Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Lisa Cook got her TRO Tuesday.

Two observations about the ruling:

1) the Judge ruled only in office malfeasance could constitute "for cause" firing.

2) Lisa Cook has a owns her Fed seat until her term expires.

And one procedural note, the Judge waited until this week before issuing her 14 day "non-appealable" TRO, if she issued it last week as Cook requested, it would have expired by the next Fed meeting.

2 1/2 predictions:
There is a 92% chance that the TRO will be construed as a preliminary injunction and stayed before the Fed meeting.

There is a 98% chance that the Fed will lower the discount rate by at least 1/4% at the meeting whether or not Cook sits. And there is a 45% chance that the Fed will lower the discount rate 1/2% whether or not Cook sits (45% is a bullshit prediction, but it is what it is).

[Krayt]

And one procedural note, the Judge waited until this week before issuing her 14 day "non-appealable" TRO, if she issued it last week as Cook requested, it would have expired by the next Fed meeting.

What is a judge doing trying to time things so as to affect policy? It should carry zero weight.

If the order sticks, she'll attend the meeting either way.

If the order is overturned, this judge has no business setting who attends the meeting.

[Nelson]

You’re assuming a motive that there is no evidence for.

[Krayt]

The quote flat out states it.

[Randal]

Saying something makes it evidence? Krayt is a wanker. And the previous sentence is conclusive evidence.

[Magister]

Do you mean that quoting Kazinski establishes the motive? Judges can take a lot of time to decide cases without any untoward motive.

[Dr. Ed 2]

3 A 45% chance she's "Arkancided."

It's what the Clintons would do.

[sopij16501]

incredible that the first female jungle bunny to hold that post happens to get her case heard before another female jungle bunny appointed by the nog loving biden.

the fix is in folks.

[not guilty]

"[F]emale jungle bunny"??

When will the commenters here who get the vapors when I refer to "Clarence Uncle Thomas" pile on to sopij16501?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I don't know what I can do beside muting him.

The guy stinks of troll, the only question in my mind is, free range or farm raised?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Statistically speaking, there should be 5 white men for every black woman -- in anything.

Including mortgage fraud.

[Jmaie]

Bad math and bad assumptions...

There are actually around 4 white men for every one black woman in the US. Concerning mortgage fraud, it seems likely that only middle and upper income individuals would be in a financial position to commit such acts. There the ratio is more like 5.3:1.

Guessing your doctorate is in one of the math-optional fields...

[John 4]

Yes, it is often hard to distinguish between MAGA and paid troll here.

[Kazinski]

You can get paid?

I keep hearing that, but nobody is writing me any checks, where can I apply?

[Kazinski]

Definitely over the line.

Looks like another burner account, the last one already burned.

Just wonder if the idiot is serious, parody, or false flag.

[Michael P]

I've now seen two short comments from that troll, and it is on my mute list.

I occasionally unmute some people, but I don't expect to unmute that one.

[Bwaaah]

"When will the commenters here who get the vapors when I refer to "Clarence Uncle Thomas" pile on to sopij16501?"

You act as if there's some slippery slope here where you and a not-even-worthy-of-remark commenter are ending up being treated the same. That's B.S. You're better than that. You're expected to be better than that. And you do yourself no favor here by citing such a lowest-of-the-low-lifes as a reference by which to measure your bad behavior.

This kind of demonstrates how foolishly and conveniently demeaning is your view of right-leaning VC commenters, that you imply these are such blurry lines that they can't tell the difference. Your distortion is glaring.

[not guilty]

It is not "bad behavior" to point out that, in the struggle for racial equality (the most prominent domestic political issue of my lifetime), Clarence Thomas is a damn quisling.

Many commenters here who adore that about him are quick to call me racist, thereby conflating my disdain for an individual with antipathy toward blacks in general. That is intellectually dishonest -- especially when they give a pass to other commenters' name calling about Katanji Brown Jackson and Thurgood Marshall (whose briefcase Mr. Thomas was never fit to carry).

For example, have any of the Thomas apologists accused Frank Drackman of generalized racism? Or is IOKIYAR their polestar?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I have no interest in reading anything "profound" a bigot might go on to say after I mute them.

[mulched]

Just for you, I unmuted the account long enough to tell them to fuck off. Then I put it back on mute.

This is the second time you've used someone else's racist comment as an opportunity to add a referential quote to your own racial slur. You should leave that out next time. No one needs to see that shit.

[not guilty]

The hit dog hollers, mulched?

[mulched]

You certainly did.

[EllaWilson]

This is the sad truth with lawyers, judges and fake judges today.

[mulched]

Don't be a fucking racist. Also stop creating new burner accounts. We don't need to see this shit.

[LexAquilia]

The Democrat judge had to ignore the evidence of Lisa Cook committing more mortgage fraud while she was in office.

Just flat pretended it didn't exist.

Another "Trump Law" ruling that will get overruled by SCOTUS.

[pdshaw]

Whatever new evidence exists, if it wasn't in the removal letter or referral, I think it's irrelevant in the way that Cook's lawyers have framed their complaint. Perhaps Trump could send another letter each time some new bit of evidence appears. He is not bound by this injunction, which is only against Powell and the Federal Reserve.

[Kazinski]

There is a separate referral with the new charges.

The judge seemed to think it was meaningful that Trump didn't reference attach the referral, the Truth Social post only referenced the letter, and considered that inadequate notice.

The Federal reserve act doesn't have any requirement for notice, but in any case Cook has not actually refuted the charges or made any explanation.

[pdshaw]

I didn't realize the letter referring to the attached criminal referral didn't actually attach the referral. And Cook's attorneys won't do what an attorney would normally do and ask for the attachment because not having the attachment is a key part of the defense.

To be real about all this, Cook doesn't want any process as a means of changing Trump's mind, but she wants to deflect having to respond to the charges. She's facing the problem of dual criminal/civil proceedings and she doesn't want to say anything in the civil proceeding that might help the prosecution of the criminal case. But she doesn't want to plead the Fifth because that can be incriminating in non-criminal settings.

[John F. Carr]

Cook got a preliminary injunction after asking for a TRO.

If Trump continues to try to remove her she is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to present her rebuttal after hearing the government's evidence against her. The court followed Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 on this point.

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/09/nx-s1-5529281/appeals-court-lisa-cook-federal-reserve-independence-trump
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv2903-27

I can add, if Congress determines that she committed a disqualifying crime before being appointed, Congress can impeach her despite Trump's impotence on this matter.

[pdshaw]

I can more easily see Cook ultimately prevailing in this case than the SCOTUS upholding this legal analysis, particularly applying the Loudermill hearing requirement to a public officers for the first time. It may be that the government's caselaw is distinguishable, but there is nothing in the Roberts court history that would lead us to expect that the executive branch's power of removal will be limited by expanding 14th amendment due process caselaw into this area.

That said, I wonder what I would do as a district judge facing these types of novel issues that ultimately would be decided by SCOTUS. I might do what this one appears to have done, which was give the best argument for the party that I think in fairness should win.

[pdshaw]

As already pointed out, Cook got a preliminary injunction, running against Powell and the Board of Governors. Cook and the Judge are avoiding the Constitutional issue of whether the POTUS can be enjoined, but I do wonder if the scope of the injunction is sufficient.

I'm more familiar with my state's organization, which is that agency salaries are paid by separate entities (Comptroller & Treasurer), building security by the Secretary of State, and there is another agency which centralizes a lot of business/computing services for other agencies. In that setup, I would wonder if someone who received this type of injunctive relief would be paid their salary, or have access to the building, e-mails, and internal databases.

[John F. Carr]

She didn't sue the United States as such. If she had sued the United States she could get a declaratory judgment binding the whole government.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71218248/parties/cook-v-trump/

[pdshaw]

Whether she could get a declaratory judgment binding "the whole government" is an open question, which her attorneys probably shrewdly avoided. There is not clear legal precedent for enjoining the POTUS to reinstate someone and I think Gorsuch already pointed to this issue in a separate opinion in an earlier removal case about the historical remedy being back-pay. There is an early 90s D.C. Circuit case which enjoined the entire executive branch except the President, but it's not clear that the Roberts court would give their imprimatur to everybody in the executive branch disobeying the President.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting there is clear law on this, but it was probably wise to seek minimal injunctive relief. Because one way for the SCOTUS to avoid a difficult question on scope of remedy is to affirm her removal.

[Bored Lawyer]

the Judge ruled only in office malfeasance could constitute "for cause" firing

She indeed did. Which is insane. The Fed member could rob a bank at gun-point on the weekend and the president could not fire her.

[John F. Carr]

Same rule we have for judges. When a criminal judge refuses to resign impeachment is the remedy.

In the case of a violent crime, a Fed member in pretrial detention would be effectively out of a job.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And failure to do the job would be "cause".

[Krayt]

Oliver North married Fawn Hall. If CNN decided I needed to know, I pass that on to you.

Ha ha! You wasted brain cells storing that!

Also, Oliver North is still alive?

[Kazinski]

He's 81. Fawn is 65.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like it could be a Hallmark movie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are you going to begrudge two senior citizens happiness?

[John F. Carr]

Even the youngest Vietnam vets are 70.

[Frank Drackman]

Alive, and apparently doing better than you, or at least he isn't posting about your private life (you should get one, I hear they're on sale at Costco)

[Krayt]

Aliens will invade in about 3 years, and I will save humanity. You can learn all about my life in myriad biographies and movies after that.

[John F. Carr]

News reports say North's wife died last year.

[Moderation4ever]

This is the problem with having news 24/7. There is not enough news and so the public gets these nonstory fillers.

[Moderation4ever]

Just as a second thought to the question "is there really enough news for 24/7 coverage", I noted that Prof. Scott Galloway, NYU, noted recently that there isn't enough news or money to continue supporting separate news channels. He proposed that the networks combine to a single news network and leave it at that. More and more the public is discarding broadcast news for internet. And as a matter of fact that is where I hear the North-Hall wedding.

[Kazinski]

Jobs data was revised downward again, by a record 911,000 thousand jobs for the period from April 2024 thru March 2025.

I'm not going to make this a partisan talking point because its a pretty heavy lift to make.that case. 9 2/3 months of the revision perood were during the Biden Administration, 2 1/3 were Trump months, and they don't know where the errors occurred. None of the revision period was after Trump announced the liberation day tarrifs, so that wasn't it either.

"The preliminary estimate of the Current Employment Statistics (CES) national benchmark revision
to total nonfarm employment for March 2025 is -911,000 (-0.6 percent), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years have an absolute average of 0.2 percent of total nonfarm employment."

Really the problem is the statistic is not fit for purpose, and their is too much noise in the stat the way it is reported to make it useable. Reuters reports for the Apr24 - Mar25 period:

"The revision estimate is equivalent to 76,000 fewer jobs per month. It implied that nonfarm payroll gains averaged about 71,000 per month, instead of 147,000. Economists had expected the estimated revision to be between 400,000 and 1 million jobs."

So probably a better way to report the data is 147,000 ± 52% new jobs, or perhaps even better total non farm payroll 159,000,000 ± 80,000.

Its ridiculous to report the delta in the change in payrolls when the margin of error can be greater than the change.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prebmk.nr0.htm

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-payrolls-benchmark-revision-estimate-suggests-labor-market-weaker-than-2025-09-09/

Or report it with a 3-6 month lag, in fact even though they are reporting on a revision to a reporting period that ended 6 months ago, the report title still makes it clear that its a preliminary revision:

"Current Employment Statistics Preliminary Benchmark (National) Summary".

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...Markets rightly question BLS data, and not just here in employment. There is good reason to do so. That isn't good from an investment perspective. I'm watching the bond markets, not equity markets.

A better participation rate during the survey period would have given a more accurate employment data picture.

[Kazinski]

I don't know whether Trumps new BLS director can fix the problem, but something needs to be done. At the least they need to quit reporting the delta, the change in jobs from the previous month.

The average change in the revision period was supposedly 71,000 per month, that is 0.0445% of the total number of jobs. Their own reported average margin of error is .2%, but that understates it because the average margin is much less than what you would expect the margin to be any particular year, in fact last year the error was -.6, as far as they know. And there is no reason to expect the monthly margin of error would be less than the yearly.

You can't report a number that has a expected monthly change that is 1/5 the margin of error, not with a straight face.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been complaining about that myself for years, their reporting deltas on government statistics no sane person would think was accurate enough for them to be anything but noise.

[Joe_dallas]

The reported response rate is abysmal. I complete the monthly job surveys for 3 of my clients, none of which should be included in the statistical survey. Based on my observation, the sampling techniques used for the job survey data is pathetic junk. Its been a problem for a least the last 10 years.

[Martinned]

Yes, I'm sure Trump's new BLS director will get right on that!

[Brett Bellmore]

Could hardly do worse than Biden's BLS director.

[Martinned]

Just like yesterday, I continue to marvel at all those Trumpists who seem to think that the correct response to an official who makes mistakes is to elect or appoint someone who isn't even trying to do the right thing. What is wrong with you people?

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say here that some question exists as to what the previous BLS director thought the right thing was. Apparently not generating accurate numbers.

You know, at some point this unshakable presumption that every last thing Trump does is garbage turns you into a stopped clock people ignore; Like the stopped clock, you may occasionally be right, but you communicate no information.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know who the last BLS Director was? Or that they did anything differently than the succession of directors before that? Under Trump the first time? Bush?

You’re making it partisan when it’s just your hot take on inflation.

Bad news for you is cooking the books doesn’t change the underlying macroeconomic reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's true that the previous BLS cooking the books doesn't change the underlying economic reality. It just made the underlying economic reality look different, and resulted in policy being made on a basis other than the underlying reality.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, your confident wrongness won't matter in the end.

But I am interested that you tried to tie it to Biden's administration. That's not at all true; this methodology did not start in 2020.

Which makes one wonder why you decided to add that bit of untrue mustard to your hot take?

[loki13]

The reason that Brett added the "untrue mustard" to his hot take is because he doesn't actually understand any of the issue, because of course he doesn't. This won't stop him from both a) commenting on the issue, and b) arguing that Trump did something correctly and Biden was at fault.

I already devoted a lot of time and words previously to explaining why the unprecedented assault on the BLS (the statistics) and the Fed are bad things. But that's the reality. We are in Trumpland now, were reality can't be acknowledged. Right?

We see this in operation every day. Seriously, look at Trump's birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein.

The WSJ reports it. The DOJ (Trump's people) knows that it exists.

What happens? Trump lies, denies, and sues (10 billion!). Even though he knew it existed and the article was accurate. And the lies were nonsensical- he didn't draw (he did, and there were contemporaneous doodles). He didn't use those words (he did, and there were contemporaneous examples).

Now that we have the card, he still is lying. It's not his signature? Well, the problem with that is that there are literally scores of contemporaneous signatures that match it. Heck, there are other signed notes from Trump to Epstein with the same signature.

Yet we have people like Brett who keep saying, "Look, you can't believe your lying eyes. Biden. Hillary."

Anyway, for people that are actually curious, you can go and find a lot of people in the economics field who can tell you about the BLS and the Fed without a partisan axe to grind. And it won't matter what end of the ideological spectrum they are on. They all know it's bad. I'd argue that even within Trumpdom, the schism between Bessent and Pulte is probably the single most important thing to follow, because that will determine whether our economy suck, or turns into a burning crater of ash.

At this point, I'm seriously rooting for just "sucks."

[Tilted]

loki13 said:

"I already devoted a lot of time and words previously to explaining why the unprecedented assault on the BLS (the statistics) and the Fed are bad things. But that's the reality. We are in Trumpland now, were reality can't be acknowledged. Right?"

It seems the nesting reply system won't let me reply directly to this comment above. So...

To the related issue of the motivation for this attack on the BLS (and justification for a replacement commissioner), I'd note that the BLS is responsible for more than labor statistics. Among other things, it's also responsible for inflation statistics. I haven't seen that point made often.

I think it's easy to see why the current administration might like the idea of having a person of its choosing overseeing the agency responsible for inflation numbers going forward.

[Keldonric]

I’ve posted versions of this before, but it’s worth repeating: these aren’t “Biden numbers” or “Trump numbers.” CES and CPI methodologies have been in place for decades, refined at the margins but fundamentally consistent. The survey response rate drop during COVID, for instance, has forced heavier reliance on imputation, but that’s not partisan tinkering — it’s a documented, transparent adjustment.

Where I think there is room for innovation is in how CES handles volatility. I’ve suggested before that they could layer in a regime-switching model — one mode for “normal” response conditions, another for “volatile” conditions like shocks or low response rates. That would make revisions more predictable and signal to analysts how much weight to place on preliminary data.

To be fair, BLS may already be doing something akin to regime switching — adjusting estimation techniques depending on whether response conditions are “normal” or unusually volatile. For example, they’ve published documentation on rotating imputation methods and adjusting birth-death models when shocks hit.

The point being: the solution is methodological, not partisan. The strength of CES is its granularity by industry — that’s what markets and policymakers actually rely on. Undermining the credibility of the whole system by treating it as a partisan scoreboard only hurts everyone.

[bernard11]

Nobody cooked the books, you idiot.

[David Nieporent]

Now that we have the card, he still is lying. It's not his signature? Well, the problem with that is that there are literally scores of contemporaneous signatures that match it. Heck, there are other signed notes from Trump to Epstein with the same signature.

Did you catch his bimbo press secretary triumphantly announcing that it was proven false because the Daily Signal had published a story citing three different handwriting analysts who had concluded it wasn't Trump's signature?

Only trouble is: (a) it was the Daily Wire, not the Daily Signal; (b) the article didn't address the handwriting, but rather the style of writing; and (c) it wasn't three experts, but three AI chatbots.

[bernard11]

No, it's true that the previous BLS cooking the books doesn't change the underlying economic reality. It just made the underlying economic reality look different, and resulted in policy being made on a basis other than the underlying reality.

Classic Bellmore.

1. The survey was screwed up.
2. It was not honest error, but intentionally cooking the books.

You have zero to back either proposition up, but it doesn't matter to you.

And you're the one who occasionally complains about other people not assuming disagreement with them is in good faith.

[Kazinski]

I don't doubt its been a clownshow for a long long time.

[John 4]

“Man who just discovered the Bureau of Labor Statistics yesterday has big opinions about it”

[Kazinski]

Are you new here?

I have big opinions about just about everything.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Regarding the "mustard" in the comment below, is loki still in the mood for a hot pretzel?

[Tilted]

Why do you think the previous BLS commissioner didn't think generating accurate numbers was the right thing to do?

She only held the position for a year and a half and the revisions processes worked the same under her as they had under previous commissioners.

I'll run the numbers when I get a chance. But my sense is that the mean monthly revisions under her were more or less in line with what those mean monthly revisions have been historically. And I say that having followed the numbers pretty closely for a long time. But, again, I'll get some more definitive numbers when I get a couple minutes.

Added: She'll really only have one annual benchmark revision for the period she held the position. The last revision was for March 2024 and she took office at the end of January that year. Further, magnitude of the revision for March 2025 (assuming the number isn't revised back up some in February 2026) will be within the range we've historically seen, though at the high end of that range (-0.7%).

[Keldonric]

Exactly — the revisions that got waved around were still within the published 90% confidence interval. CES is built that way: you get timeliness and industry detail, but you also get revisions. That’s not “bad numbers,” that’s the survey design. I know I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but it’s worth keeping the mechanics in view.

[Tilted]

To follow up...

The mean absolute monthly revisions (SA) for the period during which Ms. McEntarfer was BLS Commissioner (February 2024 through July 2025, though we only have the first revision for July 2025):

Total Second Revision (i.e. from first to third estimate): 54,000
First Revision (i.e. from first to second estimate): 30,000

For all monthly revisions going back to 1979:

Total Second Revison: 57,000
First Revision: 40,000

[bernard11]

Oh horseshit, Brett.

You know nothing about the job or what goes into it or whether the results were accurate.

You just open wide and swallow whatever crap Trump dishes out.

Amazing how many newly minted experts on reporting economic data have suddenly shown up here.

[jb]

Kaz...Markets rightly question BLS data, and not just here in employment.

Citation needed.

Markets understand the limitations of the survey methodology, and most of the professionals I've hard speak on the topic seem pretty happy with the work the BLS has been doing. Almost all of the criticism I've seen has been from politicians or partisans.

[loki13]

Agreed. That's a nonsense statement.

It's hard to take that comment seriously. In fact, one of the biggest recent "scandals" in BLS history was in 2024. I'm positive that most people here who confidently talk about the BLS don't actually have any idea what happened.

Well, the BLS data is always guarded carefully and released publicly at a set time. Why? BECAUSE THE MARKETS VERY MUCH CARE. Anyway, two issues came up in 2024. One incident involved the accidental upload of a some files that contained the data to its website 30 minutes early. The other involved a delay in getting the data out, and before the public release, some analysts called the BLS and were able to receive the data.

It's almost like this data ... moves markets. That it's incredibly important because it has been seen as credible (despite the known limitations in the early data which gets refined, aka, revised, as additional information comes in). And that Wall Street is constantly looking to get an edge of even a few minutes to get that data.

Ugh. How is it that people make such confident statements about things that they don't understand? I truly do not understand this.

[Sarcastr0]

The markets don't care about Trump's economic fuckery as much as expected, though.

The articles I've read that speculate why end up with there being a tacit agreement that everyone benefits if they pretend for a while. TACO caught on mainstream, but started as a market rationalization.

So our financial institutions are acting like Wiley Coyote continuing to run well after the cliff has run out. They should know better, but pretending they don't keeps things going for a bit longer.

It reminds me of Enron's final days.

[LexAquilia]

Lotsa vibes at work in that comment.

Nice.

[loki13]

I don't think that's it. I think that the markets don't think that the BLS numbers are being messed with ... yet.

It's like the market not pricing in Trump's action with the Fed. The market is continuing to believe that despite the bluster and the actual attempted ouster of Cook, the Bessent wing will prevail and the Fed will maintain its independence.

Of course, the problem with the market pricing in its belief that things are not going to happen ... is that if these things suddenly happen (BLS suddenly produces bizarre numbers, changes its schedule or methodology, or Cook gets removed and Trump loyalists remake the Board of Governors and the Fed Reserve Banks with their majority) the reaction will be, IMO, swift and severe.

But that's, just, like, my opinion, man.

[bernard11]

Kaz...Markets rightly question BLS data, and not just here in employment. There is good reason to do so.

What leads you to that conclusion, besides Trump-worship? What do you claim that markets question BLS data? Do you have any clue as to BLS' methods?

[Commenter_XY]

I told you what to look at, numbnuts: participation rate of the underlying data. Are you always this slow?

[Sarcastr0]

It's a survey not a census. Participation rate is one of the easiest things to compensate for.

I thought you worked for MIT.

[Commenter_XY]

You thought wrong = MIT

It is not the first time you thought wrong. Kinda par for the course with you.

[Sarcastr0]

Coming in pretty hot today, eh?

[bernard11]

I looked at it.

It's down to about 43%, but was around 60% pre-Covid. The sample covers 631,000 establishments, so they get responses covering 271,000. That's to the first survey. The third one gets responses in the 90+% range.

Would it be better if they got more responses? Yes, because non-responses may introduce bias into the results, not because the number of responses was "too small," as you seem to think.

And they do publish confidence intervals, so you have something to look at besides the raw number. I think there are a lot of people on Wall Street who understand all this, much better than either of us.

And how exactly is the lower response rate Biden's fault, or that of his head of BLS?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I'm not going to make this a partisan talking point because its a pretty heavy lift to make.that case. 9 2/3 months of the revision perood were during the Biden Administration, 2 1/3 were Trump months, and they don't know where the errors occurred."

About 7 months ago, based on data that was all from before Trump, the BLS revised the numbers for 2024 down 600K. So, while you can't prove that none of the error was during Trump's months, you can be reasonably sure most of it wasn't.

But, really, the only valid conclusion is that the BLS numbers are too unreliable to be a basis for policy.

The question is, how long have they been garbage, and was it deliberate or incompetence?

[Tilted]

That annual revision of -598,000 (reported in February 2025) for March 2024 was an upward revision from the preliminary revision of -818,000 that was released in September 2025. We'll have to wait until next February to see what the actual annual revision for March 2025 will be.

That said, yeah, most of the revision will be attributable to periods during which President Biden was in office.

The QCEW data used for the revisions, in what is essentially a baselining process, isn't available in near real-time. It comes out many months later and relies on reporting from state agencies. But it's from a census rather than a sample survey, so it's assumed to be more accurate. I question that assumption going forward because, with higher UI rates, some establishments may be inclined to try to find ways to cheat.

At any rate, we're still talking about revisions which, in the worst cases, are well below 1%. And we've been seeing revisions on this scale (i.e., 0.3 - 0.7%) for as long as this annual benchmarking process has been used - going back over 4 decades. We had an annual revision of -489,000 during President Trump's first term and we've now seen (or rather will soon see) two relatively large negative adjustments as well as one relatively large positive adjustment during President Biden's term.

The original numbers reported by the BLS come out in near real-time. As I cursorily tried to explain in a different post, in some cases the numbers being reported are for payroll periods which only ended a few days before they were reported and which rely on (mostly) voluntary self-reporting from private businesses. Yet those numbers turn out to be remarkably accurate.

Where the problem comes in is when people try to make too much of individual month over month changes. Those are of course very noisy because derived month over month changes are very small compared to the total numbers which are being measured. A very small revision to the total numbers can mean a substantial revision for a given month over month change. That's why the BLS is clear that there's a large confidence interval (for month over month changes) that should be considered and that changes which don't fall outside that confidence interval shouldn't be considered statistical significant. Pundits and advocates, of course, can't be bothered to mention such things when doing so wouldn't further the narratives they're peddling.

All that said, the quick reporting from the BLS (followed by refinement as time goes on) is still quite valuable I think. We should just take it for what its worth, and what it's actually claimed to be, rather then trying to make too much of single data points. Even considering a confidence interval of, e.g., +/-130,000, a reported change of +150,000 suggests something different than a reported change of -50,000 does. And reported monthly changes trending up or down over several months likely accurately tells us something we might want to know.

If anything the annual benchmarking process confirms the reliability of the sampling process. Given the nature of the data initially available, and the need for modeling related to new business creation and existing business closure, the numbers turn out to be pretty accurate.

I would like to ask a question (of everyone interested) though. To the extent we think any of this innacurate-to-be-revised-later reporting is deliberate, which way is an intentionally initially better (to be revised worse later) number supposed to cut? Is it to make the presiding administration look better or worse? Because I'm hearing conflicting takes on this. Initially higher numbers, later revised lower, apparently mean one thing (or nothing at all) when it happens under President Trump. But they mean the opposite when they happen under President Biden?

[jb]

I would like to ask a question (of everyone interested) though. To the extent we think any of this innacurate-to-be-revised-later reporting is deliberate, which way is an intentionally initially better (to be revised worse later) number supposed to cut? Is it to make the presiding administration look better or worse? Because I'm hearing conflicting takes on this. Initially higher numbers, later revised lower, apparently mean one thing (or nothing at all) when it happens under President Trump. But they mean the opposite when they happen under President Biden?

You're hearing conflicting takes because it's all political nonsense. As you point out, no one's even making an attempt to appear logically consistent. They just apply their partisan lens to whatever the data is.

[Tilted]

Yeah, as an example of how logically inconsistent the rhetorical takes specifically related to this issue have been I'd make this point (which I alluded to in the previous post).

You've probably heard the suggestion that the Biden Administration intentionally over reported payrolls numbers to make him look better before the election only to have a huge downward revision to them (for the period through March 2024) be reported after the election in February 2025. The problem with that suggestion is that the revision reported in February 2025 was actually an upward change from the preliminary revision which had been reported in September 2024 - just a couple months before the election.

So, if we're gonna assume intentionality, it would seem someone at the BLS was trying make President Biden look bad by suggesting that fewer jobs had been created under him than what was ultimately determined to be the case.

[Michael P]

Thumbs on scales can only go so far before the owner of the thumb gets caught.

[John 4]

This response is absolutely hilarious and sad.

[jb]

Such a clever response that it does not actually have anything to do with what Tilted wrote.

[Michael P]

Maybe you can learn how noisy measurements work while you're learning that H-1B is not the only visa for temporary foreign workers coming to the US.

[jb]

Not sure if you're missing Tilted's point entirely or just trying to distract from it. Maybe I can simplify it for you: if the exact same people say that downward revisions during the Biden administration reflect pro-Biden bias and that downward revisions during the Trump administration reflect anti-Trump bias, it's probably not the measurements that are biased.

[Michael P]

Who is suggesting that the measurements are biased?

I think you're the one who is missing the point.

[jb]

Hey, current Michael P. Please meet Michael P from 4 hours ago:

Thumbs on scales can only go so far before the owner of the thumb gets caught.

[bernard11]

Who is suggesting that the measurements are biased?

Well, you, Brett, XY, for starters.

[Michael P]

Today in continuing language education for jb: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor

[jb]

Seriously, dude, stop digging.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thumb_on_the_scale

An act of bias or a tactic for cheating which creates a situation that unfairly benefits one party involved in an interaction.

(my emphasis)

Yes, it's a metaphor. For bias.

Or maybe let's step back: It seems like you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. If there's a point that you're trying to make, it seems like no one else has any clue what it is.

[Michael P]

jb now pretends not to understand that bias occurs in more places than measurements. Maybe jb should get a real argument instead of relying on a straw man.

One doesn't have to support the DIE conception of systemic bias to believe that some systems and mechanisms have bias in places other than measurements.

[Sarcastr0]

bias occurs in more places than measurements

Explain more what are you talking about with this.

I don't see much daylight between the measurement and the published number.

Being condescending doesn't actually paper over having no substantive explanation; it actually underscores that failure.

[Kazinski]

What I was proposing was reporting the data differently to make it clear that its a gross estimate, not firm figure.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a pretty good point I had missed -

It's taken as a signal of bad faith if the numbers are revised up OR if the numbers are revised down.

That is amusingly overdetermined.

Are you an economist? Your explanation is pretty good! I will admit I had to be lead through the methodology explanation by my economist wife. Stats have never been that intuitive for me.

[Tilted]

I'm not an economist, at least not by profession.

