have endorsed mutilating any individual, permanently or otherwise?
And again, why are my opinions about political and social issues an important issue to you?
As Hank Williams, Sr. (and later his son Hank, Jr.) sang:
Mindin' other people's business seems to be high-toned I got all that I can do just to mind my own Why don't you mind your own business? Mind your own business If you mind your own business You'll stay busy all the time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZH2bmbUTl4&list=RDRZH2bmbUTl4&start_radio=1
NG - How much medical and mental health training does it take to recognize that someone suffering from gender confusion is suffering from mental issues. for most of the world's population, it obvious, though apparently for woke leftists it requires a disbelief in reality.
Its the disbelief in reality that is required for the woke to embrace permanently chemically and surgically mutilating someone suffering for a mental illness.
The important questions are A- Why do you embrace the evil mental health treatment promoted by WPATH
B - Why are you opposed to the exposure of the destructive treatment?
Its the disbelief in reality that is required for the woke to embrace permanently chemically and surgically mutilating someone suffering for a mental illness. The important questions are A- Why do you embrace the evil mental health treatment promoted by WPATH B - Why are you opposed to the exposure of the destructive treatment?
I have been commenting on this blog for about two decades now (originally under my given name). I don't recall having said a single word about "permanently chemically and surgically mutilating someone suffering for [sic] a mental illness." I similarly don't recall having ever commented about WPATH.
Joe_Dallas, if you want to know my political views about a particular issue, then ask me. Don't speculate about what views I do or do not hold in order to misleadingly attack a straw man.
I dispute your premise that every transgender individual ipso facto suffers from a mental illness. Some of course do experience gender dysphoria. The proper course of treatment there should be determined by the individual and the relevant medical and mental health providers. (And in the case of a minor, with appropriate input from parents.) For those adults who wish to seek surgery, I support their right to make that choice.
NG 's comment -- "I dispute your premise that every transgender individual ipso facto suffers from a mental illness. Some of course do experience gender dysphoria. "
NG - You dispute reality and basic common knowledge and basic compassion for the mentally ill. the mental gymnastics you perform are done so that you can justify the deranged belief that you can cure their mental illness with the treatment promoted by WPATh.
Most everyone on the planet has figured out its a mental illness.
IOW, you got bupkis, but lack the integrity to admit it.
And I'm a retired criminal defense lawyer. I don't think I can "cure [anyone's] mental illness" with any kind of treatment.
ng you stretching the limits of delusions to justify destroying any hopes of a mentally ill individual returning to a normal life.
The lack of integrity and honesty is embracing a treatment that creates a false hope an perpetuates a delusion. Frankly you should be ashamed
Joe_dallas, neither you nor I is qualified to diagnose or treat mental illness. Most, if not all, states have criminal statutes punishing that.
Begging the question regarding so-called "mental illness" in an online forum is not criminal, but it is both foolish and unpersuasive. You are the one who should be ashamed here.
There are folks whose innate sense of gender is incongruous with their anatomy. Without having done a deep dive into the topic, I surmise that the vast majority do not wish to be "cured," but instead want merely to live without being ostracized by hatemongers such as you. Those with gender dysphoria -- whose gender incongruity causes them substantial distress -- are likely a subset of those with gender incongruity generally.
I wonder if the need to have a class of people to look down upon is pathological. I'm sure that it is a powerful motivator for life's losers.
NG - Lets be clear - the real hate mongers are the ones that advocate chemical and surgical mutilation which destroy any possibility of living a normal life. Calling an individual who is opposed to the evil is your way of hiding the advocacy of the evil.
orwellian to claim the high ground of compassion when you are destroying a person.
Every culture in the world developed the concept of separate spaces set aside for women's privacy. And now a fraction of a percent has decided that 5000 years of culture and law no longer apply to them.
You just made that up. You have no idea how ancient cultures treated trans people.
The vibes are very ancient you cannot question the vibes.
I may have an inkling about how some cultures viewed non-binary sexual relationships, like one prominent example from 3500 years ago:
Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination" .
Leviticus 20:13: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death"
And if you think it was just Judeo Christion it was hindu too: "The Manusmriti asserts that women must be carefully guarded to prevent them from causing grief to their families, describing women as having "mutable temper" and "natural heartlessness".
And the Muslim custom of "purdah".
And of course the ancient Chinese custom of only eunuchs being the only males allowed in womens spaces.
No I don't really think its made up, although I agree there were probably exceptions.
None of those have anything to do with trans people, except the eunuchs one... and that one proves my point more than yours silly man.
How many agree that Trump enjoys a legitimate Executive prerogative to initiate a tax on Americans to empower his ambition to meddle with the justice system in Brazil?
The projection is strong with you young jedi.
Except that this is exactly what Trump is doing wrt Brazil tariffs.
Try again.
Except that the Biden administration weaponized NGOs to go after President Trump by going after Bolsonaro. President Trump is defending US interests and ending the Biden abuses. But USAID was fun while it lasted, wasn't it? If one defines "fun" as exporting censorship, lawfare and election interference.
"But Biden!!!!"
Biden isn't president. Trump's Brazil tariff is beyond constitutional and legislative powers - though to an extreme authoritarian cultist such as yourself, there is no such thing as "beyond Trump's power".
It's also AI hallucinations, just MAGA mad libs: throw together random words about "NGO" and "USAID" and "weaponized" and "lawfare" that don't have anything to do with the topic. The Biden administration didn't do any of that, of course, and no MAGA person had ever heard the terms NGO or USAID before about six months ago.
SRG2, President Trump is doing nothing wrong with respect to Brazil. The wrongs were done by the Biden administration and other democrat affiliated activists. That's the silly, one dimensional projection distraction. It's at the core of just about every leftist diatribe. The real joke is that leftist hacks consider themselves intelligent and nuanced.
Your response to being accused of 'but Biden'-ing is to But Biden.
Like you didn't read the comment. Or didn't understand it.
My dude, this is bot-like behavior.
Sorry little communist girl that never smiled. My comments were not directed to you and my policy is to deal with only one troll at a time. I’m not inclined to participate in your little troll orgy.
You have taken to referring to some coordinated network of trolls on here who work together to mess with you.
Ever considered it's that you're consistently wrong and often nonresponsive in your replies?
It'd be a good exercise to discipline yourself to read all of a comment before replying rather than going off the moment you read a word that triggers some response.
Always the same obnoxious trolls. Always the same childish insults. Most especially when they want to distract from points that reflect on the left’s tired, dishonest narratives. A clown show. My apologies to real clowns who actually work for a living.
You didn't seem to have any issue when Biden applied economic pressure to other nations to ensure that they created a "right" to abort babies and to bugger another man in the arse.
"But Biden!!!"
1. Did Biden unconstitutionally use tariffs to achieve his policy goals?
2. So you must have opposed it when Biden used economic weapons, but yet you're happy when Trump does so. Pot, kettle.
1. Trump didn't unconstitutionally use tariffs to achieve his policy goals.
2. Whether or not I oppose the use of economic weapons depends on the goal. Cleaning up third world shitholes that cause bad things to happen in the United States is a worthy goal. Ensuring that someone like Governor Jared Polis can get a marriage license to celebrate each sodomistic thrust is not.
I have to agree with you here, and that would be the benefit of Congress codifying Trump's negotiated tariff agreements, and setting default tariff ceiling for those countries we haven't reached agreement with.
But the default has to be high enough to incentivize negotiations.
What unconstitutional presidential prerogatives must the negotiating incentives support by taxing Americans?
"...justice system in Brazil" Oxymoron?
Bumble, apparently you are not even capable to manage a subject change. Suppose the justice system in Brazil is an oxymoron. What does that do to empower the American Executive to initiate a tax on Americans to change the oxymoronic justice system in Brazil?
lathrop...What tax was initiated?
Try reading the thread.
Try answering the fellow. Not everyone agrees with the usage that tariffs are taxes.
Definition: Duty:An indirect charge on goods that are imported or exported Tariff:A direct charge on goods imported from another country Tax:A fee added to goods to raise government revenue https://incodocs.com/blog/duty-vs-tariff-vs-tax/
WTF???
That's one of the silliest sets of definitions I've seen.
Tax:A fee added to goods to raise government revenue
So the income tax is not a tax?
Not mine. Blame the source which is linked.
I blame you for swallowing it.
I swallowed nothing. Only provide a source for a definition and provided the link to the source. About Us IncoDocs was founded by Ben Thompson and Brandon Boor, who have over 15 years of real world experience in global trade. After recognizing the inefficiencies involved in sourcing and shipping processes, they were inspired to create innovative tools and services that solve common pain points for thousands of small to medium businesses worldwide. Let me know when you have a business site.
So they wrote some software and do some consulting. That doesn't mean their definitions make sense. And yes you did swallow them. Otherwise why quote them as authoritative?
The World Trade Organization defines both duties and tariffs as taxes.
A customs duty – or tariff – is a tax levied at the border on imported goods. There are different types of customs duties – such as ad valorem tariffs (percentage of import value) and specific tariffs (based on weight or volume of goods).
This seems like a much better explanation:
"A duty is a broader term for a tax on imported or exported goods, collected at the border or upon production, while a tariff is a specific type of duty that is a tax on certain imported goods to achieve particular policy goals, like protecting a domestic industry. In essence, all tariffs are duties, but not all duties are tariffs. "
Thank you, Kazinski.
So duties are taxes, and tariffs, being a subset of duties, are also taxes. Maybe Bumble and XY will take your word if they don't take mine.
Don,
How many legs does a horse have if you call its tail a leg?
Of course a tariff is a tax, no matter what some people claim.
And even if we foolishly agreed that a tariff is not a tax for some reason, it nonetheless is a mandatory payment to the government, mostly borne by US companies and individuals.
So reword Lathrop's question how you like. It remains valid. How do the imperfections of Brazil's justice system empower Trump to require Americans to make payments to the Treasury?
Bernard, The problem is that people (especially in these comments) often use the word to imply a tax paid directly by consumers. That can but does not necessarily happen. A tariff is often intentionally designed to distort the market. Its goal is to make a foreign product more expensive to change consumer and business behavior, protect a specific industry, or achieve a political goal. The revenue is sometimes a secondary benefit. So understand my comment as pointing out that the goal is different to an income, sales, excise, of value added tax. But as you rephased Stephen's question, my answer is that I don't see how a tax on Brazilian goods accomplishes a particular policy objective. Hence I think that it is most likely unwise. In contrast, the large tariff on India because is is a large purchaser of unrefined Russian oil does further a legitimate foreign policy goal. I tend to believe that is consistent with the prerogative of POTUS to set US foreign policy.
Nico — Suppose a future POTUS decrees, without Congressional authorization, a high tariff on Israeli imports to the U.S. of all kinds, including services contracts. But offers to reduce that tariff to a trivial level if Israel agrees to a two-state solution encompassing the West Bank.
That's constitutional foreign policy prerogative by the President? And Americans who pay higher prices to accomplish that goal have been legitimately taxed, despite no Congressional assent, let alone initiative? Is doing that unconstitutional, or merely unwise?
The revenue is sometimes a secondary benefit. So understand my comment as pointing out that the goal is different to an income, sales, excise, of value added tax.
But we have Trump boasting every day about how much revenue the tariffs are raising, and now the claim is that tariffs are not about revenue?
And of course the question is not one of definitions but of how the payments affect things. A required payment to the government has certain economic effects no matter what we call it. Substance takes priority over form. Saying (incorrectly) that a tariff is not a tax does not change its impact.
As for the India business, whatever the purpose it's still a tariff. I doubt that's legal, and if it is, I think placing a large tax on Americans to influence Indian policy is silly.
It's not a matter of opinion. It's like saying "Not everyone agrees that Italy is in Europe."
Your snark contributed nothing. See my answer to Bernard above.
Perhaps that is true, the Constitution lists taxes and duties separately, but it treats them all exactly the same, so it hardly matters in terms of constitutional authority.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"
No doubt the Founders were familiar with semantic nitpickers, and tried to cover all the bases.
Bernard, It was not semantics, one one of nested categories.
Stephen, that bridge was crossed with Jimmy Carter.
Glass houses, etc.
Propaganda
Fortunately I'm not planning on borrowing any money for the foreseeable future...
A global bond sell-off deepened on Wednesday, driving the yield on the 30-year US Treasury to 5 per cent for the first time since July, as investors’ fears over rising debt piles and stubbornly high inflation dominated trading. Longer-dated bonds bore the brunt of the selling, with the yield on the 30-year Treasury up 0.03 percentage points at 5 per cent and Japan’s 30-year bond yield hitting a record high of 3.29 per cent. In the UK, long-term borrowing costs climbed further after reaching their highest level since 1998 on Tuesday. The 30-year gilt yield rose 0.06 percentage points to 5.75 per cent.
A global bond sell-off deepened on Wednesday, driving the yield on the 30-year US Treasury to 5 per cent for the first time since July, as investors’ fears over rising debt piles and stubbornly high inflation dominated trading.
Longer-dated bonds bore the brunt of the selling, with the yield on the 30-year Treasury up 0.03 percentage points at 5 per cent and Japan’s 30-year bond yield hitting a record high of 3.29 per cent.
In the UK, long-term borrowing costs climbed further after reaching their highest level since 1998 on Tuesday. The 30-year gilt yield rose 0.06 percentage points to 5.75 per cent.
Who knew that running the economy into the ground might have consequences?
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/09/read-it-and-weep.html
There was a time when higher borrowing costs would have also been bad for a real estate fraudster like Trump. But these days he has pivoted to more lucrative ventures:
Trump Family Amasses $6 Billion Fortune After Crypto Launch -- WSJ (Wall Street Journal) -- The Trump family notched as much as $6 billion in paper wealth on Monday after its flagship crypto venture opened trading of a new digital currency. The launch is akin to an initial public offering, in which the cryptocurrency, called WLFI, can now be bought and sold on the open market like a listed company’s shares. Beforehand, people who had privately bought WLFI from the Trump venture, World Liberty Financial, hadn’t been able to exchange their tokens. The trading debut was most likely the biggest financial success for the president’s family since the inauguration. The Trump family, including President Trump himself, holds just under a quarter of all WLFI tokens in existence. Trump’s three sons are co-founders of World Liberty, while it names the president a “Co-Founder Emeritus.” World Liberty says founders and team members’ tokens remain “locked,” meaning they still can’t sell them. But the trading launch now puts a real-world valuation on their holdings, which previously were valued based on private sales. WLFI is likely now the Trumps’ most valuable asset, exceeding their decades-old property portfolio. While the president’s family has continued to pursue property deals around the world since taking office, the fast-moving crypto business has had the biggest early impact.
Trump Family Amasses $6 Billion Fortune After Crypto Launch -- WSJ
(Wall Street Journal) -- The Trump family notched as much as $6 billion in paper wealth on Monday after its flagship crypto venture opened trading of a new digital currency.
The launch is akin to an initial public offering, in which the cryptocurrency, called WLFI, can now be bought and sold on the open market like a listed company’s shares. Beforehand, people who had privately bought WLFI from the Trump venture, World Liberty Financial, hadn’t been able to exchange their tokens.
The trading debut was most likely the biggest financial success for the president’s family since the inauguration. The Trump family, including President Trump himself, holds just under a quarter of all WLFI tokens in existence. Trump’s three sons are co-founders of World Liberty, while it names the president a “Co-Founder Emeritus.”
World Liberty says founders and team members’ tokens remain “locked,” meaning they still can’t sell them. But the trading launch now puts a real-world valuation on their holdings, which previously were valued based on private sales.
WLFI is likely now the Trumps’ most valuable asset, exceeding their decades-old property portfolio. While the president’s family has continued to pursue property deals around the world since taking office, the fast-moving crypto business has had the biggest early impact.
And did the WSJ provide any explanation as to why these tokens have any value at all?
Do they provide an explanation as to why the green paper in your wallet has any value?
Because you can use it to pay taxes. Now do crypto.
So it only has value if the government accepts it as payment?
If I sell you my snow blower because I'm moving to Florida, I will accept cash. Care to make a guess about whether or not I'll accept crypto (especially our felonious president's)?
More to the point, if you contract to sell your snow blower to him, and he doesn't pay, the government will force him to pay you in dollars. Not in crypto.
The government, which issued it, says you can use it to pay your debts to the government. Everything else is just magic.
So my car has no value whatsoever because I can't use it to pay taxes?
You can use it to pay taxes. You just have to exchange it for some money first. The amount you can get is its value.
Your car has value in use. Banknotes don't.
But the same criticism applies to Bitcoin, now that WLFI is exchange traded and can be converted to cash.
Which by the way is one reason I haven't invested in crypto, although both my sons have made money on crytpo, especially ethereum.
Of course I'm somewhat conservative that way, back in the 2000 dot com boom, I made the observation that stocks that don't pay a dividend are like pokemon cards, they are only worth what someone else is willing to pay for them.
But there are a lot of investments like that.
Bitcoin is not an investment. (And there's ample case law to prove it.)
If you need to decide between a public-relations based currency, and a corruption based currency, how do you do it? Seems like a neat mechanism, to divide the cynics, from the optimists, from their wealth.
Running the economy into the ground generally lowers interest rates, not raises them. The reason the Fed isn't feeling much pressure to lower interest rates is because the economy is doing well, the Unemployment rate is only 4.2%, unchanged from a year ago, and GDP is growing at a 3.3% rate, real personal income is growing at a good clip too.
Running the economy into the ground generally lowers interest rates, not raises them.
True, unless you run the economy into the ground by causing stagflation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
As related in that wikipedia article. "stagflation" was a major motivator for the development of non-Keynesian economics, because it simply made no sense under the then prevailing economic doctrine. Really doesn't make a lot of sense even now under the theories that tend to motivate government actions, because those theories are strongly focused on absolving from blame for it policies politicians really want to pursue.
Even if stagflation no longer exists in theory, inconveniently it does still happen in practice.
https://www.turkiyetoday.com/business/turkiyes-economic-crisis-looming-threat-of-stagflation-42032
I'm not sure what you mean by "no longer exists in theory".
Of course it happens in practice, I thought we were discussing why it happens.
Maybe you were, but I wasn't. I was discussing why interest rates are up.
(Although, strictly speaking, I should have started by observing that US Treasury yields are up, which isn't quite the same thing. After all, the reason they're up is counterparty risk, not a change in the time value of money.)
Oh, right. Keynesian economics is dead, and Brettonomics rules.
Here is noted radical Greg Mankiw, writing in 2008:
IF you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes. Although Keynes died more than a half-century ago, his diagnosis of recessions and depressions remains the foundation of modern macroeconomics. His insights go a long way toward explaining the challenges we now confront.
I think Hayek had some great points about policymakers having humility in the face of the complexity of economics.
His economic predictions are a great place to start as a baseline - i.e. let markets be markets when you want market things to happen; government's attempts to goose them to make them better or faster or more efficient are generally doomed to fail.
But one of the few things we do know nowadays at a predictive level is that Keynes was right about countercyclical spending and stimulus.
Even the GOP believes it. They just lie about it like so many other things to feed their utterly deluded base. You'd think GOP politicians alternatively passing bills and then attacking them, and opposing bills and then taking credit for them, would not fool people for long. But the right wing base has been primed to cynically ignore actual political hypocricy in favor of cynicism and slogans.
"But one of the few things we do know nowadays at a predictive level is that Keynes was right about countercyclical spending and stimulus."
And another thing we do know nowadays at a predictive level is that politicians don't do counter-cyclical spending: You let them borrow, and it's pedal to the metal full time.
No new goalposts.
True or not, Brett, that does nothing to support your claim that Keynesianism,
"Really doesn't make a lot of sense even now under the theories that tend to motivate government actions, because those theories are strongly focused on absolving from blame for it policies politicians really want to pursue."
