Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[AmosArch]

Another day another massacre by a nutjob probably influenced by leftoids. This time ironically of illegals in Dallas as he was trying to murder ICE officers.

Progs must really be praying to Stalin hard for a dyed in the wool MAGA mass shooter targeting liberals as soon as possible. Gotta start evening things up a little before it gets too embarrassing.

Hey maybe just suspend another failing hack late show again that they were looking for an excuse to cancel anyway. Lets say a week per death so 3 weeks. Thats should square things away again.

Of course they're claiming its a false flag because its so unbelievable that calling a group 'Nazis' for decades would ever have any effect. And its already fading from the news. Guess we'll just have to wait for the laws of probability to produce a more politically convenient shooting with the right groups behind and in front of the trigger or at least the appearance of such to be manufactured for wall to wall coverage.

[Kazinski]

Are you talking about Michigan, North Carolina or something else

I haven't seen any evidence either the MI or NC shootings were politically motivated, and it seems the NC shootings were not. That shooter was schizophrenic, and also had a combat brain injury.

[AmosArch]

Like I said. Dallas...ICE..... See its already being forgotten.

[jb]

Kind of weird to say "another day another massacre" and mean Dallas when the ones that Kazinski mentions are more recent.

Meanwhile, Kazinski continues the trend of describing shooters that seem likely to be right-leaning perpetrators as mentally ill; but any shooting where there's a hint of transsexuality being involved gets chalked up to left wing violence.

[Malika la Maize]

“Meanwhile, Kazinski continues the trend of describing shooters that seem likely to be right-leaning perpetrators as mentally ill; but any shooting where there's a hint of transsexuality being involved gets chalked up to left wing violence.”

Noticed that too. Shocked the guy who said “we are going to use” the Kirk tragedy would do that.

[AmosArch]

delete

[AmosArch]

I'm talking about politically targeted attacks. I don't think a guy shooting mormons or into a fish market is a intentional right wing inspired targeted attack on leftists although I guess we'll see. Or maybe you think the political affiliations of all killers in every situations and case regardless of what circumstances they kill should be noted and officially credited to whatever political ideology they subscribed to?

[Sarcastr0]

Amos from now, have you met Amos from the OP?

Amos from the OP is really digging deep to blame mass shootings on 'probably influenced by leftoids.'

It sounds like you, on the other hand, think it's be a *bad idea* to note 'the political affiliations of all killers in every situations and case regardless of what circumstances they kill.'

Perhaps you two should have a talk about how hateposting creates passionate inconsistencies, and leave the rest of us out of it.

[AmosArch]

Gunman attacks ICE after years of leftwing calls for resistance and often even physical violence against ICE who are part of a group they repeatedly and consistently call 'Nazis' and 'fascists'. Carves antiICE slogans and has literature left behind indicating motive.

Gunman attacks a Mormon Church. Not exactly a leftwing place or people. No motive known so far but even if he somehow credited MAGA for this in his ramblings active antiMormonism is not really a MAGA teaching and is more associated with leftleaners just visit exMormon groups and see for yourself.

Spot the difference.

Its funny how right now the media is so desperate they are scrambling to pin ideology in these shootings.

[Sarcastr0]

So you have drawn a line based on when YOU are convinced a shooting counts as political. Based on reasoning it out based on your limited info.

That sucks, dude. That's just an excuse for you to smuggle your partisanship in and get mad at the left all over again.

Confusing subjectivity and objectivity is bad practice. And for you, it's made your usual double standard even more obvious, as you get mad when people play your same game, with the partisanship reversed.

On the one hand, it is a dumb game. On the other, you're so twisted around you don't know what consistency is anymore.

[Don Nico]

"just an excuse for you to smuggle your partisanship in"
S_0 you do it every time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Confusing subjectivity and objectivity is bad practice."

Somebody should explain that to the legal profession.

[AmosArch]

Distinguishing between an attack that is politically motivated and targeted by larger forces and one that...well really isn't. Is not some arcane arbitrary convoluted academic distinction nobody else would naturally arrive at in a million years and I just pieced together ad hoc.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s subjective. You are using it to no true Scotsman your way into what you want to believe.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch — Remember Rusty Bowers, big-shot Mormon from Arizona? He showed a style of Mormonism a MAGA nut could really hate. Maybe even including a Mormon MAGA nut.

More generally, you do sound like you are making it up to suit whatever you need as you go. Got any real experience among Mormons? I have. Damnedest group of mutually contradictory idealists and anti-idealists I know of.

On the extremes you find smallish Mormon factions to attract hostility from the left, and from the right, respectively. In between the extremes you find peculiarities more incomprehensible than otherwise. Remember when secretly powerful underwear cropped up as a factor in the Romney campaign?

You could be married to a Mormon woman, and not even know it. I have been told that I am. If it happened, I was never told at the time. And anyway, I could not have attended the ceremony, if there was one. I did know who the woman was. We had crossed paths during jury service, although I do not recall any particular interactions between us.

On balance, I am more an admirer of Mormonism than otherwise, but would never claim to much comprehend it. Where does your assurance come from?

[jb]

"I'm talking about politically targeted attacks. I don't think a guy shooting mormons or into a fish market is a intentional right wing inspired targeted attack on leftists although I guess we'll see."

No true MAGA and all that, right?

You're probably right that it's helpful to try to identify instances of political violence versus other killings, but if you step out of your information bubble you'll find that most political violence is committed by people on the right. But we may be getting into a cycle where there's generally more political violence, which is really bad. We should all be trying to figure out how to address that problem rather than falling back to tribal finger-pointing.

[AmosArch]

So if a guy shot his neighbor over dogs pissing on his lawn and we later found out he pulled the lever for Biden we should pin it on the Dems?

[jb]

Did you read what I wrote?

[ThePublius]

"...if you step out of your information bubble you'll find that most political violence is committed by people on the right."

That's obviously bullshit to me, but I'm open to reconsider, if you have facts or stats to back that up.

It would take a ton of right wing political violence to cancel out just the leftist violence, arson, vandalism, etc., of 2020 and following the George Floyd riots, the autonomous zone in Portland, and the current violence on the part of anti-ICE protesters. But it's not happening.

[Sarcastr0]

I could point you to the actual studies, but you're going on vibes.

Here's the graphic that one of Trump's press people shared, but which makes a pretty strong case for the right being the violent ones:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/idiocracy-trump-aide-mocked-for-sharing-graph-on-far-left-versus-far-right-violence/ar-AA1NxOFA?ocid=BingNewsSerp

It's legit to argue that as a social science matter tagging violence as political is a subjective enough procedure that it's not a useful exercise.

But you're not doing that; you're trying to do the exercise, but with personal vibes and finding that the libs super bad actually.
Engage with the science or don't waste time.

[ThePublius]

"graph from Axios"

Gotcha.

[jb]

That's obviously bullshit to me, but I'm open to reconsider, if you have facts or stats to back that up.