But I pre-retired from real work at a very young age and started day trading and investing in stocks as something to do to pretend I still had a job. That, and an inclination to tear things apart to figure out how they worked, led me to diving deep into how various economic measures work and what they actually mean.

[Keldonric]

Thanks, Tilted. You’ve engaged the mechanics here more than almost anyone else I’ve seen. I’ve posted my own commentary with cites and links back to the BLS CES site, and yeah — sometimes it feels like howling into the void. But keep it up. You’re doing the Lord’s work by being substantive.

[Tilted]

You're welcome and thanks to you as well.

[Nelson]

Seconded. These days there is a distressing level of “it’s persecution of Trump, no matter what the facts say” or strawmen or “you support [insert thing I don’t support here].

Having someone willing to post detailed and factual information, especially on economics, is yeoman’s work. And greatly appreciated.

[Tilted]

The first paragraph should indicate that the preliminary revision of -818,000 was released in September 2024, not in September 2025.

[Joe_dallas]

I dont have a take on whether politics drives the BLS revisions or not (most likely not)
That being said, the statistical sampling problems have existed for at least the last 10 years with a combination of low response rates, poor sampling techniques, expansion of sample size to offset the low response rates (which actually makes the statistical validity worse). I have been completing the job survey for 3 of my clients, which due to the type business activity are very poor samples for use in a job survey.

[Tilted]

I wouldn't consider the ultimate response rate abysmal (as I think you stated in a different comment), considering the huge size of, and variety of circumstances within, the targeted sample and that in most of the country it's voluntary for the private entities being asked. It has no doubt declined substantially since The Covid Experience though.

That said, what would you suggest to increase the response rate? Making it mandatory? Compensating respondents? Other?

[Joe_dallas]

I dont know how to resolve or improve the statistical validity of the sample. That being said, the agency inertia with the continuation of the same problems , is reason to terminate the head of the BLS

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oddly, Trump justified it using a completely different reason:

"On social media Trump claimed that Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), had "RIGGED" jobs figures "to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad"."

[Joe_dallas]

Spam - I am not stating the mcenarfer goosed the numbers, primarly because the bls has at least a 10 year history of bad statistical methodology, though the two years in a row of large downward adjustments certainly give the appearance of goosing the numbers.

[Randal]

So probably a better way to report the data is 147,000 ± 52% new jobs...

No, Kaz, that's not the way math nor statistics work. Error percentages don't apply to deltas, they apply to absolutes. If the weather forecaster says that today is going to be two degrees hotter than yesterday and it turns out to be four degrees hotter, that's still a pretty accurate forecast. It's not "100% wrong."

[Kazinski]

If they are reporting the delta, then they should report the expected error percentage for the data they are reporting.

If they report on the total number of jobs it should be something like "159,545,000 jobs ±.2%" but if they are reporting the delta it should be "147,000 new jobs ±52%".

After all they just revised average number of new jobs per month from 147k to 71k lowering it by 52%.

[Randal]

No, they should absolutely not do that. What if the jobs were revised from +1000 to +50,000?

What if they were revised from +1000 to -50,000?

A percentage of a delta is meaningless. The government should absolutely not report meaningless stats.

+1000 ±50,000 is fine.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the lawsuits challenging President Trump's authority to unilaterally impose tariffs and has put the matter on a fast track, with oral argument scheduled for early November. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/090925zr1_hejm.pdf

This will tell us whether SCOTUS is or is not totally in the tank for Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

It will tell you no such thing = This will tell us whether SCOTUS is or is not totally in the tank for Trump.

[not guilty]

This case will tell us whether the constitutional separation of powers means anything to SCOTUS or not. Even in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, (2024), Trump's handmaid John Roberts opined that "No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily 'stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. Youngstown [Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,] 343 U.S. [579,] 585 [(1952).]"

[Commenter_XY]

NG, the case will tell me whether the Justices have any common sense or not. I don't think the Justices will sign up for an economy crash caused by extreme uncertainty rolling back trillions in economic structural changes b/c of a judicial decision.

There is an element of pragmatism in constitutional interpretation, no?

[OpinionsVary]

Let's say rather than use the IEEPA, Trump has said 'on my executive power as the president, I'm creating these tariffs.' No Act of Congress, just a claim the President can do this now. Would you still argue the SCOTUS should just pragmatically shrug and guess tariff power belongs to the President now? Would the damage be so great they just have to accept this?

I think the answer's no. And if the answer is no, why is the answer different just because Trump gestures vaguely at a law that doesn't even mention tariffs?

[SRG2]

Would you still argue the SCOTUS should just pragmatically shrug and guess tariff power belongs to the President now?

If the president were Trump, absolutely XY would so argue.

[jb]

Are you just trolling now? This can't be a serious response.

First, Trump himself changes the tariffs on a whim. A consistent problem with his tariff "policy" is that no one can guess what tariffs are going to be on any given country a few months from now. He's paused and unpaused massive tariff changes over and over again. If uncertainty about tariff policy was going to crash the economy, Trump would be the #1 culprit and it should be happening already.

Second, the theory here is that if the President does an illegal thing that's big enough, the Supreme Court just has to defer to it? This creates an incredibly perverse incentive to do illegal things in the biggest way possible. And to the extent the courts wanted to preserve their review role at all, it would mean that there should be a much stronger bias towards injunctions that preserve the status quo to prevent this sort of dilemma.

[bernard11]

It's astonishing that you worry about uncertainty and yet back Trump. His random changes are responsible for a hell of a lot of uncertainty, but that doesn't bother you.

I'd say if they throw out the tariffs they are restoring stability. And it won't create a crash. How could it?

Do you think it's a good idea for a President to impose trillions in taxes on Americans with no authority whatsoever, based on his whims and ignorance of how tariffs work?

I guess you do. Trump did it, so it must be OK. Right, XY.

This will tell us whether SCOTUS is or is not totally in the tank for Trump.

Not entirely. If they throw out the tariffs, but let the birthright EO stand I'd still say they are in the tank.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump reordered the entire world's trade rules in less than 90 days. After telling Wall Street (and the electorate) for the last two years that is what he would do = tariffs and reorder trade r'ships. There was no uncertainty on what he would do. The only uncertainty was Congress. Once OBBB was passed, the 'shock and awe' portion was over. We are talking Apr-Jun....Pffft.

What was the S&P 500 on January 21? 5870. And where is it today? 6530. Maybe you and fellow travelers see some instability that the rest of us don't.

SCOTUS will finesse this one. They won't roll back what a democratically elected POTUS puts into place (with no meaningful Congressional pushback) vis a vis economic policy. They have common sense.

[Stephen Lathrop]

This case will tell us whether the constitutional separation of powers means anything to SCOTUS or not.

I predict SCOTUS will do no such thing. It will instead deliver some muddle which leaves unclear what Trump's tariff power is, while making the Court's authority weaker than before.

If I were dramatically wrong, and the Court ruled Congress owns the entire tariff power, and cannot delegate any of it—which will not happen—can any MAGA identify any harm that would do to the nation?

[Martinned]

This will tell us whether SCOTUS is or is not totally in the tank for Trump.

You mean after it already gave him complete immunity from any consequences that might follow from any illegal activity?

[Brett Bellmore]

It did not do that, of course.

"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts"

[Martinned]

That's just a lot of words for "Trump can do whatever he likes", and you know it. Anytime someone points at something and suggests it might be an "unofficial act", we will all miraculously discover (after years of litigation) that it isn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's a lot of words for "You can't prosecute a President for exercising the powers of his office, but if he does shoot somebody on 5th avenue, knock yourself out."

Look, there's no point in lying about what the Court ruled. Just because you assume it's all pretext and if Trump actually DOES shoot somebody on 5th avenue they'll rationalize that it's an official act doesn't change what they actually ruled.

And what they actually ruled falls well short of absolute immunity for absolutely anything.

[Martinned]

LOL, he's the commander in chief of the armed forces, and can seemingly send the armed forces into any city he likes. Why on earth would you think that shooting someone on 5th avenue isn't an official act?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and Obama had US citizens murdered, and got away with it because they weren't on US soil at the time. Whether a President could get away with murdering a US citizen on US soil is something I'd rather remained undetermined, though I privately suspect it has already happened more than once.

But the Court did not rule as you said, and that's unambiguous.

[Sarcastr0]

But Obama!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, Presidents murdering American citizens isn't purely hypothetical, news at 11.

[Don Nico]

BUT your typical bullshit!

[bernard11]

It doesn't take Brett years of litigation. He will pronounce it an official act immediately, as will the other cultists here.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
That is a unfalsifiable assertion.

[bernard11]

Don,

Not really. I mean we can wait and see what Brett does. That's a pretty good test, ISTM.

Anyway, yes, there was some hyperbole there, but I think it's clear from his comments that Brett is a reflexive defender of Trump, and I based my prediction on his comment history.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 4 hours ago

"You mean after it already gave him complete immunity from any consequences that might follow from any illegal activity?"

Martin - repeating a false statement does not make the false statement true. Absolutely nothing in the SC opinion said a president's has immunity from illegal activity.

[Martinned]

LOL, that's one way around it. But if Trump does it, it isn't illegal (because Calvinball), so I guess we'll never know. (Or at least not until someday there's a non-Trumpist in the White House again.)

[Joe_dallas]

Your original statement is false - your response is a continuation of that false premise. Nor does your attempted justification absolve your of your original lie

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why would the president require immunity for legal activity?

[Joe_dallas]

he doesnt - just the repeated statement by leftists that the president has immunity from illegal activity is absolute BS. most every leftist knows that statement is not true, yet its gets repeated by leftists frequently

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So he doesn't have immunity for illegal activity?

They say, on the internet, nobody knows you're a goldfish...but...

[Joe_dallas]

ObviouslyNotSpam 2 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
So he doesn't have immunity for illegal activity?

Obviousnotspam - The only ones making that discredited claim are idiot leftists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because the process is the punishment, obviously, and if he could be put through the wringer over legal activities, it scarcely would matter if he won every single court fight.

[David Nieporent]

One can only have immunity for illegal activity. If it's legal, the immunity is superfluous.

[SRG2]

Possibly two votes for the idea of implicit delegation - that is, if the president act as though he'd been delegated authority that he had not explicitly been delegated, but Congress has not acted to stop him in any reasonable time, why, they have implicitly delegated that authority consistent with history and tradition.

Possibly another two or three votes for the idea that the president has the delegated authority from some other combination of acts and that he wrongly used IEEPA as justification doesn't make his actions unconstitutional.

[loki13]

My goodness, do you remember the caterwauling about Obama and the so-called Imperial Presidency and governing through executive order? I do! From some of the people here- you know, the same ones that constantly said that Obama was going to use troops on Americans, or was federalizing state law, or was ... I dunno, rounding people off the streets and putting them in camps? Probably with jackbooted and masked federal agents?

It would be funny if it wasn't sad. It just shows you that there were never any principles at stake. It's just pure spite.

[Keldonric]

Didn't executive orders start as internal memos? Now it seems they’ve turned into more of a public performance. With policymaking seeming to shift into the executive branch over time, the theater at least makes it visible.

[Don Nico]

Loki,
"do you remember ...the so-called Imperial Presidency."
Indeed I do and the impulse and execution have been a ratchet with any caterwauling arising from partisan considerations.

[loki13]

Nope.

Look, I get the whole "You only care about your own ox blah blah blah" (Orin Kerr had a perfect post about this) ...

But this is ridiculous. Look, I get that here, I come off as some type of uber-liberal, which would probably shock a lot of people that know me. In a perfect world, I'd vote for the party that promises to start doing SOMETHING about the deficit, commit to doing nothing nothing for two years (barring emergency) other than going back through the laws we already have and revising and streamlining them (reduce redtape and regulations ... but in an actual sensible manner, and using insulated expert committees that are firewalled from lobbyists and special interest groups, with revisions to be voted on in large batches on an up--or-down basis to avoid logrolling and amendments), and work to restore both legislative primacy and a concentration on local and regional issues instead of trying to nationalize every single friggin' debate.

But that, and $10, gets me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. So instead, I'm stuck with the position of, "You know what's not great? Installing an Imperial President who holds Cabinet Meetings that would make Kim Jung Un blush and say, 'Y'all laying it on a little thick, aren't you?' who thinks foreign policy is best described as 'Using tariffs to extort countries to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Price and destroying alliances that took bipartisan support and scores of decades to build,' and thinks domestic policy is best described as, 'Using extortion against our companies, and federal troops against our citizens."

I know. Crazy liberal! But I don't think that's a partisan issue. Because do you know why I liked the Biden Administration? It wasn't the policies. They ranged from "meh," to "kinda sucks." I liked it because it was boring. That's how politics should be - boring.

Because the best things in life? A beer with friends. Good BBQ. Coaching high school kids. Watching football on a Sunday afternoon. Mango season.

Those things are best enjoyed with no politics, and not having some lying narcissist who is so needy for attention that if he manages to stay silent for a few days and doesn't cause some new crisis that people will assume he died.

[Don Nico]

Loki,
I actually was not criticizing you at all with my comment. Al I said is that the Imperial Presidency is a long-standing ratchet in our system of government and that people only complain when their party does not hold the Presidency.

[Bob from Ohio]

Loki just knee jerks such a response when anyone contradicts him. He is all knowing and wise, everybody knows.

[Jmaie]

"commit to doing nothing nothing for two years (barring emergency) other than going back through the laws we already have and revising and streamlining them"

I joking suggested to my wife that I should run for congress with the promise to essentially keep the status quo, to allow time for the country to normalize. I would support neither massive new anything nor major dismantling of anything. I would publish a fairly extensive list of policy preferences and commit (if elected) to always vote according to those principals. In such cases where I was unable to keep said promise, I would publish my reasons well in advance of any vote. Up to the voters to decide whether they approved.

I would of course never get elected on such a platform, I think both major parties would join in funding any opponent.

[David Nieporent]

you know, the same ones that constantly said that Obama was going to use troops on Americans,

Jade Helm!

[Keldonric]

I don’t think tariff rates should ever be set by the executive. Article I puts the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” squarely in Congress. Tariffs are taxes on imports — period.

The executive’s role is to carry out the law, not to decide who pays how much. If Congress wants flexibility, it can write schedules with explicit triggers. But delegating the taxing power out of convenience isn’t pragmatism, it’s abandoning responsibility.

I know it’s not the most pragmatic view, but that’s how I see it.

To be honest, I take the same view of “plenary power.” If it’s not explicitly delegated in the Constitution, then there’s no authority to exercise. Everything else belongs to the states or the people.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They sped things along. As they didn't for the Trump immunity & financial cases. They can go fast when it suits.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How does the Federal death penalty deal with mental illness.

That savage in Charlotte needs to die.
Sane people don't murder pretty little girls.

[sopij16501]

moot point. there are enough white liberals, joggers, beaners and other genetic defectives to get a democrat in office over the next 20 years, and he'll commute all death sentences the way the faggot joe biden did.

[not guilty]

Per 18 U.S.C. § 17:

(a) Affirmative Defense.—
It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.

(b) Burden of Proof.—
The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

This statute was enacted in the wake of John Hinckley's acquittal in the shooting of President Reagan.

In the event of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, 18 U.S.C. § 4243 provides:

(a) Determination of Present Mental Condition of Acquitted Person.—
If a person is found not guilty only by reason of insanity at the time of the offense charged, he shall be committed to a suitable facility until such time as he is eligible for release pursuant to subsection (e).

(b) Psychiatric or Psychological Examination and Report.—
Prior to the date of the hearing, pursuant to subsection (c), the court shall order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(b) and (c).

(c) Hearing.—
A hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d) and shall take place not later than forty days following the special verdict.

(d) Burden of Proof.—
In a hearing pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, a person found not guilty only by reason of insanity of an offense involving bodily injury to, or serious damage to the property of, another person, or involving a substantial risk of such injury or damage, has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect. With respect to any other offense, the person has the burden of such proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

(e) Determination and Disposition.—If, after the hearing, the court fails to find by the standard specified in subsection (d) of this section that the person’s release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect, the court shall commit the person to the custody of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall release the person to the appropriate official of the State in which the person is domiciled or was tried if such State will assume responsibility for his custody, care, and treatment. The Attorney General shall make all reasonable efforts to cause such a State to assume such responsibility. If, notwithstanding such efforts, neither such State will assume such responsibility, the Attorney General shall hospitalize the person for treatment in a suitable facility until—

(1) such a State will assume such responsibility; or
(2) the person’s mental condition is such that his release, or his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another;

whichever is earlier. The Attorney General shall continue periodically to exert all reasonable efforts to cause such a State to assume such responsibility for the person’s custody, care, and treatment.

(f) Discharge.—When the director of the facility in which an acquitted person is hospitalized pursuant to subsection (e) determines that the person has recovered from his mental disease or defect to such an extent that his release, or his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The clerk shall send a copy of the certificate to the person’s counsel and to the attorney for the Government. The court shall order the discharge of the acquitted person or, on the motion of the attorney for the Government or on its own motion, shall hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine whether he should be released. If, after the hearing, the court finds by the standard specified in subsection (d) that the person has recovered from his mental disease or defect to such an extent that—

(1) his release would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, the court shall order that he be immediately discharged; or
(2) his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another, the court shall—

(A) order that he be conditionally discharged under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment that has been prepared for him, that has been certified to the court as appropriate by the director of the facility in which he is committed, and that has been found by the court to be appropriate; and

(B) order, as an explicit condition of release, that he comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.

The court at any time may, after a hearing employing the same criteria, modify or eliminate the regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.

(g) Revocation of Conditional Discharge.—
The director of a medical facility responsible for administering a regimen imposed on an acquitted person conditionally discharged under subsection (f) shall notify the Attorney General and the court having jurisdiction over the person of any failure of the person to comply with the regimen. Upon such notice, or upon other probable cause to believe that the person has failed to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, the person may be arrested, and, upon arrest, shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the court having jurisdiction over him. The court shall, after a hearing, determine whether the person should be remanded to a suitable facility on the ground that, in light of his failure to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, his continued release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another.

(h) Limitations on Furloughs.—An individual who is hospitalized under subsection (e) of this section after being found not guilty only by reason of insanity of an offense for which subsection (d) of this section creates a burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, may leave temporarily the premises of the facility in which that individual is hospitalized only—

(1) with the approval of the committing court, upon notice to the attorney for the Government and such individual, and after opportunity for a hearing;
(2) in an emergency; or
(3) when accompanied by a Federal law enforcement officer (as defined in section 115 of this title).

(i) Certain Persons Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity in the District of Columbia.—

(1) Transfer to custody of the attorney general.—
Notwithstanding section 301(h) of title 24 of the District of Columbia Code, and notwithstanding subsection 4247(j) of this title, all persons who have been committed to a hospital for the mentally ill pursuant to section 301(d)(1) of title 24 of the District of Columbia Code, and for whom the United States has continuing financial responsibility, may be transferred to the custody of the Attorney General, who shall hospitalize the person for treatment in a suitable facility.
(2) Application.—

(A) In general.—
The Attorney General may establish custody over such persons by filing an application in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, demonstrating that the person to be transferred is a person described in this subsection.
(B) Notice.—
The Attorney General shall, by any means reasonably designed to do so, provide written notice of the proposed transfer of custody to such person or such person’s guardian, legal representative, or other lawful agent. The person to be transferred shall be afforded an opportunity, not to exceed 15 days, to respond to the proposed transfer of custody, and may, at the court’s discretion, be afforded a hearing on the proposed transfer of custody. Such hearing, if granted, shall be limited to a determination of whether the constitutional rights of such person would be violated by the proposed transfer of custody.
(C) Order.—
Upon application of the Attorney General, the court shall order the person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General, unless, pursuant to a hearing under this paragraph, the court finds that the proposed transfer would violate a right of such person under the United States Constitution.
(D) Effect.—Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to—

(i) create in any person a liberty interest in being granted a hearing or notice on any matter;
(ii) create in favor of any person a cause of action against the United States or any officer or employee of the United States; or
(iii)limit in any manner or degree the ability of the Attorney General to move, transfer, or otherwise manage any person committed to the custody of the Attorney General.

(3) Construction with other sections.—
Subsections (f) and (g) and section 4247 shall apply to any person transferred to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to this subsection.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice nested block quotes!

[Riva]

Clownish. Why don’t you just cut and paste the entire US Criminal Code?

[Bwaaah]

Copy/paste doesn't include the "blockquote" tags. He'd have to add them manually.

His formatting is impeccable.

[Riva]

That he would go through extra effort in this pointless exercise only further beclowns him.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only a fake bot would bemoan excellence.

[Riva]

Only an idiot would think cut and pasting the entire statute was somehow insightful. Only an asshole would parrot vile dehumanizing insults.

[David Nieporent]

Don't be stupid. Riva is a real bot, not a fake one.

[Riva]

Ever wonder why the vile dehumanizing insults the left loves are so vile? It operates as an excuse justifying just about any acts against the others so labeled. Kind of an old story that plays out today. With the racist fuck who targeted the Ukrainian refugee and other reprehensible acts too numerous to mention. In case you can't tell, because I hide it so well, I don't like you fuckers too much.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There's no need for insults, Dave.

I'm entitled to my opinion that Crimea Riva is not a real bot, but a fake bot--even if it's not a real opinion, but a fake one. But it isn't!

[David Nieporent]

The bot has adamantly rejected the notion of providing factual or legal support for any claims the bot posts, so it's hardly surprising the bot would sneer at other people doing so.

[Riva]

And here I was just using "crazy" to mock you but it turns out you really are disturbed, aren't you crazy Dave?

[not guilty]

"Clownish. Why don’t you just cut and paste the entire US Criminal Code?"

Uh, Dr. Ed 2's question was "How does the Federal death penalty deal with mental illness." I merely pointed out when mental disease or defect does or does not constitute a defense. Quoting the relevant statute is the best way to describe that.

I also pointed out the consequences which attach to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. The applicable statute in that case defies easy summary, so I quoted it in full.

Statutes matter, Riva.

I could have pointed out that the accused's mental disease or defect, which does not rise to the level of insanity, can be considered in mitigation as a reason not to impose the death penalty, but my comment was lengthy enough already.

I would add here that sentencing a mentally retarded defendant to death is unconstitutional per se under the Eighth Amendment according to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), and its progeny.

[not guilty]

I realize that use of the phrase "mentally retarded" is currently frowned upon, but that is the language employed by SCOTUS in Atkins.

[hobie]

Laken Riley
Iryna Zarutska
Tiny Microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt

What do the deceased have in common? What do the killers have in common?

Nothing gets the white supremacist hayseeds as riled up as a little wolf whistle Emmett Till action

[Frank Drackman]

If Cancer can be caused by Telekinesis better find a good Oncologist, I'm sure your "Hood" is full of them.

[hobie]

I live three blocks from the Cleveland Clinic, Frankie. Plenty of real doctors in there

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knew the Cleveland Clinic was located in the hood?

[hobie]

All of Cleveland is a hood...including all the surroundings of the Clinic

[Mr. Bumble]

So your claim to be a white hood rat is bullshit like the rest of your comments?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Who knew the Cleveland Clinic was located in the hood?"

It borders run down areas, Hough to north, Fairfax to south so you could describe it as "in the hood". Hough and Fairfax are not bad by Cleveland standards though.

[Nelson]

Anyone who’s ever looked into it. It’s a well-known reality. Temple’s medical facilities are the same way in Philly.

Just because it’s a good hospital doesn’t mean it’s in a good neighborhood.

[Frank Drackman]

They got a cure for Glioblastoma yet?

[Riva]

The better question is why the left either ignores the murder of a Ukrainan refugee who was targeted because of her race by a career criminal or tries to discredit anyone calling attention to the vile racist crime. Because the left is comprised of contemptible bastards. Some more contemptible than others. But all bastards to some degree.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If only Putin had dropped a bomb on her, instead...

[Riva]

Some more contemptible than others. And some are world class bastards. But you know that already.

[Riva]

On the other hand, OBVIOUSLYNOTSPAM, I do appreciate your honesty. Most leftists are contemptibly silent. You actually give voice to the left's true views. You don't give a shit that an innocent Ukrainian refugee was brutally murdered by the racist career criminal. You even find amusement in her death. Your real issue is that anyone would call attention to the murder.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I am not a leftist, my fake bot friend. Try again?

[Riva]

However you prefer to identify your asshole self, as noted above, you don't give a shit that an innocent Ukrainian refugee was brutally murdered by the racist career criminal. You even find amusement in her death. Your real issue is that anyone would call attention to the murder.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is this what they call a "hallucination"?

No, I happen to think the murder of any Ukrainian citizen, whether in the US or the UE is wrong, unamusing and inexcusable, so it is not clear how you have jumped to a contrary conclusion without any supporting evidence whatsoever. (That is, I note, something no self-respecting LLM bot would ever do.)

[Riva]

Bovine Scatology. I guess I was mislead by your jokes about her death. Not even the integrity to acknowledge your own comments. Just more lying bullshit. Truly a disgrace, A dishonest disgrace.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

My comment was not a joke. Putin has systematically murdered tens of thousands of innocent Ukrainian civilians during his three-year illegal war of aggression, and yet for you and your ilk, the only important Ukrainian was the one randomly murdered by a seemingly mentally ill black person in the US. It's disgusting.

[Riva]

It wasn’t “random” you lying POS. She was targeted because of her race. A thing not deserving of respect or life to the racist career criminal that targeted her. I should be more measured in responses like Charlie Kirk but it’s a difficult task dealing with dishonest assholes like you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"She said she talked to her brother after his arrest and asked him why he attacked the woman on the train.

“Because she was reading my mind,” he told her."

[Riva]

"I got that white girl" said the killer, who later removed his bloody hoodie to better hide himself. I wonder if other delusional racist killers are keenly aware of their actions and take steps to avoid detection?

[David Nieporent]

who was targeted because of her race

Is that what the bot has been programmed to claim?

career criminal

More made-up talking points.

[Riva]

You need therapy, not page links.

[Bob from Ohio]

Libertarians always back criminals.

You can't be a "career criminal" if you have 14 arrests and multiple convictions, everybody has those.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do libertarians "always" back convicted criminal Donald J. Trump?

[David Nieporent]

Arrests are not, in fact, crimes.

[ThePublius]

There is audio of him saying, immediately after he killed her that he "got that white girl."

Yes, he was a career criminal. If you have a definition of career criminal that he doesn't fit, let's here it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Please post a url to the video of Emmitt Till brutally murdering a woman less than half his size.

[SRG2]

So you would favour executing the mentally ill.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I favor executing sub-human killers like this.

[Frank Drackman]

when they commit brutal crimes? absolutely

[Bob from Ohio]

Right. I don't see the issue here.

[Don Nico]

They don't murder ugly girls or boys or even older folks.
What is you point Mr. Ed?

[Dr. Ed 2]

At what point does a DC like Boston's Mayor Wooo get arrested?

[Martinned]

When he and the people of Boston "yield" to the armed forces, the way the Speaker of the House of Representatives wants them to.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
If you are going to comment on local U.S. politics, at least get the mayor's gender correct.

[not guilty]

"At what point does a DC like Boston's Mayor Wooo [sic] get arrested?"

What statute(s) do you contend that the mayor has violated? And what do you mean by "a DC"?

[Frank Drackman]

Try 18 U.S. Code § 1072

[not guilty]

What do you contend that Mayor Wu has done in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1072? That statute provides:

Whoever willfully harbors or conceals any prisoner after his escape from the custody of the Attorney General or from a Federal penal or correctional institution, shall be imprisoned not more than three years.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Dumb" is only half a word.

[Michael P]

By similar token, is the second half of your name "eot"?

[Mr. Bumble]

"iot"?

[Bwaaah]

That would be my guess, but not a sure one. I'm gonna keep working this one in my head so if it ever gets clarified, it'll still be too late.

[Michael P]

Edeot, by analogy with idiot. Spelling it "Ediot" would make him neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.

[bernard11]

Why would she get arrested, and why does Trump want to send the NG to Boston?

Not to fight crime. Boston is one of the safest cities in the country.

I guess it's just showing off his power. Asshole.

[Keldonric]

There’s no criminal statute here — which is why DOJ brought a civil suit. They’re testing whether Boston’s Trust Act crosses from lawful non-cooperation into obstruction. Until a court rules otherwise, it’s a policy fight, not grounds for arrest. That’s pretty much it.

[David Nieporent]

DC? Is that the latest MAGA ethnic slur? I'm unfamiliar with it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tomorrow is Sept 11th

[Martinned]

Well spotted. Good to know you can use a calendar.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I did have some doubts on that score, after some of the things he's posted.

[Frank Drackman]

(what I'd say if that remark was directed at me)
"Too bad you can't use Soap"
and go ahead, give me your response, it's AlGores Interwebs, you can use AI, Youtubes,
and I'll still murder you (figuratively) with my counterpunch,
so go ahead, say something, I dare you, I double dog dare you, I Triple Rabid Foaming at the Mouth Dog-Dare you!!!

Frink

[Bob from Ohio]

"Good to know you can use a calendar."

You are just a jerk. He meant it is the anniversary of the destruction of the world trade centers.

[Martinned]

It's also the anniversary of lots of other things, like Lindbergh's Des Moines speech (see below), and Pinochet's US-sponsored coup d'état in Chile.

[David Nieporent]

Tomorrow is Sept 11th

Today is September 10, and we should mark our calendars as it's the first time since 2017 that Dr. Ed made a statement that was actually verifiably true.

[Bob from Ohio]

Another jerk.

[Commenter_XY]

Report: Hamas leaders Khaled Mashal, Nizar Awadallah & Zaher Jabarin killed in Doha

Let's hope so. No human animal that belongs to hamas is safe, no matter where they are.

[Martinned]

You realise they were there to do peace negotiations with Israel, right?

[Commenter_XY]

The negotiations are over, eurotrash.

Only death and misery await hamas.

[Martinned]

They are now, definitely.

[Brett Bellmore]

They were over before they began, Hamas has no history of actually complying with the results of negotiations.

[Martinned]

Brett Bellmore, ladies and gentlemen! Well-known expert on the Middle-East, who knows much more about Hamas than [checks notes] the Israeli government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Gaza_war_ceasefire

[Frank Drackman]

"Were" is the operative word in that sentence.