No. The theory is not focused on absolving politicians. Some politicians may try that, but if it weren't there they'd find something else. Others, mostly RW, attack it for no reason other than it supports policies they don't like.
3.3% GDP growth is well outside the stagflation band.
"Running the economy into the ground generally lowers interest rates, not raises them."
That's generally true, but there's some concern that Trump's policies are setting up slow growth caused by an inflationary trigger (the tariffs). This really hampers the Fed's ability to respond to any weakness.
You're right that the economy clearly hasn't been run into the ground, but there's concerning forward-looking signs, including the bond market.
Perhaps, but its unclear to me in terms of economic cause and effect why tariffs would dampen economic activity more than an increase income tax hikes.
To be sure the tariffs may be slowing the rate inflation is declining or causing it to plateau, but Y/Y core inflation is at 3.1% in july, in January it was 3.3%. All items CPI is at 2.7%, in January it was 3.1%.
As for the bond market bond rates have been trending down, this recent spike is probably a reaction to the tariffs being struck down and the worry about the impact on the deficit.
Yikes! Try pitching your priors overboard, and take a look at national experience.
First, that's basically orthogonal to my point. Income taxes don't have the same inflationary mechanism as tariffs (or other consumption taxes) do. It might also be true that a VAT or other consumption taxes would have similar stagflation-y risks to tariffs, which is why governments often try to do temporary VAT decreases in inflationary environments, but income taxes will tend to slow growth without increasing prices.
Second, while you can imagine versions of income taxes that are worse than versions of tariffs*, tariffs will tend to have a more distorting effect on the economy because they negate comparative advantage. They move the economy towards sectors that we're less efficient at by their very nature, and Trump's tariffs are particularly bad because they fairly randomly penalize trade with some countries and not others. So suddenly the US is going to be trying to produce a lot of goods that Brazil has historically been good at making, not because it's strategically important to the country or that we have any expectation of being better at it in the long term, but just because Trump is pissed that some other guy who tried to overturn an election is actually being held accountable for it.
* e.g., you could decide not to tax random categories of income like tips
its unclear to me in terms of economic cause and effect why tariffs would dampen economic activity more than an increase income tax hikes.
They have some similar effects, but they are certainly not identical.
One big difference is that tariffs tend to make our use of resources less efficient. We now have to make, or pay more for, things we previously were able to buy more cheaply.
Another is that tariff effects are multiplied by retaliatory tariffs imposed by other countries, so even many who are not much affected by our tariffs may be hurt.
Tariff drive up production costs, which income taxes don't do, so they are more likely to harm, or even bankrupt, some businesses.
Also, like sales taxes, they are probably regressive, at least in the sense that they are not intentionally progressive, and also because inexpensive consumer goods tend to be imported.
And for a non-economic thought, they lend themselves to corruption. You have a long complex, highly detailed tariff schedule (you really should take a look). Not hard to sneak in a special rate or exemption for some kind of steel that your buddy uses in his business.
Running the economy into the ground generally lowers real interest rates, not necessarily nominal rates. If the nominal rate is below the inflation rate then real rates are negative no matter what quoted (nominal) rates are.
The low end of the housing market in the United States is stalled due to high interest rates. People who got loans at 3% can't or won't buy a new house with a 6% loan.
The high end is not hurt as badly. Some people can buy a million dollar house for cash, or with a bridge loan.
I love Cash, more specifically Gold, I usually carry around $1,000 (not that much anymore) in 100’s (see previous parenthetical) and 50’s (see….) sometimes I’ll just dump out my Krugerands, Pandas, American Eagles, Buffalo Nickles(my favorite) on the floor and roll around on them like Scrooge McDuck
Frink
A treasure bath.
No. The housing market is stalled due to high pries. Interest rates are fine. Home prices that have doubled or more since 2018 are not.
Inflation, is there anything it can't do?
These are related, though--people aren't willing to sell because they'd take such a big hit on new mortgages. So there's a lot less inventory than there might otherwise be.
But those people who aren't willing to sell won't be willing to buy either. So they're "out" of the market on both ends.
That's fair, but it's preventing, e.g. seniors from downsizing and other dynamics that would normally let the market re-apportion the supply of housing more efficiently.
Home prices that have doubled or more since 2018 are not.
I'm sure there are regions where the growth was hotter -- that's nothing new -- but FRED shows a 30ish% increase to the median sales price from 2018-now (upper 20s to mid 30s, depending on the exact endpoints you pick). It's actually down about 12% from its peak in late 2022.
Yep, in the sunbelt it was way more although those have stalled really badly.
Housing prices reflect interest rates. They don't move independently.
If you have to pay a higher rate, you will be willing to pay less for the house.
This is not hard.
Existing home sales are down more than 25% from the pre-pandemic base (4 million annual rate v 5.5 million rate), and down 33% from the post-pandemic surge of 6 million.
You can see home sales falling off a cliff when the Fed took the punch bowl away in late 2022.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/existing-home-sales
But it can get hard. If higher interest rates drive down home prices, then someone who wants to own for years a home purchased now might be wise to pay higher interest now, to get a lower price. And then expect to refinance when interest rates go down, getting most of the best of both worlds. What's hard is getting the timing right.
If I wanted to be PITA free market fanatic I could point out that that possibility is also impounded in the price of the house.
That is, the price does not reflect just current rates, but some expectation of future rates and the possibility of a refi.
Bernard11 — Yup, PITA free market advocates love to assert future hazards and opportunities get embodied in commodity prices, despite that belief not even slightly making market timing problems any easier. What it does cleverly accomplish is a practical means to bypass market timing problems. But it does that with a mechanism to assure that whatever inefficiencies result end up as net higher prices for consumers.
Consumers pay whatever costs get incurred by mobilizing larger capital resources to solve a problem of source insecurity to address the timing problem—for instance, the problem of an airline planning around a reliable future price for jet fuel. The airline cares more about the reliability than the price level, and it is especially content that the futures mechanism tends to equalize costs among competitors.
The consumers care more about the price level. And the speculators care only whether jet fuel futures look like better investment prospects than, for instance, Treasury bonds. Which means that a newly bad outlook for Treasury bonds can flood the jet fuel market with gigantic bogus demand, with predictably higher prices for travel consumers. And all that without a hint of benefit to anyone interested in solving a market timing problem.
All that could be improved by a futures market mechanism to legally require all futures purchasers to take delivery of whatever commodities they bet on. That would more accurately model the timing problem futures contracts allegedly engage the free market to solve, while notably diminishing demand-driven price increases which actually have nothing to do with commodity-specific demand.
By the way, if you number yourself among the economically literate folks who are convinced I am wrong about all that, I have heard it before. I would welcome a convincing explanation to show I do have it wrong. That I have not heard before, but you could spare me the effort to be wrong again, and earn my thanks for doing it.
No shit, moron.
The bond yield was after fears that the US would have to rebate import duties.
Is it legal for the US to sink a boat in int'l waters, absent an attack on our warships?
This attack wasn't simply a coast guard interdiction.
Of course not.
Article 87 Freedom of the high seas 1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States: (a) freedom of navigation; (b) freedom of overflight; (c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI; (d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI; (e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2; (f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
(And also because of much more basic rules about the right to life and the right to property that are guaranteed by various US and international laws.)
The United States has not ratified UNCLOS, preferring to rely on history and tradition.
I know. But if there's one thing in UNCLOS that is a codification of customary international law, it's the concept of freedom of the high seas. It was one of Wilson's Fourteen Points in 1918, and long before that it was already analysed by Grotius and others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_seas
But if there is one thing with the UN it's that states that haven't ratified treaties aren't bound by them.
True. But they are bound by customary international law, and sometimes a treaty (like UNCLOS or the Geneva Conventions) codifies international law.
All we know is a boat was attacked.
At one extreme, it was a Venezuelan-flagged vessel full of innocent widows and orphans and the Venezuelan government has a casus belli and toothless international organizations have an occasion to craft strongly worded letters. At the other extreme, it was a stateless vessel under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act that refused to peacefully submit to inspection.
Or as somebody suggested, it was all a fake intended to make future crews too afraid to smuggle drugs. My opinion is, the Trump administration is not that sophisticated and sees nothing wrong with blowing up real drug smugglers instead of artificial drug smugglers.
The evidence would suggest that the Trump administration is surprisingly unable to tell the difference.
It seems to me the immediate case falls under Article 108, "Illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances".
That may well be. (Although the allegation seems to be that the video is AI, so nobody actually knows what happened.) But it wasn't part of Commenter's original question.
"Is it legal for the US to sink a boat in int'l waters, absent an attack on our warships?"
Seems entirely on point.
Who is alleging that the video is AI?
The people who are quoted in the article Brett linked.
??? The Daily Mail article? I see nothing about AI.
Neither did I.
You're right. I'm not sure where I saw that. The BBC only mentions it as an unsupported Venezuelan claim.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwywjgynyxo
Article 108. 1. All States shall cooperate in the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances engaged in by ships on the high seas contrary to international conventions.
2. Any State which has reasonable grounds for believing that a ship flying its flag is engaged in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances may request the cooperation of other States to suppress such traffic.
So are you classifying the sinking as an act of cooperation, or as a request for cooperation?
No, as the thing cooperation could potentially be requested in doing.
Potentially, yes.
Does the boat represent a threat and danger to the United States, not just its naval warships?
Yes. They could potentially try to sell drugs to the sailors on board the US naval warships, which could cause overdoses and/or other disruption.
Clearly justifies mass murder.
To be consistent, from now on whenever someone at LaGuardia get's pinched with a key we just shoot them in the temple ala ISIS right there in the TSA line. We can verify the substance and gang affiliation later in court.
Is LaGuardia "on the high seas"?
So now we're endorsing Houthi-style piracy?
It's legal under on of two theories -- either as an act of war in a declared war against NGOs if you consider NGOs to be states, OR as suppression of piracy -- which would have allowed us to execute any survivors.
The big question is whose flag were they flying and that state seek to control them?
if you consider NGOs to be states
Out of curiosity, do you know what NGO is an abbreviation for?
If a municipality doesn't have to have land, and in MA it doesn't, e.g. MNTA, MWRA, then a NGO doesn't have to be a government.
I give up on what MNTA is, but MWRA is not a municipality, so I don't know what Dr. Ed thinks he's saying here. And nobody said that an NGO has to be a government; we're saying that by definition it isn't a government.
NGO stands for Necessarily a Government Organization, obviously.
piracy -- which would have allowed us to execute any survivors
I have no idea what might have given you that idea. Those Johnny Depp movies, maybe?
I thought piracy was a capital crime, but not in the past several decades. 18 USC 1651:
Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.
A murder resulting from piracy would be charged under a different chapter and might be a capital crime.
Even if it was a capital crime, that still doesn't mean the US Navy can go around summarily executing people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somers_Affair
This is one of my favorite genres of Dr. Ed: he says something utterly wrong, gets mocked for it, and then posts a completely unrelated link as though it supported him. That is about a mutiny on a Navy vessel that happened in the 19th century. What that has to do with murdering alleged Venezuelan pirates in the 21st century, I'm not sure.
Pirates? Did they allegedly steal the alleged drugs they were allegedly smuggling?
I meant alleged by Dr. Ed; I agree that the U.S. government did not allege they were pirates. He claimed that one could murder pirates.
Is that your professional legal opinion as a janitor? It is amazing how many errors you can pack into one sentence. An NGO is not a state; the U.S. has not declared war against anyone, let alone an NGO, in many decades, and no, we cannot execute people just because you masturbate at the thought of killing your enemies.
He also somehow turned smuggling into piracy.
Smuggling and piracy have long been closely related.
No. Other than they're both crimes that often involve boats.
What is the sexual fetish you have with janitors?
USA did it so yes, of course.
The US has been sinking Houthi ships, shooting down missiles, and bombing radar sites since 2023 -- that's under the BIDEN administration, note -- without a war authorization. The Houthis, just like TdA, is a designated terrorist organization. They are pirates and yes, the President can legitimately authorize military action against them, I believe.
I don't know about "legitimately", but since the President can apparently go to war with Chicago, he can definitely go to war with any entity outside the United States if he pleases. (As a matter of US law anyway.)
Yes, you do believe!
The Future of Voting Rights Is on the Line at the Supreme Court
So, my question is, "Is the creation of minority-majority districts the only thing Section 2 actually does?" Because my understanding is that the only thing that's on the line in this case is whether the VRA can be said to mandate racial gerrymandering, or instead can only mandate color blind remedies.
Is racial gerrymandering the only thing it does? Sure seems wider than that:
"No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b)."
The country would be immeasurably improved if the Supreme Court would rule that the use of race to define a voting district was unconstitutional.
The days of racist accommodation must come to an end.
In a case with sparse precedent decided with the Supreme Court watching "judicial humility is particularly appropriate," wrote Judge Southwick on the way to ruling that the United States is not being invaded by Venezuela. The government may not summarily remove aliens suspected of being Tren de Aragua members.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10534-CV1.pdf
Judge Ramirez wanted to allow more time to challenge removal. Judge Oldham gave us what we expected from the Fifth Circuit.
Press coverage said other courts were waiting for the Fifth Circuit to decide the issue.
So your idea of judicial humility is not deciding that the sky is blue when Trump insists it is green? After all, that's also a question that isn't resolved by precedent, I'd imagine.
Well, yeah, judicial humility does involve judges not deciding things that are given over to a branch other than the judiciary to decide.
Like... facts? And the meaning of words?
That's certainly one vision for the judiciary.
Whether we're at war with Venezuela is hardly a natural fact. (Like the sky being "blue".) It's more like an opinion, where you have to ask whose opinion actually is deciding.
I would say Congress', of course, since they're given the power to declare war. But certainly not the judiciary.
True, but the relevant question wasn't whether the US is at war with Venezuela, but whether Venezuela was invading the US. Which it isn't, and wasn't.
Whether Venezuela is "invading" the US at least has a factual component, but I think it has too large an opinion component, with the judiciary's opinion not be relevant, to cut it. And with the factual portion, hostile people from Venezuela, objectively satisfied, too!
If the judiciary wanted to rule that Congress had to say it was an invasion, not the President, I think that would at least be within their competency, and more defensible.
In other words, you want to make the cut exactly at the point where it allows Trump to do whatever he wants--but not a single micron further!
I love a good principle...
SCOTUS regularly swats down legislation produced by the legislative. So with legislation not being the purview of the judicial, they should just MYOB?
hobie 17 minutes ago Flag Comment Mute User SCOTUS regularly swats down legislation produced by the legislative.
HObie - That is actually quite rare.
Much rarer than it should be, in fact!
"it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is", and the Constitution being law, declaring that legislation is contrary to the Constitution falls under that.
By contrast, it is NOT emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say whether something is an invasion.
Fine, as long as we remember that "not emphatically" can mean anything ranging from probably not to probably yes.
Certainly if Congress passed a law prohibiting invasions and someone was put on trial for violating it, a court would end up deciding whether the accused had committed an invasion.
I hope you'd concede that one, so at least sometimes courts are going to decide it.
Isn't it the job of the judicial department to decide whether something is a murder?
I had almost exactly that sentence but decided to leave it out as too obvious.
Yeah, that's why I put the "not" before "emphatically", instead of after...
Yes, is absolutely the case that if Congress passed a law prohibiting invasions, and somebody was put on trial for violating it, the court would have to decide if they'd satisfied the predicates, which would not be if there WAS an invasion, but instead if THEY had committed an invasion.
OTOH, if Congress passed a law establishing a higher tariff against countries that committed an invasion? I'm no so sure the judiciary would still get to make the call in that case.
Even then. Suppose there was a law establishing a higher tariff against governments that committed an invasion but the president had not made any mention of an invasion. The law was just out there by itself.
Some individual customs inspector, solo and off his antipsychotics, hears voices say that Turkey invaded East Wombonia and slaps a tariff on a pallet of baklava a candy store is importing. The store owner challenges the tariff.
Would you say the court has to absolutely defer to the customs inspector's delusion because unitary executive yada yada? Or could the store owner at least point out, and the court accept, that there is no country called East Wombonia, and therefore it is logically impossible that there was an invasion?
Of course it is. The statute uses a word. The judiciary has to determine what that word means.
Brett just can't help constantly fomenting insurrection. He tried the riot avenue, now he's giving plain semantics a shot
To make this more concrete, if Congress says that the executive must regulate waters of the united states to protect them from harmful pollutants, and the executive issues regulations to that effect, then the courts have to decide — in addition to any constitutional questions — what "waters of the united states" are, what "pollutants" are, what "harmful" means, and whether regulations issued by the administration actually do what Congress said they were supposed to do. And — especially in the post-Chevron era — the courts do not defer to the president on these issues. The courts can overturn a regulation because it misdefines or misapplies any of those statutory terms.
Regulating the waters of the US was to keep the canals, rivers, i.e. trade routes open.
This is mispurposed to get in the way of things, the exact opposite of the intent of the grant of power.
The legal fight to deepen a South Carolina harbor by 5 feet, to handle new Superpanamax ships, took longer than the famed fretful building of the original Panama canal.
It's about getting in the way for fun and profit.
Whatever you're discussing has nothing to do with my point, which was simply a concrete example of how, when Congress authorizes the executive to do something under certain conditions, the courts decide what has been authorized and whether those conditions were met.
Krayt, your first sentence is inaccurate as a matter of history. The principal concerns were environmental, with a special focus on wetlands land fills by real estate developers.
I followed especially keenly every twist and turn in that debate while it happened. It was one of my first journalistic assignments ever.
In fairness, there were indeed definitional issues involving navigation, and what navigable waters consisted of. An ability to float a log down river for a commercial purpose got over the bar. But that was a secondary question; the environmental concerns associated with filling wetlands were the primary driver. It had become evident that at the rate land filling for real estate development was happening, only a few decades were left before all the environmental benefits of wetland wildlife nurseries would go away.
The recent Supreme Court cases which have all but gutted the CWA did so mostly by making up out of whole cloth an imaginary set of criteria that had nothing to do with either the original passage of the CWA, nor its re-authorizations or precedential record. It was outcome-oriented Supreme Court overreach at its nadir.
Waiting for the inevitable "Southwick is a Democratic appointee — what, I made that up? Okay, well I'll just blather about blue slips then. Wait, he's from Texas? Okay, well, RINO RINO RINO DEEP STATE WHATABOUTBIDEN? BENGHAZI!"
Thank you for the link.
So far I have read only the lead opinion, but it makes a boatload of sense to me. I especially liked the language at page 11:
Nonetheless, for us to defer to findings of fact, there must be findings of fact. The AEA specifies that the “President [must] make[] public proclamation of the event” giving rise to his invocation of the AEA. 50 U.S.C. § 21. The statute does not identify what, at a minimum, must be included in the proclamation. We conclude that proclaiming, without more, that an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” has occurred will not suffice. We know this because the precedents require “interpretation,” which implies the application of law to facts. Thus, the proclamation must inform of what is believed to be occurring. Our role is then to see if those facts meet the meaning of the statute. [Footnote omitted.]
The Court reiterated at page 33, "We have already held that factual assertions by the President are to be accepted, but freestanding labels to unstated actions are not relevant findings."
IOW, a Presidential diktat does not amount to a finding of fact. It seems that the very notion of factual findings based on evidence makes MAGAts break out in hives.