Sure, there's the Cato institute study that Professor Somin referred to last week:

Eighty-three percent of those murdered since 1975 were killed by the 9/11 terrorists (Figure 1). The Oklahoma City Bombing accounts for about another 5 percent. Those murdered since 2020 account for just 2 percent. Terrorists inspired by Islamist ideology are responsible for 87 percent of those murdered in attacks on US soil since 1975 (Table 1). Right-wingers are the second most common motivating ideology, accounting for 391 murders and 11 percent of the total. The definition here of right-wing terrorists includes those motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy (incels), and other right-wing ideologies.

Left-wing terrorists murdered 65 people, or about 2 percent of the total. Left-wing terrorists include those motivated by black nationalism, anti-police sentiment, communism, socialism, animal rights, environmentalism, anti-white ideologies, and other left-wing ideologies.

And the ADL has done their own analysis.:

The trend in recent years has been for the great majority of extremist-related murders to be connected to some form of right-wing extremism. That is also true for 2024: for the third year in a row, all the murders identified were tied to right-wing extremism.

Worth nothing that both separate out Islamist violence as being separate from either right- or left- wing ideology, which seems correct to me.

[Harvey Mosley]

"Meanwhile, Kazinski continues the trend of describing shooters that seem likely to be right-leaning perpetrators as mentally ill; but any shooting where there's a hint of transsexuality being involved gets chalked up to left wing violence."

When we talk about trans being mentally ill we're attacked for combining the two.

[Sarcastr0]

What a change of subject!

If you talk about trans MASS SHOOTERS being mentally ill, you might get a different reaction.

[AmosArch]

week per victim...some have survived it appears

[Martinned]

What's wrong with you? Have you fried out your brain with too much Kool-aid?

[Sarcastr0]

“probably influenced by leftoids”

What a sad attempt to shut down speech.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The genocide of Jews has expanded to include Christians.

[Brett Bellmore]

Old news. In most of the Middle East, it's been Christians for decades, because they'd pretty much finished when it came to getting rid of Jews.

[Joe_dallas]

All the while, leftists ignore that remains the intention with the migration to western countries

[Sarcastr0]

Muslim immigration to the UK and Germany for the purpose of geocoding Christians?

Well, that's some purestrain bigoted paranoia.

[Bob from Ohio]

"purpose"

No, just the result.

Already seen in the mass rapes in the UK.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastro -

Really - perfect harmony?
riots in europe with heavy participation from one population group
Rapes dominated with one population group

What planet do you live on?

[Malika la Maize]

“Gendron is reported to have written a manifesto describing himself as an ethno-nationalist and a supporter of white supremacy who is motivated to commit acts of political violence. He voiced support for the far-right Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the context of a white genocide.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting

[John 4]

I wonder what name he posts by here.

[Malika la Maize]

“Public records indicate that Roley lived in California and later in Phoenix, Arizona before relocating to Idaho.[44] Former classmates at North Phoenix Preparatory Academy told USA TODAY that he was “obsessed with guns” and frequently discussed politics, voicing strong support for Donald Trump; several also said he drew swastikas and firearms in notebooks, which they viewed as attempts to appear “edgy.”[45]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Coeur_d%27Alene_shooting

[AmosArch]

So you're riposte is to post about attacks years ago and ones that don't appear to be political? Or at least anything that can coherently be tied to a political movement? Last I checked few Republicans were villainizing firefighters as literal Nazis.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[Kazinski]

In last Wednesday's open thread I pointed out a report that Portland Antifa had tried to burn down a federal building and tried to trap ICE agents inside.

I also suggested it was time to federalize and call out the Oregon National Guard.

"That's worse than what ICE was facing in LA, and worse collusion by local authorities.

I think we need the Oregon National guard, I'd use units from Eastern Oregon."

No word yet if they are using the Greater Idaho units of the guard.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/24/wednesday-open-thread-35/?comments=true#comment-11219879

I'm sure there will be a quick injunction and appeal, however since an appeals panel the 9th Circuit ruled 3-0 allowing Trump to use the guard, and there really isn't a material difference in the facts, I don't think the injunction will last long before its stayed, if one is issued.

[Martinned]

Yeah, still totally normal for the Regime to send armed forces into the three biggest opposition-controlled cities of the country and, for symbolic reasons, Portland. Nothing to be worried about at all...

[Commenter_XY]

This time, shoot them (meaning, shoot violent antifa rioters who come to attack fed bldgs) with rubber bullets. After a few encounters, antifa will stop.

[Martinned]

Sure, shoot people who demonstrate against the Regime. That's a totally non-fascist thing to suggest. Nothing to see here, carry on everyone.

[Commenter_XY]

eurotrash...demonstrate =/= violent antifa rioters

[Martinned]

I think we can all agree that "riot" is a term of art in Trump land, meaning "demonstration by people we don't agree with". But sure, go ahead and deny it.

[Commenter_XY]

We don't agree, eurotrash. There is a qualitative difference between a demonstration (A-Ok), and violent rioter (shoot them).

[Martinned]

Yes. The difficulty is that your fever dreams prevent you from seeing which is which.

[Commenter_XY]

eurotrash, not difficult at all. Watch what they do.

[Martinned]

You mean whether they voice support for the Great Leader or not? Whether they bring Nazi salutes or not?

Don't worry, we know what you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, duffus, whether they set stuff on fire or not.

[Sarcastr0]

You've been very broad as to who counts as a rioter in the past, Brett.

Protesting in a place where something is set on fire hours later that night still counts in your book, remember?

You accused me of defending criminals when I pointed out you were full of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, you are absurdly reluctant to admit a riot is happening, when cars are being set on fire, stores looted, and people being assaulted on a mass scale.

Sure, you might have a protest during the day, but if it keeps turning into a riot every evening, then the people who don't leave before evening are there for the riot.

[Sarcastr0]

You act like I didn't think there were riots in 2020.

But the main thrust of your comment is you once again demonstrating how into guilt by tenuous association you are, when it's the left.

What a terrible libertarian you are.

[Bwaaah]

And what a hateful humanitarian you are.

[bernard11]

Brett and XY,

I am astonished to hear you admit that there is distinction between rioters, vandals, arsonists, etc. and peaceful demonstrators. You, and your allies, have largely refused to admit that in the past, and suggested, among other ways with your sarcastic use of "mostly peaceful," that there is no such distinction, at least where left wing demonstrations are involved.

It's a small step.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Our sarcastic use of Mostly Peaceful ?

[Brett Bellmore]

We're using that sarcastically because of idiots calling riots "mostly peaceful" just because everybody present wasn't engaged in violence every second the were participating.

By that standard even wars are "mostly peaceful"!

[Bwaaah]

Bernard11: "I am astonished to hear you admit that there is distinction between rioters, vandals, arsonists, etc. and peaceful demonstrators."

Seriously? If you think they just "admitted" that for the first time, then there's probably no solution to the problem of you not hearing them when they've been saying that all along.

That's an astonishingly thick-headed remark that leaves little hope for daylight to come.

[bernard11]

Bwaaah,

I would like you to point me to some comments from right-wingers conceding that, in fact, the demonstrations were mostly peaceful, and that the violence was attributable to some opportunistic criminal assholes.