[Bwaaah]

Martinned: "You realise [Hamas leaders] were there to do peace negotiations with Israel, right?"

You know Hamas' position on Israel, right?

[Martinned]

I do. What does that have to do with the sovereignty of Qatar?

[Bwaaah]

Nothing. But it has everything to do with your remark, which falsely represented Hamas's purpose in being there.

[Bwaaah]

[Martinned]

So the negotiations that actually took place are a figment of everyone's imagination?

[Bwaaah]

And as a simple exercise, please state very briefly (i.e. in one sentence) what Hamas's position is regarding the state we call "Israel." ("Peace" is an interesting characterization.)

Dance, Obfuscation Boy! Dance!

[Don Nico]

That does not excuse their crime against humanity.

[Joe_dallas]

commenter - fwiw - there was a report this morning i saw that the meeting in doha broke up 10-15 minutes before the attack. Thus conflicting info as to whether they got killed. (with the caveat that I not seen any report that would verify either way at this time)

[Kazinski]

Reports are a Trump aide warned Qatar before the strike, but somehow the warning wasn't passed on.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-decision-strike-qatar-was-made-by-netanyahu-not-by-us-president-2025-09-09/

"Leon: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping? Holden: I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?"

[Martinned]

With allies like that, who needs enemies?

[Don Nico]

Martin, you certainly missed the point, purposefully.

[Martinned]

Not at all. Qatar allows the US to have an enormous airforce base on its territory, it pays the US billions for weapons, and it bribed Trump personally to the tune of billions more, and it still got attacked by the closest ally of the US. So at this point they must be wondering what the point is of being friends with the US.

[Martinned]

I see we've reached peak "one set of rules for me, another set of rules of thee" again.

No, you can't drop a bomb on a country - particularly a country that is supposed to be your ally - just because one of your enemies is there.

Remember, Mousa Abu Marzook lived in the US from 1982-1997. During that time it would have been most definitely illegal for Israel to drop a bomb on him while he was walking down the street in downtown Springfield, Va. The proper approach is to ask for his extradition, which is what Israel did.

Likewise, Tayyip Erdogan's late nemesis Fethullah Gülen lived in the US from 1999 until his death last year. Again, it would have been in no way legal for Turkey to launch a strike against him during that period. The fact that the US refused to extradite him doesn't change that.

Is it really so hard to understand that the point of the law is that it is the same for friend and foe?

[hobie]

We bomb first and ask questions later all the time. I think hayseeds have been squawking for years about Obama bombing arabs. Now we're bombing brown people in boats in the Caribbean. You Dutch should try it. It's very entertaining.

[Martinned]

It's less entertaining when part of your country is within slingshot-shooting distance from the Venzuelan mainland.

[Don Nico]

"We bomb first and ask questions later all the time."
Indeed we (and others) do.

[Riva]

I guess Hamas should have thought about the consequences of their actions before launching their barbaric antisemitic war. Maybe torturing hostages to death and continuously targeting Israeli civilians is not the best tactic right now for Hamas? Israel tends to take seriously efforts to exterminate jews.

[Bob from Ohio]

"country that is supposed to be your ally "

Qatar is not an "ally" of Israel. Smoking crack today?

[Martinned]

It is (theoretically) an ally of the US, which didn't lift a finger to prevent it from being attacked by another US ally.

[Don Nico]

Qatar is not an ally of the State of Israel.
The law, per se, the same for friend and foe. Whether the target's country of location does not than make a display of protest varies with circumstances.
Think about Jamal Khashoggi. How did that affect Türkiye and KSA relations after the fact.

[Martinned]

Saudi-Turkish relations were pretty bad for a while. At the same time, the situation isn't quite comparable, because Saudi didn't drop a bomb on Turkey to kill him. It chose a more surgical approach.

[Kazinski]

While I often come out as a 1st amendment hawk, I would like to say I am not an absolutist. In fact if the Democrats win the 2028 elections then I would support them imposing a countrywide universal Social Media ban.

In completely unrelated news, the Nepal government instituted a Social Media ban and hordes of GenZ rioters burned the State house and Parliament and the country's Communist Prime Minister fled the country.

"When the government moved to ban 26 social media platforms, including Facebook and YouTube, protests erupted with thousands of young people storming parliament in the capital Kathmandu on Monday. Several districts are now under a curfew.

A government minister said they lifted the ban after an emergency meeting late on Monday night to "address the demands of Gen Z".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp98n1eg443o

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has resigned amid Nepal's worst unrest in decades, as public anger mounts over the deaths of 19 anti-corruption protesters in clashes with police on Monday.

On Tuesday, crowds set fire to parliament in the capital Kathmandu, sending thick black smoke billowing into the sky. Government buildings and the houses of political leaders were attacked around the country."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0m4vjwrdwgo

[jb]

Broader context here was that the ban was put in place to stifle dissent over government corruption. It's not just a bunch of kids that are mad because they can't brainrot on TikTok.

[Martinned]

To keep you updated on things that have nothing to do with the US:

On Monday François Bayrou lost the confidence vote, as expected, and yesterday he formally tendered his resignation with the president. Macron appointed Sébastien Lecornu, the minister for the armed forces, as the new prime minister.

Unlike Gabriel Attal, who came originally from the social democrats, and Bayrou, who is a lifelong liberal in the European sense of the word, Lecornu was a member of the conservative party (the Republicans) before joining the government when Macron was first elected.

(Macron formed a new political movement, LREM, and attracted political talent from all sides. That was the whole point.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Lecornu

[Riva]

What phenomenal arrogance to believe anyone would need to rely on your news reports and facile political opinions. But thanks anyway supercilious clown.

[sopij16501]

it's not culture or education, you stupid joggers, it's your shitty genes.

https://nypost.com/2025/09/09/us-news/charlotte-train-slaughter-suspect-should-never-have-been-free-to-kill-ukrainian-refugee-his-brother-says/

[hobie]

Another red state criminal. But, hey, if you look at the crime blotters for South Carolina over the past month you'll see plenty of other white ladies killed by white men. Looks like there's a trend

[Brett Bellmore]

The outrage here wasn't the guy's color, it's that he shouldn't have been walking around free in the first place with a record like that.

Charlotte is in NORTH Carolina, by the way.

[Sarcastr0]

For a number of posters on here, it’s the race angle.

Either directly or deciding there’s a media coverup because of it.

This is gonna get worse before it gets better.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, that the media cover up stories that don't advance the narrative isn't something new. It's become something of a running joke that, if the media cover a crime and avoid mentioning the criminal's race, that tells you the criminal's race.

[Sarcastr0]

So it's also about race with you.

The folks that complain the left always makes it about race are the most eager to make it about race.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, for me it's about the fact that he was a lunatic with an extensive history of violent crime, and in any sane society wouldn't have been walking around free.

For the media, his race is why it didn't get the coverage a lurid crime like this would normally get.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's still about race.

Poor oppressed white people.

By your logic, here's the media covering up a white murder of black people:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/man-shot-killed-3-people-194444840.html?guccounter=1

This is a stupid game to play.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the sense that, if you complain about the Klan stringing somebody up, on account of objecting to murder, it's 'about race' because the Klan murdered people on the basis of race.

Can we agree that this dude shouldn't have, given his record, been walking around free?

[Bwaaah]

Don't try to make this *not* about race, Brettt. It *has* to be about race, or Sarc doesn't have a point.

(OK. I admit he wouldn't have a point even if this was about race.)

[Sarcastr0]

Weird choice of analogy.

But I'm challenging your facts.
There is no a media coverup.
You're creating a racial narrative out of nothing.

And I provided a counterexample to boot.

[Bwaaah]

Brett didn't create a racial narrative. He attempted to dispose of the racial narrative, but you won't permit that, because that's *your* narrative, not Brett's.

[David Nieporent]

an extensive history of violent crime

He was convicted of a violent crime — way short of murder, of course — over a decade ago. He served 5 years in prison and AFAICT hasn't been convicted of anything, violent or otherwise, since.

[Don Nico]

"This is gonna get worse before it gets better."
Once in a while even S_0 is correct.

[hobie]

Iowa now leads the nation in farm bankruptcies. Which is understandable. When you start a trade war with soybean farmers' #1 customer (China) and dismantle soybean farmers' #2 customer (USAID), that's gonna leave a lot of beans in the field, baby!

In unrelated news; Vance and Thiel started an equity platform called Acre Trader to buy up bankrupt farms for pennies to make themselves extra wealthy

[apedad]

Here's the Snopes article on Vance and Acre Trader.

Not much there.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/10/08/jd-vance-acretrader/

[Brett Bellmore]

As described it doesn't actually sound all that offensive.

[Martinned]

As a reminder, Europe is still under attack.

“Poland’s operational command announced early this morning on X that its forces and others were on alert after its airspace was violated.
A few hours later they posted that the alerted forces returned to standard readiness levels. They also thanked NATO’s Allied Air Command (AIRCOM) and the Netherlands’ air force, whose fighters responded and engaged potential threats to Allied territory.
This is the first time NATO aircrafts have engaged potential threats in Allied airspace.
The Netherlands and Poland were not, however, the only countries to respond. German Patriots in Poland were placed on alert, and an Italian airborne early warning aircraft and an aerial refueler from NATO’s Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft fleet was launched.
NATO, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, and all of Allied Command Operations is committed to defending every kilometre of NATO territory, including our airspace.”

Col. Martin L. O’Donnell, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe spokesperson

[Malika la Maize]

Trump sometimes emphasized that he was speaking literally, scoffing at critics who said he couldn’t end the war that fast. “I’ll get that done within 24 hours. Everyone says, ‘Oh, no, you can’t.’ Absolutely I can. Absolutely I can,” he said at one July 2023 rally in Iowa. He said at a Pennsylvania rally later that month: “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we all together win the presidency, we will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled. The war is going to be settled. I’ll get them both – I know Zelensky, I know Putin, it’ll be done within 24 hours, you watch. They all say, ‘That’s such a boast.’ It will be done very quickly.”

[Don Nico]

You are a broken record. Even Trump admits he was wrong about the ease of stopping the war against Ukraine.
So what is your point?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's not quite accurate. Trump never said he was "wrong". He had initially claimed that he “was being a little bit sarcastic" when he had said that (which CNN counted him doing 53 times).

More recently, he has complained that doing something incredibly difficult (ending a war), was indeed proving to be about as difficult as everyone else had always told him.

(Nor has he ever "admitted" that he lost the 2020 election. Notice a pattern?)

[Don Nico]

"Trump never said he was "wrong"
That is accurate and is a common flaw of politician for who the phrase "I failed when...." could never pass their lips.
But the statement is true at the basic level.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed. And it is a "common flaw" in children. It is, however, quite rare in an adult politician, most of whom do not live entirely in a reality of their own making, as Donald Trump does.

Now you want other people to just stop mentioning that Trump repeatedly--over 50 different times during the 2024 presidential campaign--made a public promise to voters that he (and he alone) would resolve (in 24 hours) a terrible war between Russia and Ukraine which has cost many tens of thousands of lives.

Which he now says was just "sarcastic" (bullshit) for the rubes. For people like you. So you'd feel more comfortable giving him your vote. So you could rationalize doing what you probably knew was wrong--putting a wholly unsuitable, unstable individual into a position of great power with almost no strings attached.

In other words, he conned you--and deep down, you know it. That is the real reason why you don't want to be reminded of what he did to you.

[Martinned]

Poland has now invoked art. 4 of the NATO Treaty, meaning that urgent consultations are now taking place.

[Sarcastr0]

Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

[Bwaaah]

Consultations!

[Martinned]

They might have invoked art. 5, but they prefer not to find out whether Trump will comply with his treaty obligations. (Or, to be more precise, they prefer it if Putin doesn't find out.)

[Bwaaah]

"Or, to be more precise, they prefer it if Putin doesn't find out."

Yeah. That's why they're keeping it on the down-low with you and me and VC commenters.

You should avoid being more precise. It only emphasizes the non-substantive nature of your hyperbole.

[Don Nico]

"They might have invoked art. 5"
And would have been ignored. The foreign and defense minitries are not as clueless as you are with that quip.

[Martinned]

Yes. And that's exactly what they wanted to avoid. A NATO Member State being attacked and then having the US pretend that it didn't happen. So they all pretend that no attack (in the sense of art. 5) took place.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They might have invoked art. 5,"

Is an airspace violation by drones an armed attack for purposes of Article V?

[Riva]

Yeah. A couple of drones allegedly cross into Polish airspace. Not exactly the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland. But give Ukraine credit, they probably succeeded in panicking a lot of reactionary idiots with warnings that Russia was “attacking” Poland.

[Martinned]

Maybe Trump was right and something really is very screwed up in Chicago:

Daniel Raab shows no hesitation as he watches footage of 19-year-old Salem Doghmosh crumpling to the ground beside his brother in a street in northern Gaza.

“That was my first elimination,” he says. The video, shot by a drone, lasts just a few seconds. The Palestinian teenager appears to be unarmed when he is shot in the head.

Raab, a former varsity basketball player from a Chicago suburb who became an Israeli sniper, concedes he knew that. He says he shot Salem simply because he tried to retrieve the body of his beloved older brother Mohammed.

“It’s hard for me to understand why he [did that] and it also doesn’t really interest me,” Raab says in a video interview posted on X. “I mean, what was so important about that corpse?”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/09/the-gaza-family-torn-apart-by-idf-snipers-from-chicago-and-munich

[hobie]

Wow! The civilian murder rate in Gaza City seems to be exploding under MAGA/Israeli rule. Need to send in the guard.

[Riva]

Sourced from a report by Palestinian "journalist" and activist Younis Tirawi. Yeah, straight from the Gallywood studios of manufactured atrocities.

[Bob from Ohio]

And in the Guardian!

[Don Nico]

But was it in Haaretz?

[Malika la Maize]

Michigan District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons handed allies of President Donald Trump a major legal win on Tuesday, saying in court that 15 Republicans accused of attempting to falsely certify Trump as the winner of the 2020 election in the battleground state will not face trial.

Simmons, who was appointed by Michigan's Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2019, said: "I believe they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress." The judge said the Republicans "seriously believed" there were issues with the 2020 presidential election.

https://www.newsweek.com/democrat-appointed-judge-gives-donald-trump-allies-major-legal-win-2127065

[hobie]

Sincerely held beliefs lets you do all sorts of things these days

[Brett Bellmore]

If you're not trying to do something, you're simply not trying to do it, and you can't be convicted of trying to do it, even if what you actually are trying to do is kinda stupid, and not something you should be doing.

Look, I agree that Trump should have dropped his election challenges, at the latest, when the EC voted. I said as much at the time! At best he was irrationally in denial about having lost, at worst he was trying to overturn an election he knew he'd lost. (The same went for Gore in Florida, in 2000. He knew he'd lost on election night, otherwise he'd have requested a state-wide recount as his first option.)

And the scheme he had going would, if it had worked, overturned the legitimate outcome of the election. In a sort of vaguely legal way, by Congress exercising discretion in their conduct of what I think is a purely ministerial act, but which Congress doesn't admit to be a ministerial act.

And the certifications these 15 were just cleared for signing were going to help enable Trump in this.

But the one thing Trump's scheme wasn't reliant on was fraud. If he'd gotten Congress to vote the way he wanted, they'd have damned well known what they were doing.

[Sarcastr0]

The Eastman memo disagrees,

[Brett Bellmore]

Not so far as I can tell.

[Sarcastr0]

It's entire purpose is to use fraud to create public uncertainty about the election so Trump could declare himself the winner!

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you're reading different memos than I was?

I agree that the losing slate of electors were certifying in order to create the raw material for an improper action in Congress. Where I disagree with you is that anybody was expected to be defrauded, which is to say, expected to mistake the actual outcome of the election in those states as a result of those certifications.

Everybody was expected to know that these electors were not the ones who had actually been certified. They were just there to enable a raw exercise of power which would have been awkward to pull of otherwise.

Now, you might reasonably argue that the 15 in Michigan were the victims of fraud, if they genuinely thought Trump had won the state. But that's different from saying that they were perpetrating a fraud.

They weren't, because nobody was expected to mistake those certifications for the legitimate ones.

[bernard11]

Brett,

There is absolutely no comparison between Gore's behavior in 2000 and Trump's in 2020.

No matter how often you trot out that moronic whataboutism, it's utter crap, as has been explained to you too many times to count. You can't accept it, because you worship Trump (while claiming to dislike him - what a joke) and refuse to believe any criticism whatever.

[Don Nico]

Except that Gore actually lost in Florida

[bernard11]

And Trump actually lost in 2020.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course there's a comparison, and I've made it before, and explained it.

Gore lost Florida on election night, legitimately lost. He then set out on a legal scheme to change that into a nominal "win", and gain the Presidency, despite his having legitimately lost.

He chose 4 populous counties where he'd won by especially large margins, to request recounts in. If he'd thought he'd actually won, he could have requested a state wide recount. He didn't.

He was attempting to take advantage of the fact that, while hand recounts don't typically shift the margin in a race, they do generally result in more ballots being counted at the same percentages. So, recounting only large counties he'd won by particularly large margins was intended to effectively, post-election, increase the turnout in those counties. He'd still get the same percentage there, but of a larger total, and if things worked out right, the extra votes he got there would swing the entire state.

Even though a similar recount of the entire state would have demonstrated that he was actually the loser!

As it happened, despite continual changes in counting procedures as the recount went on, it proved impossible to mine enough new Gore votes in those counties to take him over the finish line. And the period for candidate initiated recounts was past. Legally, it was all over.

However, unlike Trump, he had a judicial ace in the hole, the Florida Supreme court was willing to set aside Florida election laws, and give Gore more bites at the apple.

So he soldiered on, pursuing a strategy intended to turn Florida into a 'win' despite his having actually lost. And only gave up when the Supreme court put an end to it.

Not so different from Trump in 2020, except that Trump might have actually been delusional about having lost the election, while Gore's tactics were not what somebody who thought he'd won would have done.

And it's worth noting that the EPC violation the Court found wasn't incidental, it was central to his effort. While a fair recount in counties he'd won would improve his position, a fair recount state-wide would just confirm Bush's victory. He needed an unfair recount if it was to be state wide, with different ballots counted in different ways, depending on whether they were likely Gore or Bush votes.

So, yes, Gore knew he had lost, his whole strategy post-election only made sense if he did.

[David Nieporent]

Gore lost Florida on election night, legitimately lost. He then set out on a legal scheme to change that into a nominal "win", and gain the Presidency, despite his having legitimately lost.

No. This is a lie. Nobody wins or loses an election until all the legitimate votes are counted. On election night, nobody knew, or could have known, for certain who had won.

Your understanding of the legal issues rivals your understandng of every other legal issue you discuss.

[bernard11]

Gore asked for a recount, went to court, and when he lost there conceded graciously.

Trump also went to court - dozens of times - and consistently lost, and not only has he refused to concede, he continues to spread his big lie, and his followers are terrified of saying he lost.

He also:

Promoted all kinds of nonsense about rigged voting machines and mail-in ballots.

Called state officials - not just Raffensberger - to try to pressure them into changing outcomes.

He pressured DOJ officials to declare that the election was fraudulent, and to start BS investigations. This was only prevented by the threatened resignations of DOJ officials.

Encouraged his supporters to attack the Capitol, and praised them afterward.

His supporters organized fake elector schemes.

No, Brett. No comparison. Gore took a few legal steps he was entitled to.

Trump did that, and much, much more, including some pretty reprehensible shit.

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes I wonder if Brett has ever changed his mind once in his life.

[Bwaaah]

Do you? Do you really? Once? Just once?

Surely not as a result of any of your dumb arguments.

A lament of Il Douche.

[not guilty]

Brett often reminds me of Mark Twain's observation: "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

[Mr. Bumble]

... and it only took five years.
As always win, lose or draw the process is the punishment.

[Martinned]

No, people going to prison is the punishment. This is criminals getting away with crimes.

[Mr. Bumble]

"This is criminals getting away with crimes."
Who made you Judge Dred?
After five years of costly litigation the court decided there was no crime, thus no criminals.

[Martinned]

Isn't Calvinball great?

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you referring to this case or the courts as a whole?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Isn't Calvinball great?"

The judge was appointed by a governor who is a democrat.. Maybe she just did her job?

[Malika la Maize]

President Trump signed a memorandum on Tuesday directing his administration to revive a decades-old policy that is likely to sharply restrict advertising of prescription drugs on television.

The move reflects one of the top priorities of the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly called for a ban on drug advertising on television. The policy change threatens to dent the revenues of pharmaceutical companies.

The memorandum also stands to hit major television networks, which earn substantial revenue from pharmaceutical advertisers trying to reach older viewers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/health/fda-drug-advertising-warning-letters.html

[OpinionsVary]

I'm going to put this down to random chance. Even Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must be right about *something* eventually. This is just that lucky thing.

[Martinned]

If it helps, he also said this yesterday (?)

We had lots of guns when we were kids. Kids brought guns to school and were encouraged to do so. And nobody was walking into schools and shooting people. There are many things that could explain this. One is the dependence on psychiatric drugs.

[Frank Drackman]

He's ab-so-2-lutely right.

[Moderation4ever]

We could probably cut down on psychiatric drugs if we reinstituted recess and ran the kids, particularly boys, around for 20 to 30 minutes periodically during the day.

[Frank Drackman]

doesn't mean we're going to take long hot showers together, but you're right

[ducksalad]

RFKj is in general an idiot, but on this particular point he is actually factual. 40 years ago there were way more guns in school and way fewer shootings, and there are many things that could explain it.

[Martinned]

Sure, but psychiatric drugs isn't one of them.

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t think restricting this kind of commercial speech is very libertarian.

[Frank Drackman]

You gonna lose your extra job in that Manjaro Commercial??

[Malika la Maize]

Francis being against psychiatric drugs is a very What’s Wrong With Kansas moment!

[Frank Drackman]

Manjaro's for the Type 2 Diabetes that more Blacks have than don't.

[Malika la Maize]

Does it make people regularly capitalize improper nouns, use weird spacing, not know basic English punctuation and such? Must be terrible, maybe the work requirements for your Medicaid will be waived so you can get back on it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does it work?

[MoreCurious]

Yes, it works. After about eight weeks on Mounjaro, my glucose levels are normal and I've lost 21 pounds.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's not. Did Trump run on the Libertarian ticket? Is RFK a Libertarian party member?

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t you pretend to be? If so, this is wrong, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah. Are you under the impression that I feel some urge to defend everything this administration does?

I'll say it again: I generally, (But not always!) approve of their ends, I find the means chosen to be terrible.

[Don Nico]

Now do hard liquor or tobacco.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t think restricting this kind of commercial speech is very libertarian.

Or very constitutional.

[not guilty]

The memorandum is here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/memorandum-for-the-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-the-commissioner-of-food-and-drugs/

The First Amendment protects advertising of prescription medications where such advertising is not false or misleading and does not promote an unlawful transaction. The government may not suppress the dissemination of truthful information about entirely lawful activity, fearful of that information's effect upon its disseminators and its recipients. See Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 771-773 (1976).

I can foresee as applied challenges here based on the First Amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Speed talkers hardest hit.

[Bwaaah]

The only part I ever heard was, "Consult your doctor if you have an erection that lasts more than four hours."

[bernard11]

Good one, Brett.

I definitely got a chuckle.

[jb]

Not very conservative, which is maybe why I think it's probably for the best. If we had a health care system where the incentives were less messed up, I can see the value of letting people know about the options for their care, but the drug commercials probably add a lot more cost than benefit in our status quo.

[Mr. Bumble]

The world doesn't think so, since the only other country to allow such ads in New Zealand.

[jb]

Well, the world generally believes in universal healthcare systems of one sort of the other as well, but that hasn't stopped the US from completely ignoring that bit of wisdom.

I realize my prose wasn't a model of clarity above, though. So to be clear: I do think the Trump administration got it right in this case.

[Moderation4ever]

Depends on how you define cost benefit. Commercials sell drugs and that benefits the pharmaceutical companies.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe they benefit at least some of the consumers who take the drugs too? Couldn't therapeutic effects be called a "benefit"?

[jb]

Yes, it is. But in a cost/benefit analysis you look at both sides of the equation.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, including all costs and all benefits. M4E invoked the concept of cost/benefit analysis, but just to warp it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Commercials sell drugs"

The ones I see say "this provides some modest benefits" but "you are probably going to die from the side effects".

[Krayt]

The government has no interest in shutting people up about truthful speech. Decades ago, I was never down with bans on drug advertising.

Now they can advertise, but have to either not say what the drug actually does, but look at those happy people taking their grand kids for a walk! Talk to your doctor! Or they do mention it, then the last 15 seconds are one of the Chipmunks rattling off all the potential side effects.

[Bwaaah]

I'm with you and all that on this.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I question how this holds up given the modern-day commercial speech doctrine.

But in 1997, the F.D.A. relaxed the rules out of concern that the restriction violated the First Amendment. Going forward, drug advertisers would be allowed to briefly summarize a product’s risks — briefly enough to fit in a 30-second TV ad.

Justice Thomas is a big supporter of such libertarian commercial speech rules.

[Brett Bellmore]

Their concern for the 1st amendment seems to have been very limited indeed, given that they were still going to court (And losing!) to censor medical claims as late as 2010.

[Jmaie]

I would prefer the government to not get involved in such matters absent actual fraud.

On the other hand, I wouldn't miss adds for Myproductinol that end saying, "Don't take if you're allergic to Myproductinol ."

[hobie]

I saw this photo this morning in the Post. Just look how happy those dapper white folks are in DC!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A%2F%2Farc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost%252Es3%252Eamazonaws%252Ecom%2Fpublic%2F7KAWBBXIUM756EGONR37LOR7LY_size-normalized%252Ejpg&w=1256&h=838

[Martinned]

Didn't you hear? It's all super safe now! Trump even proved it by walking a full 30 feet out in the open with only a few dozen secret service agents surrounding him on all sides!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reagan did that in '81 -- didn't end well.

[Martinned]

I guess that proves that Washington DC is a lot safer than it was in 1981. Kudos!

[Martinned]

In the increasingly authoritarian Canada, it turns out you can't even drive a Barbie Jeep anymore without such bureaucratic requirements as having a driving license, not being under the influence of alcohol, and staying off the main road.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/barbie-jeep-arrest-prince-george-1.7626945

(h/t Kevin Underhill, obviously)

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a fair cop; The thing was hardly street legal. If not for the fact that he was driving it drunk, though, I might have thought letting him off with a warning would suffice.

[Martinned]

I suspect that's probably what would have happened.

[Jmaie]

Not only drunk...exceeding the 90 pound weight limit as well....

[John F. Carr]

The rules for non-car vehicles are variable around North America and you need to consult a local lawyer before going crazy. In some places you can be charged with being drunk on horseback. In my state driving heavy construction equipment while drunk is not DUI because a loader is not legally a motor vehicle despite being a vehicle with a motor. (This was a real case.) A child's toy with a motor in it might fall through the cracks in some jurisdictions.

[Martinned]

Kevin Underhill's write-up of this case cross-references some earlier blog posts of his that discuss whether canoeing under the influence is legal.

https://www.loweringthebar.net/2025/09/dui-in-a-barbie-jeep-again.html

https://www.loweringthebar.net/2023/07/canadian-legal-alert-cui.html

[Malika la Maize]

Zohran Mamdani, who is currently leading the race to become mayor of New York City, has launched a “Game Over Greed” petition that calls on FIFA to abandon its plan to use dynamic pricing for the 2026 World Cup, which will be co-hosted across the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Eight World Cup matches will take place at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, including the final, but FIFA’s host city agreement is with both New York City and New Jersey.

Mr. Mamdani’s voice is growing in significance after a poll by the New York Times and Siena University this week revealed that 46 percent of likely voters currently planned to vote for the Democratic nominee, which places him substantially clear of second-placed Andrew Cuomo, who recorded 24 percent of support in a four-way race.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6614124/2025/09/09/zohran-mamdani-world-cup-tickets/

[jb]

Zohran Mamdani, who is currently leading the race to become mayor of New York City, has launched a “Game Over Greed” petition that calls on FIFA to abandon its plan to use dynamic pricing for the 2026 World Cup, which will be co-hosted across the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Eight World Cup matches will take place at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, including the final, but FIFA’s host city agreement is with both New York City and New Jersey.

Not that I think FIFA particularly needs the money, but usually the result of fixed pricing is that scalpers buy all the cheap tickets so they get most of the benefit rather than fans. Outside of the FIFA context, I'd generally prefer the people putting on the event to get most of the money rather than random third parties who aren't adding any value.

[Martinned]

Or you could take measures to prevent scalping, which is what people usually do.

[jb]

Or just...let people putting on concerts or whatever actually charge market clearing prices? What's the problem with that?

I don't like scalpers, but I also think law enforcement has a lot of other problems that I'd rather have the spend time on.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are they currently not allowed to charge market-clearing prices?

[jb]

They are, but Mamdani is saying they should set artificially low prices.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he is a commie, what do you expect?

[Martinned]

The solutions don't usually involve law enforcement. They involve restrictions on resale.

And the whole point is that musicians, sports teams, etc. don't want to charge market clearing prices, because they don't want to perform in front of a crowd of 50 year old bankers.

[Malika la Maize]

“During remarks at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, Mr. Trump made a series of false statements about the level of crime in the nation’s capital, where he has ordered a federal takeover of law enforcement.

There’s no crime. They said, ‘Crime’s down 87 percent,’” Mr. Trump said Monday. “It’s more than 87 percent — virtually nothing.”

On Sunday alone, there was a homicide, six motor vehicle thefts, two assaults with a deadly weapon, four robberies and more than 30 thefts, according to police statistics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/trump-domestic-violence-crime-statistics.html

[Frank Drackman]

only 1 homicide? 6 Stolen Cars?
You're right, Crime's not down 87 percent, more like three or four hundred percent

[Malika la Maize]

Math, English, logic…Things Francis doesn’t get

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Reminds me of this pretty interesting book:

https://religionnews.com/2022/11/21/how-the-museum-of-the-bible-produces-a-white-evangelical-bible/

[Martinned]

Matt Levine had an interesting item in his newsletter on Monday wondering a) whether paying someone to drop out of an election is a crime somehow, and b) if so, whether it is still a crime if you get them to bet on their opponent in a now-legal prediction market while strongly suggesting that you will solve the liquidity problems with that strategy by taking the opposite side of that bet.