From claiming "not to be a millionaire" Rep. Ilhan Omar’s latest financial disclosure shows her personal net worth has ballooned to as high as $30 million in 2024
As of early 2024, court documents show the new Rose Lake Capital firm, co-founded by Mynett (Omar's Husband) and Hailer in 2022, had only $42.24 in its bank account. By year's end, the firm’s value had grown to between $5 million and $25 million, as Omar revealed in her most recent financial disclosure.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/ilhan-omars-ballooning-net-worth-traced-husbands-opaque-company
Huh. Imagine that.
I expect it would be fairly interesting to track where all that money came from.
Wait, you think politicians shouldn't be able to profit from their office? Since when?
It's money laundering, and it's illegal.
Now do Trumpcoin.
No evidence that it's money laundering, anyway. It's an incredibly stupid product, but there's nothing illegal about selling incredibly stupid products.
No evidence that it's money laundering
Not if you put your hands in front of your eyes and shout LALALALALALALALA at the top of your voice, no.
OK, no evidence aside from your assumption that anything Trump is involved with must be criminal. Or else you'd have, you know, provided it.
Selling things that are worthless is rather scammy, but only money laundering if somebody is buying it knowing it's worthless in order to launder money. Rather than just because they're stupid, or think they'll be getting out before the crash.
Google is your friend: https://www.google.com/search?q=trumpcoin+money+laundering
You may well get slightly different results than I did, but the 3rd article on my results page was entitled "‘I have never seen such open corruption’: Trump’s crypto deals and loosening of rules shock observers"
Google, well that's dispositive.
Other search engines are available. But in general I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink. If you insist on putting your Great Leader on a pedestal no matter what the reality is, there isn't much I can do about that except remind you of the truth every once in a while.
" If you insist on putting your Great Leader on a pedestal ..." I did no such thing and if you consider Google a source of "truth" you are deceiving yourself.
Came up fourth for me, but I didn't find any evidence specifically of money laundering in it. Just that it was scammy, which I am entirely willing to admit.
Nothing to see,> right, Brett:
A businessman who pumped $75 million into the Trump family-backed crypto token finds himself in a fortunate position this week as federal securities regulators are hitting pause on their civil fraud case against him.
On Wednesday, lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission and Justin Sun, a 34-year-old Chinese crypto entrepreneur, asked a federal judge to put the agency’s case on hold, citing the interests of both sides and “the public’s interest.”
The pause is a 180 for the SEC, America’s top financial regulator, which two years ago charged Sun and his companies — Tron, BitTorrent and Rainberry — with selling unregistered securities and fraudulently manipulating the price of digital token Tronix. Sun and his companies sought to have the case dismissed.
Just an innocent investment by Sun.
OK, that at least starts to look like it.
Brett studiously didn't know this before. And doesn't much care now that he's been lead to it.
The Dems in his head are so bad and gun-hating that there is nothing Trump can do that would shake Brett's devotion.
Gosh, if only were just the Democrats in my head who were anti-gun, I could rest a lot easier.
If only there was some kind of National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team tasked to investigate possible cases of money laundering using crypto.
I wonder why that team was disbanded...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-dept-disbands-cryptocurrency-enforcement-unit-2025-04-08/
I would think other actors dumping illegal money into a crypto coin to pull it out the other side might be useful as money laundering. The schemes used in TV shows have miserable rates of return, and I suppose they're somewhat accurate.
No, that would be a silly reason. The reason would be to leverage being the president to ride it up like bitcoin. Maybe unsavory actors dump money in for various reasons. Maybe yokels do it. Whatever.
The double standards of what proof Brett requires to believe something continue to amaze.
Like, how does someone interface with reality with such a tilted baseline?
Now do Whataboutism coin next.
Huh? Is there any evidence of that?
Lots of Congress folks, like MTG, suddenly get very wealthy after being elected. But the usual theory is insider information, not money laundering.
Nothing in there describes money laundering.
Is there ever a more iron clad rule than "Scratch a Lefty Socialist, Find a Left Elite Multi-Millionaire"?
Looks like you don't like seeing a politician raking in stacks of cash while in office
To be accurate, the financial disclosure forms actually show that her spouse's personal net worth has ballooned to as high as $30 million in 2024...
(It could also be $6 million--the forms only mention ranges of value, and the relevant categories are "$1,000,000 - $5,000,000" and "$5,000,000 - $25,000,000".)
What's a MAGAt going to do once it's finally revealed that Trump is a pedophile?
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5482632-mace-leaves-meeting-with-epstein-victim-visibly-upset/
O.K., I read that short piece. How do you make the leap from that to "Trump is a pedophile?" You're making stuff up because you hate Trump, that's how.
I despise Donald Trump, and I am not surprised at any aspect of his depravity, but any nexus between the Hill article about Rep. Mace and Trump's proclivities is a bit of a non sequitur, to be fair.
You must be mistaken— I was assured by several people around here that the Epstein stuff was “over”.
Only "bad guys" even bring it up...
Suppressing speech is what they do in the UK, not here.
Obviously
Item: Epstein survivor announces that survivors are creating their own list of Epstein-related abusers.
It is not over because everything has not been released. Yet.
This whole thing is pointless, as can be proven by set theory.
Set A: People who trust that the DoJ under Merrick Garland would never doctor the files.
Set B: People who trust that the DoJ under Pam Bondi would never doctor the files.
AFAICT the intersection of Sets A with Set B is the empty set, and the files have passed through the custody of both DoJs. There is no one who should trust whatever gets released is undoctored.
(On the other hand, the intersection of Not-A with Not-B is large and includes myself.)
Everything should be released, and every adult male and female that victimized teenaged (now) women (and probably boys too) should be named, very loudly and proudly. The statute of limitations has run out, I am sure. The memories have not.
None of the named abusers should ever be let near the hallways of power.
Once again, there's no evidence there are such people. I don't know why you're so desperate for there to be such people.
Apedad, it's pederast, not pedophile if the children are post puberty but under the age of legal consent.
And I have trouble calling co-conspirators "victims."
You are vile. Watch the press conference starting in 15 minutes and come back here and tell us again that those people are co-conspirators. I double dog dare you.
He thinks that any girl who has sex is a whore who deserves to be murdered.
Get help, David.
Estragon, if I was looking at a 7 or 8 figure payout, I could have an equally emotional press conference about how I was attacked by Martians.
“8 figure payout”
Vile and delusional!
“I could have an equally emotional press conference”
And sociopathic!
"Apedad, it's pederast, not pedophile if the children are post puberty but under the age of legal consent."
No, Ed, that is not what pederasty means. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pederasty
I suspect that the word you are looking for is ephebophile.
James Comey, is that you?
Mace, who’s spoken publicly about her experience as a sexual assault survivor, addressed her early departure in a post on social media shortly thereafter, saying she had a “full blown panic attack” when listening to victims recount their experiences.
Her reaction is unsurprising. Most people being emotional talking to his victims would not surprise. The jump at the end is a bit much from citing that article alone.
IF there was evidence, why would anyone think they would believe it? There is clear evidence Trump is a sexual predator, including from a jury verdict, but they find a way to dismiss it.
It is clear he was a good friend of a pedophile (Epstein) and commented about his penchant for "young girls."
Trump's involvement with teen beauty contests also have been documented to be rather creepy to cite but one source
https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/donald-trump-miss-usa-contestant
Again, the evidence is out there, but it's handwaved. If (as has been alleged) he was somehow involved with an underage girl, his supporters would reject the evidence or otherwise find a way to not stop supporting Trump.
Not My Type by E.J. Carroll was a bit too chatty for my tastes, but perhaps that is her style. Overall, still a good insider account.
Did it explain why she couldn't pin down when this incredibly memorable, traumatic even, event happened? Not the day, not the week, not the month, or even the year?
I mean, that's the point where, if I'd been on that jury, her case would have imploded.
Did she also thank the NY lesgislature for the carveout that allowed her case to proceed and Reid Hoffman (friend of Epstein) who bankrolled her attorneys.
Okay, but… you weren't on the jury. So your personal opinions don't matter. The jurors heard all the testimony, heard Trump's lawyers point out that she couldn't pinpoint specifics, and decided that her story was more credible than Trump's.
Is that based on your expertise in psychology?
Memorable, traumatic--and corroborated--event, you mean.
Icompletely agree wifh Judve Breyer decision in Newsted v. Trump, the case about the legality of federalizing the California National Guard.
First, on standing, Judge Breyer called exactly as I had previously commented. The”policy” bases of standing - calling out the guard was bad for the citizenry - were all political, speculative, and not legitimate bases for standing. The only basis Judge Breyer found legitimate was the affront to California’s sovereignty. In an earlier comment, I had pointed out that in its initial motion for a restraining order, California had completely comitted this basis. I said it was a grave mistake because a judge might find the affront to sovereignty the only legitimate basis for standing California had. This is what happened here.
On the merits, I completely agree that the wording of 10 USC 12406 does not override the Posse Comitatus Act and does not permit federalized troops to perform domestic law enforcement finctions.
There is no conflict between the eatlier 9th Circuit decision and this one on the merits. When the lawsuit was initially filed and the first motion for an injunction was giled, there was no evidence that federalized troops would actually be performing law enforcement and any claim they would be was purely speculative.
That evidence has since developed.
Would you prefer that ICE shoot its way out of such situations?
It's well established that Federal agents (i.e. FBI or ICE) have full use of military arms, e.g. tanks at Waco, and if you have any of the experience you allege, you clearly know that the larger your personnel in a confrontation, the less force/violence you need to employ.
So would you prefer ICE to instead clear streets with A10s and helicopter gunships?
I don't know what "situations" you mean, but whatever they are, the answer is no.
It's well established that Federal agents (i.e. FBI or ICE) have full use of military arms
That is not in fact established, let alone "well established."
Perhaps he's referring to the fact that there are no relevant laws restricting law enforcement from possessing and using "military-grade" weapons?
Perhaps not, but that is also not the same thing as the military using them.
Judge Breyer found standing on the grounds of federalism. Law enforcement is a state function and the feds are poaching. This principle isn't limited to the military. A lawsuit against FBI law enforcement would be likely to lose on the merits rather than standing. He found the state did not have standing on the grounds of economic harm or health and welfare.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/newsom-v-trump/
The Posse Comitatus law is criminal. Traditionally courts of equity could not order people not to commit crimes. But Judge Breyer did not find carved into a stone tablet "Thou shalt not order obedience to criminal statutes." And he really wanted to shut down the National Guard.
I agree that he phrased it a little bit differently from what what I had said earlier. I had referred to it as an affront t California’s sovereignty, whereas Judge Breyer had described it as an affront to federalism. But I think the opinion simply uses different words to describe the same thing.
Moreover, I think that if California had used my proposed “affront to California’s state sovereignty” language in its brief, Judge Breyer would have had no problem finding the standing argument adequately presented, even if he chose to describe it somewhat differently in his opinion.
The connection, what makes the arguments essentially the same, is that federalism means dual (divided) sovereignty, and law enforcement is a component of sovereignty that the states kept to themselves when they ratified the Constitution.
How would he have ruled when Ike sent the 101st to Little Rock? (They were there for eight months)
Eisenhower used a different statute, the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act has been interpreted to override the Posse Comitatus Act when the President is enforcing Equal Protection rights against a state government which is violating them (that is, when it is depriving a class of the people of a right secured by the constitution.) That’s what President Eisenhower was doing when he federalized the National Guard to enforce the Supreme Court’s Brown decision.
President Trump used a different statute. There were no 14th Amendment rights involved in the LA case. Mr. Trump never claimed the troops were there to help enforce the rights of immigrants or protestors against infringement by California. Quite the opposite. He claimed California was mollycoddling them and treating them too lightly.
He claimed authority under: § 12406 Invasion, danger of invasion, rebellion, danger of rebellion, or when the President is unable to execute the laws of the United States. The purpose of which was to support ICE in enforcing federal law and suppressing rioters.
This statute’s language creates no “express” exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Moreover, the courts were functioning and federal law could be enforced, just not as expeditiously as President wanted, finally, troops were doing things like directing traffic and setting up checkpoints that have nothing to do with federal law.
It seems there was an express exception in § 12406, albeit one not mentioning the PCA explicitly, but implicitly.
"[T]he President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws."
The courts weren't the cause of the inability. It was violent mobs stoked by CA officials who openly oppose and obstruct the execution of federal border law in their Sanctuaries from it. The courts remaining existence should not logically nullify this law. Though this court sounds interested in letting the Sanctuary opposition going both unmentioned and unimpeded by any repelling. suppression or execution of law by a NG it deems should be toothless in purported harmony with § 12406 and the PCA. The court goes off about the scourge of presumed Trump troops in other states and at later times but without a whisper on the scourge of open border lawlessness sufficient to make Tony Soprano blush.
The decision reads with a decisive lack of deference to the current Executive, Trump. In fact it makes plentiful derisive references to him. One was by a footnote to the meaning of Excalibur, the name of the mission, which I had no idea pertained to Trumps delusions of God granted authority. The contrasting deference to the previous Executive, Biden seems present however by absenting his role in violating, as politically promised, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 against harboring or encouraging illegal entrants. The precursor event and national scope of the current lawless created crisis need not trouble us? And it does seem to defer to the state executive Gavin Newsom, in the same manner, who happens to be the Plaintiff. No mention is made of him being one of the foremost leaders of opposition to federal border law enforcement in his Sanctuary State or L A.'s Sanctuary City.
Despite those omissions the holding makes much mention of the latest news developments pertaining to Trump's recent anti-crime related threats to other cities and states but no mention of any of those places Sanctuary status nor of the scope of anti-ICE violence since the LA riots. No big deal, I suppose, that there have been shootouts and arms procurements plots by organized anti-ICE gangs.
It also seems to minimize and gloss over threats to ICE in L.A. No mention of TV footage of potentially lethal bricks through ICE car windows limiting the drivers escape visibility from combative mobs. It said only "some protestors threw rocks and other objects (including mangos, fireworks, and a Molotov cocktail), burned a vehicle, barricaded a street with shopping carts, briefly trapped an ICE agent in a car, and vandalized property. The Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department responded to these protests and maintained control of the situation." No mention of TV footage of 3 cars burning for very long periods without any visible LA first responders or of LAPD's extremely delayed response to ICE agents in danger.
The decision purports to avoid Posse Commitatus Law nullification ("would swallow the entire Act- and the Insurrection Act along with it") by not allowing for a limited 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) exception to it. But it doesn't show any concern for a general § 12406(3) nullification in its finding of no such exception to Posse Commitatus Law where it presumes Congress intended the National Guard may only be deployed by a President to help execute unexecutable federal laws without them directly assisting in any law enforcement. Although it does provide historical references to troops doing such law enforcement.
Deference to the Executive is completely irrelevant in a matter where the Executive has no discretion whatsoever. There is simply no such thing. Deference is only relevant on matters which are the President’s business. This isn’t. The judge here properly deferred to Congress, which is the sole body the Constitution empowers to authorize sending in Federal troops into a state against the wishes of its government. The President can do nothing without Congress’ say-so. Deference on a matter completely outside the President’s authority completely misapprends the role of the President in our constitutional republic.
An American President is merely a President. He is not some Lord High Executioner to be constantly deferred to. And he isn’t a Grand Pooh-Bah or a Mikado either.
In past invocations of Section 12406, troops were sent in with the consent of the state’s government, not, as here, against the state’s government’s clearly stated will. The difference is as great, and the consequences as serious, as the difference between consensual sex and rape. And no, one does not defer to The Man just because he’s The Man, as if the woman or the state had no say in the matter.
So Congress wasnt able to confer POTUS with the authority § 12406 says it bestows?
You really believe they intended the National Guard to show up at invasions, rebellions or breakdowns of federal law enforcement without so much the ability to defend themselves against those things? Breyer says they cannot conduct riot control or apprehensions. I guess they're there to call 911 if they are assaulted.
Congress did not confer anything like the authority the President claimed. The Posse Comitatus Act expressly prohibits the use of federal troops to enforce domestic law absent an express exception, and the section contains no exception.
The section’s predecessor was in effect when the Posse Comitatus Act was passed. For a century and a half, the Posse Cmitatus Act was understood to override and partially repeal it. Indeed, that was one of the Posse Comitatus Act’s purposes.
The contrasting deference to the previous Executive, Biden seems present however by absenting his role in violating, as politically promised, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 against harboring or encouraging illegal entrants. The precursor event and national scope of the current lawless created crisis need not trouble us? And it does seem to defer to the state executive Gavin Newsom, in the same manner, who happens to be the Plaintiff. No mention is made of him being one of the foremost leaders of opposition to federal border law enforcement in his Sanctuary State or L A.'s Sanctuary City.
This was the part where I realized I didn't need to read the rest.
Please specify any inaccuracy.
Doesn't actually matter if it's inaccurate or not, it's completely irrelevant to the decision at hand.
It's like if I got arrested for stealing a book and my defense was that some guy had an overdue library book and another scammed someone on the Internet.
Why would it not be relevant to the courts expressed outrage about Trump intervening while not having been requested by the Sanctuary State perpetrators to execute the laws they are rebelling against?
Why would it not be relevant to the Plaintiff Gavin Newsom being one of the foremost leaders of that unlawful rebellion in violation of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1324 when it renders the relief he sought as being pursued with unclean hands?
Hi, Tony Soprano. We know you don’t give a shit about law. We know to you mobsters it’s all “I didn’t like what you did, so I get to do anything I want.” Whenever a judge rules against you. It’s always because he’s biased, right?
You folks LOVE the witness protection program. You always speak so fondly of it whenever you rub somebody out.
New paper:
Competition and Consumer Discrimination Maggie E.C. Jones; Trevon D. Logan; David Rosé; Lisa D. Cook This paper studies consumer discrimination while taking into consideration the role of competition between firms, providing one of the first large-scale comprehensive analyses of consumer discrimination and market forces. We formally model consumer discrimination, where some majority-group members dislike consuming alongside minorities. In equilibrium, the non-discriminatory-to-discriminatory firm ratio is proportional to the minority-to-majority consumer ratio. Empirically, we examine how local changes in the composition of consumers altered business incentives to discriminate during the decades leading up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Using a nationwide data source of non-discriminatory businesses in three different industries and a research design that leverages two sources of exogenous variation in the ratio of Black-to-White consumers, we find that increases in non-discrimination were concentrated in the least competitive markets, where the threat of defection by White consumers to competing firms was lowest. We assemble new data on over 25, 000 prices charged at establishments by discriminatory status and show that non-discriminatory firms charged higher prices than discriminatory firms in the same local market. Consistent with our theoretical model, this finding arises because the effects of greater competition among the more numerous discriminatory firms outweighed the discrimination markup. The results imply that monopoly power blunted the influence of consumer preferences and that Black consumers were harmed through higher prices in the non-discriminatory market.
Competition and Consumer Discrimination Maggie E.C. Jones; Trevon D. Logan; David Rosé; Lisa D. Cook
This paper studies consumer discrimination while taking into consideration the role of competition between firms, providing one of the first large-scale comprehensive analyses of consumer discrimination and market forces. We formally model consumer discrimination, where some majority-group members dislike consuming alongside minorities. In equilibrium, the non-discriminatory-to-discriminatory firm ratio is proportional to the minority-to-majority consumer ratio. Empirically, we examine how local changes in the composition of consumers altered business incentives to discriminate during the decades leading up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Using a nationwide data source of non-discriminatory businesses in three different industries and a research design that leverages two sources of exogenous variation in the ratio of Black-to-White consumers, we find that increases in non-discrimination were concentrated in the least competitive markets, where the threat of defection by White consumers to competing firms was lowest. We assemble new data on over 25, 000 prices charged at establishments by discriminatory status and show that non-discriminatory firms charged higher prices than discriminatory firms in the same local market. Consistent with our theoretical model, this finding arises because the effects of greater competition among the more numerous discriminatory firms outweighed the discrimination markup. The results imply that monopoly power blunted the influence of consumer preferences and that Black consumers were harmed through higher prices in the non-discriminatory market.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33547/w33547.pdf
So these blacks argue that Whites even when they weren't being discriminatory or racist were actually being racist against blacks.