I don't get the impression, from reading comments here that this is the consensus on the right. Instead, ISTM, that many are using the violence specifically to unfairly discredit the peaceful demonstrators.

[Joe_dallas]

mostly peaceful has become the standard phrase to describe the leftist riots

[Sarcastr0]

Weirdly, I mostly hear it from the righties around here.

I guess it was something people said in 2020 and the right's been hard at work turning that into yet another attack on disfavored protests.

[Joe_dallas]

you obviously ignore the left statements starting 2020 since being honest will cause conflicts in your echo chamber

[Sarcastr0]

Such statements may very well exist, but you sure haven't provided them.

[Malika la Maize]

Tourists touring the Capitol!

[Joe_dallas]

how easy to forget recent history

Its was quite common for the media and other leftist pundits to describe leftwing protests as mostly peaceful

[Don Nico]

"I mostly hear it from the righties around here"
what a damned liar! It is a standard phrase on network news and the NYT

[Dr. Ed 2]

What about the clouds of black smoke from burning buildings & vehicles?

[LexAquilia]

That's when they announce a new George Floyd.

[Estragon]

Maybe a new Caden Speight?

[Estragon]

And hey also you never answered: what handle were you posting under back 10 years ago when you took Loki seriously? Genuinely curious.

[Estragon]

And would you be willing to say more about why you have changed your handle over the years?

[jb]

Kaz wants to deploy troops who are likely to be on his side of a political disagreement rather than trust the impartiality of the military. We're in a bad place if we're seeing factions of the military as being trustworthy or not based purely on where they're deployed from.

[Kazinski]

I want to deploy troops who are sane, safer for everyone.

[Estragon]

If people from Eastern Oregon are presumptively saner, what does that say about Lori Chavez-Deremer?

[jb]

Imagine getting to the point in your political journey where you think that National Guard volunteers in parts of the country that vote against your team can just be default considered as being insane.

[myself]

Funny how a President declaring war on his own country spawns violence.

[Estragon]

“No word yet if they are using the Greater Idaho units of the guard.”

You are truly sick in the head.

This repeated invocation of “eastern Oregon” units— think about what you are saying. Because the implication, to me, seems to be that you are thinking that guard soldiers from Trumpier areas are more likely to do… what exactly? Is it your supposition that kids from Burns would be more willing to shoot protestors than kids from Astoria?

And why would you want to take these eastern Oregonians away from their jobs and families to pick up trash in Portland?

It all comes off like some adolescent’s table top board game civil war fantasy.

[Kazinski]

More likely to enforce the law, and do their duty.

Maybe its a little paranoid, but not unheard of to take precautions about just where the loyalty of some national guard troops may lie:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. defense officials say they are worried about an insider attack or other threat from service members involved in securing President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, prompting the FBI to vet all of the 25,000 National Guard troops coming into Washington for the event.

The massive undertaking reflects the extraordinary security concerns that have gripped Washington following the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by pro-Trump rioters. And it underscores fears that some of the very people assigned to protect the city over the next several days could present a threat to the incoming president and other VIPs in attendance."

https://apnews.com/article/biden-inauguration-joe-biden-capitol-siege-ap-top-news-857bacc273e16ff82dc9fefed1242ae8

[Estragon]

So let me get this straight: your idea of “vetting” is to see if someone is from Harney County? And your confidence in their “loyalty” is based on… where they live? How harney county votes? Help me out here.

[Kazinski]

Ok, so if on Jan 6th Governor's Abbott and DeSantis said they were sending TX and FL NG troops to Washington to restore order your response would be there is no concern because the National Guard isn't political, and loyalty shouldn't be a question.

[Estragon]

Again. You are the one fantasizing about using soldiers from Eastern Oregon because they are “more likely” perform their duties to your satisfaction. I am asking you for your basis for thinking that. The only element that you have identified is geography.

[Estragon]

“enforce the law”

It sort of sounds like you are advocating the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. What is it about soldiers from eastern Oregon that makes them particularly well suited to this role?

[Estragon]

I think we need to consider the very real possibility that Trump is being lied to by people like Steven Miller. Fox News has already been busted for using footage from years ago, but what if Miller is feeding him the same BS? Trump sounds like a confused couch-bound Newsmax Grandpa here:

“I spoke to the governor, she was very nice,” Trump said. “But I said, ‘Well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what’s happening? My people tell me different.’ They are literally attacking and there are fires all over the place…it looks like terrible.”

[Estragon]

And then of course some White House person goes anonymously to Politico and gives the game away. It’s about revenge for 2020:

“It was just the poster city for the problem in 2020,” said a person close to the administration, granted anonymity to speak candidly.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/27/donald-trump-portland-military-protest-00583423

[Estragon]

From this morning’s local news.

https://www.kptv.com/2025/09/29/neighbors-portlands-ice-facility-concerned-about-federal-agents-not-protestors/

[jb]

Just think about Michael P in Friday's thread asserting that he knew more about what life was like in Portland than his coworker who lived there. It's just bizarre how these people will prioritize the message they're being spoon fed over any evidence or reason.

[Martinned]

Still totally not a fascist country:

In addition (or alternatively), everyone in attendance may be required to sign a loyalty oath to President Trump on the spot, or required to take an oral oath to the same effect. In such a case, it seems plausible that those who refuse will be summarily relieved of their positions.
(...)
Discuss the announced event in detail with counsel, including whether an order to sign a loyalty oath or take an oral one is lawful. Unless you are entirely sure of where your values and interests lie, it may be that the best course of action is to sign nothing, and say nothing, especially until you have consulted competent counsel.

https://www.justsecurity.org/121421/hegseth-meeting-sign-nothing/

Given that such a loyalty oath would have no legal effect whatsoever, I would be tempted to just sign it. Then again, why would you want to serve in the armed forces of a fascist Regime? Presumably that's not what these people signed up for.

[CountmontyC]

Read the article and it is pure speculation by the author who obviously knows nothing.

[Martinned]

The mere fact that someone knowledgeable is worried about this speaks volumes about the fascist hellscape the US has become.

[Commenter_XY]

US is a fascist hellscape....LMAO!

eurotrash, you're funny.

[Martinned]

Explaining fascism to you is like explaining water to a fish. You're so far in it that you can't even tell what "not fascism" looks like.

[CountmontyC]

And what knowledge does he actually have? He has no idea what it is about and even speculates without evidence that martial law might be declared.

[Joe_dallas]

Martin - you probably should take a refresher course on what fascism means

[CountmontyC]

To Martinned fascist simply means anyone who prefers a different policy than him.

[Joe_dallas]

you mean different policy from his preferred version of fascism.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey now, aren't you all pushing that this kind of rhetoric causes violence?

[Joe_dallas]

accusing me of statements I never made

A common theme of yours
consistent with your fabrications of reality

[ThePublius]

That's such horseshit, Martinned, and you should know better.

[SRG2]

Are you confident that indeed there will be no loyalty oath required? If Hegseth does ask for one, will you condemn it?

[Commenter_XY]

There will be no loyalty oath (other than to uphold the Constitution), and if a loyalty oath to POTUS Trump or SecDef Hegseth were required, of course I would oppose and condemn it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wouldn't -- they are supposed to be loyal to the office and have been disciplined for not being loyal to Dem POTUSes.