Of course this pre-Trump SEC person thinks this would be "very illegal", but what does she know? Prediction markets (= betting) has magically become CFTC turf, not SEC, and in commodities trading the relevant law is ever so slightly different. Also, obviously none of this is governed by pre-Trump rules anymore anyway.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-sec-official-slams-bill-094551618.html

[apedad]

Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction and Attempting to Destroy an Energy Facility in Nashville

According to court documents, in June 2024, Philippi communicated to a confidential human source (CHS) that he wanted to commit a mass shooting at a YMCA facility located in or around Columbia, Tennessee. In July 2024, Philippi told another CHS about the impact of attacking large interstate substations and said that attacking several substations would “shock the system,” causing other substations to malfunction. Philippi researched previous attacks on electric substations and concluded that attacking with firearms would not be sufficient. Philippi, therefore, planned to use a drone with explosives attached to it and to fly the drone into the substation. Philippi said that his plan was to fly a drone with explosives attached to it into the electric substation, that he preferred to build a drone himself to avoid law enforcement detection, and that he wanted to attach TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide, a high-energy explosive material) or C-4 explosive material to the drone.

In August 2024, Philippi told an undercover employee (UCE) that he had written what he called a “manifesto” outlining his desire to attack “high tax cities or industrial areas to let the kikes lose money,” and about his previous affiliation with Atomwaffen Division and the National Alliance.

In September 2024, Philippi conducted reconnaissance of a specific electric substation. Philippi ordered a plastic explosive composition known as C-4 and other explosives from the UCEs. Philippi purchased black powder to be used in pipe bombs, which Philippi intended to use during the attack on the substation. Philippi texted: “if you want to do the most damage as an accelerationist, attack high economic, high tax, political zones in every major metropolis.” Referring to the substation, Philippi stated, “Holy sh**. This will go up like a fu**in fourth of July firework.”

On Nov. 2, 2024, Philippi met the undercover employees at a hotel and participated in a Nordic ritual, which included reciting a Nordic prayer and discussing the Norse god Odin. Philippi told the UCEs that “this is where the New Age begins” and that it was “time to do something big” that would be remembered “in the annals of history.” Philippi and the UCEs drove to the operation site. The UCEs moved to their assigned positions as lookouts for Philippi. Law-enforcement agents arrested Philippi. When he was taken into custody, Philippi was at the rear of the vehicle, with the drone powered up, and the explosive device was armed and located next to the drone. Philippi was prepared to attach the explosives to the drone when he was arrested.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-pleads-guilty-attempting-use-weapon-mass-destruction-and-attempting-destroy-energy

These boys . . . just aren't that smart.

[Michael P]

Why do you say that? Do they use "boys" when taking about one person?

[apedad]

That's your nit?!?

I was referring to, "his previous affiliation with Atomwaffen Division and the National Alliance."

[Michael P]

Are they also all feds?

My alternative theory was that you were talking about all the undercover employees that the government needed to prod this guy along.

[Malika la Maize]

All conspiracies, all the time.

[Brett Bellmore]

The FBI pulls this sort of entrapment (Yeah, I know, not legally, but that's still what it is.) operation a lot, to get blowhard idiots to step over the line and be prosecuted. The targets are never the sharpest tool in the shed. They have to be pretty stupid to not realize that they're being set up.

I'm of two minds about the utility of this. On the one hand, they probably are catching some people who'd have gotten up to no good on their own, and that's useful. But they also end up jailing a lot of blowhards who'd have never done anything but talk if left alone.

OTOH, sometimes the feds fumble the "swoop in at the last moment" part of the deal, and end up facilitating terrorism, not locking up people who might have become terrorists on their own. Then they've got to desperately backpedal and hide their involvement, and all sorts of questions arise, like, "You followed the guy who planted the pipe bombs for five hours, got clear pictures of the license plate on the car he drove off in, and you still can't find him?"

[Michael P]

My impression is that most of these defendants are emotionally stunted, socially inept and -- as you both pointed out -- not very smart. They seem like ideal candidates for non-criminal-justice intervention to "improve outcomes" by helping people integrate better with their communities and become better socialized.

Instead, we see the government dedicate considerable resources to radicalizing them and either developing or furthering violent action. Why? Are these people who are somehow fundamentally incompatible with "restorative justice" or other schemes -- and if so, how do we distinguish those cases?

[Malika la Maize]

The same people who argue that because federal law enforcement says so anyone with a Chicago Bulls hat is a member of a Venezuelan terrorist gang under direct orders from Maduro and the ghost of Chavez then turn around and argue all white supremacist extremist militia type domestic terrorists are just harmless hayseeds radicalized by federal agents because you know you can’t trust federal law enforcement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Easy safe wins for the agency, I think.

[not guilty]

"The FBI pulls this sort of entrapment (Yeah, I know, not legally, but that's still what it is.) operation a lot, to get blowhard idiots to step over the line and be prosecuted."

If the press release linked by apedad is to be believed, there was ample predisposition here which would have defeated any claim of entrapment. "It is only when the Government's deception actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the defendant that the defense of entrapment comes into play." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 436 (1973).

[Krayt]

This will go up like a fu**in fourth of July firework.”

fu**in should have an apostrophe on it.

[bernard11]

Hey, another chuckle.

Record day for the VC.

[Malika la Maize]

The release this week of new information from the estate of the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including a suggestive note to him apparently signed by Donald J. Trump, has not quieted the clamor on Capitol Hill for full transparency from the Justice Department about Mr. Epstein’s case.

Despite staunch opposition from the White House and Republican leaders, a bipartisan resolution directing the Justice Department to release all of its investigative files on Mr. Epstein is still on track.

Its proponents, Representatives Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, and Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, appear poised within weeks to draw enough backers to force action on the House floor, provided Democrats win special elections this month in districts where they are heavily favored.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/us/politics/epstein-house-vote.html

[hobie]

In an interview yesterday, Don Jr. said his father would never draw a cartoon on a birthday card. To be fair to Don Jr., he has no way of knowing what a birthday card from his father would look like

[Frank Drackman]

at least he knows who his father is, unlike you.
seriously Hobie, in a battle of wits, you're unarmed.

[Malika la Maize]

Does he though? There’s not much resemblance (a phrase Francis’ father heard all the time).

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, I DID hear that all the time,
My Dad was 6'4" ("was" is accurate, he's still alive, but Father Time has recalled a few of his Intervertebral Discs) 20/10 Vision, Georgia Tech Aeronautical Engineering Degree (and despite his Genetic advantages, never played Sports or worked as an Engineer, Or any other job until the Air Farce)
I'm 5'8" (barely) -4 Diopter Myopia until thanks to my Smoking (that's what the Eye Surgeon said) I needed an IOL at 52, Poultry Science Degree from Auburn(Yes, I know, a "Cow College" (HT P.B. Bryant)
OTOH I played competitive (as in you had to make the team) Junior High Basketball, High Screw-el Foo-bawl, Baseball, Tennis, and filed my first 1040 when I was 14.
Even being a Gas Passer didn't help
"Isn't that a Nurses Job??" (OK, umm, well, yes it is, a EFFING HIGH PAID "NURSING JOB")
J-Hay isn't fair, 80 effing 5 and he's still got the 20/10 Distance Vision (Up close, not so good, too proud to wear Reading Glasses he uses a Magnifying glass to read the Newspaper on the Computer, like he's friggin Sherlock Holmes)

Frink

[hobie]

Speaking of pedophiles...MAGA's two most noteworthy rockers (is anyone in the MAGA movement NOT a pedophile?);

KID ROCK [lyrics]
Young ladies, young ladies
I like them underaged see
Some say it's statutory
But I say it's mandatory

TED NUGENT [lyrics]
Well I don't care if you're just 13
You look too good to be true
I just know that you're probably clean
There's one little thing that I gotta do

Also TED NUGENT
"“I was addicted to girls. It was hopeless. It was beautiful,” he said, adding, “I got the stamp of approval of their parents. I guess they figured better Ted Nugent than some drug-infested punk in high school.”"

[Frank Drackman]

You left out David Wooderson from "Dazed & Confused"
"That's what I love about these Highschool Girls, I get older, they stay the same age!"
One of the best things about having 2 daughters was having a giggle of young girls over at the house frequently,
and I'm not a dirty old man (I'm not really "old") but I am a "Man" if you get my drift.

Frink

[Dr. Ed 2]

The signature isn't centered.

[Zarniwoop]

I am pleasantly surprised that Grampa Ed is apparently the only one here today who believes an argument this absurd and idiotic.

[myself]

Not just the birthday card but the weird novelty check with a very creepy note.

A handwritten note under the photo, which was taken in the 1990s, joked that Mr. Epstein showed “early talents with money + women,” and had sold a “fully depreciated” woman to Mr. Trump for $22,500.

[Martinned]

In Northern Ireland they're starting to think the US is being run by nutters. From behind the paywall of the Belfast Telegraph:

Horrors of Trump detention centre: Lisburn man tells his story after arrest for 'looking like a Mexican'

<A Co Antrim man lifted by US immigration police on an American street — in an incident he compared to a kidnapping — and then sent to a detention centre has described being deported back to Northern Ireland as “surreal”.

Despite believing he had a legal right to stay in the US due to personal circumstances, Lee Stinton’s life was turned upside down when he was arrested by an ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) officer.

Lee (45) had been a successful Key West hairdresser with a partner, DeVaun Davis, whom he had planned to marry in August.

For a month, he was kept in a cramped cell in the notorious Krome Detention Centre, which has been criticised for providing inadequate and little food, overcrowded cells and denial of medication for detainees.

Speaking to the Belfast Telegraph from his parents’ home in Lisburn, he sits where he can see the door — his escape route, a safety net after what he alleges happened at Krome.

“I had been making my own money, paying my taxes, I had my own apartment. It is all going well. I had my new partner, a great job,” says the stylist.

“I was on my way to work one day. An ICE officer said to me: ‘You look Mexican.’ I said: ‘I am not. I am from Northern Ireland.’

“They asked me if I had my paperwork with me. I don’t know who carried that stuff around with them anyway; I would want to keep it somewhere safe.

“It was like I was kidnapped off of the street. I managed to get through to my partner on the phone while they were shackling me in the streets.

“They were trying to say I ran a stop sign. I was on a bike — there was no stop sign. I had stopped to let a car go by me. But they needed some form of probable cause.

“The man who was arresting me looked at my phone. My screensaver is a picture of my partner and me. He said: ‘He looks Haitian. This might be a two-for-one deal today.’

“They brought me to the Krome Detention Centre in Miami.”

The second Trump administration has launched an unprecedented crackdown on criminal immigrants in the US, although it has faced criticism for going beyond that remit.

In 2024, an average of 37,500 people were detained by ICE per day. However, as of June 2025, this increased to 56,000, an increase of 40%.

“I never even had so much as a parking ticket. I have no criminal record. I have never done anything wrong. I was doing everything the US Government asked me,” says Lee.

“Then I suddenly find myself in a cell with all of these people. I was housed in this concrete cell with these really bright lights. It was meant to be for about 10 people and there were over 100 men in the cell. There was one toilet.

“There were nights where everyone was lying on the ground. On the concrete, it was freezing cold. I had to sleep right by the toilet some nights because there was no where for me to sleep.

“I have been vegan for a long time. They wouldn’t get me food. If they did, it was always meat. When you talked to someone about the type of dietary requirements you had, you just didn’t get [anything].

“They didn’t bother bringing me food. I lost a lot of weight. I was very malnourished.

“You didn’t shower for about two weeks. I couldn’t brush my teeth or anything.

“It was so hard to get anything. To even get toothpaste, things for basic human needs like a shower, everything was a struggle.

“They brought you outside once a day for an hour. You’d walk around in circles to get a bit of exercise.

“This man had been begging for days for his heart medication. He literally dropped dead of a heart attack in front of my eyes. They didn’t give him the medication he needed.

“That was someone’s father, someone’s grandfather, and he just dropped dead. I never saw anything like that before.”

While in ICE detention, Lee was given a colour-coded uniform. He was designated blue, a low-custody detainee with little to no criminal history — a common colour in the cells, he tells the Belfast Telegraph.

Orange uniforms were for medium-custody — those with non-violent offences. Red is for high — those with a history of violent offences.

“Nearly everyone was in blue — people who have no criminal history. There were a lot of kids there too, 18-19-year-olds,” he said.

“I can barely deal with this as an adult. And the things they did to me were horrible. I asked one of the ladies about food. I had not eaten for three days. She just started screaming in my face: ‘Bye! Bye! Bye!’

“They weren’t supposed to mix the oranges and blues, but they had mixed everyone together.

“You were given phone calls. My partner had to put [up] a lot of money for me to be able to call them. They listen to every phone call.”

Being one of the only white detainees in Krome, Lee was called “gringo” (white person) by other detainees. While calling his lawyer, partner or family, he was often harassed.

In addition to the hardships, ICE had failed to get in touch with the British Consulate, leaving Lee’s partner DeVaun to contact his family, who then got in touch with the consulate a week into his detention.

“[ICE] were meant to involve the British Consulate; they didn’t do that. It was actually my parents who got the British Consulate involved,” he explains.

“They would hold you in the holding cell for three or four hours. I only saw the consulate for 10 minutes. They put me back in a holding cell for hours, again with no food.

“Then they brought me back to the camp with everyone else. It almost felt like, for me, if you were getting any kind of help you were punished.

Of course, in Norther Ireland they have some history with both racist nutters and people being kidnapped off the street, so they're a bit sensitive on the topic.

[ThePublius]

Curious how the quoted article doesn't mention Lee's immigration status. Was he in the U.S. illegally?

[Sarcastr0]

The ICE weird racism seems more the thrust here.

[Martinned]

“I never even had so much as a parking ticket. I have no criminal record. I have never done anything wrong. I was doing everything the US Government asked me,” says Lee.

[ThePublius]

That doesn't answer the question. Many who are here illegally claim to be law abiding.

[Martinned]

Are you in the US illegally?

[ThePublius]

Why do you ask? I have nothing to do with this story. But, for what it's worth, no. I'm a U.S. citizen. I was born in NYC of parents who were U.S. citizens. (I also have Irish citizenship and an EU passport in addition to my US passport.)

[Martinned]

Sure, you would say that, wouldn't you? Many people who are in the US illegally claim to be law abiding. I'm sure you're one of those stinking illegals just sitting behind his computer pretending to be legal.

[ThePublius]

You ass!

[Krayt]

Are you in the US illegally?
Why do you ask?

That is the exact issue in question. Apparently "he looked Mexican".

Quickly followed by this:
“They asked me if I had my paperwork with me. I don’t know who carried that stuff around with them anyway; I would want to keep it somewhere safe.

"Papers, please." But no, not like Nazi Germany at all. Nope!

It's odd. Many in full-throated support of this, in recent years were also in full-throated support of civil and even criminal penalties of government officials who trod on rights.

[Bob from Ohio]

Apparently!

[ducksalad]

Pub, I notice you weren't on the thread last Thursday about Rosie O'Donnell.

Any opinion on whether Trump has (or should have) the authority to revoke her US citizenship?

[ThePublius]

Ah, the truth is coming out. He has overstayed a visa by seven years, and has no green card (it's in process). So, no, he is not here legally.

"“So yes, he had overstayed a visa seven years ago, and that’s what ICE is using to detain and possibly deport him,” Davis said. (Davis is his partner.)

https://keysweekly.com/42/popular-key-west-hairstylist-detained-by-ice-on-june-12/

[Brett Bellmore]

Guy's kind of a reminder that stereotypes are frequently stereotypes for a reason, isn't he?

[Frank Drackman]

Ever been to Key West? it's sort of like Casablanca circa 1941 (with Homosexuals)

[Bob from Ohio]

Best part of the article, he was "Ireland’s Most Stylish Man"

Tallest midget I guess from the pictures.

[myself]

I'm from Canada.

A few years back my Uncle (originally from Canada) was up here visiting from the US. He has move there with his American wife (and their two children) years previously. The evening before he was due to fly back he was doing the online check-in and found out his green card had expired.

There was a short period of panic, but back then the US was a sane country so he was able to fly back and get everything sorted out.

To be clear, they're all extremely law abiding people. Decent jobs, no trouble with the law, and the kids both have advanced degrees and well paying jobs, basically model citizens.

So saying someone is "illegal" and deserve to be deported to another country because they forgot some paperwork is friggin insane.

[ThePublius]

Oh, so you're saying that Lee Stinton just "forgot" some paperwork? For 7 years? While applying for a green card? That's such bullshit rationalization. If he forgot his visa paperwork why was he concurrently pursuing a green card? Give me a break.

What if you got pulled over for something and you presented an expired license, expired registration, and no insurance, and you told the cop "Oh, I forgot." Would you expect him to say "oh, I understand, go about business."

"I forgot" is right up there with "the dog ate my homework."

[ducksalad]

If they were merely expired and there was no other offense I'd expect the cop to write me three tickets and let me go. Take care of the papers and pay the tickets promptly and it's over.

[Brett Bellmore]

If I got pulled over and my driver's license was 7 years expired I'd expect to be dragged off in handcuffs.

[ducksalad]

In Texas it's a Class C misdemeanor (lowest possible level) and thus equivalent to speeding, burned out taillight bulb, etc. Maximum penalty is a fine only, no jail sentence allowed.

Theoretically you could be taken to jail pending bail but practically it would be a citation. If there's a passenger with an unexpired DL the officer would make them take over driving. If you're solo they might impound the car if feeling nasty, but more likely just make you call someone to pick you up.

My knowledge on this matter is not limited to book learning.

EDIT: Of course one should not confuse expired license with suspended license.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently he was here legally. Sounds like he got swept up, and they seized on a technical violation, (You're supposed to have your papers on you at all times as a legal immigrant, he didn't.) to avoid admitting they'd messed up.

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again: Trump is largely pursuing ends I approve of, but the means he uses are a mess.

I think maybe deliberately so, in the case of immigration enforcement. I think he's trying to create an atmosphere of fear among illegal immigrants to cause the ones who can't be found to self-deport.

[ThePublius]

"Apparently he was here legally."

Not so. Overstayed an old visa. No green card. Not only present illegally, but working here illegally. See above.

[Malika la Maize]

He sounds pretty awful. Maybe we should throw a sandwich at him?

[ThePublius]

Nah, waste of a sandwich. Just throw him out of the country.

I mean, even better would be if there was a process to help him renew his visa, get a work permit, or even issue him a green card. But, per Kristi Noem, maybe he should have self-deported first.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah. The account I'd read omitted that bit, it mentioned the work visa, didn't reveal that it was expired.

[not guilty]

Uh, overstaying a visa is not a crime.

[Brett Bellmore]

OTOH, neither is it legal.

[ThePublius]

"No, overstaying a visa is not a crime; it's a civil immigration violation with serious consequences, including removal from the U.S. and potential bars from re-entry. While not a criminal offense, it can result in deportation proceedings, the cancellation of your visa, and significant future immigration penalties."

[ThePublius]

Working in the U.S. without the proper authorization, such as a valid visa or work permit, is a crime, is against U.S. law and can lead to serious consequences, including deportation, fines, and bars from future immigration benefits.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I feel safer already that he's gone. And richer, too.

[bernard11]

Trump is largely pursuing ends I approve of, but the means he uses are a mess.

In other words, you approve of the means. You think the means are "a mess," (some characterization!) but ultimately don't care as long as the ends you like are achieved.

What if some end you liked could be achieved only through terrible means that you thought were "a mess?" Where would you come out?

[bernard11]

What does that matter?

We don't (or shouldn't) treat convicted criminals that way. So why do it to illegal immigrants?

ICE is nothing but thugs.

[Swede425]

Gosh.
That story is awful.
Hopefully, lots of other illegal immigrants will read it and rush for the door to get out of the US before a similar fate befalls them.
Fingers crossed!

[Martinned]

Sure, who needs rule of law (and people picking fruits) anyway?

[Swede425]

Oh?
I missed the part where this poor victim's immigration status was discussed.
Also, I highly recommend picking your own fruit. We like to go to the apple orchards in Northern Michigan to pick our apples. We pick our cherries, too, though I'm not a big fan of them. Strawberries, in season, are also fun to pick with family.

[Malika la Maize]

We’ll have an agricultural system based on family day trips! lol

[Swede425]

There was a cotton system based on slavery.
We took that away.
People bitched about doing that, too.
Some things, and some people, never change I guess.

[Malika la Maize]

“There was a cotton system based on slavery.
We took that away.”

Swede just wants to keep the monuments to that system.

And once again, MAGAns don’t get consent. It’s like certain colors to the color blind, they’ve heard it’s a thing from others but don’t see it themselves.

[Swede425]

And you just want to keep that system.

[Malika la Maize]

Again, they don’t get consent.

[Swede425]

Illegal aliens get consent?
I don't think that's true.
Illegal aliens get deported.
That is true.
Especially now.
Some people don't like that. But I don't lose sleep over it.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, Didn’t take long for that mask to drop.

[ThePublius]

There is a legal process for itinerant immigrant farm workers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — Problem was, in Northern Ireland, even the nutters often had trouble keeping track which sides they were on, or which factions they reported to. What a mess.

Then Boston College (USA) decided to help keep track (quiet like). That did not work out well for Boston College.

To this day, the only way to resolve historical contradictions seems to be to let all parties persist in open disregard of what actually happened, which no one agrees on anyway.

You can't even tell if present apparent stasis is just stunned aftermath. Hard to know whether it will persist until things get going again, or if it's a page turn which will let the past recede after two succeeding generations are dead.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
Since BC is my "next door" neighbor, I'd be interested to know the story to which you are referring.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Read, Say Nothing by Patrick Radden Keefe. It is well researched, with much of the information sourced to interviews kept in BC archives, supposedly under pledges of secrecy, but forced into the public record by subpoenas. One chapter details the legal process.

The book is otherwise noteworthy as a detailed and multi-faceted account of the various prices paid (prices both personal and social) for political ardor running out of control. I think of it when folks commenting here start threatening partisan violence.

[Malika la Maize]

Goodbye, Stranger

Rick Davies, the founder of the British rock band Supertramp, who helped transform it from a faltering English progressive rock act into a prog-pop juggernaut whose 1979 album “Breakfast in America” sold more than 18 million copies, died on Saturday at his home in East Hampton, N.Y. He was 81.

The cause was complications of multiple myeloma, a form of blood cancer, which he learned he had more than a decade ago, according to his wife and manager, Sue Davies, who is his only immediate survivor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/arts/music/supertramp-rick-davies-dead.html

[Krayt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8pVZ5hTGJQ

[ReaderY]

Media report that the US attorneys in DC and LA have been repeatedly empaneling new grand juries in cases where grand juries have returned “no true bill” in the hopes that a new grand jury will give them a different answer, over and over again until the 30-day time limit expires. The cases that have made the news are ones where multiple grand juries all refused to indict. There may a larger number of unreported cases where the first grand jury refused to indict but a subsequent one did.

My question is, can this practice be challenged? The 30 day limit is statutory and could be lengthened. Although there is no explicit double jeopardy clause at the indictment stage, ignoring “no true bill” findings and repeatedly and potentially endlessly empaneling new grand juries until the government gets one willing to give a favorable answer makes an end run around the whole purpose of a grand jury as a meaningful check on government excess based in the moral sense of the community, and turns it into a meaningless ritual, something like what has become of the Electoral College.

[ThePublius]

DC grand juries are notoriously partisan and corrupt.

[Sarcastr0]

Only to MAGA mythmakers.

Federal assault for a sandwich shows how much this admin is stretching charges.
Add in the DoJ’s manpower apocalypse and there’s a pretty plausible alternative to corruption or even jury nullification.

[ThePublius]

"Yes, throwing a sandwich at someone can constitute assault, and has been treated as such in a recent, high-profile case where a man was charged with felony assault after throwing a sandwich at a federal officer. The charge of assault is determined by factors such as intent, the actions of the individual, and the resulting harm or potential for harm, meaning that while the act itself may seem minor, it can be legally considered an assault if it meets the legal definition.
Why it's considered assault:
Intentional Contact:
Assault involves intentionally causing another person to fear immediate harmful contact or causing them to actually be harmed by an object.
Battery:
In some jurisdictions, an assault that results in the physical contact of the unwanted object (the sandwich) can also be considered battery, which is a more serious charge.
Legal Consequences:
The legal consequences vary depending on the severity of the act and the jurisdiction, but it can result in misdemeanor or felony charges.
Factors that influence the severity:
The specific circumstances of the act:
The context, the intent behind the action, and the behavior leading up to the throwing of the sandwich.
The person receiving the impact:
If the target is an officer of the law, the potential consequences are often more severe, potentially leading to federal charges.
The outcome:
Whether the sandwich made physical contact or caused injury to the recipient, or if the act was caught on video."

There's video. The assailant was clearly interfering with a uniformed law enforcement officer and assaults him (physically) by throwing a sandwich at him and hitting him. That's an assault, and also potentially battery.

What's your problem with that? Why do you trivialize it? Did you watch the video?

Do you think this should be allowed? Ignored in the future? It's O.K. to scream at law enforcement officers, approach them menacingly, and throw things at them?

DC grand jury: nothing to see here. Right.

[Malika la Maize]

Salami is a processed meat, very bad for you they say. Pubes would have gone with attempted murder.

[ThePublius]

Another jerk minimizing, dismissing this incident. So, it's O.K. to throw things at uniformed LEO's doing their job? That's the kind of society you want?

[Malika la Maize]

It was a sandwich. An appropriate misdemeanor.

[Frank Drackman]

and should have been returned to the owner, along with a sandwich of the Knuckle variety.

[David Nieporent]

They were Just Following Orders, you say?

[ReaderY]

The question is not whether it meets the technical elements of the formal crime. The question is whether felony charges represent a just and fair response to it.

At common law, persisting into the 19th Century, theft of any amount was a capital crime. But grand juries used to refuse to indict people on capital charges for very minor thefts with mitigating circumstances, things like stealing a sandwich to eat.

Grand Juries in pro-abolition parts of the North would refuse to indict for fugitive slave cases.

There were cases in the mid 20th century where grand juries refused to indict on felony charges for consensual sodomy.

Not every case where a grand jury refused to indict is one people today would approve of. There were all too many cases in the South of the last two centuries where all-white grand juries refused to indict for lynching.

Despite the lynching cases, this aspect of a grand jury is a feature, not a bug. The whole point of a grand jury is that local sentiment has to think that what the defendant is accused of doing was actually serious in order to charge the defendant with a serious and high-punishment crime, regardless of whether it meets the technical elements of a very broadly worded law.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I agree, this is (grand) jury nullification, and jury nullification is a good part of the point of having juries. Feature, not bug.

Well, it was also a feature, not bug, when some guy in the Klan couldn't get prosecuted for lynching some black guy during Jim Crow, so your view of jury nullification kind of goes along with your view of the local values it's enforcing.

The problem in DC is just that the local jury pool is wildly unrepresentative of the country at large, so you'll get a lot of nullification that looks unreasonable to people in the country at large. And even that would be a lesser issue if the federal government weren't headquartered in DC.

[Sarcastr0]

Could be nullification.

Could be charges stretched to their utmost and a DoJ staff not up to making the case.

You love to seize on one narrative among many, and declare it the inviolable truth.

[Commenter_XY]

If it was jury nullification, so what.

The people on the GJ are residents who have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Let them.

[Sarcastr0]

Countless rampant sandwiches, flying through the air!

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't the first time TP tried to offer an AI response as though it had independent truth value.

[ThePublius]

Tell me what about that is not true?

[Sarcastr0]

It doesn't go over the elements of the federal assault statute, for one thing. So it's vibes based on your bad prompting.

If you're unequipped to make a good argument, AI won't equip you.

18 U.S. Code § 111, to help you with your next hot take.

[bernard11]

Well, the guy probably should have gotten a ticket for littering, but nothing more.

[Frank Drackman]

we'll see if you say that when I hit you with my Sandwich, you won't find it at Subway or Firehouse

[ThePublius]

That's so stupid. Interfering with a LEO who's trying to do his job and then STRIKING him with something is NOT LITTERING!

[not guilty]

As a previous commenter (whose name I can't recall) observed, "Prosecutors who overcharge ridiculously in an effort to curry favor with Trump are unlikely to convince jurors that assault with a deli weapon is an aggravated felony."

I wish I had thought of that metaphor.

[ThePublius]

It's a matter of law and order. Order in particular. You can't have an orderly society and respect for the law and law enforcement if you allow or excuse people who stridently interfere with LEOs doing their job, charge at them, scream at them, and throw things at them. In the old days (actually, not very long ago) this dweeb would have just gotten his ass kicked. Now we follow more formal, legal processes, but are thwarted by partisan and corrupt grand juries.

What about that mob in upstate NY who surrounded the ICE agents' vehicles, slashed their tires, and forced them away. Should we just dismiss it, as it was "just some tires?" No. We need law and order, and respect for the law, and non-interference with LEOs doing their job. That mob should all be arrested and jailed and tried. Otherwise the society will (continue to) crumble.

[Sarcastr0]

In the old days

The mythological old days were never real. They are just a way you can try and pretend your wishes are tradition.

1950s tradwives in the suburbs and happy white kids, far as the eye can see.

Though your wishes appear to be for a police state with bonus vigilantism.

You really are an authoritarian piece of work.

[ThePublius]

You're wrong, Sarcastr0. I grew up in the Bronx in the '60's and '70's. It was a mix of Irish, Italian, German, Jewish, Puerto Rican, and, at the time, a few blacks. I worked in a liquor store during college and was held up at gunpoint twice, and also twice on the street.

Cops were tough. I've seen cops slap a guy's face for disrespecting them, and that was the end of it. No arrest, indictment, trial, etc. They maintained order.

The old days were the old days, it's not a myth.

[Sarcastr0]

Everything is halcyon when you're a child.

Most people grow up.