Nonsense co-authored by a felon black. They should've published this in 2020 when the Left was in a tizzy about this made up nonsense.
Next Wednesday there may or may not be a massive strike in France that may or not involve a revived "yellow vest" movement. Some are saying shut down everything. Others are saying don't use your bank cards.
The government is unpopular because it's not giving people things the government can't afford. A confidence vote on September 8 will decide whether François Bayrou or somebody else gets play an unwinnable game.
Yes, pretty much.
https://www.craigwilly.com/p/is-france-cooked
France has been famous for decades for having one of the highest GDPs per hour worked. As Saturday Night Clive (a British show, for my fellow culturally ignorant Amis) once followed up with, "...when they work."
The reason social security plans are struggling is because they suffer from the same problem why Ponzi schemes were outlawed. You run out of new investors to pay back earlier ones.
Politicians will deny this, as they don't want to lose their job, with the attendent sudden 80 point IQ collapse in their invesment savant spouses, that's gotta be rough, waking up next to a dope, but, if you wanted to create such a thing, it should have been designed as pay as you go, pulling in a lot more all along.
This would have had the unfortunate effect of having gotten FDR ridden out of town on a rail.
You run out of new investors to pay back earlier ones.
Population decline, which is a real thing, will make this much worse for a generation or two.
At some point, people will decide that they don't care about culture or method of entry when it comes to immigrants. The sole criteria will become: young and paying, as opposed to old or taking.
We can’t construct a rational immigration policy fast enough to attract a lot more “young and paying” into this country. Unfortunately, I don’t think either party has any interest whatsoever.
The higher you go, the thinner the air is, and the less oxygen there is because of this. You can get to a point that pilots call "coffin corner" where you can't slow the plane down because there is so little air going over the wings that the plane would stall (fall out of the sky) and you can't speed it up because there is so little oxygen in the thin air that the engines would flame out (and then the plane would fall out of the sky).
I think this is the position that France has managed to get itself into.
Dr Ed again getting a basic scientific fact completely wrong. At altitude the stall speed increases, so that parts correct, but the Critical Mach # decreases (the speed at which airflow over the wings becomes turbulent with decrease in lift) not the speed at which the engines will “Flame out” how do you think jets fly Supersonic??
Today the EU General Court (i.e. the lower court) has given judgment in the case Latombe v Commission. This case dealt with the Commission's 3rd attempt at creating a framework for the transfer of personal data between the EU and the US, after the first two attempts were annulled by the ECJ in Schrems-I and Schrems-II.
This time the General Court has upheld the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, on the basis that the Data Protection Review Court that the Biden administration set up creates adequate safeguards for EU citizens. In so doing, the Court seems to ignore the fact that the DPRC exists only on paper, because Trump has fired the judges. Because of that, it is highly likely that the claimant will appeal to the Court of Justice.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-09/cp250106en.pdf
The judgment itself is only available in French so far: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=CCC1AF57CAE1AEE3A9B3623F4425BD0C?text=&docid=303827&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=15723456
While the US is busy crawling up its own ass, this is happening in China:
The Simple Mathematics of Chinese Innovation Marginal Revolution by Alex Tabarrok / Sep 3, 2025 at 1:21 PM The NYTimes has a good data-driven piece on How China Went From Clean Energy Copycat to Global Innovator, the upshot of which is that the old view of China as simply copying (“stealing” in some eyes) no longer describes reality. In some fields, including solar, batteries and hydrogen, China is now the leading innovator as measured by high-quality patents and scientific citations. None of this should surprise anyone. China employs roughly 2.6 million full-time equivalent (FTE) researchers versus about 1.7 million in the United States. On a per-capita basis the U.S. is ahead—about 4,500 researchers per million people versus China’s 1,700—but population scale tips the balance. China simply has more researchers in absolute terms. (...) In the 20th century the world’s most populous countries were poor but that was neither the case historically nor will it be true in the 21st century. The standard of living in China remains well below that in the United States and China may never catch U.S. GDP per capita, but quantity is a quality of its own. More people means more ideas. To be clear, the rise of China and India as scientific superpowers is not a threat, it’s a windfall. Whiners complain about US pharmaceutical R&D “subsidizing” the world. Well, Chinese pharmaceutical innovation is now saving American lives. Terrific. Ideas don’t stop at borders, and their spread raises living standards everywhere. It would be wonderful if an American cured cancer. It would be 99% as wonderful if a Chinese scientist did. What matters is that when more scientists attack the problem, the odds of a cure rise so we should look favorably on a world with more scientists. That is progress. The danger is not China’s rise but America’s mindset. Treat science as zero-sum and every Chinese patent looks like a loss. But ideas are nonrival: a Chinese breakthrough doesn’t make Americans poorer, it makes the world richer. A multi-polar scientific world means faster growth, greater wealth, and accelerating technology—even if America wins a smaller share of the Nobels.
The Simple Mathematics of Chinese Innovation Marginal Revolution by Alex Tabarrok / Sep 3, 2025 at 1:21 PM
The NYTimes has a good data-driven piece on How China Went From Clean Energy Copycat to Global Innovator, the upshot of which is that the old view of China as simply copying (“stealing” in some eyes) no longer describes reality. In some fields, including solar, batteries and hydrogen, China is now the leading innovator as measured by high-quality patents and scientific citations.
None of this should surprise anyone. China employs roughly 2.6 million full-time equivalent (FTE) researchers versus about 1.7 million in the United States. On a per-capita basis the U.S. is ahead—about 4,500 researchers per million people versus China’s 1,700—but population scale tips the balance. China simply has more researchers in absolute terms. (...)
In the 20th century the world’s most populous countries were poor but that was neither the case historically nor will it be true in the 21st century. The standard of living in China remains well below that in the United States and China may never catch U.S. GDP per capita, but quantity is a quality of its own. More people means more ideas.
To be clear, the rise of China and India as scientific superpowers is not a threat, it’s a windfall. Whiners complain about US pharmaceutical R&D “subsidizing” the world. Well, Chinese pharmaceutical innovation is now saving American lives. Terrific. Ideas don’t stop at borders, and their spread raises living standards everywhere. It would be wonderful if an American cured cancer. It would be 99% as wonderful if a Chinese scientist did. What matters is that when more scientists attack the problem, the odds of a cure rise so we should look favorably on a world with more scientists. That is progress.
The danger is not China’s rise but America’s mindset. Treat science as zero-sum and every Chinese patent looks like a loss. But ideas are nonrival: a Chinese breakthrough doesn’t make Americans poorer, it makes the world richer. A multi-polar scientific world means faster growth, greater wealth, and accelerating technology—even if America wins a smaller share of the Nobels.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/09/the-simple-mathematics-of-chinese-innovation.html
Speaking of China, it just pulled off a highly successful Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit, where both Putin and Modi were willing to turn up and pretend that the SCO is a real thing.
https://www.dw.com/en/sco-summit-chinas-xi-condemns-geopolitical-bullying/live-73823604
The US is setting fire to the entire idea of allies, and the Chinese are making friends wherever they can.
But the US wasn't entirely irrelevant to proceedings. They did take some time out of their busy schedule to troll Trump by putting on a proper military parade: https://eng.sectsco.org/20250903/1968618.html
...and obviously Trump's reaction was just as pathetic as you'd think it would be.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/03/politics/trump-china-xi-putin-kim-modi-analysis
"...the upshot of which is that the old view of China as simply copying (“stealing” in some eyes) no longer describes reality...."
Which is bullshit. Stories of Chinese industrial and academic espionage in the U.S. are in the news almost every week! If anything, it's gotten worse.
E.g., one week ago: https://nypost.com/2025/08/26/us-news/chinese-doctor-accused-of-stealing-confidential-us-funded-cancer-research-back-to-china/
"...as simply copying"...[emphasis added]
There are now several industries in which China is the technology leader--meaning there is no one for them to copy from.
China is on the verge of an economic collapse that makes the US Great Depression look like nothing.
And it's on the verge of another revolution.
Who knows. It's difficult to tell whether the US or China is more likely to have an economic collapse and/or a revolution, but in both cases the probability is higher than we would all like. And in both cases it's difficult to tell in part because the leadership likes to fudge the numbers.
I think revolution is significantly less likely in the US, because the US is, after all, still a democracy, we have non-violent means of change. This tends to take off the pressure that can accumulate to the point of revolution.
What you could see in the US, indeed I think it quite likely, is a period of endemic terrorism like the Irish "Troubles", where the losers in political fights decide to act up violently.
As with Ed’s constant predictions this says a lot more about you than what’s likely in America.
Like, it would be unprecedented! Widespread political violence is unheard of in the US.
You're devaluing The Troubles a lot.
Like the 7th of Janua . . . nevermind.
The treason-supporting regime has returned a painting of its best known traitor, Robert E Lee, to the West Point library,
West Point restores Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee's portrait
A painting of Gen. Robert E. Lee dressed in his Confederate uniform is back on display in the West Point's library, several years after the storied academy removed honors to the Civil War military leader.
There also are plans to restore a bust of Lee that had been removed from a plaza at the U.S. Military Academy, and a quote from Lee about honor that was removed from a separate plaza is now on display beneath the portrait, an Army spokesperson said Tuesday.
This is disgusting and indefensible. It also supports racism, which was no doubt part of the point of the restoration.
https://media1.tenor.com/m/2FzgYkciwBwAAAAC/racist-thats-racist.gif
Regardless of the fact that Lee sided with Virginia (more so Virginia than the South, in general), he was a great American who made significant contributions to West Point as superintendent. We shouldn't attempt to erase history, but rather reflect on it and learn from it.
Calling a Traitor a "great American" is really stupid.
Not if you think the traitors were the good guys.
Which presumably ThePublius does.
“was a great American”
What was so great about him exactly? He got a lot of Americans killed because he and his buddies wanted to keep humans as property.
John Schofield was also superintendent. Put up his picture instead.
“He who feels the respect which is due to others cannot fail to inspire in them respect for himself. While he who feels, and hence manifests, disrespect towards others, especially his subordinates, cannot fail to inspire hatred against himself.”
Lee was a lot more ambivalent about slavery than a lot of Southern leaders. His participation in the war was mainly about his first loyalty being to his state, not the federal government. As he wrote in 1861,
“If Virginia stands by the old Union,” Lee said, “so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.”
Why would you think this ahole who was too craven to even say slavery was involved with secession is worth commemorating?
Willful blindness is no virtue.
He was also Lincoln's first choice to lead the Union Army, but Lee declined, citing that he could not lead an army against his home state.
So your bullshit above about him being a "great American" is just . . . bullshit.
“he could not lead an army against his home state.”
I’m not sure I see why this makes Lee a “great American.” To me, it kind of makes him sound like a BAD American…?
Help me connect the dots here.
But he didn't aspire to be a great "American", only a great "Virginian".
Something a lot of people don't get today is that at the time of the Civil war, the US really was still a federation of sovereign states, closer to the EU than a unitary state. It was perfectly natural at the time for a citizen of a state to decide, if it came to it, that they were backing their state against the federal government, even if they thought their state was in the wrong.
Blind loyalty isn’t great anything.
You keep leaving out slavery. Quit it; it’s rude to all those block people who were enslaved.
only a great "Virginian"
Right. You know who else was a great Virginian AND a great American? George Thomas. They should hang his picture instead.
Something a lot of people don't get today is that at the time of the Civil war, the US really was still a federation of sovereign states, closer to the EU than a unitary state.
This is a lie. It is a fabrication of the Lost Causers of the early 20th century.
Well, it was more true than it is today and had more support.
Perhaps. The problem isn't the concept of breaking away. It's the concept of breaking away to keep the slavery good times rolling.
The slow change from a federation of states volunarily associating, descending into a giant government, pushed by power mongers arrogating their power everywhere, always, and hence a danger to watch for when creating another level of government, was something I warned the EU of.
The rate storied member nations are being converted to anachronistic cultural flavors is far speedier than the US.
You have been warned. Now censor. Not just allowed! Human rights may require it!
So he considered Virginia a sanctuary state that didn't have to do what the federal government wanted?
Yet Publius called him a great American.
Was Publius wrong?
And why shouldn't the state of Virginia be allowed to decide to take down the statue?
Lincoln made him a Colonel, that is true. But I'm not sure if that's the same thing.
The Publius — Good thing for Lincoln he did not appoint Lee. Lincoln and the nation ended up with the most successfully strategic military leader seen anywhere until at least WWII. Lee blundered catastrophically.
the most successfully strategic military leader seen anywhere until at least WWII
LOL, no need to get silly.
“ambivalent about slavery”
Ah, I see. Is that what makes him a “great American” in your estimation?
No, I'm just not keen on erasing history, warts and all.
Wait until you hear about the Harvey Milk!
You can't be that stupid. Oh wait, yes you can.
Uh oh Brett . . .
You might not like what Trump is doing with the Smithsonian.
History doesn’t come from paintings.
What paintings you display says who you want to venerate.
You want to venerate a dude who in action supported slavery through persecuting a terrible and exsanguinating war.
That’s bad.
Remember The 1776 Project? And what is the whole Lost Cause mythology but a wholesale attempt to erase history?
Removing a painting or statue is not erasing history. It is declining to honor traitors. Rewriting history to exonerate traitors and cover warts is erasing history. I'm glad you disapprove of that.
I am just not a fan of iconoclasm. Perhaps because the icons don't move me in the first place, I look at a statue or painting, and I generally evaluate it in artistic terms, not my opinion of the subject.
"I am just not a fan of iconoclasm." "I generally evaluate [statues] in artistic terms"
Also Brett: "I'm just not keen on erasing history."
Obligate defenses often end up incoherent.
If you view purely in artistic terms why do you object to their being removed?
I mean, these are not artistic masterpieces. It's not like burning a Rembrandt. They are mostly bog-standard, unexceptional, portraits and statues of generals, often on horseback.
No great cultural works are being destroyed.
That’s right. Lee was just an honorable Southern man who, through his great honor, was forced to lead secessionists into battle against his country. Honestly he really can’t be blamed.
What makes you think Lee was ambivalent about slavery. Lee keep people enslaved. There is no indication he ever treated those he enslaved better than other enslavers. This a rationalization of the first order.
He freed over 200 slaves he had inherited.
“freed over 200 slaves”
Is that what makes him a “great American”?
Because his father's will had directed that they be freed. And he was a faithful executor of his father's estate. But he waited on the very last day that will permitted it to be done, because his father's estate was in debt, and he wanted to get every penny worth of labor out of them before he let them go.
Let's not pretend he was a nicer guy than he really was. I'm just saying there were far worse on the Confederate side.
TP thinks blacks are inherently savage and criminal…not surprising he’s low key a Confederacy fan.
These discussions always seem to miss the obvious.
Do people really imagine that Nimitz and Yamamoto each did a dispassionate pros and cons comparison of political systems, fully open minded about which side they would eventually fight for, before deciding to pick the US and Japan respectively based on their personal evaluation of the ethics?
Do they imagine that in the Iraq-Iran War, it just so happened that 95% of Iraqis had an ideological commitment to Baathism while 95% of Iranians had an ideological commitment to a republic with clerical supervision?
Grant was from Ohio and Lee was from Virginia, and that fact alone is sufficient to explain what happened. You'd get about 90% accuracy for anyone based on state of residence, and it's only that low because their were some divided states.
Thank you, ducksalad. Completely agree.
Some truth there, ducksalad, but deciding to fight for one side or the other is a pretty big decision.
If you end up on the side that makes you a traitor defending slavery is it a good excuse to say you really didn't give it much thought? Should we absolve SS members who signed up just because they thought the uniform was spiffy?
I'm not claiming that the Union Army was full of deep moral thinkers, just that, perhaps largely by happenstance, they ended up on the right side of things.
Not rehanging a portrait of a man who betrayed his oath to West Point is hardly "erasing history".
Do you think that Germans don't know who Hitler is because there are no monuments to him?
I find that the same Americans who approve of Florida's and other states rejigging their HS history textbooks to remove embarrassing references to slavery and Jim Crow are also in favour of retaining Confederate monuments on the grounds of not wanting to erase history. One might even think that their principle is not to oppose the erasure of American history, but to support racism.
You will find that slavery and Jim Crow are still taught about in Florida schools, just not as something present day Floridians should feel personally guilty about.
No one is taught to feel guilty about slavery you weird white resentment addict.
One might suspect you support Lee veneration so white people can feel better based on imagined slights.
"No one is taught to feel guilty about slavery"
But that's exactly what Brett said.
Perhaps you meant no one ever *was* taught to feel guilty, but if so you'd be doing a little denial of your own. I could agree with you if you'd merely said the right wing exaggerates the issue and there was no need for a special law about it.
If you read Brett regularly, you would know that he thinks most of America teaches white people to feel guilty about slavery.
To Brett, top-down MAGA edits to our history curriculum are a needed fix to the war on white people.
And no, it is not exaggeration to say that pre-MAGA Florida did not in any way teach white people to feel guilty abut slavery.
Plenty of silly lefties out there. But they're the fringe; MAGA is the rug.
This has been a long time coming; Right-wing race-baiting has not been based in reality for a long, long time. It's based on demagogic appeals to emotion and anecdotes. 'Do you FEEL sad about how things have changed since the 1950s? You're right! Wake up white straight men, you're being oppressed! Time to protect you and bind everyone else!'
Well, I agree there's not a lot of classes where the daily lesson plan is "teach the whites to feel guilty" and the correct answer on a multiple choice test is "White people are guilty". Nor do I think that's the conscious intent except perhaps in rare cherry picked cases that usually result in the teacher getting smacked down.
But do you believe there is such a thing as implicit bias? Sure you do.
Likewise there's such a thing as implicit guilt. Be honest - do you feel any tiny level of obligation to defer to a black guy in a conversation about slavery?
I do and I'd guess that you do. Now why do we think that? We wouldn't say that an Armenian needs to defer to an Azeri when talking about US slavery. Why should we defer? That's the guilt.
I believe to be human is to have biases you're unaware of. I do not believe there is any useful training about it.
I'm afraid I think your 'implicit guilt' is nonsense you've made up.
Teaching that bad things happened in the past doesn't make people unknowingly guilty about it.
do you feel any tiny level of obligation to defer to a black guy in a conversation about slavery This says a lot about you because I don't. I treat a black person like any other individual. They are due no special deference. Maybe it's that I work with a number of black PhDs on a regular basis so it's not very academic to me. Normal people, as it turns out! I'm respected as a peer even though I only have a masters. Respect is earned, etc.
I believe our meritocracy does disfavor lots of groups, some of them racial. I don't believe race-based affirmative action is a useful tool to deal with that.
That has nothing to do with deferring to a black guy.
If that's what you say, I believe you. My conclusion is that your schools (implicitly) taught less guilt than mine did.
It was nothing crude or even intentional. There was no animus. It's just the language that was used: "the whites" did this, "the whites" did that. A 10 year old who actually likes his teachers can't help but internalize some it.
If your teachers didn't do that, congratulations.
Teaching at the elementary level as though 'the whites' is a coherent group seems weird, I will allow.
But that seems an issue of tone not of content; without more than vibes I don't think 'implicit guilt' is a pedogeological issue worth addressing. See also to the recent and similar fad of content warnings. Coddling students based on supposed reactions to broad facts is not a good idea.
Well, it was the early 1970s. The language people used was much more direct.
I don't think 'implicit guilt' is a pedogeological issue worth addressing.