[David Nieporent]

I wouldn't -- they are supposed to be loyal to the office

They are not. Their oath is to the constitution, not to the president.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unless they piss the president off, like Patton and MacArthur.

[Joe_dallas]

patton was more of a general who spoke spontanously without the proper filtering for the diplomatic tact.

MacArthur was insubordinate. Separate issue is whether he should have been sacked Dec 9th to due actions/inactions on Dec 8th. He is also given too much credit for the post ww2 occupation.

[Krayt]

Patton was an active top general during WWII. When he opened his yapper, the world listened.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, remember how you said that Trump wouldn't pardon those who violently attacked police officers on J6, and if he did, you'd "of course oppose and condemn it"? And then Trump issued a blanket pardon to every insurrectionist from J6, including the ones convicted of attacking law enforcement… and you said nothing?

[Commenter_XY]

No, I don't remember that.

However, I do remember stating that people with blood on their hands should have a closer and extended second look, and not be included in the initial pardon (but could be pardoned later).

Assume I disagreed with POTUS Trump. Is that disagreement enough to persuade me to vote for Kamala, or Mayor Butthead, or AOC? Uh, no.

[David Nieporent]

No, I don't remember that.

Well, that makes one of us.

[Commenter_XY]

As I said above, there was no loyalty oath at this meeting today. The news stories and mindless speculation were fabulist fables.

The meeting message was clear: be ready to fight, and win, wars.

[Baseballhead]

"The meeting message was clear: be ready to fight, and win, wars."

Against Americans.

[ThePublius]

Oh, get lost.

[David Nieporent]

He called every high level officer together to tell them something that he could have sent them an email to say?

[Mr. Bumble]

Emails are so impersonal.

[loki13]

Of course he won't condemn it.

He will laugh it off. He will blame others. He will blather on about, um, something about now the GOP gets to play by the rules the Dems set.

Since it's Commenter_XY, he will, of course, luxuriate in the misery of anyone getting fired- because government workers (even decorated military service members) are only worthy of his contempt.

That's the whole point- it's about a lack of empathy. It's about spite. Pure spite.

I wonder about the difference in media diets people have. What is your life like that you believe the ... stuff ... coming out? Have you been to the any of the places, recently, that they talk about? LA? Portland? New York? DC? Do you have friends there?

When you watch cabinet meetings of people sucking up to Trump with language that would make North Korea's leader say, "Hey, that's a little over the top," do you ever question what is going on?

When you watch the full broadcast of Trump's tylenol rant, do you think, "Maybe I should apply the same scrutiny about age that I did with Biden?"

Let's see.... using troops in America to police Americans. Explicitly going after his enemies using the federal government. Giving away our personal information for the benefit of his cronies (Thiel, et al). Suspending laws passed by Congress in order to corruptly benefit himself and his allies. Using the power of the federal government to repeatedly demand shares in companies, say over who is and who isn't allowed to work for companies, and who is and who isn't allowed to speak. I could keep going on, but you get the idea.

You tell me- is this fascism, or is this just empowering someone's 80 year old grandpa who normally is just yelling at Fox News with the federal government? What's the difference?

[Michael P]

Now do the guy who wished "a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm" on citizens who didn't fall in line with his orders.

[David Nieporent]

You'd think with all of MAGA's experience with whatabouting they wouldn't be so universally terrible at it.

Biden didn't issue "orders" to those people, and did not "wish" those things on anyone, let alone threaten to impose those things on them. Instead, he was warning about the natural consequences of not getting vaccinated — that people would get sick and die — and trying to explain to them how to avoid those things.

[Michael P]

That quote was from three months after the Autopen administration rolled out a stepped-up set of vaccine mandates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_administration_COVID-19_action_plan
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-house-unvaccinated-winter-severe-illness-death/

Your think that after the 57th time, DaMN would realize that nobody will fall for his lies.

[Sarcastr0]

You said "wished." You said "orders."

You have not established either of those.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Are you confident that indeed there will be no loyalty oath required?"

Yes, you guys are high on your own supply. This column is just hysterical speculation, based on nothing.

[Martinned]

Yeah, sure, "based on nothing".

https://newrepublic.com/article/196220/trump-civil-service-loyalty-oaths

[Bob from Ohio]

Not a "loyalty oath"

“How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"may"

Hobie or Lathrop level idiocy.

They may all be shot by Proud Boys militia.

[Martinned]

Yes. That's the sort of country the US is now. All sorts of crazy things that we used to joke about because they only happened in 3rd world banana republics are now a very real possibility in the US.

[Bob from Ohio]

"very real possibility in the US."

You are insane.

[hobie]

He's right. But you'd have to read a legitimate news source to know that, Bob.

[Kazinski]

Interesting comparison of average home size SQFT of US states and European countries.

at first glance it looks like they are using different scales for US and Europe, but if you look closer you see that NY the state with the smallest avg home size is about the same color as Denmark the European country with the largest jome size.

Looks like avg home size in Europe is about 1000sqft vs about 2000sqft in US.

https://x.com/razibkhan/status/1972375601710510229?t=6I2oYJvd83RPJ06044rCxA&s=19

[Martinned]

Yes, and I haven't owned a car once in my adult life, because I haven't needed to. It all depends on what you think is important.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then again, it might be this:

Poorest US state rivals Germany: GDP per capita in US and Europe

Europe is just poorer than the US.

The counter argument: Greener On The Other Side?

"There’s more to the question of life quality, however, than who has more money to spend; there’s the question of what you get for it. Bismark Analysis’s Marko Jukic offered an unconventional rejoinder to the conventional money answer in April. Jukic argued on X: “Europeans aren’t poor. They are illiquid. Much of Europe’s wealth is stored in safe streets, nice parks, public transit, ‘free’ healthcare, etc. which, it turns out, are too socially expensive for Americans to maintain. Americans take the money instead.” Jukic’s post, expanded upon in a Palladium essay, contends that Europeans aren’t worse off; they’ve invested in public goods, while Americans have pocketed cash."

The bottom line seems to be,

1. Total economic performance is substantially higher in the US, so we just have more total wealth to work with.
2. People get to keep more of their income in the US to spend on what they personally want.
3. Public goods like mass transit are better in Europe.
4. But this isn't due to Europe spending more on them, instead Europeans are getting more for their taxes.

You know, this might explain WHY Americans prefer to keep their money to spend ourselves, rather than letting government have it: Our governments tend to waste the money!

My own diagnosis is that Europe has a number of advantages over the US:

1. WWII "reset" your governments, like rebooting a computer, while ours is long overdue to be rebooted.
2. In Europe, governmental practice, perhaps as a result of #1, is more closely hewing to (Rather looser!) constitutional constraints. There's a certain unavoidable amount of corruption in government when the government is systematically violating its own constitution, regardless of how you rationalize violating it.
3. In a number of areas we were the first adopter, and Europe got to learn from our mistakes.
4. Having been settled longer, Europe is less in flux, and flux does have downsides.