[Don Nico]

Another typical snark. How pathetic.

[David Nieporent]

You can't have an orderly society and respect for the law and law enforcement if you allow or excuse people who stridently interfere with LEOs doing their job, charge at them, scream at them, and throw things at them.

Respect has to be earned. Jackbooted thugs wandering the streets haven't earned it.

One has to love about how the Don't Tread On Me crowd has become the Please Spank Us Harder crowd.

[apedad]

Partisan; maybe but so are you.

Corrupt?!? Prove that.

[ReaderY]

Ahhh…so if a constitutional protection doesn’t return the result you want, it must be partisan and corrupt, so it should just be gotten rid of.

Come to think of it, kind of like that notoriously partisan and corrupt Secretary of State in Georgia in the 2020 election. Everybody was saying he was partisan and corrupt, right?

[ReaderY]

If it can be challenged, defense lawyers might want to raise it in every case, at least every case where there is a plausible argument that the defendant has been overcharged, and seek discovery to determine whether the indictment came from a subsequent grand jury after the first and “true” grand jury returned a no true bill.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY, I saw a former senior Justice Department official say on television that the practice you describe is something he had never seen done or heard of during his career. He insisted it was abhorrent abuse.

[John F. Carr]

A defendant in Massachusetts argued that he was not properly indicted because the prosecutor convened a second grand jury after the first refused to indict. Lawyers did battle. An appellate court decided. As a matter of state constitutional law, the prosecutor does get a second chance. There might be a limit to the number of attempts allowed.

[ThePublius]

Today I think I'll buy a Subway sandwich, put on a MAGA hat, and find a blue-haired non-binary "it" with a rainbow flag shirt on in Boston, standing close to a cop, scream in her face while menacingly approaching her, saying she's ruining society, and throw the sandwich in her face. What do you think will happen to me?

(If it's Mass and Cass she'll probably be grateful for the sandwich. Maybe I should go to Boylston St.)

[John F. Carr]

On one side, you've got conservative cops. On the other side, liberal leaders and prosecutors. I don't know what will happen.

[ReaderY]

A grand jury is one of the few constitutional rights that have been deemed not fundamental and not applicable to the states. On the one hand, that may mean federal and state court outcomes could be different. On the other hand, the fact that the Supreme Court has found it non-fundamental may be an indication that they’d be OK with its being reduced to a mere ceremony.

It’s like the electoral college. If they don’t want to vote as you want, you just replace ‘em with folk who will.

Maybe they’ll also uphold pledging grand jurors to promise to indict, and prosecuting them if they vote not to. But doubtless there will still be an insistence on going through the motions of the ceremony. Just like the electoral college.

[bernard11]

I hope there's a limit (of one, actually).

If not, the prosecutor gets the indictment 100% of the time, rather than just 99+%.

[Martinned]

Tomorrow is the 84th anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's Des Moines speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines_speech

This sort of nastiness isn't new. It's always been part of America.

[ThePublius]

Your constant America bashing it insulting and unwelcome, and usually inaccurate.

I'd remind you that we saved your starving population towards the end of WWII. Where's your gratitude for that?

"The U.S. helped "save" the Netherlands in World War II through its significant military contributions to the liberation of the country and its crucial humanitarian efforts, particularly Operation Chowhound, which delivered vital food supplies to civilians during the Dutch famine, or Hongerwinter, in the final days of the war. American airborne and ground troops fought in key battles, including Operation Market Garden and the Battle for the Scheldt Estuary, while bombers delivered food to starving populations."

[Martinned]

What is inaccurate about my comment?

[ThePublius]

"This sort of nastiness isn't new. It's always been part of America"

[Sarcastr0]

Switch Jews for blacks and you're center-mass, chief.

[Don Nico]

get back to work!

[Frank Drackman]

Use of "Chief" marks you as a Douche, might as well have an "Idiot" sign tatooed on your forehead.

[Frank Drackman]

Only everything

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, not to mention people constantly saying "how bad slavery was", which is something we'd really just forget ever happened.

And we can hardly do that if it keeps being mentioned in inappropriate places like museums. Historians must really hate our country!

[ThePublius]

Now tell me about the National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands (NSB).

[Martinned]

They were terrible people, and after the war we hanged their leaders.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've never quite understood why paintings were hung, and people were hanged.

[Frank Drackman]

It's like how I'd rather have a Bottle in front of me, than a Frontal lobotomy.

[shawn_dude]

People are hanged (past tense and presumably once) and pictures are hung (present tense.) That's my best guess.

I suppose if a person was hung and is still hanging there, it's appropriate to say "hung" in the same sense as a painting.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Speak for yourself. Some people are hung.

And of course, you would want to eliminate any ambiguity.

[Martinned]

In the European Basketball Championships, which are currently taking place in Riga, Latvia, Greece beat Lithuania 87-76 to make it to the semi-finals for the first time in 16 years. Their next opponent will be Turkey (!) on Friday.

https://www.ekathimerini.com/sports/1280376/greece-makes-its-first-eurobasket-semifinal-in-16-years/

[ThePublius]

Do you have a job, or is commenting here your full-time gig?`

[Martinned]

Today I'm supposed to be reading some extremely boring documents. I admit that I'm not making as much progress as I should.

[Michael P]

It takes a lot of output to earn a living at RMB 0.5 per comment.

[Frank Drackman]

Any Caucasian players?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Of course. Europe has lots of Caucasian basketball players.

[Martinned]

With the Dutch general election scheduled for 29 October, the campaign is slowly getting started. (In the last few weeks the parties have been doing their internal decision making to decide their party lists and their manifestos.)

While we wait to find out what the main themes of the election will be, this blog post from Gordon Darroch about the rise and fall of Peter Omtzigt and his NSC party is worth reading. I think the analysis is basically right: Omtzigt had the right diagnosis, and connected with a sizable chunk of the electorate when he spoke about it, but after the election he got outmanoeuvred by the far right, and now his party is going to be wiped off the map.

https://wordsforpress.wordpress.com/2025/09/04/nsc-and-the-death-of-hope/

[Frank Drackman]

The English language lacks sufficient words to express my lack of interest in Dutch Politics. I mean there's "I Don't give a (Redacted)" which doesn't really cut it, but what can you expect with a nation who's main claims to fame were the Apartment Anne Frank hid out in (who ratted her out again?) and legal Marriage-a-Juan-a (which you can now get in Missouri, MISSOURI!!!!!!)

Frink

[Ska]

You're leaving out stroopwafel and the Van Gogh Museum, both of which are great.

[Frank Drackman]

Hypothetical Question,
White passenger carrying concealed, shoots Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr dead before he can murder Iryna Zarutska,
Imagine the nationwide riots, Sleepy Joe might even get out of his Coffin and go to the funeral, Charlotte DA charges the passenger with First Degree Murder...
or even more hypothetically, a White passenger wearing a MAGA hat murders a Black female in the same manner.
So yes, paraphrasing the late/great Lynyrd Skynyrd,
"Derek Chauvin does not bother me, does your conscience bother you? (tell the truth!)

Frink

[Mr. Bumble]

See Daniel Penny.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I thought of the same thing.

[loki13]

I wanted to pass along this little bit from an article I read yesterday. The article itself isn't that important, but it was a specific anecdote I found sadly funny. It was about the National Conservativism Conference (last week in DC).

Anyway, it was about Yoram Hazony (Israeli-born Jew) ... and he was complaining. About what? He was shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the Trumpist right had been ... infiltrated ... by anti-Semites!!!!

"I've been pretty amazed by the depth of the slander of Jews as a people that there's been online the last year and a half," said Hazony, "I didn't think it would happen on the right. I was mistaken."

I know, I know. A conservative, nationalist, nativist ... and theocratic (let's be honest) reactionary movement contains anti-Semitism???? How could it happen?????

Think of this blog- we all know that there many fine people that post here that regularly defend Trump and his movement. Some ludicrously so (*cough* Blackman). We know that Trump has made inroads with the Orthodox community! Hazony himself was early on the ... I can't use train in this context, he was early on movement, and built a lot of goodwill with Trumpists by telling the world that these right-wing nationalist were not anti-Semites!

"It makes you really popular," Hazony said. "Everybody is really grateful: I'm the guy who defended them against absolutely false, ridiculous accusations of anti-Semitism."

However, "for reasons that I don't necessarily understand," these people on the Trumpy right, "think Jews are a big problem."

WHAT?

This is a tale as old as time, unfortunately. I do appreciate that for some (like Hazony), they are beginning to actually see the problem with their eyes instead of refusing to understand what is in front of them. Because ... I will keep saying the same refrain- anti-Semitism is an evil that most be removed, root and branch, from society.

But there are two lessons that have generally been true in history. Minorities, especially the Jewish people, thrive in an open and tolerant society with liberal values. Minorities, especially the Jewish people, do not thrive in reactionary and nationalist societies based on nativist principles. And it doesn't matter how much you pander, how much you collaborate, or how useful you think you were.

As someone used to keep trying to warn us during his stump speeches- the scorpion is gonna sting you.

[hobie]

When in world history has a supremacist, nationalist movement NOT been antisemitic. The difference MAGA is trying is to flog a cynical, cloying prosemitism stance that no one believes except the rubes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Somebody in Israel is waving, trying to get your attention. 😉

[apedad]

FBI PSA

Unsolicited Packages Containing QR Codes Used to Initiate Fraud Schemes

The FBI warns the public about a scam variation in which criminals send unsolicited packages containing a QR code1 that prompts the recipient to provide personal and financial information or unwittingly download malicious software that steals data from their phone. To encourage the victim to scan the QR code, the criminals often ship the packages without sender information to entice the victim to scan the QR code. While this scam is not as widespread as other fraud schemes, the public should be aware of this criminal activity.

This is a variation of a "brushing scam," which is used by online vendors to increase ratings of their products. In a traditional brushing scam, online vendors send merchandise to an unsolicited recipient and then use the recipient's information to post a positive review of the product. In this variation, scam actors have incorporated the use of QR codes on packages to facilitate financial fraud activities.

Tips to Protect Yourself

Criminals continue to evolve their tactics to target unsuspecting victims. Precautions should be taken prior to scanning any QR codes received through unsolicited communications or packages.

- Beware of unsolicited packages containing merchandise you did not order.
- Beware of packages that do not include sender information.
- Take precautions before authorizing phone permissions and access to websites and applications.
- Do not scan QR codes from unknown origins.

If you believe you are the target of a brushing scam, secure your online presence by changing account profiles and request a free credit report from one or all the national credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) to identify possible fraudulent activity.

https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250731

Good info especially with the Xmas gift buying season about to ramp up.

[hobie]

Tori Branum: MAGA influencer and candidate for congress in Georgia, outed herself as the one who tipped off ICE about the Koreans working at the Georgia Hyundai battery plant. Effectively killing the multi-billion dollar project

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-09-08/national/socialAffairs/US-politician-who-reported-the-LGHyundai-plant-to-ICE-faces-online-backlash/2393750

You MAGA might be interested to know that Hyundai and SK Engineering (both Korean) are responsible for designing, building, equipping and training nearly all US automotive (Ford, Chevy, Toyota etc) and battery factories. Now they cannot. But hey, you showed them slanty-eyed antisemitic terrorists!

[jb]

I thought this explainer on the topic was pretty good:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOXKmJ5jxeu/

tl;dr: Yes, the Koreans probably weren't here legally. This sort of arrangement has been tolerated by previous administrations because it's just temporary in order to get factories that end up employing mostly Americans off the ground. This move will make it harder and less likely for other foreign companies to build new factories in the US.

As usual, the worst enemy of Trump's policy aspirations is the Trump administration.

[ThePublius]

How about just: Follow. The. Law. What's wrong with that concept?

We have immigration laws, and visas, and all kinds of other things related. Flaunting them or ignoring them damages the respect for law and order in the U.S. I might also point out that in the case of the Koreans, to allow them to continue would be grossly unfair to all of those who have been deported.

[Sarcastr0]

Bing bong so simple!

We have laws, regulations, guidance, and practices. Our society is complex; it's laws are complex.

You may be simple, but that's on you; it's not a reflection of real life for folks who are not comfy yet angry little men.

[Mr. Bumble]

The wisdom of Il Douche.

[LexAquilia]

Look at that TDS dipshit. Now he's saying laws are just too complicated for billion dollar companies to have follow.

Won't someone please think of the corporate profits?!?!!

[ThePublius]

Follow. The. Law.

[LexAquilia]

But that's just too hard for billion dollar multi-national corporations!

Sincerely,
Sacastr0, jb, et al.

[Sarcastr0]

I explained why that's meaningless. You either don't understand or don't want to understand.

A childlike response.

[ThePublius]

You didn't explain anything! You just rationalized the Korean's illegal immigration and labor by saying "it's complicated." Bullshit!

Not liking the law or finding it complicated or convoluted is no excuse for breaking the law.

They have lawyers, and can get more. Put your thinking caps on and try to figure out how to do it - legally!

Geez. Yours was the childlike response.

[David Nieporent]

Not liking the law or finding it complicated or convoluted is no excuse for breaking the law.

Being Donald Trump, on the other hand, appears to be an all purpose excuse for breaking the law.

[jb]

Except. When. It. Says. To. Spend. Money. You. Don't. Want. To.

But fine. Follow the law. Just don't be surprised when the 13,000 manufacturing jobs that were going to be created by this factory go away. Turns out FAFO applies to immigration policy as well.

[Jmaie]

"Bing bong so simple!'

I never pictured you as a Family Guy fan...

[Sarcastr0]

Takes me back to my callow youth, but I was into it back in it's first run, right in the early 2000s.

[Martinned]

How about just: Follow. The. Law. What's wrong with that concept?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Imagine being a Trumpist who is angry that people aren't following the law!

[shawn_dude]

Who knew that Trump meant "my order" when he said he was a "law and order" president?!

[Michael P]

That's what I can't figure out. I'm working on a project where some of us in the US travel regularly to Australia. When someone travels exclusively for meetings, s/he uses the visa-free Electronic Travel Authorization path. When people go to install or test anything (or, I imagine, maintain things -- which I think hasn't happened yet and we would rather have Australians do), we get the right work visa, count how many days they work in Australia, and make sure the right taxes get paid, and so on. Yes, it takes some effort to comply with the law. It's still the law.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm planning on going to the Eclipse in 2029 (I know it's 2028, I'm trying to keep it a secret) Got my Passport updated and everything,

[Sarcastr0]

It's a reg plus guidance, not some black letter 'the law.'

Stuff gets nuanced; it gets based on relationships and expectations on what compliance entails.

Trump openly does that all the time with businesses he likes. Announces it on twitter, even!

I suppose that's different?

As noted, if this practice was no longer in compliance, the right thing to do is give notice. The company got no notice; that's just performative assholery.

And we will absolutely pay for it on the world stage.

[not guilty]

"We have immigration laws, and visas, and all kinds of other things related. Flaunting them or ignoring them damages the respect for law and order in the U.S. I might also point out that in the case of the Koreans, to allow them to continue would be grossly unfair to all of those who have been deported."

Imagine a United States economy bereft of the contributions of undocumented workers. Produce would rot in the fields, and grocery prices would increase significantly for years. Many restaurants would close, and those remaining would charge higher prices. New housing would become largely unavailable, as well as more expensive as to the remaining housing stock. Manufacturing plants would experience labor shortages.

How is xenophobia a good thing?

[Mr. Bumble]

Per homie hobie : " Effectively killing the multi-billion dollar project"
Not true.
jb. If these workers were so important to getting the plant up and running why didn't the owners take the steps to bring them here legally?

[jb]

It sounds like there's not a good visa path to support this kind of temporary skilled labor. You technically need an H-1B which are (a) very limited and hard to get and (b) intended for longer term (up to six years and H1-B holders can become eligible for green cards).

[LexAquilia]

Well if the laws don't work out the best for you, just ignore them and do what you feel is best!

That's how laws are supposed to work. The individuals discern their necessity and only follow what they personally decide is in their best interest.

[ThePublius]

"It sounds like there's not a good visa path to support this kind of temporary skilled labor. You technically need an H-1B which are (a) very limited and hard to get and (b) intended for longer term (up to six years and H1-B holders can become eligible for green cards)."

No, you are incorrect. See my reply to the OP below.

[ThePublius]

First, your invocation of racist motivations is reprehensible.

There are legal ways to do this kind of thing:

special visas for foreign companies setting up new plants in the U.S.

"For foreign companies setting up new plants in the U.S., several visa categories are available for transferring key personnel, including nonimmigrant options like the E-2 and L-1, and the immigrant EB-5 visa for investors. These visas require the company and the foreign national employee to meet specific eligibility criteria.

Nonimmigrant visas

E-2 Treaty Investor visa
The E-2 is a nonimmigrant visa for nationals of a country with a treaty of commerce and navigation with the U.S. who are making a substantial investment in a U.S. enterprise.
Purpose: To develop and direct the operations of a U.S. business. It is a good fit for establishing new facilities, though it does not provide a direct path to a green card.
Investment: The foreign company must make a "substantial" investment in the new U.S. plant. While no minimum amount is specified, the investment must be significant relative to the total cost of establishing the business.
Ownership and nationality: At least 50% of the U.S. enterprise must be owned by nationals of the treaty country, and the visa applicant must also be a national of that country.
Employees: Key employees, including executives, managers, or those with specialized knowledge, can also qualify for E-2 visas if they have the same nationality as the foreign owner.

L-1 Intracompany Transferee visa
The L-1 visa is designed for multinational companies transferring executives, managers, or employees with specialized knowledge to a U.S. office, and is often used for establishing new branches. The foreign company must demonstrate a qualifying relationship with the new U.S. office. For new offices (operating less than one year), requirements include proof of physical space and financial viability. Employees must have worked for the foreign company for at least one year in the past three in a qualifying role. A new office L-1 is initially granted for one year with potential extensions.
Immigrant visa (green card)

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program
The EB-5 program offers a path to a green card for foreign nationals who invest in a new commercial enterprise that creates jobs for U.S. workers. The required investment amounts are $800,000 in a targeted employment area or $1.05 million elsewhere, and the investment must create at least 10 full-time jobs for qualifying U.S. workers within two years. Successful applicants and their families initially receive a conditional green card."

[jb]

I was surprised that they weren't using L-11s. Not sure if there's a really good reason or they were just being lazy. At a minimum, though, there's this:

https://www.colombohurdlaw.com/l1-visa-denial-rates-increase-substantially-under-the-trump-administration/

This reminds me a bit of digital piracy. If you make it really hard to do the right thing, people become more likely to do the wrong thing instead.

[ThePublius]

I'm sure that if corporate leadership contact the White House and said they wanted to build a plant here and create more jobs, they would get help.

[jb]

Maybe? Maybe they were lazy. Maybe they tried to do this and the State Department told them they just had to go through the same procedure as everyone else. I've worked for and with companies that hire a lot of immigrants, and I've never heard of some special process that involves calling the White House. But maybe they could get Trump a box at the US Open and he'd help smooth the way.

At the same time, though: if Trump actually wants foreign companies to build factories here, presumably someone could have reached out to LG and said "Hey, we hear that you guys are relying on ESTAs and B1s for the workers you're bringing in. Other administrations may have looked the other way on this, but we want to make sure everyone is obeying the law. Let's work together to get everyone on proper visas." Going straight to doing a big raid seems likely to substantially dampen interest in this sort of investment, and LG has already put the Georgia factory on hold as a result.

[ThePublius]

You're blaming the cop for pulling over a speeder, eh?

[jb]

Nope, I'm blaming the mayor for telling the cops to be zero tolerance on speeding the same week he's hoping to get the sports car convention to come to town.

(But also, if we're sticking with the analogy: https://apnews.com/article/trump-fbi-firing-a7b19a5f414ce82c6f6b5f6656000d23 )

[Keldonric]

Good point. These cases can be handled through compliance and outreach or through enforcement theater. It looks like they went with the latter on this one.

[bernard11]

JB is exactly right. Make the phone call and try to get it right. Don't drop a big bomb if you don't have to. There's always collateral damage.

Look. If your company is in a dispute with another one over some matter, you don't run to the courthouse immediately. You try to work it out in a reasonable way first (especially if you consider yourself a mater negotiator).

Same thing.

[Frank Drackman]

Ironically the Koreans really DO eat the Dogs (and the Cats)

[ThePublius]

Chinese, too: Yulin Dog Meat Festival.

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/china-dog-meat-festival

[shawn_dude]

The eating of dog meat is frowned upon in South Korea. Some still do it and I recall seeing a couple examples when I used to live there but it's rare.

[ThePublius]

Perhaps not as rare as you perceive:

"In 2022, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of South Korea published a first official report called "Edible dog breeding and distribution survey". The report states that 521,121 dogs are reared in 1,156 dog meat farms and 388,000 dogs are consumed in 1,666 restaurants per year, as of February 2022. According to the "Public Perception Survey on Dog Eating", 55.8% of respondents said that society should stop eating dogs, while 28.4% of respondents answered that it should remain legal. As for the legalization of dog slaughter, 52.7% of respondents were against it and 39.2% were in favor of it. About 85.5% of respondents said they do not currently eat dog meat, and 14.1% said they do.[32]"

[shawn_dude]

What I recall was that a lot of Korean homes had small dogs as pets and only the large breeds were used for meat. They were treated more like ranched animals than pets. I do recall reading a news report about the survey you quote. Perhaps my location in Korea had a smaller number.

[Kazinski]

I know where the dog meat street food area is in Phnom Penh. My wife says if you let your dog loose on the street that's where you'd go to find it.

The Louis and Clark expedition when they came down out of the Rockies into Idaho turned up their nose at the salmon the Nez Perce offered them and bartered for some dogs because they wanted some red meat.

[jb]

In the Monday open thread Riva made this defense of Trump's race-based South African refugee policy:

It is NOT a policy to favor “whites” because of the color of their skin, little nimrod. It is a policy “to consider eligibility for U.S. refugee resettlement for people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or a member of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.”

If you know a way to aid people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or a member of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination without reference to the people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or members of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination, don’t keep it to yourself super genius.

As far as I can tell this is the exact sort of rationalization that folks make for affirmative action (i.e., you have to have a race-based preference in order to address the harm against them). Why is it okay to have racial preferences for white people but not for other races? Or, even reading the policy more broadly, why is it okay to have a race-based policy to address harms done in South Africa but not to have a race-based policy to address harms done in the US?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know, it sounds more like the Freedman's Bureau, in a way.

The Freedman's bureau, in offering aid to former slaves, unavoidably was offering aid to mostly to blacks, not whites, simply because almost all the slaves were "black". (As a matter of nominal status, I mean; A lot of those 'blacks' would have looked pretty white, "one drop", remember.)

If you're going to be offering refugee status to racial minorities in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination, they ARE unavoidably, going to be white. Because blacks ARE the majority, and ARE subjecting whites to unjust racial discrimination.

[jb]

But the policy isn't just "we're going to help people who were discriminated against and that's just going to mean mostly white people" it's "you explicitly have to be Afrikans". If you're a black South African who has suffered racial discrimination you're not allowed to apply.

[loki13]

You speak with such authority! Tell me, Brett. How many times have you been to South Africa? How many South Africans (white, black, or otherwise) are you friends with?

South Africa is facing a lot of issues. But given your strong statement (it's practically reverse Jim Crow, amirite!!!!!), you might ask yourself, "Brett, if I am so confident that it is a literal hellscape for white people in South Africa, why did so few white South Africans take advantage of this opportunity to escape? After all, I've been told they are being genocided, or something!!!!"

Well, Brett, I don't want to lie to you. It's rough. If you've been there, or know people from there- you know. But do you know what else? It's infinitely preferable to be white in South Africa, still, than black. If you don't believe me, take your lying eyes and start doing some research. Start checking out some basic economic statistics about where the wealth in South Africa is. Where it still is.

Or, you know, you can go there. With your many South African friends.

I feel like people's brains are on Trump auto-pilot sometimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gosh, it just might be that I have a African American long time friend, who I talk with?

[John 4]

Lmfao is this real life

[loki13]

OMG. That was perfect. I can't even. I haven't laughed this hard at a response in some time. It's terrible, but also 100% Brett.

"I read what you wrote, and I will demonstrate exactly how thoroughly I did not understand it!"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[hobie]

Let's make a list of shithole countries whose immigrants have faced racial discrimination. Riva will stamp his approval. I'll start it off:

Palestine
Myanmar
Mali
Chad
Congo

[apedad]

Note: Which Congo (there's two)?

Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville, capital)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa, capital, formally Zaire)

I was in RoC in the late 90s.

Laurent Kabila was moving his army from east Zaire to the west (where Kinshasa is), and eventually captured the city and the country in late 1997.

We were in Brazzaville directly across the Congo River to assist US personnel and friendlies evacuate the city/country.

[Riva]

As far as I can tell, you are a fucking moron. We're talking of specific groups targeted for real, specific harms. Racial preferences or affirmative action benefit parties by virtue of their racial identity absent any assertion of real, targeted harms. There is no comparison. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide is defined as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This is not affirmative action you abysmal idiot.

[David Nieporent]

It is NOT a policy to favor “whites” because of the color of their skin,

Technically, the bot is correct; if whites were favored because of the color of their skin then Trump would be protecting rather than punishing Ukrainians. Rather, the South Africa thing is a policy to favor whites because of the color of the skin of the people supposedly persecuting them. "Protecting" whites from blacks is the kind of thing MAGA can get behind.

[Riva]

I guess it's too much to ask that you give the vile dehumanizing bullshit a rest for a day or two. You really are a classless asshole. And your asinine comment merits no additional response.

[Sarcastr0]

A sincere ask about something you care about is not followed by you doing the exact same thing you claim bothers you.

You have given no evidence of good faith, just shitposting.

Be the change you seek in the comments section.

[Riva]

The leftist lack of self awareness is truly awe inspiring. There was nothing sincere about this troll’s original comments in the prior thread that engendered the response he cut and pasted out of context. Evidence of that was zero response or engagement on my arguments there, and more, significantly, zero response here. Zero response from you and zero real response from the other asshole troll above, apart from more of the same vile dehumanizing bullshit that you, of course, ignore. You fuckers are beneath contempt.

[Riva]

And here's my advice to you. If you really want a sincere engagement and exchange of ideas, then just respond like a reasonable adult to my contention that the resettlement of groups suffering and targeted for hostile action by their home country is not in anyway akin to racial preferences or an "affirmative action" program, anymore than the 1948 convention against genocide is an affirmative action program. It would be the first time here if I received anything other than distracting trollish bullshit as a response, especially from you or shithead DM above.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think this comment invites serious engagement?

Again - if you're really displeased with your rhetorical treatment, then treat people better rhetorically.

I don't care about your fragile but aggressive tone, so I'd be happy to engage with your discussion of South Africa...if you engaged at all with DMN's point about the special pleading at issue. As usual, you don't appear to have read his comment at all.

[Riva]

If you actually cared about seriously engaging with an adult response you would have provided such a response instead of regurgitating more of the same bullshit. And more of the same bullshit because you lack the wit to respond. Pathetic and contemptible.

[Magister]

If groups suffering and targeted for hostile action in their home country were selected equally for assistance as refugees without regard to race, your assertion might carry some weight. But clearly that is not the case with the Afrikaner refugees.

[Riva]

We've circled back to the beginning. Clearly they are the group being targeted in their home country. Again, if you know a way to aid people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or a member of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination without reference to the people who are of Afrikaner ethnicity or members of a racial minority in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination, please enlighten us. Also you may want to propose some revisions to the 1948 Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. I'm interested to know how your new definition will protect those against acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group without reference to the national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

[Magister]

I have not disputed their suffering or the discrimination that they have suffered; I am questioning whether they were selected among all the suffering racial/ethnic minorities in the world for this succor in a color blind manner. They've been offered a cushier deal than other refugees get, and yet few of them have taken the offer, suggesting that their suffering and fear are not really that significant, while those who are suffering more are ignored.

[Riva]

Cushier treatment? If by that you mean that the Trump administration is the ONLY US administration that has ever offered aid to these abused groups in S. Africa, then I agree. Now, it is true that prior democrat administrations implemented virtually unaccountable, broad resettlement polices rife with corruption and mismanagement. The Trump administration has suspended those programs, but allows relief as needed on a case by case basis. But your racial fair logic demands that this particular group, found to suffer human rights violations, must continue to suffer mistreatment unless the US readopts the democrats' failed blanket resettlement policies. In actuality, you don't object because the Trump administration is being racist, you object because benefits are no longer being dispensed based on a biased racist perspective.

[Magister]

No, I mean that the offer was better to these refugees than to other refugees: prioritized with the red carpet treatment. You persist in not understanding what is plainly stated; very much a poorly programmed bot behavior.

[Riva]

No, little piece of shit troll. They are receiving support in this case because they are being mistreated. Other persons are perfectly entitled to relief on a case by case basis. That there are no more blanket resettlement grants does NOT impugn this policy. That is the point you are either too abysmally stupid to understand or too lacking in integrity to admit your error. Whatever the case, still being unable to respond, you resort to the same vile bullshit trolling. Yeah, you piece of shit trolls sure want to engage on the issues. Fucking waste of my time.

[John F. Carr]

This is the Supreme Court docket for the recission / impoundment case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a269.html. Trump's August 28 "pocket recission" can remain in effect until Friday when the respondents AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition et al. file their papers.

[loki13]

Trump temporarily blocked from removing Federal Reserve Board Governor.

From the ruling-
"The best reading of the 'for cause' provision is that the bases for removal of a member of the board of governors are limited to grounds concerning a governor's behaviour in office and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing their statutory duties.

"'For cause' thus does not contemplate removing an individual purely for conduct that occurred before they began in office."

For the love of go... the economy, please keep this is place. I have less than 1% faith in the Supreme Court right now, but I think that this might be a bridge too far, and they can just refer back to their earlier "maybe it's precedent, maybe it isn't" rulings that said the Fed is special.

[LexAquilia]

The judge completely ignored the mortgage fraud conducted while she was a Fed Governor.

But who cares about facts? Definitely not this judge or loki13. They have an economy to save! This black heroine is the only True Black Voice on the Board and that's how economies get saved!!! By strong black women! Shut-up a black woman is speaking!!