I agree it's not something you can effectively pass laws against, just like the results of an Implicit Bias Test don't yield any actionable information, especially at the individual level.
Now we're getting really lived experience/philosophical.
Bottom line, "not as something present day Floridians should feel personally guilty about" is Brett fighting white oppression shadows of his own creation.
One should not confuse feeling guilty with feeling empathy.
Feeling guilty is an emotional state where you have a deep sense of remorse or responsibility for having done something wrong, committed an offense, or caused harm to another person. It is a normal emotional response to a misdeed or perceived misdeed and can be a powerful motivator for making amends, changing behavior, and growing personally.
Empathy is the ability to emotionally understand what other people feel, see things from their point of view, and imagine yourself in their place. Essentially, it is putting yourself in someone else's position and feeling what they are feeling.
That's one way of putting it.
A few slave owners were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slaveholders treated their slaves well. — United States History for Christian Schools, A Beka Book Although the slaves faced great difficulties, many found faith in Christ and learned to look to God for strength. By 1860, most slaveholders provided Christian instruction on their plantations. — America: Land I Love, A Beka Book Only 6000 families in the entire South had over 50 slaves in 1850. — America: Land I Love, A Beka Book The story of slavery in America is an excellent example of the far-reaching consequences of sin. The sin in this case was greed—greed on the part of African tribal leaders, on the part of slave traders, and on the part of slave owners, all of whom allowed their love for profit to outweigh their love for their fellow man. The consequences of such greed and racism extended across society and far into the future. It resulted in untold suffering—most obviously for the black race but for the white race as well. — United States History for Christian Schools, Bob Jones University Press
A few slave owners were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slaveholders treated their slaves well. — United States History for Christian Schools, A Beka Book
Although the slaves faced great difficulties, many found faith in Christ and learned to look to God for strength. By 1860, most slaveholders provided Christian instruction on their plantations. — America: Land I Love, A Beka Book
Only 6000 families in the entire South had over 50 slaves in 1850. — America: Land I Love, A Beka Book
The story of slavery in America is an excellent example of the far-reaching consequences of sin. The sin in this case was greed—greed on the part of African tribal leaders, on the part of slave traders, and on the part of slave owners, all of whom allowed their love for profit to outweigh their love for their fellow man. The consequences of such greed and racism extended across society and far into the future. It resulted in untold suffering—most obviously for the black race but for the white race as well. — United States History for Christian Schools, Bob Jones University Press
Funny, there are people alive today who lived in the South during the Jim Crow era, and benefited, to some degree, from Jim Crow. And there are children, adults now, whose parents also benefited.
We had some discussion here, some weeks ago, about a claim by Vance that people whose families had been in the US for many generations were somehow "superior" to more recent arrivals, or even to their descendants.
This was a matter of "heritage" or something - their ancestors fought in wars, even the Civil War. Why someone deserves credit for their ancestors' doings is a mystery to me, but if people want to claim it, then surely they should get blame for the bad as well as the good.
The United States Army celebrating Confederates makes about as much sense as renaming Boston's Logan Airport for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Osama bin Laden.
Would you have preferred a Civil War extending to about 1868 and the south winning???
Lee is a hero because he surrendered.
Wow, his portrait should be hanging on the wall right next to Hirohito’s.
Oh, he should have been hanging alright. Appomattox Courthouse steps would have done quite nicely.
Grant and Lincoln thought differently.
The people who fought the war thought national reconciliation was important, you know better though. Such bravery 160 years later
Reconciliation meant not hanging traitors. It didn't mean hanging portraits of traitors.
Lee surrendered because he had to and there was no way the Confederacy was going to win. The Confederacy simply did not have the resources necessary to win. The hero was Grant who accepted the surrender benevolently leaving the Confederate Officers and soldiers with a small measure of dignity.
The war was no longer popular in the North -- think Vietnam circa 1970-71. Had the South gone guerrilla, it could have held out for a few more years and the 1866 Congressional elections would have been like 1974, with Congress saying no more in 1867.
Just like in Vietnam, it would be the union quitting.
History tells us there were Confederate guerrillas after the war ended. They did not change things.
It's in his dissertation, folks!
What was disgusting and indefensible is the Racial Reckoning®™ in the wake of George Floyd's death.
"Whatabout?!?!?"
"The Pentagon's decision to re-hang the portrait, which shows a Black man leading Lee's horse in the background,..."
That is probably also worth mentioning.
"It was not until 1931 that West Point honored Robert E. Lee with the help of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The UDC first donated three glass cases to be filled by plaques honoring the annual winner of the Robert E. Lee prize in mathematics.
The second was a painting depicting Lee in his U.S. Army lieutenant colonel’s uniform during his tenure as superintendent of the academy.
The UDC wanted the portrait to show Lee wearing the uniform of the Confederate States of America, but the army’s chief of staff refused to countenance a portrait of Lee in gray at West Point. The army would allow Lee to be honored for his time in blue, but not yet for his leadership in a rebellion. (p. 193)
Seidule credits this change as reflecting Lee’s improved reputation among white Americans as well as Jim Crow segregation. It was no accident that the UDC’s welcome coincided with the return of the first African-American cadets in roughly fifty years.
Twenty-years later the portrait that is currently in the spotlight arrived at West Point. Secretary of the Army Gordon Gray, a North Carolinan, ordered that the painting be hung to “symbolize the end of sectional difference” following World War II. The portait of Lee,” writes Seidule, “shows him resplendent in his formal gray uniform with yellow piping on the sleeve and three stars in a wreath on his collar, designating a general of the army of the Confederate States of America.” (p. 197)
Seidule argues that the placement of the painting in 1951 had everything to do with tensions over race relations.
The Korean War raged in 1950. At the same time, the army tried to slow roll implementation of racial integration ordered by Harry Truman on July 26, 1948, in Executive Order 9981. The military has trumpeted its role in bringing racial equality to America, but the history is far more complex and less flattering. Neither uniformed leadership nor Gray wanted to integrate the army. In fact, the previous secretary of the army, Kenneth Royall, had been forced into retirement because he would not integrate quickly enough. Only the personnel requirements of the Korean War forced the army to integrate. Segregated units wasted manpower. (pp. 197-98)
Sidney Dickinson, born in Connecticut and trained in New York City, was given the commission to paint Lee. He chose to base his portrait on a photograph of Lee taken by Matthew Brady in Richmond following his surrender at Appomattox.
Interestingly, Dickinson painted African Americans while living in Alabama in 1917 and 1918, but chose not to depict them through the lens of racial stereotypes or the Lost Cause tradition.
This seems to stand in contrast to how Dickinson depicts what appears in the background of the Lee portrait to be a body servant. Seidule believes that Dickinson intended to portray “an emancipated man, not an enslaved servant…moving toward an uncertain but free future. Lee and the slave economy he fought to protect and expand diminsh like the setting sun.” (p. 199)
Seidule may be right about this, but it looks to me like the Black man is following Lee with his horse Traveller. If he is emancipated he still clearly embodies the Lost Cause trope of the “loyal slave”—the message being that even after freedom, former slaves remained loyal to their former enslavers and the Confederacy."
https://kevinmlevin.substack.com/p/pentagon-orders-portrait-of-robert
Lawmakers Consider Expanding Second Amendment Rights on Military Bases
A fresh bill in Congress – H.R. 454, the “Safe Bases Act of 2025” – has kicked off a debate well beyond Capitol Hill: should lawful carry on U.S. military installations be expanded, and if so, for whom? The bill would empower the Department of Defense (DoD) to permit certain service members to carry concealed firearms on base.
https://www.survivalworld.com/second-amendment/lawmakers-consider-expanding-second-amendment-rights-on-military-bases/
I can agree with this since service members are already vetted and have a military command/justice/discipline system already in place.
Additionally, they already receive regular training on weapons laws, usage, storage, etc..
Might have prevented the "workplace violence" (otherwise known as a terrorist attack) at Ft. Hood in 2009 leaving 13 dead. (For some reason the terrorist is still alive)
Yes. If there's one thing that 200+ years of US history has taught us, it's that having more guns results in less killing!
Of course, like slavery, and racism the US has a market on "killing".
I'm not sure where you got "market" from but otherwise, yeah...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
More guns would have been nice at Pearl Harbor....
Finally, the broken clock is (unintentionally) correct on something!
While firearm ownership has increased significantly over the last 30 years, the murder rate has plummeted.
Damn, I actually agree with Apedad on something.
In the Michigan Army National Guard, members can carry concealed on all MIARNG facilities provided they have a ccp. It's been that way for several years.
While the Regime in Washington has decided that international trade is bad, the European Commission has put forward deals with Mercosur (South America) and Mexico for ratification: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1644
The European Commission has put forward its proposals to the Council for the signature and conclusion of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) and the EU-Mexico Modernised Global Agreement (MGA). These landmark deals form a critical part of the EU's strategy to diversify its trade relations and strengthen economic and political ties with like-minded partners around the world. These partnerships will create billions of euro's worth of export opportunities for EU companies of all sizes, contribute to economic growth and competitiveness, support hundreds of thousands of European jobs, and promote EU interests and values. They will strengthen value chains, and help the EU to widen its range of reliable sources for critical inputs and raw materials. In a time of growing geopolitical instability, these agreements bind us closer to strategically important partners, providing a shared platform to strengthen mutual trust and tackle shared global challenges, including the modernisation of the rules-based global trading system. Both agreements reaffirm our joint commitment to human rights, multilateralism and international peace and security. They will also reinforce our engagement on key issues such as sustainable development, transnational organised crime, and migration.
The European Commission has put forward its proposals to the Council for the signature and conclusion of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) and the EU-Mexico Modernised Global Agreement (MGA). These landmark deals form a critical part of the EU's strategy to diversify its trade relations and strengthen economic and political ties with like-minded partners around the world.
These partnerships will create billions of euro's worth of export opportunities for EU companies of all sizes, contribute to economic growth and competitiveness, support hundreds of thousands of European jobs, and promote EU interests and values. They will strengthen value chains, and help the EU to widen its range of reliable sources for critical inputs and raw materials. In a time of growing geopolitical instability, these agreements bind us closer to strategically important partners, providing a shared platform to strengthen mutual trust and tackle shared global challenges, including the modernisation of the rules-based global trading system.
Both agreements reaffirm our joint commitment to human rights, multilateralism and international peace and security. They will also reinforce our engagement on key issues such as sustainable development, transnational organised crime, and migration.
"While the Regime in Washington has decided that international trade is bad...."
Oh, really? Do you have a citation for that?
Your theory is that Trump is putting enormous, illegal taxes on international trade because he thinks trade is good?
With respect, if that's your view I'm going to go ahead and ask you to offer some cites first.
Why would he think trade is bad? That's such a simplistic and stupid conclusion. How do you get to that from what he's doing?
Here let me help: Trade results in trade deficits.
Hahahahaaha.
“Why would he think trade is bad?”
Because he’s a moron?
“How do you get that from what he’s doing?”
You’re asking why someone would say he thinks trade is bad from the actions he takes that increase trading costs?
And I presume you believe you're not a moron? Are you a billionaire? Are you married to a super model? How many golf courses do you own? Resorts? How many skyscrapers have you built? When were you President of the U.S.?
He can’t be stupid! He’s rich!
Logic’d!
That IS logic. You know how many people win the lottery, and a few years later they're broke? Even if you treat his inheritance as winning the lottery, the fact that he's still rich decades later does demonstrate intelligence.
Money does not equal merit.
How unamerican of you.
Not just money, but success and accomplishment. He's actually DONE things! He's employed thousands, built things, managed things. And I think he's doing a great job as POTUS, accomplishing more positive things in 7 months that Biden did in four years. He's doing what I voted for, and I like it!
Calling him a moron is just more liberal Alinsky playbook bullshit.
Capitalism is not a meritocracy.
It selects for being born lucky, mostly. And for being good at marketing or grifting also works.
Your cult of personalitying is unseemly.
No, money doesn't equal merit. Holding onto it demonstrates merit, though.
The problem here is a kind of crude reasoning, if you can call it that, that conflates "virtue" in the sense of being good, with "virtue" in the sense of being good AT. And so wants to insist that anybody who is thought of as a bad person must be totally lacking in all virtues: They can't be clever, diligent, brave, kind, what have you.
People you don't like have to be bad in all ways, not just morally bad.
Real people aren't like that.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!! Yeah Il Douche, "you didn't build that".
"Capitalism is not a meritocracy.
It selects for being born lucky, mostly."
Man, those grapes are really sour, aren't they?
You think I envy the rich because I don’t worship them?
You really are an aristocratic weirdo.
And yes, most wealth is inherited. I’m still out and about today but it’s not hard to look up.
Just a reminder of what Armchair posted above.
Ilhan Omar has more money than you. Therefore, she is smarter than you.
No, I think you envy the rich because you seem driven to deny that the rich had anything to do with their being/staying rich.
Being wealthy is hardly ever anything that just strikes like lightning, and staying wealthy is NEVER something that just strikes like lightning.
"Ilhan Omar has more money than you. Therefore, she is smarter than you."
Probably not, (I foolishly put no priority on building wealth when I was younger; I might be smart, but wise? Nah.) but I'd never call her stupid.
I notice that most Republicans seem driven to deny that anything other than skill was involved as well.
The reality is that it's almost always a combination of luck and skill. For different people, it's more one than the other and it's possible to find examples where it's mostly just luck or just skill. In practice, those are the exceptions and people tend to need a good dose of both luck and skill to be really successful.
The rich can fail up. The very wealthy hardly suffer the consequences of fucking up at all.
If you look statistically, not anecdotally, winning the lottery turns out to be pretty badass for most folks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcFGaj6w04&ab_channel=PatrickBoyle
You lot talk about the insulation of the elites all the time! But you switch away from that when it's time to worship Trump for being rich.
I've heard people on here say they will vote for Don Jr. because he's got the Good Royal Genes.
Eugenics for the modern set remains a terrible look.
"The reality is that it's almost always a combination of luck and skill."
Well, yeah. Where an excess of one can make up for a shortfall of the other. But if you're totally lacking in either, you're screwed, so the wealthy are NOT, typically, stupid. The idea that Trump is somehow just a stupid trust fund kid is, OTOH, pretty stupid. He's been actively managing his money ever since he got it, if he weren't pretty smart he'd have flushed it down the toilet long since.
It may seem piling on, but on average the wealthy are just... above average. Smarter, healthier, better looking. All these things correlate and feed on each other.
money doesn't equal merit. Holding onto it demonstrates merit, though.
Holding on to it (which Trump did a poor job of, BTW) requires only minimal intelligence and common sense. It's hardly the mark of financial genius. You want to claim that Trump has average intelligence, go ahead. I won't argue. But don't tell me what a wizard he is.
They can't be clever, diligent, brave, kind, what have you.
Are you claiming that Trump is any of those things?
To a greater extent than his foes want to admit, yeah. He's no comic book villain.
A pretty clumsy excluded middle between "clever, diligent, brave, kind" and "comic book villain."
Of course not; comic book villains are generally smart. In fact, comic book villains often have many of the characteristics mentioned. Trump is just a dumb sociopath with no redeeming human qualities.
How can Sarcastr0 worship the rich when he already worships the State?
"Trump is just a dumb sociopath with no redeeming human qualities."
And there we have it, on display: The invincible conviction that, because you don't LIKE Trump, he can't have anything going for him.
It could be his biggest asset, given that it causes his foes to keep underestimating him.
You have your causal arrow backwards once again. Because he doesn't have anything going for him — which is a conclusion drawn from the evidence — I don't like him.
That is decidedly not logic. That’s you creating a narrative that may or may not be relevant to Trump.
Regardless it has nothing to do with the fact that there is zero intrinsic link between the two.
Also, I just love the grade inflation for the Dear Leader. Melania Trump is not a supermodel. Melania Trump was never a supermodel. She was an obscure model with little profile and an undistinguished career, which got a minor boost from her early associations with Trump. NTTAWWT.
So, in your opinion, where's the line between "model" and "super-model"? The latter can fly, or something?
supermodel [soo-per-mod-l] noun an extremely prominent and successful model who can command very high fees.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supermodel
A supermodel is a highly paid fashion model who has a worldwide reputation and background in haute couture and commercial modeling. The term became popular in the 1990s.[3] Supermodels usually work for prominent fashion designers and clothing brands. They may have multimillion-dollar contracts, endorsements, and campaigns. Supermodels have branded themselves as household names and worldwide recognition is associated with their modeling careers.[4][5][6][7] They have been on the covers of leading fashion magazines. Claudia Schiffer stated in 2007 that, "In order to become a supermodel one must be on all the covers all over the world at the same time so that people can recognise the girls."[8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermodel
David, you're becoming pitiful, to pick this nit. Where are you going with this? How does it matter?
What's next, David, 'they're not skyscrapers, because they don't literally scrap the sky?'
Funny story, I was once professionally required to decide where to draw the line between supermodels and non-supermodels (we never did figure out what to call them). It's harder than you'd think, but in no universe is someone a supermodel if they have to prostitute themselves to pay the rent.
I couldn't care less about Melania Trump herself. I care about the lie because it's emblematic of the cult of Trump. There is literally nothing its members won't say or do to fluff their golden gold-plated idol.
David, that's the hill you care to die on? I don't care. O.K., she was a model, not a super model. There. Happy?
Even worse is the notion that being married to a model, "super" or not, is a sign of merit. In many cases, money plays a role.
Do you think anyone would stay married to an asshole like Trump if it weren't for the money?
I once heard a story that someone asked Melania if she would have married Trump if he didn't have a lot of money. Her answer was, "Do you think Donald Trump would have married me if I weren't very good-looking?"
Women as trophies whose hotness denotes merit is so casually shitty.
Brett hasn't traded off that particular bit of sexism. That's all ThePublius
Taxing imports and exports?
Yeah, silly me for thinking that Trump believes trade is bad.
Yes, silly indeed, and presumptuous. If he wants revenue via tariffs, he couldn't possibly think trade is bad. He's not trying to stop trade, he's trying to make it more fair, and generate revenue in doing so. He's accomplished both.
Where is that revenue coming from?
Sealioning. And not even competent sealioning.
Not at all, assuming you're replying to me; it's hard to tell so far down the thread.
"Sealioning is a form of internet trolling and harassment that involves feigning civility while persistently asking for evidence, often about basic or previously addressed information, to exhaust a target's patience and derail a conversation."
I wasn't trolling anyone, or persistently asking for evidence. Someone said Trump doesn't like trade, and I asked why they thought that was so.
You guys throw this kind of stuff out there to denigrate others and quash debate, which is worse than what you accuse people of.
Let's make this easier (assuming you're old enough): did Dick Gephardt think international trade was bad?
I don't know. How is that relevant?
Isn't one of the foundational tenets of Trump's economic "policy" that we should manufacture more of our own stuff and buy less of it from other countries? Maybe* he doesn't think all trade is bad, but clearly he thinks a bunch of it is.
* His actions seem to say he thinks all trade is bad, though, given that he's putting tariffs on countries that we have trade surpluses with and called his massive global tariff spree "Liberation Day".
Six candidates from Germany’s right-wing AfD party die 13 days apart in lead-up to local elections: reports,
Not suspicions at all.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/02/world-news/six-candidates-from-germanys-rightwing-afd-party-die-days-apart-in-lead-up-to-local-elections-reports/
They probably got the COVID vaccine.
+1
Not really, particularly if you factor in how many old people are involved in the AfD
From the BBC article that the NY Post linked to:
North Rhine-Westphalia has a population of 18 million and a reported 20,000 candidates will run for office in its 14 September local elections.
It's starting to look like 1848.
7 now.