None the less, the higher American growth rate has a cumulative effect over time, so I don't expect that total wealth differential to shrink. If we can solve the problem of governmental inefficiency, we'll pull way ahead.

[Martinned]

Money vanishes quickly when society collapses. Our superior culture has persisted over centuries.

[Armchair]

Your "superior culture" keeps needing the US to come and save it.

[Martinned]

The Roman empire also relied on lots of auxiliaries for its armies. Barbarians who like fighting have their uses.

[Sarcastr0]

Gotta admit, that's a pretty good troll.

[Don Nico]

Gotta admit. That's obnoxious. The EU would have lost to Hitler without massive help from the US.

[Martinned]

I think your timeline is a bit off.

[CountmontyC]

And in the end the barbarians decided not to put up with the supposedly "superior" culture and pretty much destroyed the Roman Empire ( reducing it to a few city states). The lesson being if you need the "barbarians" to defend you you better treat them nice and respectfully or they will either kick your ass or sit back and laugh as some other group of "barbarians" kicks your ass. You also might want to make yourself sommewhat useful to the "barbarians" or they will simply decide to kick your ass and take everything of value from you.

[Sarcastr0]

Tell that to Diocletian!

[Bob from Ohio]

Odoacer would agree with CountmontyC

[Bob from Ohio]

Our Dutch friend is just jealous of our success and his country's dependence on us.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's what we're worried about.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, lets look at the 20th Century -- WWI, WWII, Cold War...

But for the US bailing you out, you wouldn't have a culture.

[Joe_dallas]

martin - such a superior culture that you invited the immigration of a culture that wants to destroy your culture.

[Martinned]

The Great Replacement Theory is an excellent example of the inferiority of the US. The only problem is that such American problems have a way of coming across the Atlantic to Europe.

[David Nieporent]

Um, the Great Replacement conspiracy came across the Atlantic, to be sure, but it did so in the opposite of the way you are describing. It originated in France. Unfortunately, your continent's blood-and-soil nationalism has reared its ugly head here.

[bernard11]

What "superior culture?"

Endless wars, genocides, despotic governments, religious persecution? Is Russia part of Europe? Were Franco and Salazar and Mussolini part of it? And of course there is the issue of the big AH, who did not come out of nowhere.

[Kazinski]

You used to have a superior culture.

It's changed.

[JohnSmith97]

Scratch a leftist and the racism comes out.

[Sarcastr0]

What race?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Of course you'd ask that.

[Don Nico]

After the US Marshall plan bailed Europe out.

[Martinned]

O, we will take your money.

[Don Nico]

Sure after we saved your ass so you were alive to enjoy it.
Get off your high throne and wipe, flush, and wash your hands.

[Frank Drackman]

Not having to spend a significant amount of your GDP on Defense helps.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, re: governmental inefficiency.

I think we'll get a chance to reduce federal gov't inefficiency quite dramatically after tomorrow. We'll have 10s of thousands fewer non-essential bureaucrats on the federal rolls. They will be fired in a gov't shutdown. They won't come back.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hopefully they won't come back...

[Sarcastr0]

Wait, we are long overdue for a WW2 style rebooting?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not suggesting we need a war to beat us down. I'm just saying that having the apple cart overturned once in a while lets you shed some of the parasite load, and reset everything to factory spec. To mix metaphors.

Start with the fact that we're running a modern mega-state on top of an 18th century deliberately power limited constitution for a federation of sovereign states. This has required systematically defeating important features of our Constitution, only without actually repealing them.

And, as I've observed before, interpreting a limited power constitution to authorize exactly the scale of government it was intended to prevent is NOT the same as actually replacing it with a constitution that would authorize that scale of government. It requires staffing the government with people who are comfortable with that sort of rationalization and systematic dishonesty.

People like you, bluntly.

Those sort of people don't keep the sophistry closely cabined to what's strictly necessary to pretend the Constitution authorizes this scale of government. You simply can't have honest government run by people willing to run the current US government while swearing to uphold the current US constitution!

In Europe, the scale of government, while too big for my tastes, is commensurate with the scale of government actually constitutionally authorized, which means you can staff the government with honest people. Doesn't guarantee it will be so staffed, but it's at least POSSIBLE.

Or look at some of the legal work-arounds we have in place. The Constitution contemplates state legislatures picking trusted people who will get together and agree among themselves on who should be President. THAT is the Presidential 'election' system the Constitution actually puts in place. about as far from democratic as you could get without instituting trial by combat.

On top of it we have a Rube Goldberg mechanism for turning this into a very rough approximation of a popularly elected President.

But the original constitutional structure is still there, still what the highest law of the land mandates, so the result is a real mess.

Our government is just LOUSY with those sorts of Rube Goldberg mechanisms, in place of actually changing that highest law of the land. And to the extent they work, it's very badly.

I happen to largely LIKE the original Constitution that still lurks under all those extra-constitutional work arounds. Not all of it, but it was very well designed in many respects for what it set out to do.

It's not well designed at all for what we're doing today.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I think we need to have a national debate about what kind of country we want to be, and hold a constitutional convention to craft a constitution that's fit for such a country.

And then hang the first judge who tries to interpret it to mean anything other than what it clearly says from the nearest lamp post.

I'm sure I wouldn't much like such a constitution, frankly. A lot of constitutional features I LIKE probably would not survive, a lot of innovations I'd purely hate would appear.

But we'd at least have a shot at honest government if we did that.

[Sarcastr0]

shed some of the parasite load
You're allowed to say we could use reform without sounding like you want to kill a lot of people.

systematic dishonesty
And without accusing a lot of people you disagree with of bad faith.

A great way to assure no one will work with you is the poison the well with psycho shit like you.
But you're not here to actually reform.
You are, in the end, a utopian. With all the dangerous utopia-justifies-the-means that entails.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're allowed to read what I write without hearing that I want to kill a lot of people, too. I can only control what I write, not what you read.

"And without accusing a lot of people you disagree with of bad faith."

It is frankly all but impossible to read the US constitution and look at the present federal government, and not see bad faith.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe don't talk about WW2 resets, parasites, and insist you're the only one who can have any legitimate ideas on how our government is designed.

Frankly, you're terrible at understanding anyone's point of view other than your own. So you call them all liars.

I disagree mightily with you; I don't think you're lying. See how easy it is?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You write:

It is frankly all but impossible to read the US constitution and look at the present federal government, and not see bad faith.

A source for what constitutes good faith interpretation of the American Constitutional tradition is to be found in archival records of the interval spanning 1607–1792, with additional historical bits leading up to the approval of later amendments.

It could not be more evident from your commentary that for that necessary historical insight you have substituted mostly present-minded materials. You thus have stored in your cognitive attic a lot of dusty furniture which would lead to disappointments if you ever took it for evaluation by experts on Antique Constitutionalism Road Show.

The pre-founding era is one you would find strange, challenging, and surprising, if you ever encountered it in archival form. It could not be more evident that you have never done that.

When you talk about the Constitution you go barely more than a line or two without imposing present-minded assertions never dreamed of by people who lived through those time intervals I mentioned above. Folks who read antique texts for historical insight become so familiar with antique contexts that they find your kinds of presumptions jolting and surprising. Just as the people who lived then would have found them.