[John F. Carr]

Based on a 20 year old memory:

The governor of Massachusetts wanted to remove a board member of a quasi-independent agency for cause. She couldn't just do it. She had to hold a hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard. So she did and removed him. The outcome was inevitable. The process needed to be followed.

Then the terminated board member went to court and his termination was ruled to be illegal. The governor retaliated against his statements on a matter of public concern.

[loki13]

By the way, I know that the loudest people care the least about (and know the least about) the actual law-like substance this blog is about*, but here's the opinion for those who are curious:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv2903-27

*Ostensibly about. Calling Blackman's posts "law-like substance" is an honorific I would be hesitant to bestow.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sotomayor encourages us to read the opinions.

[Commenter_XY]

Thanks for the link. It is always the written documentation that makes the difference, is what I think. Whether that is a financial form, or tax forms, you name it. It is the written stuff that hurts (or exonerates). Were her actions legal and aboveboard? We'll see.

We've had Fed Govs that were more or less 'busted' for stock trading and resigned. Did they break the law? Don't know, but it sure looked bad to me. What I see is something that looks like an upper middle class version of mortgage fraud; the race part is irrelevant. It isn't cheap to own three homes. That is why the docs matter and the timing between the transactions in question matter. The DOJ is looking at it.

[loki13]

I will repeat what I have noted before- the whole referral from Bill Pulte (if you look at the history of his three total referrals, and the fact that he was the person who has been trying to get Trump to go after the Fed, even to the extent of writing a letter for Trump to sign to fire Jerome Powell previously) stinks to high heaven.

That said, did you actually read the opinion? Do you understand what the issue is?

Yes, if Lisa Cook is convicted of a crime, she can't be the Fed Chair.

I suggest reading and understanding the first issue in the opinion (the "for cause" issue, before the due process issue, which is separate and distinct). It's kind of important. And it's pretty well explained.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I understand. It is about the limits of presidential power.

[loki13]

...no. That's not it. At all.

I give up. I honestly believe that the part on "for cause" is as clearly and cogently written as possible, but maybe I am just so used to reading legal opinions that I can't understand that people who aren't don't get it. Or maybe you didn't bother reading it.

Either way, that's not it.

[Sarcastr0]

Sucks the analysis has nothing to do with the law, and is just what the Court will decide as a practical/policy matter about when to push back on Trump.

But that's where we are. We have become the rule of men not law judicial activist nation the right always complained we are.

I'm optimistic that there will be 2 votes from the Trump gets everything bloc that will peel off for America's economy to persist, but I'm not going to bet on it.

[loki13]

Well, there's an interesting side issue to this case.

If you read the opinion, the DOJ specifically disclaimed any ability to argue the constitutionality of the provision (Op. at III.A.1 at 9).

Which means that ... they can't argue Humphrey's Executor. They waived. Instead, they are arguing that the Court can't review it (not going to get far with the argument) and the "for cause" standard- which was thoroughly and thoughtfully demolished (as I knew it would be).

That said, it is the Calvinball era, but I think that this is one the Supreme Court might simply duck and leave the injunction in place. I don't have a strong confidence in that because ... everything ... but moreso than most cases. Simply because the facts and the law are so bad, and because it's the Fed, and I know that there are some conservative Justices (Kavanaugh, for example) that have already gone on the record many times in the past about the Fed.

[LexAquilia]

White people have a simple choice to make:
1. Be conquered, enslaved, raped and genocided while being called "racist" and "antisemitic".
2. Reclaim our nations and our dignity while being called "racist" and "antisemitic".

It's that simple.

h/t @StagWhyatt
p.s. I added in my own bits

So powerful. So true.

[Martinned]

Muted

[LexAquilia]

Thank you for sharing with everyone how virtuous you are! Scotland Yard will surely take this into account as it reviews the rest of your public postings for illegal opinions.

[John F. Carr]

A Massachusetts teachers union asked the local school committee for an $800 bonus for some of its members. The union ultimately signed a contract without the bonus. The union persuaded town voters to appropriate funds for the $800 bonus. Verdict: The union violated its duty to bargain in good faith with the school committee. No cash bonus. Not yours. You can't go behind the committee's back like that. As for the First Amendment, "labor peace in the sense of exclusive collective bargaining has been held to be a compelling government interest." The right of the union to ask for money has to yield to the rule that it use the collective bargaining process.

Andover Education Association v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, https://www.mass.gov/doc/andover-education-association-v-commonwealth-employment-relations-board-ac-t24p465/download

The nominal defendant is the state agency that ruled against the union.

[apedad]

'Exact date' Jesus will return to Earth as signs of Biblical doomsday prophecy 'begin'

In a YouTube video posted earlier this year - which has since been viewed half a million times - Pastor Joshua Mhlakela claimed that Jesus had recently appeared in a vision to reveal that doomsday would be upon us very soon.

"The rapture is upon us, whether you are ready or not," he explained in the interview.

"I saw Jesus sitting on his throne, and I could hear him very loud and clear saying, I am coming soon.

"He said to me on the 23rd and 24th of September 2025, 'I will come back to the Earth'."

https://www.ladbible.com/community/weird/jesus-second-coming-september-2025-015093-20250909

Can we ask Jesus to delay HIS return to after the NFL season?

I did REALLY well on my Fantasy Football for the first week (and I prayed too so Jesus helped!), so he could at least help me keep the streak going.

[LexAquilia]

You can ask Him yourself.

[apedad]

Dear Jesus (I prefer the Mexican pronounciation),

Can you delay YOUR return to after the NFL season?

I did REALLY well on my Fantasy Football for the first week (with YOUR gracious assistance!), so hopefully YOU can help me keep the streak going.

Your humble servant,

apedad

PS.

Hat tip to LexAquilla and please send a little loving his way.

Seems like he could use some.

a.

[LexAquilia]

You're welcome, brother.

[LexAquilia]

FYI,

If you want a good chuckle, read up thread about all the Democrat Dipshits who are now arguing billion dollar multi-national corporations don't have to follow immigration law.

What a complete inversion since Occupy Wall Street. lmao unreal. How genius were those mind masters to do this complete reversal of Democrat attitudes in less then 2 decades of time? That sort of trickery and subversion strikes me as very Jewish.

[ThePublius]

"UPDATE: It’s now been exposed that the Court Clerk for the courthouse that released Iryna Zarutska’s murderer was a “DEI consultant” and “racial equity organizer,” and the superior judge was “DEI champion of the year.”"

DEI strikes again. This murderer had 14 priors, and should never have been walking the streets.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1965590293614657964

I swear, we need to go back to public executions, and perhaps adopt the Guillotine. (For the murderers, of course.) (The use of the guillotine in France ended in 1981 when the death penalty was abolished, though the last execution by guillotine took place in 1977 with the beheading of Hamida Djandoubi. Maybe there are some used ones available?)

[LexAquilia]

That chick isn't even a lawyer and has never practiced law and was previously funded by shadowy leftwing multinational NGOs and their dark money.

[loki13]

I'm not even going to bother asking if you researched this before passing along this "breaking news" and/or hot take, or even what you're talking about, because while I don't know the specifics of how the North Carolina court system works, I have a reasonable question I think anyone would ask-

How does a court clerk "release ... a murderer"? I'm open to someone educating me on the topic regarding North Carolina law, because I'm really curious.

North Carolina- where the BBQ has mustard and a court clerk can just release murderers when they feel like it! That's the state motto, right?

[LexAquilia]

and the superior judge was “DEI champion of the year.”

You missed that part.

[Estragon]

I, too, am confused by this because as written it seems to say “the courthouse” released this guy? I also fail to see the relevance of the clerk’s background— as you point out, and let me hasten to add I am also unfamiliar with this jurisdiction, a clerk’s duties are typically ministerial, at least in my neck of the woods. So I’m not quite sure what DEI has to do with it…? Publius, can you explain

[jb]

Also, he was arrested for making crank 911 calls. It's true he has a history of violent crimes, but is the theory really that if you were previously convicted of a violent crime you should have to sit in jail if you get arrested for any nonviolent crime?

[Ridgeway]

Point of Order!

BBQ sauce in NC does not have mustard -- that is SC.

NC is either vinegar-based (Eastern) or tomato-based (Western).

[shawn_dude]

The only good information in this entire thread...

[Sarcastr0]

“DEI consultant” and “racial equity organizer.”

Utterly irrelevant. Contentless race-baiting.

Niggerlover by another name.

[ThePublius]

It's not utterly irrelevant. These are the people teaching that whites are inherently racists, and that blacks can't be racist. It's entirely possible, likely, that they cut him loose in large part because of his skin color, regardless of his dangerous criminal history. That would make them the racists.

[Estragon]

“they cut him loose”

I once again find myself wondering what role you think the clerk plays in “cut[ting] him loose.”

And, out of curiosity— in your little fantasy, who is the guillotine for? I guess the perpetrator, but also the “racists”?

[ThePublius]

I don't know what role the clerk played, but he was released by Magistrate Judge Teresa Stokes, "DEI champion of the year."

"All 10 House GOP members from the Tar Heel State signed a letter urging formal proceedings to remove Magistrate Judge Teresa Stokes. They cited her decision earlier this year to release Decarlos Brown "based solely on his ‘written promise’ to appear for a future court date.""

"They argued that the release "was made despite Brown’s extensive criminal history, which included at least 14 prior arrests for serious offenses such as possession of a firearm by a felon, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and physical assault of his sister.""

I would guess that the clerk simply processed the judge's order.

[Estragon]

“I would guess that the clerk simply processed the judge's order”

Ok. But then why would the clerks personal views on DEI be relevant to what happened here?

[loki13]

ThePublius,

I know that you try to pride yourself on logic. So I have to wonder what the hell you're talking about. If you didn't get the humorous responses to your post, supra, I'll explain it to you. I can't tell you definitively what the race-baiting "breaking news" you decided to share was up to, but I can tell you that as soon as I saw that someone was saying that the court clerk was all evil for releasing a murderer, I knew better than to trust whatever they were trying to sell me.

So let me ask you a question- if you try to parse your rhetoric, does it actually make sense to you? You're spouting a lot of stuff, but what do you actually know? Not cherrypicked things. Not whatever bile is being circulated on X. But what do you know about what "DEI" (or "woke") for that matter actually is? Other than a boogeyman?

Because what you just wrote made no sense at all. And then you leap from that to asserting that "they" (the clerk?) cut him loose "in large part because of his skin color" and therefore "they" are the "racists."

I mean, did you look into the actual facts? What he was arrested for? You know that the murderer has a long history of severe mental illness, right?

This is a tragedy. Although, it is good to know that there is one example where you will support the immigrant! (FYI, the Trump administration ended the Biden administration's TPS for Ukrainian immigrants, which is its own thing, but whatever)

I think that there are some good lessons that need to be learned here. How did the system end up failing two people- one, a severely mentally ill person who should have received the attention and medication that they needed (HA! like that will ever be considered). And second, an immigrant who would soon be kicked out of this country who fled to America because of a war, and ended up dead - not from a Russian drone, but because of a random attack from a mentally ill individual.

It's sad, isn't it?

[ThePublius]

"All 10 House GOP members from the Tar Heel State signed a letter urging formal proceedings to remove Magistrate Judge Teresa Stokes. They cited her decision earlier this year to release Decarlos Brown "based solely on his ‘written promise’ to appear for a future court date.""

"They argued that the release "was made despite Brown’s extensive criminal history, which included at least 14 prior arrests for serious offenses such as possession of a firearm by a felon, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and physical assault of his sister.""

He was released by Magistrate Judge Teresa Stokes, "DEI champion of the year."

Yes, I'm making the leap that his release was, in part, racially motivated, and probably also a liberal/progressive who's soft on crime, and opposed to incarceration. I don't think that's a big leap.

Don't you think this guy should have been held, and perhaps involuntarily committed?

"Brown, who was reportedly diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been charged with a misdemeanor in January after calling 911 and demanding responding officers investigate "man-made" materials inside his body controlling him, according to KATV.

"He called 911 again after being angered by the police's refusal, and was subsequently arrested and charged with a misdemeanor, according to the outlet."

Let this guy just walk? You tell me.

[Estragon]

“Yes, I'm making the leap that his release was, in part, racially motivated”

Sometimes accusations like this can be very revealing.

[ThePublius]

You don't think that ever happens?

[loki13]

I'm going to point this out- after people pointed out the ludicrousness (facially) of your original news bomb, you just keep digging.

Look, the case is a tragedy on multiple levels. That you are digging into it to find your own outrage is saying a lot- a lot about where your head is, what bubble you live in, and what is driving your animus.

I know- it's not fun or doesn't warm the cockles of your heart to say, "Man, looks like our system let down a severely mentally ill person, repeatedly, and because of that we had a terrible tragedy that took the life of an innocent refugee from Ukraine. I hope that we can learn from this so that the prior errors in the system in failing to identify and treat this person are identified and rectified before another tragedy occurs."

Naw. That's hard. That's systemic. That would require talking about why we, as a society, have such poor resources when it comes to mental health- and how we can manage to look the other way unless and until we jail them. But you do you!

[jb]

Don't you think this guy should have been held, and perhaps involuntarily committed?

He probably should have been involuntarily committed. I'm not sure what the procedure for that is in North Carolina.

Other than in hindsight, I don't think anyone would normally make the case that someone should be held in jail without bail for making fake 911 calls.

[loki13]

One of the main problems is that in a lot of states, you run into two issues-

1. It's REALLY HARD to involuntarily commit someone.

2. The involuntary commitment usually only lasts until they stabilize- so a lot of the time, they are given meds, stabilize within a short time, and then are released. And they don't continue taking their meds (or can't access them).

Basically, prison ends up being the mental health facility (ahem) for a lot of people. Because eventually they'll commit a crime and get locked up.

[ThePublius]

"FYI, the Trump administration ended the Biden administration's TPS for Ukrainian immigrants, which is its own thing, but whatever"

Are you sure about that? I searched and found this:

"Trump did not terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ukrainians. As of September 2025, Ukraine's TPS designation remains in effect. In January 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) extended Ukraine's TPS through October 19, 2026."

"Ukrainians with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) are not required to return to Ukraine as long as their TPS designation is valid and extended. The TPS designation protects them from deportation and allows them to remain in the U.S. due to the ongoing conflict and dangerous conditions in Ukraine. However, after the TPS period ends, they must leave the U.S. or have another authorized status, such as a different immigration status or asylum."

[loki13]

I apologize for the misstatement. Factual accuracy matters.

Trump did not terminate the TPS status (see, e.g., Venezuela). However, let's be clear on the dates. The January extension of the TPS status was ... the Biden administration. You knew that, right?

I should have more accurately said that the Trump administration is allowing the status to expire.

I know that immigration law is a quagmire (imagine being an immigrant!) but here's the distinction. The TPS status hasn't been formerly revoked- it's not like some of the other examples.

So you're a Ukrainian refugee who arrived prior to August 16, 2023, making you eligible for TPS status. Make sure you do that correctly (if you file too soon or too late, you're SOL and "undocumented").

Except ... wouldn't you know it? There's an administrative hold on many of the proceedings. What does that mean? It means that their status is expiring without knowing their actual status (and with no ability to legally work ... because if they do, that's also a violation) and if there is an issue (and why would there be any issue with this new process with heightened and discretionary standards with this administration) they can't re-file.

It is more correct to say that there has been a deliberate creation of a Kafka-esque maze for Ukrainian refugees on TPS, so that Trump doesn't have to officially end Biden's extension of the TPS program, while making it impossible for people of good faith to actually comply.

That's the fuller more accurate account, which is true, but also much more sad.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"It's entirely possible, likely, that they cut him loose in large part because of his skin color, regardless of his dangerous criminal history. That would make them the racists."

Nah, you are the weakest link. Buh-bye.

[ThePublius]

"Nah?" That's a compelling argument.

[shawn_dude]

And this is what, exactly?

"It's not utterly irrelevant. These are the people teaching that whites are inherently racists, and that blacks can't be racist." --ThePublius

That's not an argument, either. It's a confidently delivered conspiracy theory, yes, but not an argument.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I wasn't making an argument. I was just citing the ultimate reason why he has become a grey box.

[Estragon]

Between “bring back the guillotine” and “fire up the snowplows”…. We may need to shut down Massachusetts until we figure out what the hell is going on over there.

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about? I never said anything about snowplows. ANd my Guillotine remark was with regard to Decarlos Brown, Jr.

[Estragon]

You and Ed are both in MA, are you not?

[Moderation4ever]

I noted in my newspaper the other day that American faith in capitalism continues to fall. Maybe the Reason authors can have another round of how scary socialism is. Or maybe they could look at why people think capitalism is failing them and how we might change the dynamics of capitalism to improve its image.

[Poxigah146]

Because we don't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism. When crony capitalism rules the day and the rich get endless bailouts and free money, don't be surprised when people look for an alternative.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree the country's leaders have gone overboard with supply side economics. Focusing on supporting the rich rather than the middleclass. A more middleclass focused capitalism would be more dynamic and would again raise people's faith in capitalism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Part of it is because, as Poxigah146 says, we don't really have free market capitalism.

Part of it is because we didn't do to the communists what we did to the fascists after WWII.

[bernard11]

Part of it is because we didn't do to the communists what we did to the fascists after WWII.

And what is that? Execute some of the more prominent (and useless to us) ones, imprison a few others, and let the rest go to Argentina, except for the ones we want for our missile programs? Those we bring here and honor.

Or would you prefer dropping a nuclear bomb on Moscow?

[Sarcastr0]

'Real capitalism has never been tried' is just the the mirror of the tankie "Real Marxism has never been tried."

Utopianism is where you find the craziest zealots. Because utopia justifies the means.

[LexAquilia]

“Overall the study found that after 10 years, 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue while 57% of the vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue.”

https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1965520139132256554

Trust the science! No not that science, only trust the Science (tm); that the elites and narrative controllers tell you to trust and what affirms your preexisting beliefs! Science(tm)!! Vaccines are too critical to humanity, literally every single thing Big Pharma labels a vaccine, is too critical to trust science. You must only trust Science (tm)!

[Moderation4ever]

Do you have an actual citation for the study not just the antivax attorney talking about the study? It would be nice to see what the actual study says.

[jb]

Here it is:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7268563/

I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.

[jb]

Okay, of note: it's a paper from two anti-vaxers, one trained in chemical engineering and one a psychologist. Hooker in particular has had multiple papers retracted.

This gives one some reason to be dubious, in addition to the fact that the findings seem to contradict numerous other studies about long term association. The samples also come from pediatric practices that seem pretty vaccine-skeptical given the low vaccination rates. Although it's not statistically significant, it's also weird that their control diagnosis (head injuries) also shows a weak correlation with vaccine status, which would at least make me wonder a bit more what's going on with the rest of the data.

[LexAquilia]

>Okay, of note: it's a paper from two anti-vaxers, one trained in chemical engineering and one a psychologist.

Now that's what a true Scientismist(tm) does when confronted with counter facts! Attack the messenger. Science(tm)!!

[jb]

Lex apparently can't read past the first sentence of a comment.

[Estragon]

Senator Cassidy asked it the other day, mildly curious to hear your answer:

Should Donald Trump have received a Nobel Prize for operation warp speed?

[OpinionsVary]

Trump and covid vaccines is a really interesting case and one of the few examples where Trump's base has moved him rather than the reverse.

The truth is, whether he deserves a Nobel, Trump deserves a lot of credit for Warp Drive. Throw lots of money at people to get this done as quickly as possible was exactly the right thing to do and he, well, did it. And it worked. He said a lot of really stupid stuff too during covid but warp drive - giving the experts piles of money and telling them to get it done - wasn't one of the.

And you can tell Trump feels that way. He 'fixed' covid and he feels he should get credit for that.

But then comes his base. And a large part of the base (or at least a *loud* part) really really hates the covid vaccine. I remember a few years back. Trump made made a comment praising his vaccine. And the normal anti-vac, pro-Trump suspects went crazy until they were collectively able to talk themselves into believing the, of course Trump wasn't praising the horrible covid vaccine. He was parsing... something else! Like horse dewormer or detox or whatever particular snakeoil they believe in. And that's just one example.

So Trump has toned down talking about his success here. And I think it might really annoys him that he has to do it. That he has to ignore one of his actual real genuine successes because his base - HIS BASE, which he owns - gets mad over it.

[jb]

Yeah, it's weird. One of like two good things that Trump did in his first administration and his base hates it.

[Frank Drackman]

I've gotten every Covid shot, (my Mom tells me to) but even I'm a little suspicious that they coincidentally come out with a new one every year, while my Small Pox Scab from 1989 is still supposedly protecting me. Last year the Publix Pharmacist (Yes, it's Georgia) acted like I'd asked her for a Foot massage,
"Are you sure you don't mean the Flu or Pneumonia Shot? You're the first one to want the Covid one (it was end of November) you know you'll have to pay out of pocket....."
Jeez, she almost talked me out of it, but I've got that "Jewish Son" thang going on, not like Mom's going to check my Immunization Record, but she can sniff out a Lie like a friggin Bloodhound....

Frink

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for an unusually accurate telling of that story. (I say this sincerely.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"He said a lot of really stupid stuff too during covid but warp drive - giving the experts piles of money and telling them to get it done - wasn't one of them."

It wasn't just throwing money at it, though. It was also landing like a ton of bricks on anybody who tried to throw up bureaucratic obstacles. Without that, the vaccine would have arrived after the pandemic was already over.

"And a large part of the base (or at least a *loud* part) really really hates the covid vaccine."

I think it's more a matter of hating having it forced on them, than hating the vaccine as such. And hate for all the bs lockdowns and mandates. But hate for all that may have just generally spread to the vaccine itself. People in herds just don't respond to things in a nuanced way.

[Sarcastr0]

I know people at BARDA.
They are all fans of OWS.

They also tell me the bureaucratic obstacles were largely about cost controls. Establishing efficacy and safety was still required.

So yeah, it was basically throwing money at the problem. Which is fine! But may not align with your 'regulations are the root of all evil' narrative.

[shawn_dude]

Prior work on SARS, which had nothing to do with Trump, also played a major role. The sort of pre-pandemic work he's defunding now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, duh.

As a general matter, children in good health were at essentially no risk at all from Covid. Virtually everyone under the age of 17 and older than an infant who died of it had some comorbidity such as diabetes. And that was obvious very early on, one of the reasons people got ticked off about the efforts to mandate vaccination of children.

So, that being the case, which children would get vaccinated at the highest rate? Yeah, that's right: Ones who had chronic health problems.

[Frank Drackman]

Look at the list, they mandate Immunization for Hepatitis B, because we don't know which Babies will be IV drug users or "Men who have Sex with Men" (in my day, we called them "Fags")
Human Papilloma Virus, same thing, you know what they DON'T require? Smallpox, which is something (the) Zoran Ramadan-a-damn-him's followers might unleash on Amurica (you heard it here first) Plague, Ditto,

Frink

[DeAnnP]

The study was not about COVID vaccines.

[jb]

In defense of the study, it's about routine childhood vaccines, not the Covid vaccine. And they do make an attempt to exclude children whose diagnosis with a chronic disease predates their vaccination.*

Having said that, yeah, they don't seem to make any effort to control for lots of obvious alternative hypotheses even though they mention a few of them.

* They do this in a dumb way, though, that probably ends up skewing the sample.

[DeAnnP]

In this study, which only allowed for the calculation of unadjusted observational associations, higher ORs were observed within the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group for developmental delays, asthma and ear infections.

Unadjusted observational associations are observed statistical relationships in a study population that have not been corrected for other variables (covariates or confounding factors) that could influence the observed relationship. In essence, these are the raw findings of an observational study, indicating that two things occur together, but without considering other potential explanations or controlling for differences between the groups being studied.

[hobie]

Good news everyone! Gas prices will be going down. The industry grapevine has it that Trump made a deal with Saudi and a couple other gulf states to increase output. We don't know what he offered them, but it must have been sweet for them to go against their own interests. So this means local extractors will have to increase output as well. No biggie, just means layoffs in the patch. Did you notice last week Conoco, Chevron and Haliburton all reduced their workforces by 20%? MAGA baby!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Justice Sotomayor is also on a book tour, promoting a children's book about her mom. She was on Stephen Colbert last night.

One thing she referenced was to remember the good things that people you disagree with do. She grants, as a former prosecutor, that a small group of people don't really have much good in them.

The shadow, aka emergency docket, was discussed, too.

The "shadow docket," as originally discussed in William Baude's article and Steven Vladeck's book, is broader than the "emergency" docket that Sotomayor discussed.

She noted that orders like the one handed down on Monday were not the end of the line.

Baude's article spoke of “a range of orders and summary decisions that defy its normal procedural regularity,” including death penalty-related orders. Many of them are quite final.

Steven Vladeck, in a recent blog, listed some examples: "everything from denials of certiorari to summary reversals to “GVRs" (orders granting certiorari, vacating, and remanding for further proceedings), and in between."

We should be clear on terminology here.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1961&context=public_law_and_legal_theory

https://substack.com/inbox/post/172960487

[JoeFromtheBronx]

PBS had interesting documentaries on FDR (part of a series) and Thurgood Marshall (appears to be a one-off) last night. I caught the end of the first & saw the whole Marshall documentary. It was mostly about his life before becoming a justice.

[Frank Drackman]

You want something really entertaining, watch Thoroughly (Bad) Marshall's "Farewell" Press Conference, he makes Sleepy Joe's Debate performance look like friggin William G. Buckley.

Frink

[Bwaaah]

Frunk?

[Frank Drackman]

It’s “Frink” and like John Hurt in “Alien” you’ve just stumbled into the trap, been misspelling it for awhile to see if anyone noticed, you did.

[Mr. Bumble]

Frack?

[Bwaaah]

I first noticed your conversion late last week. Now I see you transitioned earlier last week. But you reverted back several times along the way, and it confused me enough to wonder if you'd best be known as They Drackman. (I wouldn't.)

Frank? Frink? Frunk? Frack? Same bargain.

BTW...nice breach of the moment with the Luigi remark. That was not a time for humor, Frink. Not a time for humor.

Here's a notable observation: in the immediate days after 9/11/2001, black people (and all the other peoples) in the city quieted down, and even turned their radios down when stopped in their cars at traffic lights, reflecting their feelings of respect for the gravity of the moment. (Seriously. The world turned upside down.) As one black person said to me, "You don't see n_gg__s pullin' shit like the motherf__kers in those planes. That's next level fucked up shit."

So now nobody can tell me those people don't have decency inside 'em. I saw it. There's just too many of them cultivating that Fuck You And Everybody Else attitude. But when the moment mattered, at least that moment after 9/11, the decency was all around.

You and your Luigi remark? At a time like this? Not 9/11. Vintage Frank.

[Michael P]

News outlets like the NYT are reporting that Dems in Congress want to shut down the government in order to get Republicans to agree to increased deficit spending.

I'm not sure they have fully thought through this cunning plan, or how it will look for the midterm elections.

[apedad]

You sure about that?

Seems like it was a NYT's columnist that was pushing that.

"New York Times columnist Ezra Klein said on his podcast Sunday that Democrats should consider forcing a government shutdown to oppose President Donald Trump.

Earlier this year, progressive House Democrats urged Senate colleagues to block funding, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ultimately supported a continuing resolution and encouraged colleagues to follow.

'If you had forced me to choose, I would have said Schumer was probably right. It wasn’t the time for a shutdown — in part because Democrats weren’t prepared to win one,' Klein said. 'But the bill that passed back in March funding the government runs out at the end of this month. And so we’re facing the question again: Should Senate Democrats partner with Senate Republicans to fund this government? I don’t see how they can.'"

[Kazinski]

Did the progressive house caucus change their mind on this:
"Earlier this year, progressive House Democrats urged Senate colleagues to block funding"

But in any case its a bipartisan proposal, because I too favor a government shutdown, and it might even get some freedom caucus votes.

Of course ICE and CBP are both essential services.

Maybe we could use a shutdown to identify more federal agencies and offices nobody would miss. And I would also oppose back pay for furloughed workers.

[Michael P]

Who are you going to believe, CNN or your lying eyes?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/government-funding-shutdown-democrats

[ducksalad]

Credit where it is due: Trump's statement after the Qatar attack is more or less exactly what I'd have hoped for from a normal president both in content and tone.

Statement of disapproved and that the action undermined US attempts to help Israel, reassuring Qatar by calling them an ally, but also explicitly acknowledging that Hamas needs to be defeated. And without one word of bombast or personal bragging.

Well done.

[Frank Drackman]

i.e. "We like what you did, but it's not diplomatic to say that"

[apedad]

A $400 million airplane gift from Qatar sure does smooth a lot of waves.

Especially since that gift - obstensible to the US - will somehow end up in Trump's ownership.

[ducksalad]

Look here, apedad. I'm just trying for a single morning, out of four years, to enjoy the feeling that our president is responsible person rather than a malevolent loose cannon attacking our constitution.

It's a brief and fleeting moment, unlikely to recur. Don't spoil it for me.

[Bob from Ohio]

"400 million airplane gift "

"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought."
Simon Cameron

We approved the mission. No way Israel did this on their own. A Mossad hit, perhaps, but not this.

Plausible deniability.

[Bob from Ohio]

"reassuring Qatar by calling them an ally"

We should stop that ASAP. Qatar is an enemy we pretend to be an ally because we want a base there.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree, The Donald said what had to be said.

My thought is POTUS Trump will be even more pissed if Israel whiffed on snuffing out those hamas animals.

[shawn_dude]

How crazy is it that we we feel the need to congratulate a President for getting a basic diplomatic comment correct when he has an entire department of diplomatic experts to write it for him? No disrespect to ducksalad, but this acknowledgement reads very performative.

[ducksalad]

Shawn, allowing professionals to write the statements is a major advancement if it continues, wouldn't you agree? Imagine if he let responsible professionals influence actual policy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Josh Blackman is a significant focus in a new Adam Liptak piece, "In New Book, Think Tank Behind Project 2025 Takes On the Constitution," with multiple quotes from the VC contributor.

"The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" has a preface by Justice Alito and contributions from more than 30 federal judges.

Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston and the book’s senior editor, said the president would do well to consult its roster of contributors.

It is noted that he writes "provocative" blog posts at Volokh Conspiracy. He explains his strategy:

In an interview, Professor Blackman said his popular writing and his scholarship occupied different lanes. “When I’m writing sort of an advocacy piece, I’m trying to accomplish something, trying to make a point,” he said. “And for better or worse, in our ecosystem, the way you get attention is sometimes to use stronger language. There’s just no way around it.”

His scholarship, he said, was careful and deliberate.

==

Justice Alito ...

In his preface to the book, Justice Alito welcomed the rise of originalism, calling it “a profound and beneficial change.”
In the 1960s and 1970s, he wrote, Supreme Court decisions were not based on neutral principles.

When I think "neutral principles," I know that I think of Sam Alito. There is a dig at Roe v. Wade, which uses text, precedent, and other means to interpret the Constitution:

That decision, he wrote, “did not strictly follow anything other than the majority’s view on what represented wise public policy.”

Does this include the long passage of the history of abortion, or the section that parses the textual usage of "persons" to determine if that constitutional term applies to fertilized eggs and the like, or the summary of privacy precedents?

The book can be partially helpful in that the contributors are a de facto SCOTUS shortlist.

[Kazinski]

The problem with Roe isn't that it didn't fully look at history or science, or medicine, it's that it crafted a legislative remedy to address its findings.

Do you want the current court to take a survey of unaddressed societal problems and start crafting its own legislative remedies?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Okay. So, Roe did use various traditional legal methods, contra Alito, but it was wrong to do "X."? Is that the idea?

Roe established legal doctrine to draw legal lines. Comparatively, many doctrines in the speech area weigh various state interests. Courts traditionally do this.

I support courts crafting judicial remedies, though the proper approach is up for debate. Sometimes, rights will overlap with "unaddressed societal problems" such as how Brown v. Bd addressed the unaddressed social problem of state-enforced school segregation. The courts will get involved there.

[bernard11]

The book can be partially helpful in that the contributors are a de facto SCOTUS shortlist.

Based on the quotes from Brasher and VanDyke, that is actually frightening. Alito's quote is also quite silly.

[Kazinski]

August PPI came out today and it seemed to show that July's blowout .9% PPI report was just a onetime blip, in fact July PPI was also revised down from .9% to .7%. August PPI was actually negative, coming in at -0.1. With the negative August number and the July revision y/y PPI is 2.6% which is quite an improvement from the unrevised 3.3% number from last month.

"The Producer Price Index for final demand edged down 0.1 percent in August, seasonally adjusted, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Final demand prices advanced 0.7
percent in July and 0.1 percent in June. (See table A.) On an unadjusted basis, the index for final demand rose 2.6 percent for the 12 months ended in August.

The August decrease in the final demand index is attributable to a 0.2-percent decline in prices for final demand services. In contrast, the index for final demand goods inched up 0.1 percent."

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm

This is definitely good news because it will make it much easier for the Fed to go ahead with a rate cut next week.

I know I am making excuses for being late with posting this, but after last weeks job report I think I better. PPI was released about 6 hours ago, but its just 11:30 in AZ, and I was out last night because of my wife's birthday, and I might have had 1 or 2 more after I got home, but at least I hope I got it out before Sarcastro notices I'm late with it.

[LexAquilia]

As if that horrific bus ride and presidential assassination attempts weren't enough Leftwing violence, now they've gone and shot Charlie Kirk.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/10/charlie-kirk-shot-utah

When will society rise up against the Democrat menace? They are an existential threat to humanity. Is any White person safe around a black or a Democrat?

[Kazinski]

A prominent GOP Political figure was just shot.

Bloomberg is reporting Charlie Kirk has been shot in the head in Utah.

And yeah, I see, Lex beat me too it above but I took the opportunity to mute Lex, which I had been thinking about a while, so I am not posting this as a reply. Lex wants to see everything in terms of good or evil, which is part of the problem.

[LexAquilia]

Thank you for sharing with everyone how virtuous and pure you are. That's how you stay safe, protect yourself from other opinions.

Everyone make sure to give Kaz big props for being so good and pure!

Charlie Kirk is for sure dead, but lets make this all about you and how virtuous you are. That's what's important, hijacking a horrific assassination to make it about you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Didn’t you kind of do the same thing by making it about your hatred of democrats and “blacks?”

[LexAquilia]

Observing reality isn't "hatred". The state of the world now is if you're a White around a black or a Democrat, you better be armed and have your head on a swivel. They are coming for you.

Only to a deranged Leftist is self-preservation of a White "hatred of democrats and blacks".

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah but you still made it about your personal political beliefs. How is that not hijacking a horrific assassination?

[LexAquilia]

Observing the Leftist violence against Whites isn't "personal political beliefs" it's "empiricism".

HTH,
LA

[LawTalkingGuy]

It helps in the sense that you’re so convinced of your own correctness and righteousness that you don’t see the similarities between your behavior and those you condemn.

[LexAquilia]

I don't murder who disagree with my beliefs.

That's what separates people like me from the Left.

MSNBC just said "it could have been a gun rights supporter celebrating Charlie's visit" or something very similar

Sick sick sick.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No I mean you condemn others for hijacking a tragedy to voice their political beliefs…and that’s what you’re doing now.

Also we don’t even know who the shooter IS. People tired to claim it was a left-winger who shot the people in Minnesota and then they turned out to be wildly incorrect.

[LexAquilia]

Making observations about reality isn't "hijacking a tragedy to voice their political beliefs".

"People should be allowed to own guns" is a political belief.
"Leftists have become violent" is an observation.

TIA

[LawTalkingGuy]

No it’s a political belief. Because you’re tying everyone you associate with an ideology as you personally and subjectively define it to violence.

If I said in June that “right-wingers have become violent” after the Minnesota shootings, would you say I was just making an observation?

[LexAquilia]

If the data supported your claim yes, I would say you were just stating a fact.

But the data doesn't, it supports my claim.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/progressives-political-violence-donald-trump-assassination-attempt

The data say what the data say. It's not political to make statements about observed facts.

Prescient:

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1909391943802703899

Assassination culture is spreading on the left. Forty-eight percent of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent said the same about Donald Trump.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://ccjs.umd.edu/feature/umd-led-study-shows-disparities-violence-among-extremist-groups

I have data too. Is mine political or yours?

[LexAquilia]

Do you think data from 1948-2018 and 1970 to 2017 is recent enough to discuss violence trends in Leftists today?

Obviously you must or you wouldn't have submitted the link.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you want me to add the right-wing mass shootings that have happened since then?

Tree of Life
El Paso Walmart
Buffalo supermarket
Allen Texas shooting

Oh and of course Vance Boetler, Roy Den Hollander, etc.

And while it’s not American there was also Christchurch.

[jb]

Fortunately, the competing studies don't even contradict each other.

Lex's study shows that people on the left talk about political violence. LTG's study shows that people on the right actually engage in it.

HTH

[LexAquilia]

It's remarkable how 50% of Democrats saying murder is acceptable for achieving political goals was never denounced.

Only defended and whataboutted.

[Bwaaah]

Jeez, Louise. Can you crank it down a bit? And where's your cite for "for sure dead"/"horrific assassination"?

[LexAquilia]

There's a close up video floating around, and it's very graphic and probably unsurvivable. It's so bad you don't need to be a doctor to draw a conclusion of probable demise.

[ThePublius]

It's tough to tell on the video, but it looks to me like it struck him in the left of his neck. If he doesn't bleed out he could survive it. Hope it didn't hit his spine. Corotid artery is a big risk, but you can live with one.

This might sound callous and nerdy, but it seems to me (as an experienced target shooter) it was a trigger "yank" by a right handed shooter. (These go low and right, towards 4:00 o'clock.). But who knows.

No one deserves this, not conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican. This is terrible.

[LexAquilia]

Thank you for the perspective, and I hope you're right and not me.

[bernard11]

No one deserves this, not conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican. This is terrible.

I agree, and I also think political violence is a serious threat to the country.

[ThePublius]

Amen.

[Commenter_XY]

There will be more violence. It should not surprise anyone.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It seems pretty bad, from people who have seen the video.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Daily Caller guy was reporting that he made it to a hospital and is receiving blood. Hopefully they’ll stabilize and flight him to somewhere in SLC. If he’s going to make it he’s going to need to get to a Level 1 trauma center with a fully staffed ICU ASAP.

[ThePublius]

In my car, and on my boat, I have pro-grade first aid and trauma kits. I wonder if they had an ambulance and EMTs on-site, by the stage? Would generally be a good idea.

I belonged to a gun club that would hire an EMT team with an ambulance for big matches. Fortunately we never needed it. Of course there were a few accidents, but no serious injuries or deaths since 1935.

[LawTalkingGuy]

IIRC from my college experience there were usually EMTs around for biggish events outside. And I believe the university is near a hospital, which is good, but it would have been better of he was nearer to a level I trauma center.

[ThePublius]

Agreed. But some good, combat-experienced EMTs (former corpsmen) would have helped a lot. Only thing is the difficulty of stopping a pierced carotid artery.

[Frank Drackman]

And likely Spinal Cord, that was the MLK wound

[Bwaaah]

Get ready for some loud rounds of collective condemnation. Another bad guy, another bad deed, and for the political notoriety, a giant pile-on to come.

Tragedy and ill will. Not a step toward a better tomorrow.

[LawTalkingGuy]

TPUSA says he’s hospitalized but “it doesn’t look good.”

[Frank Drackman]

With modern surgical advances Carotid wounds are entirely survivable, assuming he’s in the SLC area, hold pressure, he’s young so he can lose a lot of blood, A-B-C, patch, he’ll be back.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, was trying to be optimistic, like with MLK’s wounds good chance the spinal cord was severed also, not surviveable

[Commenter_XY]

There is a four second clip of the assassination (attempt? did he survive?) on X. He was shot in the neck. It is grim.

Who was the trigger puller?

[ThePublius]

Developing, but a suspect is in custody.

[ThePublius]

Now they're saying no suspect in custody.

[Frank Drackman]

I’d check on Luigi Mangione, oh wait, he shoots his victims in the back

[LexAquilia]

Now some are even saying the close up video is a AI fake, which while probably not true, is just crazy that it could be.

Unreal times.

[ThePublius]

Turns out the "maybe a supporter shot him" - pundit is Matthew Dowd, who then basically blames Charlie for the attack:

Matthew Dowd (MSNBC) basically applauding the attempted murder of Charlie Kirk: “[Kirk] been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that’s the environment we’re in in, that the people just, you can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.”

May Matthew Dowd get his comeuppance in the afterlife.

[santamonica811]

Pub,
No need to lie about Dowd. I appreciate you including the quote. But nothing in there suggests Dowd supports the shooting, NOR blames the shooting on Kirk. Dowd seems to be saying, "If you say awful and inflammatory things, then you probably should anticipate/expect a bad reaction to what you say." That, to me, is a logically-sound point. And it is NOT the same as saying, "If you say awful things, you *deserve* a bad consequece like being shot." Or, "If you say awful things, you are the responsible party, if a person reacts horribly to you."

I think you are projecting onto Dowd thoughts that he did not express. Probably thoughts that *you* believe that some/many/all liberals openly or secretly hold. Fortunately, I don't think you're accurate about this. My opinion only.

[Bob from Ohio]

Pub didn't say "support" he said blame.

"I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions."

Don't see how you can read that quote as other than blaming Kirk.

[Sarcastr0]

That's direct blame only if you believe in magic.

[ThePublius]

Why don't you be more explicit in your criticism, rather than these terse, vague comments.

[Don Nico]

Because that is his vibe & and method of argument

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That's direct blame only if you believe in magic."

What the hell are you talking about?

He's making the short skirt argument.

And santamonica811 is defending it.

[Don Nico]

"direct" does a huge amount of lifting

[ThePublius]

I'm not lying. Here's his quote again:

“[Kirk] been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that’s the environment we’re in in, that the people just, you can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.”

He's blaming Kirk for his own assassination.

[ThePublius]

What hateful words did CK say?

[Commenter_XY]

MSNBC did not share your opinion; Dowd was fired.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. "That, to me, is a logically-sound point."

How is it a logically sound point, given that hatefulness is in the eye of the beholder? I mean, someone who found MLK's words hateful could make the same remarks about the MLK shooting.

2. How is he not blaming Kirk? The argument you're making is awfully close to "Well, a woman wearing a short skirt can expect to be raped. That's not the same thing as saying she deserves to be raped, but short skirts lead to bad thoughts which lead to bad actions."

[Randal]

If you don't understand how Charlie Kirk's rhetoric was hateful then you're part of the problem.

Also, comparing it to MLK... wow. Intentionally part of the problem I'd say.

[Obviously hoping the assassin gets caught and convicted to the max.]

[TwelveInchPianist]

So in your view, the problem is that not everyone agrees with you about what is hateful, and not that people are shooting each other over disagreements?

Big of you to admit that.

[Randal]

The problem is absolutely that people are shooting each other over disagreements. Why are people shooting each other over disagreements, you might ask if you weren't just here to troll.

The reason is because Americans no longer trust each other to be acting in good faith. Why is that? Hateful rhetoric, in part.

Rhetoric like CK's is designed to demonize the other side. I assume you agree that there's rhetoric on the left that's designed to demonize the right, in fact there's been a lot of talk about that today. But if you can't see that CK was engaged in the exact same thing in reverse, then you're either brainwashed or being willfully blind. Either way it's yet another act of invidious bad faith.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I assume you agree that there's rhetoric on the left that's designed to demonize the right,"

Why yes, you're engaging in it right now. Hateful rhetoric. So why would you say that that's the problem?

[Randal]

Oh please, the whole "it's hateful to point out hateful rhetoric" trope is too lame even for you. Try harder.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh please. It's lame to point out hateful rhetoric? Try harder.

[Don Nico]

So you just consider the assassination to be simply a heckler's veto.

[Randal]

No, I don't agree with Dowd at all. (FWIW he apologized anyway.) I'm just pointing out that CK's rhetoric was in fact hateful. I fully support his right to spew hateful rhetoric.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Interestingly enough William F. Buckley basically did that to MLK Jr. and he remained a prominent figure on the right his whole life and the post office just released a stamp of him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

William F. Buckley blamed MLK for his own assignation? Cite?

[not guilty]

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. apparently had numerous "assignation[s]", which he likely arranged himself or asked someone else to hook him up. J. Edgar Hoover was reportedly obsessed with King's indiscretions in that regard.

But when did William F. Buckley, Jr. comment about that?

[Kazinski]

Dowd has been fired by MSNBC.

If its too much for even MSNBC then I think its fair to say it was pretty bad.

Reminds me of a point made here a couple of weeks ago, when a leftist says something indefensible, other leftists immediately jump to defend the indefensible and end up owning it.

It would be so much easier just to say that was dumb, and move on.

As for MSNBC "cancelling" Dowd, they hired him as a talking head so they could put him on camera and fill air time, attract viewers, and not embarrass them. He failed at one of those core functions.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Unfortunately he appears to have passed.

[ThePublius]

Charlie Kirk dead at 31 after shooting at Utah event, three officials confirm

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/charlie-kirk-shot-utah-reports

[loki13]

Just saw it confirmed on a mainstream site.

My heart goes out to his family. Regardless of the motives or identity of the shooter, I hope he is swiftly caught and brought to justice.

[Frank Drackman]

In Utah he could actually be executed by the same method he used

[santamonica811]

Just terrible news. Aside from being incredibly influential to an entire generation of college-age men and women (mostly men, perhaps); it can't be lost that this was also a guy with a loving wife and young kids. A horrific tragedy. Thoughts and prayers, as usual, to his family.

[shawn_dude]

Now that a popular conservative has died from gun violence, do you think conservatives will have a conversation about gun safety regulation? Or will we get more "too soon" type B.S.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Gun safety? Kirk was apparently murdered with a single shot fired with a rifle from 200 yards away. Were you thinking maybe some sort of new background check might have prevented this?

The only kind of gun control measure which could have had any chance of preventing this would have been a total ban on the possession of any firearms whatsoever--and that would have had to have been implemented a generation ago.

[Kazinski]

It might actually be more effective to outlaw calling people Nazis, but we can't do that because it infringes on a core constitutional right.

It will always be too soon.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I agreed with Charlie Kirk: the 2d Amendment (like the 1st) has a cost.

[Martinned]

Thoughts & prayers

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that legislative immunity does not protect a state Senator accused of having state employees work on his campaign during business hours. A Boston Globe article notes that the SJC's last opinion on legislative immunuty, in 1808, has been influential.

Tran v. Commonwealth, SJC-13641
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/09/10/metro/sjc-legislative-immunity/

[loki13]

Let's see. It's September.

Charlie Kirk was just shot. I just read he is in critical condition, and the person that was in custody was released. I also saw that his wife and family were there. That makes me incredibly sad. I do not agree with Charlie Kirk, but I hope he recovers and that the shooter is quickly brought to justice.

Poland and our allies are dealing with Russia's latest escalation/provocation.
Israel just tried to wipe out the team that was evaluating the proposal that Trump endorsed, a short way away from our major Airbase, on the nation of a key ally in the Middle East, causing outrage. Also? They didn't wipe them out, but did kill a Qatari colonel that was stationed to provide security.
The economy is worsening, the debt is increasing, inflation is going up, the employment and housing markets are pretty much stalled, while the administration is fixated on matters that will make things worse (cooking the books and making the Fed an arm of the executive).

Well, on the plus side ... it's been a good summer in terms of disasters and hurricanes, which is awesome ... because NOAA and FEMA are gutted. Knock on wood.

In short, things are just going great. I am so happy that we have a President who is on the ball and not surrounded by sycophants who will guide us through these trying times and not seek to further sow the seeds of division for short-term gain.

(But seriously, what is Trump going to do about the Poland situation? Call up his bestie, Putin, and say, "C'mon Vlad. You can't do that! Because if you do, I'll have to give you another deadline which I won't make you meet. Don't make me give you another deadline, or I'll be forced to invite you to the White House in a few months, or maybe offer up the Baltic states! You'd hate that, Vlad! You don't want to mess with the master negotiator who is successful at business and whose cabinet has told him he should win the Nobel in Peace and Economics too!)

[LawTalkingGuy]

I was very excited when I saw there the headline about having more concrete evidence that Mars hosted microbial life millions of years ago. That lasted about what, 2 hours?

[loki13]

It's more of the news we've been getting. It's strong, but not dispositive, evidence.

We'd need to return samples to test to make sure. IIRC, that might not happen because the planned mission (with ESA) was the subject of Trump cuts.

But hey- China has a mission in 2027 or 2028. I guess it would be fitting for Red China to find out if Red Mars has life?

That was a terrible joke, and I'm sorry for typing it.

[Magister]

I was expecting a "better dead than red" joke. Hmm, maybe stopping Mars from being Red could motivate a terraforming project.

[Brett Bellmore]

We need a "take a manned lab to Mars" mission, not a sample return mission. And I think we're going to get one, within a decade.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, life on Mars would be really cool, even if it is almost certainly related to life on Earth if it's there. (Earth and Mars have traded a lot of material back and forth since life appeared on Earth.) And we could learn a lot from it.

OTOH, if there's life on Mars, the usual calls to render the entire rest of the universe a scientific preserve will only increase.

[Martinned]

https://crookedtimber.org/2025/09/09/five-technological-achievements-that-we-wont-see-any-time-soon/

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah right, some microscopic holes, not exactly Godzilla

[Krayt]

I give you the award for deadest soul. Any solid evidence of life off Earth is a one time change.

I'm sure this still won't be it. I recall a Voyager gathering dirt and throwing in chemicals, and presto! Proof of life.

Waiiiiit. Other processes could explain this.

Well, why didn't you idiots pre-shoot down the results and update the experiment before wasting a billion dollars.

In fact...

1. Propose an experiment
2. Decide what is a successful result that proves live is or was there.
3. Let people poke holes in it.
4. Update experiment, go to 1.
Repeat until nobody can find a hole. Then launch.

They may find a hole later anyway, but at least this will put scientists way further along than first guesses.

[Frank Drackman]

Why would it be so horrible if it turns out Earth is the only place j-Hay blessed with Life?
br>
Sort of makes us “Special” dontcha think? (HT Alanis M)
And paraphrasing Fermi, if there’s so many billions of planets with Intelligent Life(ie not Earth)
“Where are they?” Shouldn’t we at least get their Commercials?
The way we turned out wouldn’t blame him if he tried to drown us out again

Frunk

[Krayt]

One solution to the Fermi Paradox is this is actually a virtual world.

"Who wants to live through the ascendancy of AI as it actually happened?"

https://youtu.be/3Lg_1Ka3C5I

[Randal]

I've never heard a convincing version of the Fermi Paradox.

To me they always seem to boil down to like, a shark wondering why no one else has shown up to eat all the yummy seals.

[Don Nico]

That may be because it is not really a paradox.

[Armchair]

"But seriously, what is Trump going to do about the Poland situation?"

Maybe he'll just remove all the missile defenses from Poland, then ask Putin for more space until the next election.

[Sarcastr0]

It's like a reflex with you, eh?

I'm not sure that even had to go through your brain; might have been purely spinal.

[Don Nico]

Step one is seizing the $300 billion in Russian assets and making it a weapons trust fund for Ukraine

[Kazinski]

Russia now says that the drone strikes in Poland were accidental, they had no intention of targeting Poland.

Either their guidance system sucks, or the coordinates were miscoded, or some other malfunction.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Or...maybe they're lying?

[Martinned]

But seriously, have Hegseth and Rubio discovered yet that Russia borders Poland?

[shawn_dude]

While hurricane season technically starts in June, it doesn't really get going until mid-late September. What's left of NOAA is predicting an above-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane season.

[Frank Drackman]

Looks like CK succumbed to his wounds, an APB has been issued for a “Black Assault-Style Rifle” (shot from 200 yards, could be any Marine who qualified in the last 60 years)

Frunk

[ThePublius]

Agreed. Regardless of what the general public may think, 200 yards is not a long shot with a rifle. It is the minimum distance we shoot on the National Match Course (Service Rifle Match), and we do it offhand (standing, no support or rest). Off a rest 200 yards is a trivially easy shot. I assume it was an AR-15 pattern rifle, 5.56x45 (.22). I used to shoot that out to 600 yards, and I was competitive.

[John F. Carr]

The French are having their day of raucous demands for things they can't afford. The country is not completely shut down. It's more or less on the level of the anti-Trump marches in America.

https://www.lefigaro.fr/social/direct-bloquons-tout-10-septembre-mouvement-greves-manifestations-perturbations-transports-ecole-20250910
https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2025/09/10/mouvement-du-10-septembre-une-journee-de-mobilisation-proteiforme-qui-converge-vers-la-figure-d-emmanuel-macron_6640346_823448.html

[Area Man]

SCOTUS today denied an application by South Carolina that has the effect of allowing a transgender student to continue using the restroom of their choice while litigating continues. All of the liberals joined the order denying the application, but not one of them explained their vote. Surely this means they’re all unprincipled, partisan, results-driven hacks who act arbitrarily. That’s how this works now, right?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. There’s actually a big difference between denying extraordinary relief without explanation that lower courts have also denied and granting relief without explanation despite the lower courts denials and explanations.

[Area Man]

No. We need to know exactly what the Court is thinking and why it's making the decisions it is. Otherwise, how can lower courts get the guidance they need? (Put aside that when the Court does provide an explanation, those same lower courts claim that those decisions aren't precedential, so why did they need the explanation to begin with?) Otherwise the public is left in the dark as the Court operates in the "shadows"...and other such blather.

[Sarcastr0]

The assumption is the Court agrees with the lower courts' reasoning; no further explanation needed. If the Court wants to say otherwise, it can. But if it doesn't, no one is left in the dark.

You can see how this is not the case when the Court disagrees and reverses - there's oftentimes no reasoning to rely on at all in such a case.

[ThePublius]

Here's something Charlie Kirk posted back in April:

Assassination culture is spreading on the left. Forty-eight percent of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent said the same about Donald Trump.

In California, activists are naming ballot measures after Luigi Mangione.

The left is being whipped into a violent frenzy. Any setback, whether losing an election or losing a court case, justifies a maximally violent response.

This is the natural outgrowth of left-wing protest culture tolerating violence and mayhem for years on end. The cowardice of local prosecutors and school officials have turned the left into a ticking time bomb.

[Kazinski]

Here is the link to the tweet.

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1909391943802703899

The chart Charlie Kirk posted noted a poll where 48% of "left of center" respondents said murdering Elon Musk would be justified, and 55% said killing Trump would be acceptable.

The population as a whole was 31% and 38%.

[shawn_dude]

Nothing says "whipped into a violent frenzy" like hippy grandmothers in pussy hats.

Kirk was an immoral propagandist who targeted emotionally volatile rubes.

"left-wing protest culture tolerating violence and mayhem" Uh-huh. And the violent January 6th criminals were pardoned by...?

[Poxigah146]

The 1/6 criminals being "violent" has been debunked many times over. Give it a rest.

[Randal]

? This is a strange thing to say. We've all seen the footage. Are you one of those Insurrection Deniers? You think what, Jan. 6 was an AI hallucination?

[Poxigah146]

The only violence came from the trigger happy black cop who shot Babbitt.

[Randal]

You conveniently forgot about all the cop-beating I guess.

[ThePublius]

https://x.com/cspan/status/1965880228460265945
"@SpeakerJohnson
: "The Chair would ask that all members present in the Chamber and those in the gallery please rise for a moment of prayer for Charlie Kirk and his family."

After the moment, various lawmakers can be heard shouting about prayers and gun control."

No respect.

So, yea, here comes the typical lib/prog "no prayers and thoughts" and "we need an assault weapons ban" crap.

How about controlling your own?

[Bwaaah]

As I saw it (live at the time), the people in the chamber stood quietly with their heads down in silence. As the Speaker attempted to resume House business, there was a shout of a woman's voice that was subsequently reported to be Lauren Boebert, who was demanding that the speaker lead the chamber in a spoken prayer. That triggered objections, and a call for order from the Speaker, and then a resumption of House business.

[ThePublius]

You missed a lot.

[Bwaaah]

It looked like a moment of respectful silence from all, and when done, an attempted breach by Boebert. It strikes me as a lowly opportunistic move to use the tragedy as a moment to drag the House into a collective demonstration of her preferred brand of fealty.

[ThePublius]

Because of you I just watched it again, and pumped the sound through my stereo system. There were shouts of "no more calls for thoughts and prayers" and similar calls for gun bans, with at least half a dozen women calling out.

I don't know what to say, maybe your computer sound is poor, or your hearing is failing. Notice the shouts are coming from the opposite side of the chamber from Boebert.

The speaker repeatedly pounding his gavel and said "the house will be in order" before finally responding to Boebert. The shouts were an interruption.

[Randal]

So you agree that it was Boebert who shouted about prayers first, and the others were responding to her?

Ok then, sounds like the two of you are for some reason disagreeing to agree, which is just as ridiculous as it sounds.

[shawn_dude]

MAGA pardoned its violent criminals that beat cops into submission and hunted down the Vice President for a noose.

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about, and what does that have to do with this thread?

[shawn_dude]

"How about controlling your own?"

Aside from the wide brush you're using there, I don't see conservatives controlling their own. They appear to congratulate them, celebrate them, and protect them from consequences.

[ducksalad]

Throwing things at LEOs, as classified by ThePublius

Category A - Nonviolent, safe. If grand jury indicts any of these, they are corrupt and partisan. The president needs to intervene with a pardon to correct the injustice.

- Fire extinguisher
- Metal pipe
- Chair leg
- Baton

Category B - Violent, deadly. Felony charges are a must, and if a grand jury fails to indict, they are corrupt and partisan. The president's staff must find another grand jury.

- Sandwich

[LexAquilia]

Have you ever seen a more delusional take on J6?

That's the kinda TDS Democrat that goes on roof tops and shoots conservatives.

[Swede425]

Charlie Kirk was a good man.
God bless him and watch over his family.

[hobie]

Lately us libs have stopped taking the high road. Farmers losing everything? Fuck 'em. Charlie Kirk fronting for a pedophile rapist..fuck him. But condolences to his family who probably didn't sign up for his abject hatred and mendacity

[Frank Drackman]

Fuck Charlie Kirk? That’s where you want to go with this? There are worse things than death.

[hobie]

I take it you are going to clutch pearls about me wishing death on people? [that's a trap Frankie, I suggest you not fall for it]

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[Brett Bellmore]

Hobie, unlike the people I generally mute, while I find myself disagreeing with you more often than not, (I assume because of choice of topics.) you are obviously at least capable of coherent reasoning.

Somehow this makes your take on Charlie Kirk all the more revolting.

[Swede425]

You can't possibly be disappointed.
This was always going to be the response to the people they hate.
They've always been good with political violence. That's been apparent for a long time now. They're convinced they're the good guys and you're a nazi. Let them wear their glee like clown makeup, it's actually their honest face.

[Martinned]

He spent every waking moment trying to make the US an ever worse country by every dimension, and one of those dimensions (or several, if you count crime, gun ownership, and mental health separately) now bit him in the ass.

He's one of those people that make you regret that Hell isn't real.

[Estragon]

My thoughts and prayers to the victims and their loved ones of today’s shooting at Evergreen High School in Colorado.

https://nypost.com/2025/09/10/us-news/shooting-at-colorado-high-school-leaves-at-least-2-students-wounded/

[Bwaaah]

Turd alert.

[Estragon]

You can say that again

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[hobie]

Charlie Kirk: 'Release the Epstein files'
Charlie Kirk: 'Don't release the Epstein files'

That is your empire of shit in a nut shell

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[Estragon]

Do we have names for the folks shot in Colorado today, Frank?

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[Estragon]

Right

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[Estragon]

“I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal.”

I am thinking about kirks family, friends, and loved ones this evening. This is horrendous on many levels.

[Estragon]

I am also thinking about the students at Evergreen
High who were shot at school today. Gun violence is an epidemic in this country.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe some particularly sensitive human being, like yourself, will seize an opportunity to show the world his great concern for the Evergreen shooting, at your funeral.