The pros don't just point out a low-probability event and declare a conspiracy.
You gotta add in a story! Mossad wouldn't play well these days; I recommend SOROS. Or maybe the Clinton Death Squads - that's always a classic.
Wouldn't The Parallax View be even more on point?
Forgive me, that's not one I'd heard of before. Holy cow that is some HAIR on Beatty.
Do yourself a favor and watch it -- it is great.
Good news! Trump is going to make sure the trains run on time!
https://apnews.com/article/trump-duffy-union-station-amtrak-management-8c1f5d00ab7591f3f021cf4a9ee8d8e2
Martin, specializing in misinformation. Where is Martinned2?
Martinned, the hating dope:
Union Station has fallen into disrepair and become a haven for homeless and criminals, and stinks like urine. All due to poor management.
"Duffy said the station has “fallen into disrepair” when it should be a “point of pride” for the District of Columbia. He said the Republican administration’s move would help beautify the landmark in an economical way and was in line with Trump’s vision.
“He wants Union Station to be beautiful again. He wants transit to be safe again. And he wants our nation’s capital to be great again. And today is part of that,” Duffy said."
"Mayor Muriel Bowser said upgrading the transit hub that serves various rail lines and buses would be an “amazing initiative” for the federal government to take on because the city cannot afford the cost.
“It has suffered from not being able to get the money that it needs for the renovation,” the Democrat said at a separate news conference."
Martinned, get a brain.
You may have missed the joke.
I read today that President Trump came out of hiding to move Space Force Command to Alabama. Making Alabama politicians happy and the rest of us more in debt. Why in the world did DOGE not address and dismantle Space Force I do not know. Just another DOGE failure.
There actually is a good reason for this. Hint: What's been in Huntsville for the past 80 years if not longer?
What do you mean "came out of hiding?" You believe that "Trump is dead" childish bullshit on social media? He even worked through the long weekend, in fact.
Space Force and Space Command are important, given the increased importance of space in national defense.
Huntsville is a major hub for defense contractors and aerospace companies, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. The Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command is also located in Huntsville, which is nicknamed "Rocket City" because of its role in building the first rockets that helped the U.S. reach the moon. It is also the site of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. It makes sense.
Plus this move will help Alabama turn more towards the Democrats!
Just look at The Great State of Northern Virginia (and those other lesser areas).
You need to stop drinking the Ripple and Colt 45 with the brothers this early in the day.
HA!
That takes me back 40 years ago in the military, getting off night shift, eating steak and eggs, and drinking pitchers of beer at 7 am . . . .
Good times.
It was originally slated for HSV, but then Biden in a petty move over abortion put it in Colorado.
Trump is just restoring the original plan.
If Trump worked through the weekend it will be a first, particularly as he doesn't even work through the days. Something happened in Alaska and the WH staff are hiding the facts. Hopefully they have JD Vance warming up in the bullpen.
Did Putin offer him a cup of tea?
"A report released by the Government Accountability Office in June 2022 found the Alabama site – Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville – to be the "preferred location" over five other locations."
In case you did not get my point, it was that I don't think space force is needed. The work should have be addressed within the current military structure and most likely by the Airforce. I think there is no need for any additional branch of the military.
The same argument could have been made (and probably was) for the Air Force.
It may have been so. But now we have an Air Force, the Army has its Air Force, the Navy has its Air Force, the Marines has its Air Force and the Coast Guard has its Air Force.
Yea, why don't we have just one armed service, consolidating the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Space Force? Wouldn't that just work well? /s
"The U.S. Space Force was established Dec. 20, 2019 when the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law (with bi-partisan support), creating the first new branch of the armed services in 73 years. The establishment of the USSF resulted from widespread recognition that Space was a national security imperative. When combined with the growing threat posed by near-peer competitors in space,it became clear there was a need for a military service focused solely on pursuing superiority in the space domain."
https://www.spaceforce.mil/about-us/about-space-force/history/
I think it's a good thing.
Agree with Pubes and disagree with Mod4.
The Air and Space environments are simply two absolutely different mediums requiring different strategies, different operations, different technologies, etc.
And yes, they must compliment each other - like the Army and Navy do.
Two completely different mediums and yet this country managed to get by without a space force for over 75 years. This a political decision with no real strategic necessity.
Don't double down on stupid.
I would say stupid is creating more government like space force rather than condensing it.
Yea, and they got by without a single airplane for 133 years. So what?
The country also got by for many years with a very small standing army.
Tripling down isn't helping.
Nothing against the Space Force, and I'll defer to experts on whether a separate organization is needed.
But starting an Air Force didn't stop the Army, CS, Marines, and especially the Navy from wanting and getting their own aircraft. So I expect that the older branches will still be pushing to have their own space hardware.
One anecdote, but here goes: I served as a medic in an airborne infantry company (LRS) for several years. During one summer, the Air Force canceled a couple of times on airborne operations that had an impact on the training we were doing. No satisfactory explanation (I was told) was given. Just a call and "Yeah, we're going to have to cancel". So the Army started scheduling Army aviation (Blackhawks) to drop us, instead. Obviously, you need a lot more of them and it took longer, but we were getting the training done. It became a problem for the Air Force when we stopped requesting their support because their pilots have to be certified to fly aircraft that human being fall out of. That certification can only be maintained by actually flying those kinds of missions. Those joint missions didn't continue until the Air Force bitched up their COC to get the Army COC to force us to start using their assets because they didn't want to lose the certification. After that, we hardly ever had an issue getting the Air Force to support our missions. You'd think cooperation would be simple but you'd be wrong. I believe this to be one of the strongest reasons the various services give in order to duplicate capabilities: we can't count on the other guys supporting us so we need to be able to do this particular thing, too.
This is disturbing, but not unexpected, and it is one reason the government cost so much. Duplication of services is waste and it happens far too often in the Federal government in all departments including the DOD.
I'm still working under the theory he yoinked it from Blue Colorado, where it was assigned by Biden as a reward, who'd rather have not had it anyway, but if you do, well.
US House investigates judicial tampering by climate cultists.
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/09/daily-caller-exclusive-top-house-committee-opens-probe-into-climate-activist-group-attempting-to-influence-judges/
In order to Save Democracy, the Global Left has now resorted to killing politicians in Germany. 7 AfD politicians have now died.
Leftism, historically, has always been a vile evil cult.
According to the AfD themselves, the deaths appear to have been of natural causes, due to pre-existing conditions. Apparently standing for election under the AfD banner doesn't cause you to become temporarily immortal, go figure.
pre-existing
The Global Left plays a long game.
Do you have a citation for that? German officials stated that two of the deaths were a result of natural causes, but have not commented on the cause of the others.
Six Far-Right German AfD Candidates Die Days Before Election
"Investigations are ongoing, but police said there is no evidence of foul play, with most of the deaths involving pre-existing health conditions and natural causes, a North Rhine-Westphalia AfD spokesperson told Politico, according to the German daily newspaper Die Welt's translation of the podcast episode."
"But Gottschalk, the state's AfD deputy leader, said there is no reason not to call the deaths a coincidence.
"What I have in front of me—but that's just partial information—that doesn't back up these suspicions at the moment," he told Politico's Berlin Playbook Podcast, adding that he wants investigations to take place "without immediately getting into conspiracy-theory territory," according to Die Welt's translation."
I think the primary lesson here is that parties should pay more attention to the health of their candidates.
I remember when then-MA Gov Jane Swift appointed a dead guy to a commission on disability.
There's such a thing as being over-qualified for a position like that.
Good one!
Yes, and Martinned said that "Not really, particularly if you factor in how many old people are involved in the AfD."
"Ralph Lange, 66, Wolfgang Klinger, 71, Stefan Berendes, 59, and Wolfgang Seitz, 59, all kicked the bucket within two weeks of each other, the European Conservative reported. Two reserve candidates also died over the same period.
"German officials stated that two of the deaths were a result of natural causes, but have not commented on the cause of the others."
In this day and age, 66, 71, 59, 59 are not that old, not so old that you'd expect them to just die of 'natural causes.' And the police saying that two deaths were the result of natural causes leaves the door open to speculation about the others.
I read somewhere an analysis that said that this was a statistical impossibility. I tend to agree. Looks like political assassination to me.
Night of the long knives?
We've had a few of those in DC this year.
"statistical impossibility"
Those words don't mean what you and Alice Weidel think they mean.
I was quoting someone.
And you "tend to agree" with that someone.
"Statistical impossibility" is an oxymoron. I've no doubt, though, that if you did a really crude analysis, without taking into account any information concerning the ages and health of the universe of AfD candidates, you'd find the number improbable, a rather lesser thing than "impossible".
""Statistical impossibility" is an oxymoron."
I don't agree. It indicates a vanishingly small probability. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but not an oxymoron.
Vibes.
Because there are a well nigh infinite number of improbable events that could occur in the world, it is actually quite probable that one of them will. The problem with the claim that an event is "improbable" is that one can't work backwards from an event that occurred.
To take a trivial example, it's incredibly improbable before the drawing that any one particular person will win the PowerBall. But after the drawing, when someone wins, one can't say that because it was improbable that this person would win, there must have been some sort of corruption.
This is a widely under appreciated point, well worth mentioning.
It is a good point but it discounts the context.
How many Afd candidates are there?
What is the age distribution?
I would emphasize that people in general, around the world, are not above murder. People kill over money and power and food and sex and all sorts of things. It's common and to be expected. Also, technology is making it possible to kill without being easily detected.
There are people who disagree with the above. They often have the attitude of, "Wow of course nothing bad is happening, crazy to ever think that!" These people are naive idiots or shills of course, and should be disregarded.
On the other hand I would need more evidence beyond the notably coincidental timing of these events to suggest assassination.
'it could happen, therefore you're wrong to argue it's not what happened here' is a terrible argument. Just deep tin foil nonsense.
Good thing you added that last paragraph after doing all that work so you don't look like a crank!
Come on now, Sarcastr0. All he's saying is keep an open mind, either possibility is still on the table.
NO. That's a terrible idea when it comes to fact-based claims
You should be skeptical of extraordinary claims! Your default should be NOT to believe.
The problems that come from discarding such an elementary concept in critical thinking is evident daily on this blog.
No, that's actually what you SHOULD do with fact based claims, until you're in possession of the facts. And even once you are in possession of the facts, you should always reserve at least a tiny quantum of doubt, never let certainty reach 100.0 repeating percent.
This is not a viable way to operate in real life you cannot personally verify every factual background upon which out society and life is based.
If you don't practice skepticism to all new factual claims, what you're actually doing is using some subjective criteria to pick and choose when to have an open mind and when to accept the baseline.
IOW, vibes.
My Dad got me a subscription to this as a kid. It was formative: https://skepticalinquirer.org/what-is-skepticism/
A completely AI generated soul/funk rendition of ACDC's Back in Black is starting to make a bit of a splash. I grew an afro just listening to it. It absolutely grooves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpm7pOpp4iE
Did Queenie get banned again?
This is from a few days ago but I noticed the news yesterday.
The US State Department has instructed its diplomats to refuse most visas for Palestinian passport holders, whether they live in the West Bank, Gaza, or overseas, according to a cable seen by CNN.
(other news sources also report on this)
The internal message, dated August 18 and signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, told all embassies and consulates to refuse nonimmigrant visas to “all otherwise eligible Palestinian Authority passport holders” who are using that passport to apply for a visa. The posts were instructed to do so “effective immediately.”
Nonimmigrant visas include a wide variety of visas, including those for students, professors, tourists, businesspeople and those seeking medical treatment.
This also made me go "hmm."
“This guidance does include visa applicants for diplomatic or official type visas and for individuals engaging in diplomatic and official travel purposes applying with Palestinian Authority passports,” it said. “While the Department has determined that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is a competent authority for passport issuing purposes … the United States does NOT recognize the PA as a ‘foreign government.’”
That doesn't seem quite, if I can use the word, seem kosher.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/31/politics/state-department-refuse-most-visas-palestinian-passports
" the United States does NOT recognize the PA as a ‘foreign government.’”
They have to get Israeli one.,
Generally visa denials are not subject to judicial review. Occasionally a judge will order reconsideration if the reason appears illegal. I know of no case where the judge kept ordering reconsideration until the visa was approved.
Generally firings in an at-will jurisdiction are not subject to judicial review. Doesn't mean there are no court cases!
More arising from the James Garner autobiography.
Garner said he was "not proud" of his work in the film One Little Indian< about a fugitive who hooks up with an Indian boy, though he enjoyed working with a young Jodie Foster.
Vera Miles plays Jodie Foster's mom. Pat Hingle (a familiar character actor) also has a role. As do two camels.
I overall enjoyed the film. It was well-paced, the acting was decent to good, and the scenery was nice. Nothing special, but worth a look. The boy, IRL, according to one source, became a rodeo star.
H&HS is now cracking down on trannyism.
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/09/maine-dhhs-reviewing-federal-directive-demanding-state-removes-gender-ideology-from-sex-ed-classes/
Here. I fixed your comment to reflect a form of hatred you supposedly can understand
H&HS is now cracking down on judaism.
themainewire.com/2025/09/maine-dhhs-reviewing-federal-directive-demanding-state-removes-Jewish-ideology-from-religion-classes/
Ummm, public schools do not teach religion, and there would be serious issues if they did.
Studying religion is not proselytizing it.
It's like the people who get terrified they'll say the magic words and become Muslim.
The trannies proselytize their mental delusions.
NB: Note I did not say "illness" -- they have a right to be deluded, but I have an equal right to say that they are deluded.
They have no right to demand that I find some guy, who needs a shave, to be sexually attractive because he is in a dress.
If you don't want to discuss the topic in the original post, I'm not sure why you're here.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/03/wednesday-open-thread
Am I missing something here?
Actually Hobie, let me put it this way:
The Jews do not believe that the Messiah has arrived yet, and I don't believe that someone can be a sex other than the one that their plumbing and chromosomes indicate that they are.
I have no right to force them to believe in Christianity and you have no right to force me to believe in trannyism. It's the same issue, the sanctity of the mind -- and I don't think the trannys either realize just how Orwellian they are being, or the consequences to THEM from the precedent of making their tactics acceptable.
Bluntly stated, sixty years ago they would have been locked up in the psych hospital, and sixty years from now they well may be again. It is only the tolerance that they are destroying which protects them from that.
Sixty years from now we'll probably have the medical tech to either give them actual female bodies, or cure their delusions, and which will prevail if either I have no idea.
"Sixty years from now we'll probably have the medical tech to either give them actual female bodies, or cure their delusions, and which will prevail if either I have no idea."
Uh, Brett, Christine Jorgensen's surgery occurred before you were even born.
ng, as far as you understand biology are these secondary sex characteristics all that defines a male or female body?
Yeah, so? Christine Jorgensen's surgery didn't give him an actual female body, just a mutilated male body. Within 60 years we'll have the tech to give somebody a body that's ACTUALLY of the opposite sex, not just that sort of looks like it.
Let us not forget you don't want trans people holding policymaking positions because you think they are mentally ill.
Will that change if new body tech comes to fruition?
They are mentally ill and should receive treatment
That's kind of contingent. Remember, we're dealing with a dysphoria here, where somebody is irrationally convinced they're something they aren't. Would giving somebody irrationally convinced that they were a woman an actual female body cure them?
Maybe, maybe not. Remember, you can't cure anorexia with weight loss, they'll starve themselves into the grave convinced that they're fat.
Does gender dysphoria work the same way? We don't really know, because nobody is currently able to give somebody gender dysphoric the opposite sex's body.
That's a fair answer, except now I do not understand how you select what you're very convinced about re: transgenderism and what you accept we don't really know about yet.
Well, gender dysphoria IS fundamentally irrational; A denial of your own senses, and, epistemologically, how the hell is a man supposed to know what it feels like to be a woman anyway? For all he knows he feels inside just the same way other men do, and is assuming for weird reasons that it's how women feel.
It's not like an anorexic is actually fat, and if you've got alien limb syndrome the limb is normally functional and innervated. So these dysphorias absolutely are false ideation, why not gender dysphoria?
But, hey, men do have most of the genes for women, and maybe men are occasionally born with female brains. (But, again, how would they know?)
The fact remains that the gender dysphoric typically have a significant amount of psychiatric co-morbidity, which doesn't go away if they get that 'gender affirming treatment', and I take that as evidence that, yeah, they're actually just suffering from a mental illness, not any more women in men's bodies than the guy who rejects his hand actually has a foreign growth on the end of his arm.
But, like I said, if we developed the tech to actually turn them into women, hey, maybe they would be fine. Won't know until we can, and surgical mutilation isn't the same thing.
Yep, chock full of ipse dixit. But not if we get a body change machine! There you reserve judgement.
That’s not a consistent standard
Yep, chock full of ipse dixit. […] That’s not a consistent standard
Well, why don’t you enlighten us on how you think we should think? Except with, you know, actual evidence in place of your typical vibes?
It’s a weird thing to insist I must have a whole plan for you just because I point out inconsistencies in what you write.
LMFTFY:
because I point out inconsistencies with my vibes in evidence-backed posts you write
Just like your sealioning with Biden’s use of the FBI against parents in VA where your vibes once again clashed with reality.
Brett, gender incongruence and gender dysphoria may coexist simultaneously in an individual, but the two are by no means coextensive.
Gender incongruence which does not create significant distress is the opposite of gender dysphoria. A transgender man or woman may well be copacetic with that state of affairs.
Labeling political opponents as mentally ill has an ugly and sordid history. That tactic is the twentieth century descendent of saying that someone who acted unconventionally was possessed by a demon. It was ugly when the Soviet leadership sent dissidents to the gulags, and it remains ugly today.
Gender incongruence which does not create significant distress is the opposite of gender dysphoria.
No, it is not; both conditions involve people who believe his or gender does not match his or her sex. The difference is dysmorphia indicates that mismatch induces stress. It’s not opposite.
Labeling political opponents as mentally ill has an ugly and sordid history.
We’ve been over this before. I agree labeling someone as “mentally ill” in an effort to insult, belittle, or diminish is in no way acceptable. But neither is it acceptable for the tail to wag the dog, for medical terminology to be politicized because it might stigmatize (i.e., the gender dysmorphia change from DSM IV to V).
To put this in perspective, think about other recognized mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety, ADHD, or ASD. Is it acceptable to make fun of people afflicted of those conditions as being “mentally ill”? Of course not! But when discussing the conditions, is it stigmatizing to refer to them as mental illnesses? No, or at least not if you’re not deranged.
Then why is gender dysmorphia treated differently? Does the medical community feel it’s ok to stigmatize those with depression, anxiety, etc., but not gender dysmorphia? I hope not….
PS - I include the use of the word “tranny” as a hallmark of the deranged I referenced above.
Breitbart’s Wynton Hall Lays Out Narrative War on AI: Tech Elites Believe ‘Code Is Upstream from Culture’
“If you’ve played with agentic AI, you might again feel like, ‘Wow, it’s very nascent. We’ve still got all these problems with hallucinations. You’re going to have all sorts of issues with permissions and the rest of it, whether you’re talking about Perplexity’s Comet or OpenAI’s Operator.’ But here’s the narrative plot twist for us, I think politically: It almost doesn’t matter — that reality in the short term. The narrative war is: Can you convince people that job displacements at scale are imminent and inevitable?” Hall detailed. “And, you know, that this is the move the left has made because they’re not hiding it. They’re literally saying, as Ilhan Omar said, ‘Covid was just a dry run for UBI, right? We got people used to mailbox money, and now that we’ve seeded that terrain, it’s time for the three-day work week, four-day work week.’ We’re seeing Bill Gates seed that narrative as well.” . . . “I think conservatives can win that narrative battle, but we’ve got a lot of work to do because if the left wins, AI becomes dependence, surveillance, and indoctrination, and America drained of its soul,” Hall stated. “I think that we, on the other hand, can fight against those pixelated prisons and keep the ideas flowing freely.”