I will offer you one obvious example to illustrate. You know what Americans in the mid-18th century thought about gun control? No, you don't. Because no similar ideas existed. Mid-18th century Americans never for a moment entertained any concept similar to present-day gun control ideas.

Their experiences, norms, systems of government, and material society created a context which made impossible consideration of any concept similar to modern gun control advocacy. And yet, up and down the Eastern Seaboard, their recorded experience is replete with examples of gun users controlled by means you mostly never heard of, and would disapprove if you did.

Those were means which fit their contexts, not modern ones. Your favorite pro-gun authors have encountered a few of those, and misinterpreted them for you, with arguments as out-of-context as your own. You think of those pro-gun writers as historical experts. They are pro-gun propagandists.

For that actual history, your pro-gun-favorites, and you in your turn, seem to have substituted mostly post-Civil War popular accounts. Those purport an imaginary past sold to the public as entertainments. Long before it got taken up by Disney, that was big business. It was an entertainment which fascinated not only America, but all of Europe.

Probably the most successful purveyor of American gun play ever was a German author named Karl May, whose ostensibly first-person yarns about the Old West inspired worshipful German fans at least through the mid-20th century. May did in fact once visit the US, in 1908, for six weeks, exclusively in the Northeast. Reciprocally, the Buffalo Bill Wild West Show was performed in England and Europe, including for Queen Victoria, and Kaiser Wilhelm II. Then Disney and TV took over.

A cultural crater that wide and deep can be hard to climb out of. Good luck.

[Don Nico]

Maybe he'll get fired when the government shuts down, Wednesday

[Armchair]

So, you're talking about the "reset" mentality. And there is something to it. Large conflicts can allow for "resetting" of systems that are difficult to change otherwise.

A good analogy is the company analogy. Companies can accumulate a lot of practices, cultures, procedures, individuals even that act as a "drag force". But those companies are allowed to go bankrupt, and new companies that don't have the historical drag can arise. Sometimes you can get a reform package in, but often you need a full reset.

The US has had a few of these resets/reforms. 1790, 1865, and arguably 1932.

[David Nieporent]

a federation of sovereign states.

Once again, Brett fails to grasp that the Constitution was designed to replace this failed Articles of Confederation model.

[JohnSmith97]

So the constitution really is a suicide pact.

[David Nieporent]

So pineapple belongs on pizza.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's funny, any time someone in office really wants to violate the constitution, they bring out that old trope.

[bernard11]

The Constitution contemplates state legislatures picking trusted people who will get together and agree among themselves on who should be President. THAT is the Presidential 'election' system the Constitution actually puts in place. about as far from democratic as you could get without instituting trial by combat.

The only problem with this is that it isn't true. The Constitution contemplates no such thing. What it contemplates is:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

That's it. It's up to the states - surely you like that idea - to decide how to choose electors. So the states chose to do it the way it's done. The Rube Goldberg contraption - and I think that's an accurate description - was created by them, under the authority granted in Article II.

Now, it may be that the framers wanted, or even expected, something like what you describe to happen. It didn't, and it didn't because what they wanted was unworkable, so a different system developed. But the new system doesn't violate the Constitution. It follows the instructions.

So I wonder which other of your objections is based on your idiosyncratic reading and opinions.

Our government is just LOUSY with those sorts of Rube Goldberg mechanisms, in place of actually changing that highest law of the land. And to the extent they work, it's very badly.

Just because we do things differently than was anticipated at the time doesn't mean what we do is unconstitutional, even if it doesn't match the framers' expectation, or your ideas of what the document means.

[jb]

You know, this might explain WHY Americans prefer to keep their money to spend ourselves, rather than letting government have it: Our governments tend to waste the money!

It is pretty startling to see how much more efficient, e.g., European infrastructure projects are than those in the US. It would be great if there were a real effort to reform a lot of the ways that the government spends money: just the planning process of most projects in the US seems to take longer than an end-to-end project in Europe, much less somewhere like China.

[Sarcastr0]

And remember, waste to the GOP government-hater includes spending it on anything that doesn't directly their faction.

But to their faction, they're all for lots of generosity! See Milei below.

[Brett Bellmore]

Reforming the process would require the people in a position to reform the process not being the problem. The primary purpose of many infrastructure projects in America is money laundering, actually getting working infrastructure is secondary.

[Sarcastr0]

The primary purpose of many infrastructure projects in America is money laundering
Quit with the bare assertions. I'm sure there's tons of graft, as with any large project from the Founding at least.
But *primary* purpose?

Show your work.

[I have on my list to read "Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back" by Marc J. Dunkelman. That seems to hit on a more salient issue with infrastructure projects than ideologically-based charges of towering corruption.]

[Brett Bellmore]

Frankly, Sarcastr0, the amount of spending vs what it's buying is getting so high for some of these projects that towering corruption is just a reasonable conclusion, maybe even the least scary explanation.

[Sarcastr0]

the amount of spending vs what it's buying is getting so high

Number is big is your reasoning yet again.

FFS.

[jb]

This is a dumb take. There's actual studies on this and there's a lot of problems, but none of them are money laundering. See, e.g.:

https://transitcosts.com/Final-Report/

This actually also reminded me of a piece in the Times last month about Eric Adams's corruption and just how petty it was. Politicians and other agents of the government do manage to enrich themselves these days, but it's not by graft. Instead you use the revolving door to go work at a consulting company or in the industry you regulated once you've put in a few years in the government. Or write a book. Or give talks. Or any other of legal mechanisms that are nonetheless a lot easier to get into if you've had a high profile role in government. I'm sure Adams will be a great example of this as soon as he's out of office.

[bernard11]

The primary purpose of many infrastructure projects in America is money laundering, actually getting working infrastructure is secondary.

What money is being laundered, and how? Is the government bribing the contractors?

[Frank Drackman]

Man's got to know his limitations, good for you.
I've never Not owned a car once in my adult life, I had 6 at one time for awhile (94 Camaro, 96 Caprice, 84 Crown Vic, 78 LTD, 76 Malibu, 89 Chevy Truck) now down to 3, (the Camaro, an 08' Z06, and a 91 CRX Si)
Frank

[Bunny495]

Getting back to the topic of the OP's post. I have spent considerable time with some Europeans (backstory is I have a 42 foot catamaran I nominally keep in Boot Key Harbor close to Marathon in the Florida Keys and every year at the start of the season maybe a hundred twenty something Europeans arrive looking to get on a cruising boat like mine to spend the winter in the Keys, Bahamas, down island before heading back to the EU). I was hooked up with a girl from Sweden and we visited my condo during a break from cruising. My bedroom has a walk in closet she commented my bedroom and closet were bigger than the home she grew up in Sweden.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I have a 42 foot catamaran I nominally keep in Boot Key Harbor"

Where do you really keep it, though? 😉

I'm shortly going to start construction on my retirement project, a "Diane's Rose" houseboat. If all goes well in a couple years I'll be cruising around Lake Jocassee on the weekends.