[Kazinski]

Clay Travis makes a good point:

"You cannot call your political adversaries Nazi fascists and modern day Hitlers and then say political violence is wrong when your deranged lunatic supporters act on your statements and kill or attempt to kill the people you’ve attacked. I will not accept it. No one should."

And lets also remember the Luigi Mangione deification.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In this country, we get to strongly dissent, including strongly calling people horrible names, without the assumption that we are justifying violence.

The Supreme Court allowed a religious group to picket a funeral and say God welcomed the person's death. Some people on this very message board use dehumanizing language for trans people, the undocumented, "the left," and others. If that causes violence, I think conservatives should look at their own house.

People have listed the various things Trump and others have done that are authoritarian and fascistic. They did not say they deserved violence. Over and over and over and over again, they spoke in the language of the law or how impeachment should be used or the like. It was not incitement to violence.

Before he died, so many people who strongly (with good reason) opposed Charlie Kirk said they hoped he wouldn't die. That violence is not the answer. Because liberals overall do not want to use violence. What presidential candidate used violent rhetoric?

[hobie]

Exactly who is deifying Mangione? You know, making up shit is tossed around a lot here. I'd hate to see you caught up in that scandal, Kaz.

[ducksalad]

Sadly, you can find some Mangione supporters. No one here that I know of, but then Kaz didn't accuse anyone specific.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, no one specific but it counts for everyone on the other side is how nutpicking works.

[Kazinski]

You don't have to search very far in the comments here to see people calling conservatives Nazis.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not all authoritarians are Nazis. Hope that clarifies things for ya.

[hobie]

Yeah, and I can claim that someone, somewhere has threatened to kill Taylor Swift. Which is probably true

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[Kazinski]

There certainly is a market for it, and this is just one vendor.

https://www.teenhearts.com/collections/luigi-mangione?srsltid=AfmBOoogHRsuve3fCZj1eTNBUA0EiIqcA4N3mTCl1EkH2x8CLS8p

I could see Hobie wearing the "But Daddy, I love him" t-shirt.

[ThePublius]

Hobie, do you live under a rock? Or are you being intentionally obtuse?

Mangione's defense fund is over $1M, in small donations.

"Following his December 2024 arrest for the alleged murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, a notable following of young women emerged in support of Luigi Mangione. Tabloids and news outlets have dubbed these fans the "Luigi Girls" or "fangirls".
How the support manifests
Courtroom presence: Young women have consistently attended Mangione's court appearances, sometimes waiting for hours in the cold to catch a glimpse of him. Some have worn maroon clothing, the same color he wore to an arraignment, or "Luigi" hats.
Online communities: Supporters have formed fervent online communities on platforms like Reddit (r/FreeLuigi) and Discord, where they discuss his case and express admiration.
Merchandise: Supporters have created and purchased merchandise, such as t-shirts, candles, and other items depicting Mangione as a saint.
Financial support: Mangione's legal defense fund has received significant donations, with many donors leaving supportive messages.
Correspondence: Mangione has received so much fan mail in prison that he asked the public to limit the number of photos they send."

As I said, you are either totally oblivious to the news, or you are pretending to be.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think 'the left are the violent ones' plays much outside of the terminally MAGA these days.

When you get a chance, check out what Laura Loomer said.

Wow, she's crazy - it'd be stupid if anyone pretended she spoke for all conservatives!

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[Sarcastr0]

Jesse Watters: "Whether we want to accept it or not, they are at war with us. And what are we going to do about it? How much political violence are we going to tolerate? ... This is a turning point. And we know which direction we are going."

He's a pretty big deal on the right, I believe. No nutpicking here.

What do you think he's saying here? Seems to me like he's pushing for violence. By the right.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I cannot take him seriously. All I see is an angry Ross from Friends.

[LawTalkingGuy]

While we’re remembering things, remember when you kept desperately trying to claim that Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed by Tim Walz’s best friend and then when that became increasingly impossible to do without outright lying you simply forgot about the matter along with the rest of the American right?

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[LawTalkingGuy]

Her name is Melissa Hortman.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[Kazinski]

I certainly remember quoting the letter Boelter wrote saying Walz gave him a hit list.

I certainly don't remember saying anything like the Democrats Boelter shot had it coming.

I hope you can see the difference between speculation about the motive of a crime and victim blaming.

[Randal]

your deranged lunatic supporters

What? No one knows who the assassin was. The Trump shooter turned out to be a white male Republican, presumably trying to be a one-man false-flag operation of some kind. You have to go all the way back to 2017 to find an actual left-wing attack on a right-wing political figure. All the rest including Gabby Giffords (and maybe all the way back to Reagan!) have been perpetrated by right-wing fanatics, even the attacks on Republicans!

I won't be surprised either way. I won't even be surprised if it turns out to be, like, a random Hungarian immigrant woman with a misguided sense of the American dream.

[ThePublius]

"You have to go all the way back to 2017 to find an actual left-wing attack on a right-wing political figure."

Bullshit. Found this in two minutes of searching:

"On August 29, 2020, Aaron Danielson, an American supporter of the far-right group Patriot Prayer,[1][2] was shot and killed, allegedly by a far-left activist, after participating in a caravan which drove through Portland, Oregon, displaying banners and signs supporting President Donald Trump,[3] and clashing with participants in the local George Floyd protests.[3][4]

On September 3, 2020, Danielson's suspected killer, Michael Reinoehl, an American anti-fascist[3][5] activist[6][7] was shot and killed by a federally led fugitive task force near Lacey, Washington.[8][9] Reinoehl had admitted to killing Danielson in an interview shortly before his death, claiming it was in self-defense,[10] although Reinoehl had followed and targeted Danielson."

[Randal]

Bzzt, Aaron Danielson was not a right-wing political figure. Try again.

[ThePublius]

"The Trump shooter turned out to be a white male Republican"

He was registered to vote as a Republican, but apparently turned in 2021.

"On January 20, 2021, when he was 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue.[13][51][19][52] His donation was made on the same day that President Biden was sworn into office.[12] According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an email about "tuning into" the inauguration. He unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022.[53][50]"

[Randal]

Are you some sort of retard? You think he was registered to vote as a Republican prior to making a $15 donation at age 17?

And here I thought you lot cared so dang much about the sanctity of voter registration rolls. j/k of course I don't think you actually care about that.

[Martinned]

The whole point of the 2nd amendment, I've been assured on this blog for literally decades, is to allow the American people to resist a tyrannical government. Now they have one, and nobody is talking about that anymore.

This Kirk turd doesn't seem like the obvious place to start, given that AFAIK he didn't hold any sort of formal position within the Regime, but yeah, it's about time that the American people get angry at what's happening in their country. So far they seem to be doing the sheep being led to the slaughter thing.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"The whole point of the 2nd amendment, I've been assured on this blog for literally decades, is to allow the American people to resist a tyrannical government. Now they have one, and nobody is talking about that anymore."

They will. But it will probably be too late.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where what you mean by a tyrannical regime is just one that for once isn't pursuing left-wing priorities.

Remember, Trump won the election, won the popular vote, and what's got you pissed off is that he's doing what he ran on doing.

Remember, the reason Congress isn't opposing him is that Republicans won control of Congress in that same election.

So, what you mean by "tyrannical regime" is, "My side didn't win the election".

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He's also trashing the US government and the Constitution, but he's really still just getting warmed up.

But, topically, he's already taken a shot (pun intended) at the 2d Amendment, with his suggestion that it doesn't protect the right of transpeople to keep and bear arms. His next shot may be that it doesn't protect his political opponents, whom he has now started to call "terrorists".

[ThePublius]

"Kirk turd?" Fuck you!

[ThePublius]

We don't have a tyrannical government, except perhaps in your deranged, far-left mind.

We have far more free exercise of rights under Trump than we had under Biden.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[hobie]

Frankie, you sound like an incel quoting macho movie lines. Lay off the manischewitz.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[Brett Bellmore]

Speaking of which, I tried some of that a few weeks ago, out of curiosity. Me and my wife tend to prefer sweeter, less acidic wines, but that stuff?

Syrup! It was grape flavored alcoholic syrup!

[hobie]

No sympathy. Like Rush Limbaugh, he destroyed American polity for personal wealth. An absolutely despicable human being

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk

[Kazinski]

That was enough for me Hobie, the snark with very little thought was getting a little wearing, but all bit celebrating Kirk's assassination is way too much.

You must not even be familiar with Kirk, he was one of the nicest voices on the right, would talk to anyone and argue without vitriol and anger. It's like calling Mitt Romney a Nazi all over again. Next time around you got Trump.

You aren't going to get as nice a guy as Charlie Kirk again, his only sin was disagreeing with the left and saying so, with good humor and patience.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I agree. Charlie Kirk was not a legitimate target, and I am very curious to learn how someone (apparently) justified assassinating him. (In case you're wondering, neither was Donald Trump.)

That said, the now-strangely-popular-on-the-right lament that "violent rhetoric" causes violence is as much bullshit now as it was when uttered by Democrats after previous atrocities committed by right wing nut jobs. At least Democrats probably believed what they were saying--Republicans only say it to troll the libs.

I note that Trump is now calling Kirk's assassination "terrorism", and that his administration will now go after those who fund and support it. The magic word, of course, being "terrorism", a label which he believes he alone can apply and which allows him to order the US military to summarily execute suspected terrorists without any due process whatsoever. Buckle up...

"In a video address from the Oval Office, Mr. Trump said that liberal criticism of conservatives was “directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”

“My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials and everyone else who brings order to our country,” he said."

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's an open question at this point, (Since the killer has not yet been identified, nor, despite reasonable assumptions, has the motive been verified.) whether this was terrorism, and whether it was funded and supported.

Support for terrorism, of course, can rise to the level of being criminal. It's a vague word, covers a multitude of sins.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed, the assassin may very well turn out to have been a member of Tren de Aragua, acting on direct orders from El Presidente Bus Driver himself.

[Randal]

I think it's an open question at this point... whether this was terrorism...

Really? In what fantasy world could it turn out to be terrorism?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In the Trumperverse, political opposition is now "terrorism". That's how.

Just like the 11 people allegedly on that speedboat in the Caribbean were all "terrorists", because Trump said so.

[ThePublius]

If, in order to expeditiously interdict them, labeling drug traffickers terrorists is fine with me. Illicit drugs illegally imported into the U.S. are an existential threat. Fentanyl, in particular, is extremely deadly. In recent years as many as 74,000 in one year (2023) in the U.S. have died from fentanyl overdoses.

So, you get some intelligence, a speedboat is rapidly approaching our coast, doesn't answer on the radio, are obviously not yachtsmen: sure, if they won't respond, blow them up. It's less risk to U.S. personnel than trying to stop them and board, and it sends a powerful message.

Just as the English interdicted slavers in the early 19th century in international waters, we are interdicting drug traffickers in like manner.

[LexAquilia]

Charlie Kirk was not a legitimate target,

You have a duty to expand this comment. Maybe with some examples of who are legitimate targets of Democrat Supremacist political violence.

[Mr. Bumble]

"An absolutely despicable human being"
Yes hobie, you are.

[not guilty]

The New York times reports:

A Venezuelan boat that the U.S. military destroyed in the Caribbean last week had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it, according to American officials familiar with the matter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/us/trump-drug-boat-venezuela-strike.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250910&instance_id=162263&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=205638&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

The article states:

The disclosures provide new details about a military operation that was a startling departure from using law enforcement means to interdict suspected drug boats. Legal specialists who have called it a crime to summarily kill suspected low-level smugglers as if they were wartime combatants said the revelations further undercut the administration’s claim that the strike was legally justified as self-defense.

If Tren de Aragua is a threat to the United States, and if as Trump claims it is controlled by the government of Venezuela, why has Trump not asked Congress for a declaration of war?

[Frank Drackman]

Supporting Venezuelan Drug Cartels will play well in Peoria.

[not guilty]

No one supports Venezuelan drug cartels, in Peoria or elsewhere. But why hasn't Trump asked Congress to declare war?

And BTW the line, "Will it play in Peoria?" has a vile provenance.

[Frank Drackman]

Same reason Barry Hussein didn’t ask his DemoKKKrat Congress to declare war on Off-gone-E-Stan when he re-invaded in 2009, he didn’t /doesn’t have to

[Kazinski]

Too late.

[Randal]

It's a trap. It's always a trap. Trump is going to go another 3.5 years just skirting (and occasionally flaunting) the line the same way he's been doing for a fucking decade in order to twist the left and the media to his will. There's never going to be a flashpoint to turn the public against him. They might turn against him for more mundane policy reasons, like they did with covid, but he's never going to make the mistake of doing something obviously stupid like (flagrantly) disobeying the Supreme Court, for example.

I get the media's response. I don't get how Democrats can let ourselves be fooled in the exact same way, like, literally hundreds of times in a row. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a thousand times... what even is that? Mind control?

[Frank Drackman]

More like Stupidity

[Brett Bellmore]

Like Frank said.

Haven't you noticed the dynamic? You're competing against each other to describe Trump in the worst possible terms, he's a stupid ugly spastic fool with BO... A shambling toxic waste dump.

And you bring yourselves to believe this trash talk.

That makes it impossible for you to respond to Trump as he is, a cunning adversary. You walk into traps repeatedly because you have convinced yourselves that he's incapable of setting traps.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why hasn't Trump asked Congress for a declaration of war? Why would he? He's got Congress by the pussy--they just let him do it.

[John F. Carr]

"why has Trump not asked Congress for a declaration of war"

I think he has, implicitly. He gave notice under the War Powers Act. The letter is linked from the NYT article. Under the Act (50 USC 1544(b)) Congress is expected to declare war, otherwise authorize use of military force, or by inaction require cessation of hostilities.

So if the original attack was legitimate, Trump is following the process Congress prescribed and he gets a total of 60 or 90 days of blowing up small boats before the fun ends. The Act does not itself authorize initiation of hostilities. Trump will have to look elsewhere for justification.

(On shooting missiles at boats, recall Bush's quip about using a million dollar missile to knock down a tent.)

[Poxigah146]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-appeals-court-largely-upholds-new-jersey-gun-restrictions/ar-AA1MhIDC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=68c22d1db58a47eaae153dea1938328b&ei=16

They're not even trying to pretend.

""As we look through our history, a pattern emerges: our Nation has permitted restriction of firearms in discrete locations set aside for particular civic functions and where the presence of firearms was historically regulated as jeopardizing the peace or posing a physical danger to others," she wrote."

"Discrete locations" to this filthy cunt, means "basically everywhere."

[Estragon]

“filthy cunt”

Yeesh. I think everyone should be careful about their words in times like these

[Estragon]

Why do they keep sending Sean manaea out there?

[Commenter_XY]

Today is September 11....Spare a thought for the ~3,000 Americans killed in 2001 from an islamic terror attack.

That day, I learned everything I needed to know about islam.

[Martinned]

While you're at it, also spare a thought for the unknown thousands of Chileans who died at the hands of the Pinochet dictatorship, which launched its coup d'état OTD in 1973 with US backing.

That day, all of Latin America learned everything it needed to know about the US.

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

[Frank Drackman]

How about the 6 million your shithole country killed?

[ThePublius]

You really have to shit up his post? Have you no respect, no dignity?

[Martinned]

You have a strange notion of "shit up". Today is a sad day, for many reasons.

[Martinned]

Lord Peter Mandelson, former right-hand man of Tony Blair and currently the UK ambassador to Washington DC, has been fired for being buddies with Jeffrey Epstein.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/czewp16k6k6t

Always fascinating to see how different countries have different customs when it comes to things like government officials being friends with paedophiles.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Lord Peter Mandelson, former right-hand man of Tony Blair and currently the UK ambassador to Washington DC, has been fired for being buddies with Jeffrey Epstein."
...and no one knew until now.
Virtue signalling at its best.

[Martinned]

Let me check if I got this right: You would have preferred it if Sir Keir had not sacked Lord Mandelson?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is there more to this Epstein story? Peter Mandelson probably wasn't at the Island for the girls...

[OpinionsVary]

If there's one thing we can say about Mandelson it's that he wouldn't be sleeping with any girls, underage or otherwise.

[Martinned]

One of the better posts on Marginal Revolution in recent months, because it mostly seems to be wall-to-wall posts on how great AI and Crypto are these days.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/09/the-british-war-on-slavery.html

Conclusion:

British taxpayers shouldered an enormous military and financial burden to eliminate slavery, reflecting a generosity of spirit and a sincere attempt to address a moral wrong—an act of atonement that stands as one of the most unusual and significant in history.

[ThePublius]

"British taxpayers shouldered an enormous military and financial burden to eliminate slavery, reflecting a generosity of spirit and a sincere attempt to address a moral wrong..."

As if they had a choice.

[Magister]

In what sense did they not have a choice? Plenty of Americans at that time demonstrated the art of turning a blind eye to slavery.

[ThePublius]

Taxpayers paid. Do people get a choice about paying taxes, and what's done with the money? What don't you get about that?

And what does "plenty of Americans" have to do with this topic, other than some vague whataboutism?

[Magister]

They sustained this effort at great cost over a significant period of time; if enough taxpayers had opposed it then there would have been changes.

The Americans who managed to limp slavery along until the Civil War resolved it were examples of what they could have done instead of "a generosity of spirit and a sincere attempt to address a moral wrong".

[ThePublius]

"Plenty of Americans at that time demonstrated the art of turning a blind eye to slavery."

England banned slavery in 1836. This was 32 years after it was banned in the Northern states of the U.S., in which the vast majority of the country's resided.

"Slavery was gradually abolished in the Northern states throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries, with Vermont banning it in 1777 and all other Northern states following suit by 1804 through legislative action, court cases, and state constitutions." (A notable exception in the North was New Jersey, which ended it in 1866.)

During this period of banning in the U.S., English slave trade continued, up until 1804.

So to say "plenty of Americans" is a bit of a distortion.

[Magister]

Sure, so few Americans supported slavery that there weren't enough on the pro-slavery side to have a civil war over it that would last for years, right?

[ThePublius]

First, I don't understand what you're trying to say from the syntax of your statement. But, regardless of the progressive/liberal narrative of the Civil War, it wasn't, at the start, and for much of its duration about slavery. It was about state's rights, and the right to secede. See Lincoln's own words for that.

Slavery would have petered out without the war. The only thing that slowed that process was Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, which greatly benefitted English industry.

If you don't look at Lincoln's own words, or look into the history of the war, I don't want to discuss it with you.

[Magister]

I was being sarcastic; more plainly, there were enough pro-slavery Americans to force a lengthy and bloody Civil War. You can read about that in history books.

[Martinned]

Of course they had a choice. They could have done what everyone else did at the time and kept slavery.

[ThePublius]

No, they didn't! The taxpayers did not have a choice, they paid their taxes or went to jail!

"In England around 1800, a person who didn't pay their taxes could have their property seized, but it was more likely that they would be sent to a debtors' prison."

And that's not so that at the time everyone else kept slavery. It was ended in the Northern U.S. states by the time England ceased save trade, and decades before England banned slave ownership.

You seem to be asserting that England was to first to stop slavery. That's incorrect.

[Magister]

What, the British were ruled by an absolute dictator in the first half of the 19th century? Did you get that from Dr. Ed 2's dissertation?

[ThePublius]

This is really interesting. Given, the assassin used a bolt action rifle (inherently more accurate than semi-automatics) and successfully exfiltrated the scene. Not caught yet.

(it's long, sorry)
"Eric S. Raymond
@esrtweet
I don't know anything other than public information about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

However, a primer follows about patterns in past political assassinations. I will sketch what scenarios an intelligence analyst would come up with looking at this one.

The first and most important rule in this kind of investigation is: when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.

In political assassinations, as an ordinary murders, the correct suspect is usually the most obvious suspect. Airport-thriller-style convoluted plots and false-flag ops pulled off by unlikely people or organizations are rare in the real world.

Accordingly, when you're trying to solve a political assassination, the right question to ask is "Who said they wanted him dead?"

Then, you infiltrate those organizations, or arrest a bunch of members, and do contact tracing. Usually you do in fact find your killer that way. It's not very different from ordinary police work except for the stakes.

There are broadly speaking three different kinds of assassin: the nutter, the zealot, and the pro. They are not difficult to distinguish once you got your hands on them.

Nutters don't have a coherent political ideology, though they may spout semi-random slogans that political actors can seize on to pretend that they do. They generally have quite an obvious history of mental illness

Before capture, given the kind of public evidence we have now in Charlie Kirk's assassination, it's difficult to tell the zealots from the pros by their MO. It used to be easier, but as I noted in a previous post sniper doctrine and technique have been leaking into popular culture for decades.

It's easier to spot the nutters; they tend to have poor forward-planning capacity. A very obvious way this manifests is a weak or non-existent plan for exfiltrating after the hit. Thus, the nutter is very likely to get caught quite soon after the assassination, often at the site.

This also produces a false-prominence effect - people think political assassins are more likely to be nutters than is actually the case.

Pros - professional assassins working for intelligence agencies or militaries - are also rare. They do occasionally strike - as when, for example the Bulgarian secret service whacked Pope John Paul - but high-profile public assassinations carry a risk of diplomatic and political blowback the most nations are unwilling to assume.

Also, trained assassins are a scarce resource and exfiltrating in the hue and cry following a very public assassination is chancy. Usually you're going to send them against more obscure targets like exiled dissidents that you think might still be dangerous, hoping not to trigger a full law-enforcement and counterintelligence response.

There's been talk in some of the wackier corners of the Right that the Mossad did this one. No analyst would take this seriously; the blowback risk to the Israelis is far too high to justify any gain. Same goes for the Russians, though they have a higher risk tolerance than the Israelis and had a much higher tolerance in Soviet times.

In the case of Charlie Kirk it's pretty high odds we're looking at a zealot. That's usually the way to bet, and in this case, the quality of his exfiltration plan and the fact that he has successfully disappeared raises the odds.

Given all these factors, LEOs are going to be looking for zealots associated with domestic organizations that said they wanted Charlie Kirk dead.

Yes, this seems boring and obvious. The main point I'm trying to drive home here is that the boring and obvious theory about a political assassination is usually the correct one.

Accordingly, the first place investigators of the assassination of Charlie Kirk are going to be looking is gun clubs associated with Antifa and the hard left, like the John Brown Gun Club and Redneck Revolt.

It's not certain that Kirk's assassin is a member of one of those groups, but if you had to place a bet that would be where to put it."

https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1966130285302657124

[ThePublius]

Interesting:
Report: Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin’s Ammo Engraved with Transgender Messages

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2025/09/11/report-alleged-charlie-kirk-assassins-ammo-engraved-transgender-messages/

[ThePublius]

Here's how CNN covered this:

"Federal officials probe rifle and ammo scrawled with cultural phrases after Charlie Kirk killing."

A range of phrases related to cultural issues...."

Give me a break!

[ThePublius]

September 11, 2001

For what it's worth, this is a difficult day for me. I am a native New Yorker, and went to high school in Manhattan. I lost two good friends in that event. God rest their souls.

One was a really delightful, funny, 1st generation Irish immigrant (i.e., he was born here, his parents in Ireland) and an employee of Cantor Fitzgerald. True success story, beautiful family. The entire Cantor Fitzgerald office was destroyed. So tragic.

It really screwed up life in NY for a long time. My brother had a food business and they dedicated themselves to providing sandwiches to first responders and workers at the site. The only reason they could deliver them was that they had an employee who was USCG reservist (with ID) who was allowed to drive the van into the area.

I have several friends and colleagues who were severely traumatized.

[Bwaaah]

I lived in downtown NYC then (as I do now).

I find the word "sad" to be over-used.

But as I remember it, after the initial shock of the new crazy, by the 13th, a profound sadness moved through the city (and I suspect beyond). Sure, I figured we're probably going to have to kill a bunch of people for this. But the stretchers waiting in front of the hospital for injuries that never emerged, the families looking for members who never re-appeared, all the people who could do no better than jump to their deaths...it was so much lost wasted life... a sad, sad thing.

I was working at the time in a midtown office with programmers and analysts who were typically sitting at their screens coding and typing stuff. You could only see the backs of their heads. But each person, I think every person, at his own times in those days, you'd see frozen, looking down, taken for a few moments in that deep, deep sadness. Then they'd stir back to attention, their arms quickly rising to wipe away any tears before anyone could see. You tried to not interrupt people during their moments.

If you could account for your whole family, you were luckier than others. The funerals couldn't start until family members gave up waiting for loved ones who never came home. By then, it was weeks and months of funerals.

It was very, very sad.

I'm for trying to keep stuff like that from happening again.

Regrets for your losses, and all the losses that day.

[ThePublius]

"We got Charlie in the neck..."

https://x.com/LangmanVince/status/1966107679593803806

This is what it has come to, you progressive, liberal scum. I am a pretty good shot, and I would happily dispatch him, and all of his clapping, supporting clowns.

The revolution can't start too soon for me. Let's go.

If you identify as liberal or progressive let's hear you denounce him.

[Bwaaah]

Be careful. Though only a small percentage of people are assholes like that, they are plenty enough to feed you nonstop vitriol through social media. As if there weren't enough shit in the world, a shit consolidation network such as social media amplifies badness and leaves aside the mundane (which is most of life). That's a formula for preferring and importing badness into your life.

It's a distorting feed that misrepresents life in a very negative way.

[ThePublius]

It's interesting, if there's a U.S. Civil War II, it won't be divided along state lines, it will be along idealogical lines, and the sides will be diffused across the country among their opponents. Who would you bet on? I'm assuming the conservatives will prevail, if for no reason other than they are the gun, hunting, outdoorsman, camping, family-oriented, religious types.

[SRG2]

And then they find that their computers have been hacked, their bank accounts cleaned out, etc.

[ThePublius]

They are not illiterate, technology challenged rubes, as you seem to imply. Many are IT experts, too. FAFO.

[OpinionsVary]

You can't make a doom gazing post and then act affronted when someone posts a doom gazing answer.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, because Rednecks can't do anything on a Computer and don't have any common sense, but they can skin a buck, and run a trotline, there's an "Oldie but Goodie" Movie about Shitheads like you, "Southern Comfort" (You might have to get it down in the $5 DVD Bin at Wally World or $ General, get a Redneck to show you how to work it)
It's like a Cajun version of "Deliverance" except those Coon-Asses have forgotten more about Anal Sex than North Georgia Rednecks can dream of in their Philosophy.
They call themselves "Coon-Asses" fur cryin' out loud.
Like with the "N-word" only they can call each other that, unless you enjoy having your Testicles relocated to your mouth.

Frunk

[John F. Carr]

We're unlikely to see armies facing off. I could imagine disobedience to federal authority spreading out of the most remote areas where it lives now. The President is unwilling or unable to use decisive military force. The rebels are conservatives and soldiers won't shoot their own kind. The rebels are urban liberals and the president is too soft to order the city destroyed in a cleansing firestorm.

[Frank Drackman]

Disobedience to Federal Authority is only in the "Most remote areas"??
I bought some of the best Edibles I've ever had a mile from Denver International Airport, but had to umm
"Dispose" of them before TSA since they're Illegal, wait for it,
FEDERALLY
Oh sure, the rumor is if they catch you with it, you just have to throw it away, like your 16oz Mountain Dew, my luck I'm the next Billy Hayes.
and that's after 12 years of Barry Hussein and Prostatic Joe.
and that funky smell at the Entrance of the Santa Monica Hampton Inn?? it ain't Jose and Manuel's stinky feet,
In El Centro, walked past a "Homeless guy" sitting by the Entrance at a Vons Grocery with his bucket, smoking a Blunt Biggy Smalls would have been proud of, 2 El Centro Cops walked right past him too, of course they didn't arrest him, or even give him a ticket, but if it had been me firing up a Lucky Strike.....
Like during the Vid' the TSA Goons would get all over some Poindexter who's mask wasn't just right, while Mean Joe Green, not wearing a mask at all, walked right through.

Fronk

[Frank Drackman]

Auburn University Veterinary Professor murdered
https://www.msn.com/en-us/public-safety-and-emergencies/health-and-safety-alerts/beloved-auburn-veterinary-professor-was-killed-by-man-stealing-her-truck-records-state/ar-AA1M8cSE?ocid=BingNewsSerp
From the mugshot Killer "Harold Rashad Dabney II" (when did Criminals start getting such high class names?) could be Decarlos Dejuan Brown's "Brutha from Anutha Mutha"
Chances of him getting the Death Penalty (in 30-40 years)?? Slim to None, even in Alabama and Georgia, you have to do something really bad to get a Capital Sentence, like kill somebody while driving across a "Pride" sign or while wearing a MAGA Hat.

Fronk

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit stayed the injunction against the provision of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" act making Planned Parenthood ineligible for Medicaid. There was no explanation.

ORDER entered by Gustavo A. Gelpí, Jr., Appellate Judge; Lara E. Montecalvo, Appellate Judge; and Seth Robert Aframe, Appellate Judge: On July 21, 2025, the district court preliminarily enjoined the defendants in this action -- the Department of Health and Human Services and its Secretary, along with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Administrator -- from "enforcing, retroactively enforcing, or otherwise applying" section 71113 of the Act of July 4, 2025, Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 71113, 139 Stat. 72, 300-01 (2025), against plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and other members of plaintiff Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., who met certain conditions specified in the court's order. The preliminary injunction also ordered the defendants to "take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and timeframes to Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and other Planned Parenthood Federation of America [m]embers" who satisfied the specified conditions. The defendants have appealed both injunctions. We denied without prejudice as premature the defendants' motion to stay the injunctions pending the disposition of those appeals, while a motion for similar relief was pending in the district court. Notwithstanding the contrary conclusion reached by the district court after its careful consideration of the matter, we conclude that defendants have met their burden to show their entitlement to a stay of the preliminary injunctions pending the disposition of their appeals of the same. The motion is GRANTED. The July 21, 2025 preliminary injunction and the July 28, 2025 preliminary injunction are hereby stayed pending disposition of the respective appeals. The separate motions by the State of Louisiana and the American Center for Law & Justice for leave to file an amicus brief also are GRANTED and the briefs are accepted for filing as of this date. So ordered. [25-1698, 25-1755] (ALW) [Entered: 09/11/2025 04:40 PM]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70892049/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-inc-v-kennedy/