“If you’ve played with agentic AI, you might again feel like, ‘Wow, it’s very nascent. We’ve still got all these problems with hallucinations. You’re going to have all sorts of issues with permissions and the rest of it, whether you’re talking about Perplexity’s Comet or OpenAI’s Operator.’ But here’s the narrative plot twist for us, I think politically: It almost doesn’t matter — that reality in the short term. The narrative war is: Can you convince people that job displacements at scale are imminent and inevitable?” Hall detailed. “And, you know, that this is the move the left has made because they’re not hiding it. They’re literally saying, as Ilhan Omar said, ‘Covid was just a dry run for UBI, right? We got people used to mailbox money, and now that we’ve seeded that terrain, it’s time for the three-day work week, four-day work week.’ We’re seeing Bill Gates seed that narrative as well.” . . .
“I think conservatives can win that narrative battle, but we’ve got a lot of work to do because if the left wins, AI becomes dependence, surveillance, and indoctrination, and America drained of its soul,” Hall stated. “I think that we, on the other hand, can fight against those pixelated prisons and keep the ideas flowing freely.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/09/03/breitbarts-wynton-hall-war-ai-tech-elites-believe-code-upstream-culture/
That quote from Omar seems completely made up as far as I can tell. That article is the only place it appears on the Internet.
As to the rest: it's weird how hard some people try to put a political valence on everything. There's a lot of foundational questions about how society may need to adapt to AI, but I think we do a pretty big disservice to the discussion by trying to map it to current political camps. Someone I know asked the question "how do we navigate towards an AI future that is more like Star Trek (post-abundance society) versus Thunder Dome (humans fighting over the few scraps that are left)". I think that's an interesting prompt for a conversation, definitely more so than "how do we make sure my political team controls the dialog?"
Did you read the whole article? No denying there is a movement for UBI, see Andrew Yang etc. Sam Altman, Bill Gates and a lot of the tech titans are in support of it, part and parcel of their "progressive" agenda. You'll own nothing and be happy.
AI is more fuel to that fire. Together with another financial crisis or two, maybe an epidemic, there will be attempts to get us there, and those making the attempt will try not to let a good crisis go to waste.
You can say things don't map neatly onto current political camps, particularly in terms of how voters think from time to time - but that's sort of the point here, is to think about how things may shift quickly. But the Sam Altmans and the Bill Gates and the WEFs of the world have drawn their battle lines. There is clearly a dichotomy between those that want an encompassing government nanny state (even an international one) and those that want relatively speaking freer markets, smaller government, more individual freedom and decentralization.
The case this guy is making here is that conservatives need to be more proactive and thinking ahead. They need a more well thought-out response and approach to the challenges of AI, for when big short term disruption triggers hit. Not just "oh, the market will sort it out in 10 or 50 years" because that approach does not help young people when they are starting out, building families, and setting the foundation for the rest of their lives which they only get one chance at doing. If conservatives get complacent or miscalculate there could be catastrophic results, instituting a massive welfare state that dwarfs even what we have now and establishing a system and culture of widespread dependency and malaise.
If you are a liberal you might see this all differently of course, presumably liberals think government really can create an open borders UBI utopia of leisure and abundance. Of course that's contrary to any basic understanding of human nature and history but anyway..
EDIT: 10 second google search indicates Omar called COVID checks a "case study for implementing UBI" and has frequently called for UBI and additional stimulus checks in the wake of COVID and even introduced UBI legislation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2021/06/03/stimulus-checks-prompt-renewed-call-for-universal-basic-income/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ilhan-omar-guaranteed-income-legislation_n_6103239be4b0d1b96e642b21
ML is now down for fake but true.
His posting over the years is really a case study in how a pure Breitbart media diet can make your judgement worse, your thinking lazier, and your morality more unprincipled.
Likely generalizable to like the Jacobin or whatever the lefty equivalent is. Do not pickle yourself in confirming media.
There is clearly a dichotomy between those that want an encompassing government nanny state (even an international one) and those that want relatively speaking freer markets, smaller government, more individual freedom and decentralization. The case this guy is making here is that conservatives need to be more proactive and thinking ahead. They need a more well thought-out response and approach to the challenges of AI, for when big short term disruption triggers hit. Not just "oh, the market will sort it out in 10 or 50 years"
There is clearly a dichotomy between those that want an encompassing government nanny state (even an international one) and those that want relatively speaking freer markets, smaller government, more individual freedom and decentralization.
The case this guy is making here is that conservatives need to be more proactive and thinking ahead. They need a more well thought-out response and approach to the challenges of AI, for when big short term disruption triggers hit. Not just "oh, the market will sort it out in 10 or 50 years"
In consecutive paragraphs!
This is very Brett in its argument. Three people is not a "movement"; it's a very boring dinner party. Can you find people who support UBI? Sure. Andrew Yang did indeed run on UBI in 2020… and won exactly the same number of delegates as I did. UBI is an idea that's floating around out there; it's not a movement.
Can you share what your definition of a movement is and what your tests are to qualify or disqualify something as one?
A movement is a group of people with common beliefs, motivations or behaviors where, if someone names three people as specific examples from a larger identified set, only those three people count.
1. Yang went from a nobody, to millions of supporters and raising tens of millions in cash, basically overnight just on the UBI idea. There are a host of organizations advocating for UBI, pilot programs etc. Which I will list in a following comment.
However like most of your comments, the semantics of whether it's a "movement" is quite dull and uninteresting.
2. More importantly, popular support isn't needed for something like this to happen. All that's needed is that the elites and the bureaucracy want it to happen. For example when the 1965 immigration act was passed, all of it supporters had to explicitly emphasize that it would NOT lead to an influx of immigrants, would not change much in terms of immigration, and would not change the demographic makeup of the country. Of course it turns out that was all a lie or may stupidity on the part of some, but either way there was no popular support to do what was done. More recently just look at our de facto open borders policies in recent decades. No public support for that at all, but they do it anyway and pretend it's not a deliberate choice, pretend they can't really do anything about it.
Now bringing this back to UBI, we've already had stimulus checks and such being sent out, so this is not even a question, it has already happened. It's just a matter of doing that some more. And this is more popular than open borders.
From google AI:
-- Mayors for a Guaranteed Income (MGI): A coalition of over 100 mayors in the U.S. that advocates for guaranteed income programs. It supports pilot programs in cities and lobbies for national policies. -- Economic Security Project: A network of researchers, advocates, and tech leaders that funds research and supports a national conversation around cash-based policies like guaranteed income. -- Humanity Forward: An organization founded by former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who brought UBI into the national political dialogue. It advocates for UBI and supports pilot projects. -- Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN): A global network of academics and activists that promotes basic income and facilitates information exchange worldwide. -- UBI Center: This think tank focuses on research and data analysis to provide evidence for UBI proposals.
-- Jain Family Institute (JFI): The JFI conducts applied research on guaranteed income initiatives and has supported multiple pilot programs, including the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED). -- Roosevelt Institute: This progressive think tank analyzes the economic impacts of UBI and has created models demonstrating how it could expand the economy. -- Stanford Basic Income Lab: The lab conducts research and offers resources on basic income experiments and policy proposals from around the world. -- The World Bank: Although not an advocate, this global institution studies and evaluates UBI and guaranteed income programs around the world to understand their impact on development. -- Economic Policy Institute (EPI): A nonpartisan think tank that conducts extensive research into economic inequality, wage stagnation, and policies that could ensure shared prosperity.
-- Poor People's Campaign: This campaign calls for a national guaranteed income as part of a broader platform to address systemic poverty and inequality. -- GiveDirectly: This non-profit organization, which distributes direct cash transfers to people in poverty in countries like Kenya, provides a model for the logistics of implementing cash transfer programs. -- Movement for Black Lives: This coalition has included guaranteed income as a policy demand to address systemic economic inequities affecting Black communities.
-- Stockton, California, and the SEED program: Spearheaded by then-Mayor Michael Tubbs, this was one of the most prominent guaranteed income pilot programs in the U.S., distributing $500 monthly to residents. -- Chelsea, Massachusetts, and Chelsea Eats: This city's program provided cash assistance to households and serves as another example of a smaller-scale pilot. -- Uplift (Polk County, Iowa): A multi-city and nonprofit pilot program that illustrates UBI experimentation on a more local level.
--Y Combinator: . This technology incubator has supported UBI experiments and launched its own in Oakland, California, to test the concept's viability.
--UBI Lab Network: This network comprises UBI advocacy labs and groups in various cities and countries, including Northern Ireland and the UK.
--Andrew Yang / Yang2020: While not an organization, former presidential candidate Andrew Yang is well-known for proposing a "Freedom Dividend," a form of UBI.
--Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend: This long-running program in the state of Alaska provides an annual payment from oil revenues to all residents and is sometimes cited as an example of basic income.
--Breathe: LA County's Guaranteed Income Program: This program in Los Angeles County provides monthly payments to selected residents to improve financial stability.
--Various U.S. State and City Programs: Several states and cities in the U.S., including California, Colorado, and Illinois, have implemented or piloted basic income programs for low-income residents.
--Freiburg Institute for Guaranteed Income Studies: This German institute focuses on research and studies related to guaranteed income.
What sort of mental gymnastics do you need to put yourself through to convince yourself that people with some of the biggest fortunes in the world are trying to usher in a society without private ownership? More to the point, though Altman recently wrote that he's "politically homeless" precisely because the Democratic party doesn't seem interested in allowing for technological innovation and associated wealth generation. He may have some "progressive" ideas, as you put it, but he's fundamentally an entrepreneur and a capitalist.
And the way that these guys think about UBI isn't that we move onto a collectivist society where we've eliminated markets. Instead, they see UBI as a mechanism to provide everyone with some level of basic needs--the "B" in UBI is there for a reason--while the markets continue to encourage and reward technological innovation. Probably this would mean that some people wouldn't be incentivized to work as hard and we may miss out on some innovations in the process, but the flip side is that we don't need to force/encourage people to do a bunch of busy work that machines could do more efficiently, or, worse, cast them out on the streets to starve in a future where most people's labor is unnecessary.
And this is the problem with trying to look at the problem through a "politics in the USA in the year 2025 lens". You're pattern matching against a thing--giving free money to people--that you see associated with your political enemies, even though this is far from a mainstream Democratic proposal. So then you think "ah, those dumb Dems with their Communist ideas" even as you acknowledge that the market is not likely to magically solve the societal problems that AI raises. I'm all for having the conversation about how to address the challenges that AI may pose for society, and taking a long view while we're at it, but if you start that exercise with the idea in mind that it's a battle of political ideology you're going to give up on a lot of fertile territory for discussion before you even start.
Oh, they don't want to eliminate private ownership for themselves, just effectively do so for most everyone else, the general population. Even those that do, like any good socialist or communist they generally imagine they will be in the benefitting/ruling class. The wielder, not the wieldee.
I fully understand everything you are saying about "the way these guys think about UBI." I just disagree with the basics of that. First of all, we already don't cast people out on the streets to starve. We spend huge sums on food stamps and other welfare. We have tons of private charity and food pantries handing out bags and bags of free food to anyone who will show up. So, obviously they are talking about something materially different and greatly increased from what we already have.
Second, I disagree, both empirically and philosophically, that anyone's labor is or will become "unnecessary." In a strict literal sense sure, lots of people today don't have to work and can still eat. We could all revert to a more subsistence level existence, without all this "unnecessary" entertainment, art, cuisine, and such frivolities. Having babies or even continuing the human species is also "unnecessary" by some accounts. So I would avoid the word necessary and instead consider value and worth. Ultimately, work will always have extrinsic and intrinsic value in my opinion, and inherent dignity on a philosophical level. So there will always be work. And there is no moral justification for taking away the fruits of labor, by force, from one who chooses to work, in order to give it to the one who chooses not to work just so they can continue to choose not to work (or, to the ones who are simply engaging in legal plunder). Beyond that, I don't agree that any sort of nationwide or worldwide quasi-socialist system that attempts to remove the need to work, is or will become viable or sustainable or desirable, nor that it will promote human flourishing.
Third, as my OP suggested, it doesn't even necessarily matter who is right about AI in the long term. As long as some people become convinced of a certain view, or use that view of AI as a pretense, then "solutions" might get implemented regardless.
I'm also all for open discussions. And I don't try to box them into political ideology at all. In fact I've hardly thought about that, which is why I found this talk a bit interesting; there are political issues implicated here and there are things that are going to be addressed one way or another in the near term whether we like it or not.
Once again, other than your instinctive "it's bad to give free money to people", what is it about Sam Altman or Bill Gates discussion on the topic that gives you this impression? These guys aren't socialists, they're both products of and cheerleaders for free markets. In Altman's post about being politically homeless, he makes the point that the private sector is usually better at doing things than the government. This is what I mean about you and Breitbart and Hall damaging the conversation by trying to frame it through a political lens--by trying to lump Sam Altman and Ilhan Omar into the same bucket and then just dismissing all of it as socialism, you avoid taking either the problem or some of the proposed solutions seriously.
I've got a bunch more thoughts on the general topic and think it's an interesting conversation, but it's Thursday now so I'll revive it with a few new points on tomorrow's open thread.
This is where the right gets confused as to its own goals. UBI is fundamentally a right-wing market-driven idea based around preserving entrepreneurship, property, and individualism (i.e. capitalism) in a (presumably) post-scarcity world.
UBI eliminates the need for:
* A minimum wage * Medicaid * Social Security * Unemployment insurance * Welfare
Think of it as dismantling the welfare state and converting it into a block grant to individuals. The same thing the right loves to do for states' rights it can do for individual liberty.
I haven't read Wynton's article yet (I will) but for now I wonder... what's his proposed alternative? Artificial scarcity?
Yeah, no discernable alternative other than denial of reality, as per usual I suppose.
See, in theory I could get on board with a UBI tradeoff, as a "lesser of two evils" sort of situation where you eliminated all those things you listed, along with the attendant bureaucracies, and along with controls on deficit spending and currency debasement, etc. It could even be a "dividend" of sorts limited to surplus government revenue which would get paid out to citizens like shareholders. But that's pie in the sky theory. The actual thinking usually behind it, like "work won't be needed" is delusional.
"what's his proposed alternative? Artificial scarcity?"
Unintelligible. Alternative to what, UBI? That would be no UBI. What do you think artificial scarcity is and how does that relate to this?
Alternative to what, UBI?
His alternative to people not needing jobs. The theory is that jobs are going to go away and not come back.
Having read the article, his alternative is to a) deny that's happening and b) "teach kids to create jobs" for themselves. Denial is pointless and teaching kids to create jobs for themselves is silly. You don't get out of 45% unemployment by telling everyone to just go start a small business.
If you want a right-wing narrative, how about this? UBI gives everyone the opportunity to pursue their career of choice. No need to grind through two or three below-minimum-wage part-time jobs just to pay the rent. Use UBI as a cushion to get you through school / training or to keep you financially stable while you get a career or business off the ground. Your work can be driven as much by your desire to accomplish your goals as by your bare need for money.
Or, live a frugal life. Want some additional cash for a new outfit or something? Dip into the gig economy, art production, or content creation as needed. Just flip burgers for an extra $2 an hour if that's what you want to spend your time doing.
Remember, prices go way down in this world. That's the whole premise: post-scarcity. It doesn't take much UBI to live on since everything is being produced practically for free anyway. Just tax AI, almost like a payroll tax, and it'll cover it. And if you do want a more luxury / high-class lifestyle, get a good job.
"alternative to people not needing jobs."
I don't think people are going to not need jobs.
"The theory is that jobs are going to go away and not come back."
Yes. Like when they invented the wheel a lot of jobs went away and didn't come back. Or motorized farm equipment. But other jobs took the place of those jobs.
"Denial is pointless . . . You don't get out of 45% unemployment by.."
There is no reason to think 45% unemployment is imminent. That's silly. Denying false alarmism not, in fact, pointless. What we need to "get out of" is people believing false predictions like that, to avoid embracing socialism and putting the wrong people in power. At the same time, we should be ready to pragmatically address smaller short term disruptions and not be in denial about that.
You're making jb's point for him. To the extent this is about a prediction for the future, you're not looking at the data to decide, you're choosing a prediction based on the narrative it fits with and the resulting political valence:
... to avoid embracing socialism and putting the wrong people in power.
Your clumsy invocation of socialism being the narrative part. (As has been repeatedly explained, UBI is an attempt to save capitalism, not undermine it.)
Consider not only AI but:
* The rise of the gig economy * The continuing acceleration of productivity * The continuing acceleration of tech capabilities per price * The rise of the creator economy * The continuing rise of income inequality
None of those trends show any sign of stopping, and they all point towards a post-scarcity society. The only thing that could really stop it (other than some sort of apocalypse) is if energy prices get out of control. But that seems unlikely.
Denying false alarmism...
This is the really funny / telling part. What's "alarmist" about an end to scarcity? It should be something to celebrate! It's just a prediction at this point, but it's a good one... and an objectively desirable one. You have to be a real grumpy conservative to want to maintain all the suffering in the world just so your grievance politics keep working.
No, I am looking at data. Your side is the one that ignores reality, and chooses a prediction based on what they hope or want to be true and what fits their narrative and worldview. For example, they desperately want it to be true that "climate change" necessitates heavy handed government control of daily life and global wealth redistribution.
The idea of "post-scarcity" is not realistic at any level, and it ignores human nature. No matter what people have, they always want more, they always want what someone else has, and they always want whatever it is they can't have. One man wants another man's wife. Or their real estate. Scarcity isn't going away. Time is scarce. There is no forthcoming solution to beat death.
On the other hand, continually increasing material prosperity and opportunity for leisure is possible. But that will just be more of what we have now, a difference in degree not in kind.
What data?
Your comment is just a recitation of your opinions.
I even share some of them (for a change), but evidence-based it is not.
You just gave the exact justification for UBI that I've been giving. When people talk about post-scarcity they mean the things needed to live... food, shelter, clothes, flip phones. If those things are no longer scarce anyway... why make people work for them? Just give everyone a bit of money to cover the low low production costs.
Now, if people want what remains scarce -- the luxuries -- they have to work for them.
Your analogy to climate change is totally fucked.
For example, they desperately want it to be true that "climate change" necessitates heavy handed government control of daily life and global wealth redistribution,
Notice that you didn't say "they desperately want climate change to be true." The prediction was right. You're just disagreeing with what to do about it.
The prediction in this case is a post-scarcity society, and what to do about it is UBI. Maybe you disagree that post-scarcity is gonna happen although it doesn't really sound like it. Assuming the prediction is right... what's the alternative to UBI? That's what neither you nor Wynton seem to have an answer for.
If jobs dry up and we keep the minimum wage around, that'll just make jobs dry up faster (better to have AI do it than a $15/hr human) and artificially raise prices (to pay minimum wage for the things that can't be automated). That means more homeless, more foodstamps, more medicaid... all the things I mentioned that are a result of ever-increasing income inequality. That's the route to socialism.
In other words, would you rather have means-tested food rations provided to you by the state, or just get a cash allowance that everyone gets? That's the choice.
The 5th Circuit, in an opinion that defered to the President’s findings of fact but not to either the labels given those findings or to conclusory statements, held that the President’s AEA proclamation was unlawful because the activities the President proclaimed the TdA engaged in, accepted as fact, did not constitute either an invasion or a predatory incursion.
The Proclamation states only that TdA engages in promoting illegal immigration and drug smuggling, and these activities are simply outside of what the terms “invasion” and “predatory incursion” meant in 1798, and what they mean today.