[Bunny495]

Currently it is in St. Marks but as soon as the marina in Cortez Cove has a spot I will move it there for a haul out to clean and repaint the bottom of the hull and take off the old square top mainsail and replace it with the new triradial elliptical fat head and probably replace some of the running rigging. After that back to Boot Key for the season and look for a new crew member who is on the Swedish Bikini Team.

[Bunny495]

Vid of the boat for street cred.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC54f9cSIx0

[jb]

Sorry, man. I don't think there's a lot of hot chicks on here to slide into your DMs hoping to ride your boat.

[Brett Bellmore]

1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea

"Abstract:
The oncogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2 has been hypothetically proposed, but real-world data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination are insufficient. Therefore, this large-scale population-based retrospective study in Seoul, South Korea, aimed to estimate the cumulative incidences and subsequent risks of overall cancers 1 year after COVID-19 vaccination. Data from 8,407,849 individuals between 2021 and 2023 were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance database. The participants were categorized into two groups based on their COVID-19 vaccination status. The risks for overall cancer were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and data were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The HRs of thyroid (HR, 1.351; 95% CI, 1.206–1.514), gastric (HR, 1.335; 95% CI, 1.130–1.576), colorectal (HR, 1.283; 95% CI, 1.122–1.468), lung (HR, 1.533; 95% CI, 1.254–1.874), breast (HR, 1.197; 95% CI, 1.069–1.340), and prostate (HR, 1.687; 95% CI, 1.348–2.111) cancers significantly increased at 1 year post-vaccination. In terms of vaccine type, cDNA vaccines were associated with the increased risks of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers; mRNA vaccines were linked to the increased risks of thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers; and heterologous vaccination was related to the increased risks of thyroid and breast cancers. Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination."

And an attack on it:

Here we go again: Another study is being misrepresented as evidence that COVID vaccines cause cancer

I'd say that he jumped rather quickly from "Here are some factors that could explain these results" to "This is all rank nonsense", except that that would reverse the order things happened in.

My own opinion? Enough there to justify further research. And, that's about it.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, there is enough of a question here that it merits further exploration. The data do not lie.

[Martinned]

No, but conspiracy theorists on the internet lie.

Have you booked your Medbed yet? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/28/politics/trump-ai-medbed-conspiracy-theory

[Moderation4ever]

Wondering if the White House Medbed has diagnosed President Trump as having dementia.

[Sarcastr0]

“ Enough there to justify further research. And, that's about it.”

Well, thanks for posting this not yet useful info then!

[Brett Bellmore]

Only final results are useful?

[Sarcastr0]

From a public health perspective, do you not see how posting this paper is more prejudicial than probative?

[Brett Bellmore]

I see how you want to shut down lines of inquiry that might lead places you don't want to go.

[Sarcastr0]

A line of inquiry you yourself declaimed.

I'm not saying the government should swoop down and roll you into a van.
I'm saying it's irresponsible to push antivaxx shit without a sufficient scientific predicate, and you and I agree this ain't that.

[Don Nico]

No, it shows you rather kept the public in the dark. MOre rank dishonesty

[Michael P]

Presumably he wants to shut down discussion about this paper and its findings, rather than allow people to do science.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett and I agree on the paper's findings.

[David Nieporent]

I don't want to "shut down" discussion in the sense of compelling anyone not to speak, but in my ideal world said discussion would only occur among SME in professional settings and everyone else would have the sense not to discuss studies whose result is nothing more than "Experts should look into this."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Everyone with introductory statistics training knows correlation is not causation. And as usual, too many forget that really means something.

Which is why, "More study is needed," is the predictable outcome of correlation studies, which by design had zero chance to show causation. By, "zero," I do not mean zero figuratively. I mean for correlation studies, exactly zero, all the time.

How can anyone be so certain? The certainty is defined in, by the nature of a correlation study, but afterwards obscured from the statistically naive by so-called confidence intervals. Confidence intervals do not measure anything about causation. They measure the capacity of particular statistical methods to confirm whether measurable outcomes from different data categories vary independently, or not. That is a style of variance generally unrelated to causation.

But crucially, even entire unsampled data sets, with perfect correlation outcomes of, 1.0, or –1.0, are incapable to show causation in the least, unless other conditions necessary to establish causation can be shown. For instance, the conditions of which data are antecedents, and which data are subsequents, and whether those are always found in the same categories.

Causal influence never flows backward, from subsequents toward antecedents. By definition, correlation studies define data relationships without regard to time-directional flow of causal influence. In merely correlated outcomes, the directions of influence remain mysterious.

Thus, correlation provides a way to assemble and make use of comparisons among data categories for which causal influences were not observed when the data were recorded—a commonplace occurrence. Typically, not observed because specific causal relationships between those data categories were not of interest to the data compilers, or remained unknown. The data are being rummaged later, to point toward other methods to turn up those missing causes, not to prove them.

The hope is that correlation outcomes will thus become clues—clues which point the way to identify which kinds of influences might properly become focal points of later studies. A correlation study is thus a way to say, "Make it a point to notice." And emphatically not a way to say, or imply, "This causes that."

To define causation is a harder problem than to define correlation. Researchers will always find more correlations than causes.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Everyone with introductory statistics training knows correlation is not causation."

Sure, obviously. But, famously, "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."

Maybe we'll just find, as my second link suggests, (But in no way established!) that the same people who would go out and get vaccinated would also get tested and find the relevant cancers at a higher rate than others. Or maybe not, because the percentage getting vaccinated was SO high, that expecting that sort of systematic difference between the vaccinated and the general population seems questionable.

Or maybe something about the Covid spike protein, (Which the vaccine produces!) messes with the immune system, allowing existing cancers to grow unchecked.

We won't know until we look harder, but you can't look if you don't have some indication you NEED to look, and that's where studies like this shine. At telling you where you should look.

[Malika la Maize]

Brett:

Single study confirms priors: “This study raises important questions about whether my priors are correct!”

Numerous studies go against priors: “We should be very careful about accepting this conclusion!”

[Sarcastr0]

Brett did the Brett 2-step once again:

He namechecked getting it right: "My own opinion? Enough there to justify further research. And, that's about it."

But then acts and defends as though he's on the 'confirms my priors' train.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the most ironic complaint, since your prior is that I'm just confirming my priors, and you always end up confirming it...

I'm actually big on vaccines, but not so big on pretending they're perfectly safe, rather than frequently worth the risk.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem the one who, claiming to know better, is working to sow unearned doubt about the Covid vaccine.

I'm open to changes in the underlying science. But as you yourself admit one paper does not a change in the science make.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm actually not sure of the nature of your complaint, then. I linked to a paper I thought interesting, AND a criticism of it which I thought had some bite, but not as much as the author thought.

There's a kind of medical Manichaeism out there, where if something is on net beneficial in most uses, it's "good", and you're not allowed to be concerned about when it might not be good.

Have you considered that vaccines could have very real and important public health benefits, and still carry significant risks?