I disagree.
Distributing fentanyl on US soil in 1798, with the lethal consequences it has, would be considered an act of war back then. Non state actors would have been considered "pirates" and any state sheltering them an enemy.
Ever heard "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli"?
No. There was plenty of smuggling in 1798. If an American was doing it, and it was act of war, then it would have been treason. But no called it treason because no one thought it was an act of war.
Nor were they called pirates. Piracy consisted of taking or robbing another ship at sea, or at least being in that business. That's still what it means.
You for summary execution of white Jewish Americans smuggling booze from Canada during prohibition?
An unfortunate opinion. It would've been better to follow the dissent's take: affirm on Presidential discretion while mocking his transparent overreach.
Now Trump will just do a new proclamation that includes the magic words. Maybe it too will consist of transparent overreach in the form of obvious lies, I guess is the hope.
Justice Barrett explains her vote on reversing Roe in her book which is being released:
"(T)he Court’s role is to respect the choices that the people have agreed upon, not to tell them what they should agree to,” Barrett writes in “Listening to the Law,” set to be published on September 9."
That seems right to me. Her predecessor RBG also thought the Roe court went out on a limb, even though she was a strong supporter of abortion.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/02/politics/amy-coney-barrett-book-supreme-court-abortion
This logic reads all rights out of the Court's role. Did you even notice that?
And you should check into what RBG actually said before you deploy her in your favor. Shades of 'MLK was a Republican so vote Trump.'
No, dipshit, the people wrote a lot of rights into the Constitution, rendering them "the choices that the people have agreed upon".
That's quite a wide view of the people. So wide if you add it to Barrett's statement, it turns into 'courts should do legal things not illegal things.'
I'd like to think Barrett isn't so vapid.
Maybe it is just the courts say what the law is, not make new law.
Roe was making new law.
That’s a hoary old subjectivity disguised as objectivity trope,
Barrett didn’t say that though.
Old, hoary, true.
It reads out all the rights except all the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights act, ADA, and every other piece of piece of legislation congress has passed, including Constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to vote, all the way down to the right to have fair credit reporting and to be free from spam calling (that last one needs a little work).
If you are talking about "rights" that there aren't decided by the people nationally, then perhaps you can get your state constitutions changed to guarantee proposed rights like abortion which the majority of state constitutions guarantee to one degree or another.
The people have agreed that reproductive liberty should be a right.
At any rate, the Court has determined its role is to determine what the Constitution requires, not simply what "the people have agreed upon." The people are told what is allowed.
Ginsburg thought Roe went too fast and liked resting on equal protection, which wasn't much of a thing as court precedent when the decision was handed down.
She would have supported a narrower decision. She was working on a case involving the right of a servicewoman who wanted to stay in the military and have her child. Her brief included support of a constitutional right of women to make decisions over childbirth.
She later strongly supported Roe v. Wade while on the Court. That was the issue at stake in Dobbs, not deciding the matter on first impression.
Anyway, it's best not to rest on one sentence or something.
The whole thing tends to be somewhat more nuanced.
Here's another sentence:
“The guiding principle in every case is what the law requires, not what aligns with the judge’s own concept of justice."
Too often judges start with their preferred outcome, then look for the reasoning to support it.
Take Judge Breyer in the National Guard case: the 10th amendment? Really?
In the abstract "a right to reproductive liberty" would get a lot of support. Reducing it to specifics leads to disagreement. Almost everybody would oppose forced impregnation of women. A large majority wants some useful form of contraception to be legal. Once you get to abortion the people are quite divided.
How much support would there be for exempting men from paternity obligations if the mother deceived him about ability or intent to get pregnant? I know the system as it stands is solidly against such an exemption. But the system is also solidly against abortion in places where the people are at best weakly against it.
There is a significant agreement that abortion should be legal.
[An example would be that an abortion rights measure almost met a supermajority threshold in Florida, a conservative-leaning state. It was patterned basically on Roe. One somewhat less libertarian might have received those last percentages.]
The lines will divide people more, but there is a wide agreement for at least the first trimester (most abortions) + various special circumstances (much of the rest).
Things like avoiding parental involvement, non-governmental funding, and so on will be more complicated.
I don't rest merely on this since fundamental rights do not only turn on majority will under our constitutional system & overall.
There is a significant agreement that abortion should be legal under at least some circumstances. Which is very different from a significant agreement that it should be legal under all circumstances. Support for elective abortion is largely confined to the first three months of pregnancy.
But, as I've said before, what Roe gave, Doe took away, by making determinations of medical necessity unreviewable, and so pretextual determinations safe to issue. So you got a set of abortionists who'd gladly determine that basically any abortion for any reason was "medically necessary".
From a practical standpoint, I’m not sure reviews of medical necessity are feasible. Play it out in a courtroom scenario: each side would have its own set of “experts” who contradict each other; attorneys have a field day; doctors are pulled away from their patients; insurance costs skyrocket; jury decisions vary by geography. At some point, we need to be ok with a doctor’s knowledge of his or her patient guiding treatment. I’m sure some bad actors will establish themselves on each side, but I have to believe the vast majority of doctors will do right by their patients.
We've had this discussion before, Brett. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), did not make determinations of medical necessity unreviewable. A state remained free to criminalize third trimester abortions, subject to an exception to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.
In a state with such a prohibition, a person who provided a third trimester abortion not falling within the exception (and perhaps the pregnant woman herself, depending on how the statute was worded) could be indicted, and twelve men and women of a properly instructed jury would determine whether the procedure, beyond a reasonable doubt, was not medically necessary.
The prosecution would likely present expert testimony on the question based upon review of medical records and other available information, and any conviction would be reversible in the same measure as any other criminal conviction -- only if the evidence was insufficient such that no rational trier of fact could have found every element of the offense (including the absence of medical necessity) to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rule based on public opinion, not the Constitution...got it.
That's the problem, it isn't in the constitution, and there isn't a consensus to put it in.
The world did not end, as predicted by so many here at VC, post Dobbs. Quite the opposite. The people decided the question themselves, as Justice Alito wrote that they would.
Well, *some* people (typically people without uteruses) decided things. And other people (typically people with uteruses) died.
https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r879
The "world didn't end" after the Commonwealth of Virginia caused Carrie Buck to be surgically sterilized. But Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), remains an execrable decision.
Dobbs and Buck are equally destructive of personal liberty.
She seems wrong to me.
The court's role is to uphold the law, regardless of what "the people" want, unless you mean some subset of "the people" managed to get their wishes into law over the objections of some other subset, using the required process with all the i's dotted and t's crossed.
I'm with Margaret Thatcher. There's no such thing as society. Similarly there's no such thing as "the" people. Those are words used to cover up the central fact that different people want different and incompatible things, in each and every case that comes before any court.
.
In other Posse Comitatus news:
The Army's Criminal Investigation Division investigated recruiting fraud. A report to civilian prosecutors resulted in an ultimately unsuccessful prosecution. The former defendant, now plaintiff, sued for pain and anguish resulting from his arrest.
The District Court dismissed the case based on the discretionary function exemption to the Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff objected that there was no discretion to violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
Affirmed. The CID did not arrest plaintiff, execute a warrant, or do similar police-like acts. As for tipping off civilian law enforcement, a federal regulation authorizes arguable violations of the Posse Comitatus Act if there is an independent military purpose. This regulation was upheld back in the Chevron era and plaintiff makes no argument to invalidate the regulation today.
Perales-Muñoz v. US, https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/22-1670P-01A.pdf
Well, just heard back from Reason IT.
Yes, they did shitcan all the comments prior to 2018, site-wide. No, they did not archive them first, they're lost forever.
Man, I hate bit rot, but I hate intentional bit rot twice as much.
I wonder if they gave the Conspiracy any warning before doing it?
Again, the VC wasn't hosted at Reason prior to 2018.
Ah, David Nieporent, whose gig is boldly denying the easily verified.
Actually, they moved in December of 2017.
But their archives from before the move are stored at Reason, too, and guess what? The archived comments are all gone.
Perhaps Professor Volokh still has an archive somewhere and the old comments could be re-hosted somewhere else?
Fail to understand anyone's concern over this.
Old comments are available. For instance:
https://volokh.com/2012/09/13/new-obamacare-challenge-the-origination-clause/
Right, from their original site, not from the WaPo posts that got archived at Reason.
The Washington Post posts are still up there, though — not being a subscriber — I don't know whether comments are.
I'm a subscriber, I just checked, comments are gone.
I thought all text fora were auto-archived by any number of independent organizations, to say nothing of three letter agencies.
Hell, suing lawyers wanting to prove disappeared stuff would be a more than sufficient business case.
Public archivers may be directed not to show comments. Three letter agencies copy them but don't share.
In fact, Reason is configured to block indexing of comments.
I see rel="nofollow" on the link to comments on this site, so the comments shouldn't show up in normal archivers.
Ah, David Nieporent, whose gig is boldly denying the easily verified. Actually, they moved in December of 2017.
I mean, that's almost exactly what I said! Unless you really want to quibble about the overlap of one month.
It's not what you said or implied. Man up and take the L.
It's exactly what I said and implied. Perhaps the problem is that you are functionally illiterate? It would explain why the only contribution you make to these comment threads is ankle-biting.
Right. Like Saecastro, when your parents told you you were special, you believed them.
When your school said that you were getting a special education, you should have believed them.
I don't think either one of us rode the short bus.
Good to know this isn’t a recent phenomenon. At least he’s consistent, I guess.
Epstein Victims Before Congress Today: Release the files, we need closure.
Speaker Johnson: Releasing the files would violate victim privacy
That Speaker Johnson always thinking of the victims. Just not sure who he things the victims are.
Ohio governor DeWine: "The most dangerous group of drivers are 18-25 year olds"
Also DeWine [regarding reporters' questions about the city of Columbus trying to place limits on 18 year olds possessing guns] "I'm not going to get into the litigation that is going on"
Also Hobie: “I don’t understand the difference between an enumerated Constitutional civil right and a privilege”
All the executive emergency orders circumventing the Constitution have been for safety reasons. Are you saying you no longer believe in them?
Not sure I understand - what does that have to do with the right to keep and bear arms vs. the privilege to drive?
As I've remarked before, one thing gun controllers are absolutely adamant about, is their refusal to treat gun ownership as a right. They start from the premise that it's just a (disfavored) privilege, and never abandon it.
Yes, of course. Why would it be different? The fact that something is written into the US Constitution makes it a US Constitutional right, not a right in a more generic sense.
Sure, if you want to insist that it's just a privilege for conversational purposes, that's fine, just keep in mind that's a position that the people of the US have formally rejected.
But this is a legal blog, and for legal purposes, it's a right, period, end of story, and we're entitled to demand that it be treated as such, no different from any other right.
And yet EVERY SINGLE RIGHT has limitations.
If you disagree with me then go ahead and try to walk into the Pentagon while armed.
And yet EVERY SINGLE RIGHT has limitations
Agree - and I think most people who support the 2nd Amendment would be ok if limitations on it functioned like those on other rights.
For instance, imagine requiring pre-approval to exercise your 1st Amendment rights?
"For instance, imagine requiring pre-approval to exercise your 1st Amendment rights?"
Courts have routinely upheld local government ordinances that require licenses or permits to engage in First Amendment protected adult entertainment.
Good point, though those are edge cases and don’t apply to the general exercise of every facet of someone’s 1st Amendment rights. Also, on what basis are the licenses or permits predicated? Is it geography, age verification, etc.?
In some states, like CA, you need permission to exercise any facet of your 2nd Amendment rights. Until recently, you couldn’t even buy ammunition without being subject to a convoluted, error-prone process.
Exactly. It advances things not at all to pompously announce that "EVERY SINGLE RIGHT has limitations"; How many rights are subject to the SORT of limitations the right to keep and bear arms is?
Can you only buy a dirty magazine in your home state?
Do you need an FBI background check to join your local congregation?
How many rights are specified with a "well-regulated" clause, grammatical or not?
“Well regulated” modifies “Militia” and has no relevance to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
jay.tee is a moron who could not understand Intragovernmental Holdings or that the Treasury Department directly contradicted his assertion about late 90s budget surpluses.
The point is and the fact remains that no other right is specified with any qualifier like "well-regulated", militia or no, in the same sentence that grants that right. The second amendment was written at a time with much less gun technology and yet they still put in such an aside for that one right.
Until recently we thought due process was a protected right. Appears we can nullify any constitutional guarantee
In most cases, I believe government-declared “emergency” is cover for taking action 1) not supporting by current law, and 2) without sufficient support to legally change those laws.
So no, I don’t agree with emergency decrees that change established due process rights.
I think because of the starvation and the nearly 80,000 dead, Jerusalem needs to be occupied by the UN. It was once considered a protectorate of the UN. Apart from all the land stealing and the village burnings, I think you hayseeds would agree that these people who have owned their lands for 1,000 years should be able to keep it
You mean the UN that aided and abetted Hamas, and even had UN employees who participated in the Oct. 7th atrocity? That UN?
No. That UN mostly exists only in your fevered imagination.
It's well documented Martinned. You can't deny it.
Google this: "UN and Hamas connection"
Google says the UN is run by Hamas?
By the way, when did 65,000 become "nearly 80,000?"
According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, 63,000 Palestinians have died. According to Israel, 1,900 Israelis have died.
I don't trust the PMH numbers, at all. I assume it's actually far fewer, and that the vast majority were combatants.
Wow. CNN, Reuters, BBC, etc. release a bombshell news report.
"Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world's leading experts say"
This comes in the form of a resolution passed by the International Association of Genocide Scholars.
Per the BBC:
The IAGS is the world's largest professional association of genocide scholars and includes a number of Holocaust experts. Out of its 500 members, 28% took part in the vote and 86% of those who voted supported the resolution.
How does one get to be a member of the IAGS? According to its website, anyone can join, all you have to do a pay a fee of $30-$125.
Now that Rand Paul has given up on trying to be President, he occasionally sounds like an actual libertarian again:
The reason we have trials & we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, they still get a trial.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lxxrrcb2bg2u
WARNER: Do you accept the fact that 1 million Americans died from covid?
RFK Jr: I don't know how many died
W: You're the secretary of health and human services. You don't have any idea how many Americans died from covid?
RFK Jr: I don't think anybody knows that
W: How can you be that ignorant? ----- WARNER: How is that gonna happen with the Medicaid cuts that are taking place?
RFK Jr: There are no cuts to Medicaid
WARNER: That is absurd ---------- WARREN: Did you tell the head of the CDC that if she refused to sign off on your changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, that she had to resign?
RFK Jr: No. I told her she had to resign because I asked her 'are you a trustworthy person?" and she said no
WARREN: This is not what she has said" ---- We have a lunatic in charge of HHS.
I watched the entire hearing, and, as no surprise to you, I imagine, I disagree with you. It was a lynching. I agree with RFK's approach to Making America Healthy Again. It's time for a change, in food, disease, vaccines, and so on.
The above are easy fact-based questions.
No they are not. For example, the number of deaths due to covid - no one really knows. The reports and statistics are a mess, a lot of them confused by death from covid v. death with covid.
the number of deaths due to covid - no one really knows The stats are not a mess - haven't been for years.
The CDC has a whole website on it: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home.
RFK Jr. should have checked with his own people.
Even you can’t be that obtuse, Sarcastr0. Many deaths were attributed to Covid even if the individual died with Covid but not due to Covid. Some states cleaned up their data the best they could, some didn’t.
And the CDC includes this little gem in the footnotes:
Deaths include those with COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1, as an underlying or contributing cause of death on the death certificate.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#maps_percent-covid-deaths
Emphasis mine. The CDC data does not show how many people died from Covid, only how many died with Covid.
Your link has this as it's legend: "% of deaths due to COVID-19"
There may have been an issue in the very early days, but at this point it's just a right-wing canard.
but at this point it's just a right-wing canard.
Once again, you deploy your vibes to deny something easily verifiable. This time, it’s from your own link.
The death data footnote clearly states:
The chart titles are incorrect in that the dataset includes, per CDC’s own footnote, deaths where Covid was an underlying or contributing cause of death.
So the CDC use of 'due to' in your link is a lie?
They explain their methodology here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
Nothing about conflating 'with' and 'by.' Unless you think there's a vast medical conspiracy at work.
Again, from your own link, the description of the primary weekly data source:
Deaths involving COVID-19, pneumonia, and influenza reported to NCHS by week ending date and by state
Not due to, but involving. It’s a reflection of the reality that with multiple co-morbidities, isolating THE cause of death is not always possible (or necessary).
Click on the methodology link, rather than divining based on specific phrasing.
Your "methodology link" confirms jay.tee's point. They're not deaths "due to" COVID. They're "deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1."
You're such a weasel.
Your "methodology link" confirms jay.tee's point. They're not deaths "due to" COVID. They're "deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1." You're such a weasel.
No, you're just a really bad reader. They are in fact all deaths due to COVID. The statement you are quoting explains how they know that the deaths are due to COVID; it is not remotely saying that the deaths were of any cause where there was a positive COVID test:
COVID-19 was listed as the underlying cause of death for 87% of these deaths. For the remaining deaths, COVID-19 was listed as a contributing cause of death.
There are no "deaths with COVID" as MAGA uses that term in the stats.
Once again you triumphantly cite something based on your failure to understand words. "Due to" and "cause" are the same thing.
"Died with COVID," in contrast, was something MAGA made up in 2020, when they wanted to pretend that Trump's COVID response wasn't bad, to minimize the harms from COVID by pretending that people who died for other reasons were being miscounted as COVID deaths. (You know, everyone had some thirdhand anecdote where a doctor supposedly knew of a guy who died in a car crash but tested positive for COVID and this was called a COVID death.)
WARNER: How is that gonna happen with the Medicaid cuts that are taking place? RFK Jr: There are no cuts to Medicaid WARNER: That is absurd
WARNER: How is that gonna happen with the Medicaid cuts that are taking place?
WARNER: That is absurd
If you define “cut” first, then sure it becomes closer to a fact-based question.
If you define the comparison baseline as current spending levels, then no, OBB does not cut Medicaid spending; it increases it by 31% over the next 10 years.
If you define the comparison baseline as future projected spending , then yes, OBB cuts Medicaid spending growth in an attempt to bring it closer to pre-COVID levels.
You're pettifogging.
Thoughts on JEFFRY UMAÑA MUÑOZ et al.v.THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA?
UC refuses to hire undocumented students (which federal regulation prohibits), court ruled that this policy is discriminatory under California law.
No relief granted (other than costs to the plaintiffs).
"Let a writ of mandate issue directing the University to exercise its discretion in conformity with the principles articulated here to decide whether to continue use of its work authorization employment policy."
Too ambiguous to parse. Do you mean federal regulations prohibit refusing to hire undocumented students, or the reverse?
I suppose my wording could be read to mean the former, so let's try a thought experiment - what is more likely, federal law prohibiting refusing to hire undocumented individuals or federal law prohibiting the hiring of undocumented individuals?
Some of the victims also said they were working to compile an unofficial list of abusers for whom Epstein procured girls and young women to molest or rape. Prosecutors say Epstein and Maxwell did not keep such a list.
“We know the names,” said Lisa Phillips, a model. “Many of us were abused by them.”
https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/09/03/jeffrey-epstein-survivors-press-conference-capitol-trump/
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?
Jacob Sullum | 9.5.2025 3:35 PM
Jack Nicastro | 9.5.2025 2:36 PM
Eric Boehm | 9.5.2025 2:05 PM
Autumn Billings | 9.5.2025 1:50 PM
Phillip W. Magness | 9.5.2025 1:35 PM