When I was a child, they were still using the oral Polio vaccine, which was VERY good from a population standpoint, because it actually gave you a very weak case of Polio, and was contagious enough that you might 'vaccinate' 10-20 people for every kid who ate one of those sugar cubes.

Eventually its use had to be discontinued, because we'd beaten Polio back to the point where the vaccine was causing more serious cases of Polio than the naturally spread virus was! It had become on net a source of harm, not benefit.

I'm somewhat concerned that, as Covid has receded, and predictably evolved towards being yet another common cold virus, the risks of vaccination that got dismissed in the middle of a pandemic are reflexively being dismissed in the midst of... not a pandemic.

[Sarcastr0]

You said this about the paper: "My own opinion? Enough there to justify further research. And, that's about it"

And here you are with 5 paragraphs about the virtues of being concerned about vaccines. All vibes and stories, of course.

That's my problem with you - you're working very hard to discredit the safety of vaccines. Despite actually knowing better!

I believe you when you say you think vaccines are safe.
But your tribalism drives your posting despite your actual knowledge that what you're saying is unscientific and irresponsible.

People can see the darker angels of your worst nature override your principles and knowledge.

[Brett Bellmore]

And here's your problem on display: A person can't even rationally discuss something, if you're afraid discussing it might result in somebody engaging in wrongthink.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no reason to discuss vaccine risks. As you admit there’s no new evidence at that level.

Without anything new, I will be treating this the same as if someone wanted to discuss making a small investment in medbeds.

[Kazinski]

"There is no reason to discuss vaccine risks."

That's not how science is done.

Here is a good reason to discuss vaccine risks:

"An increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis after priming with mRNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been shown but information on the risk post-booster is limited."

"We observed an increased risk of myocarditis within the first week after priming and booster doses of mRNA vaccines, predominantly in males under 40 years with the highest risks after a second dose."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10286992/

There is plenty of good reason to keep studying it and discussing it, especially for males under 40, who are at very low risk for covid.

[Don Nico]

"Everyone with introductory statistics training knows correlation is not causation" but persistent correlation does prompt one to look for an underlying reason.

"By definition, correlation studies define data relationships without regard to time-directional flow of causal influence. "
But that does not mean that there is no common prior influence.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico — Things a study does not mean are myriad, and mostly easy to avoid wasting time on.

The ongoing dustup about Tylenol studies illustrates. Hypothetically, in a correlation study a tendency for two classes of data to move together has been noted. Women who take Tylenol during pregnancy show a greater likelihood to bear autistic children. Does that show Tylenol taken during pregnancy causes autism, has no effect on autism, or prevents autism?

Nobody has a clue. The study design remains incapable to deliver a clue. Even in the latter instance, if fevers during pregnancy are an autism risk, and Tylenol relieves fevers, then it can be simultaneously true that women who take Tylenol to relieve fevers during pregnancy are both more likely to bear autistic children than women who do not take Tyenol (because those did not suffer a fever), and less likely to bear autistic children then they would have been without Tylenol (because fever causes autism, Tylenol decreases autism, and fever increases Tylenol consumption, which does not invariably prevent autism).

It is simply a mistake to insist that strong correlations imply strong causal relations may exist between data categories. It is likewise a mistake to infer even that weak correlations imply proportionately weaker causal relations.

The right inference is that a study using a method incapable to analyze causality delivers no causal information worth repeating. Causal conclusions must be withheld to await a study designed to discern causation.

[Don Nico]

"Does that show Tylenol taken during pregnancy causes autism, has no effect on autism, or prevents autism? "
No, you missed my point. It need not mean either but suggests that one have open eyes for a prior that causes both, especially when the correlation is large.
True, there are coincidences. But simply muttering "correlation is not causation" does not prove that either.

[Bunny495]

As a vet with a 100% service-connected disability I get my health care from the VA. After my third Covid shot I had a very bad reaction (and was far from the only person this happened to) during the 15 minute period after the shot where you are required to hang around for just such reactions. The community care neurosurgeon the VA sent me to explained any mRNA shot can have multiple affects unrelated to the function the shot was developed to address. I talked to several other doctors and they universally agreed with this assessment. My VA dermatologist related a story about one of her patients who had a chronic rash for many years that completely cleared up after Covid shots.

I am agnostic about Covid shots but in the VA system not following orders has bad consequences (like if you miss an appointment there are massive delays in getting more appointments). Bottom line is any mRNA shot can have both good and bad reactions that may not be related to the reason the shot was developed and all the Covid vaccines were rushed into use with far less testing that would normally be required. YMMV

[Stephen Lathrop]

Can I please hear MAGA's explanation why Hegseth's mass conclave of generals and admirals at Quantico is a good idea. There are so many ways it looks ominous that forthright critique ought to go out of its way to recruit favorable explanations.

[Martinned]

They all need to swear personal loyalty to the Great Leader. What other reason could there be?

[Don Nico]

More stupidity. You know nothing more than anyone else. Yet out comes a snide remark.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Commander in Chief of the armed forces has issued a number of orders that were entirely within his authority, and at least some of the military brass have violated those orders.

They're being brought together so that those generals can be fired in front of the others, to remind them all that they're not the Commander in Chief, Trump is.

[Martinned]

SAD

[JohnSmith97]

Yes, it really is sad that the local euro expert on everything thinks that the professional military should just ignore the civilian control when they feel like it.

Then again, same euro expert on everything thinks prosecuting thought crimes in the UK is "freedom of speech"

[Sarcastr0]

least some of the military brass have violated those orders

Fuck yeah military purge based on Brett's vibes! Gotta make sure everyone's loyal to MAGA before deploying the military to yet more blue enclaves.

Nothing in that has echoes of past fascism at all!

[I don't think we have any idea what this is, but it sure says a lot that's what Brett's wishcasting it to be!]

[Don Nico]

Fuck, stamp your feet because of ...VIBES.

[Absaroka]

"The Commander in Chief of the armed forces has issued a number of orders that were entirely within his authority, and at least some of the military brass have violated those orders."

Could you give a couple of specific examples?

[Brett Bellmore]

Restoring America’s Fighting Force

Word is, some of the generals just renamed their DEI initiatives, instead of terminating them.

[Sarcastr0]

Word is?

[Brett Bellmore]

Again expecting an extensively documented paper in a blog comment.

Yeah, that's the rumor in right-wing circles, that some of the generals were violating an order by the CiC to terminate DEI programs. Really, I know no more than you do, I expect we'll find out after the fact.

[David Nieporent]

A single citation to a legitimate news outlet is not "extensive documentation." What we're expecting — not in the sense of "thinking it will happen," but in the sense of wanting it to happen (i.e., "I expect that all your homework will be done before you go out, young man") — is that you have something more than "rumors in right-wing circles."

[Absaroka]

A specific example would look like "Admiral Jones was ordered to XXXX and the evidence he refused is YYYY".

Imagine, for example, the kind of evidence you would want to see if Obama cashiered a general for cause - the kind of evidence that would make you go "Yep, Gen. Smith needed to be fired for refusing that order".

[ThePublius]

Procurement - the revolving door of retired generals to defense contractors;
DEI - a total distraction and waste of money;

and this:

"[Pete Hegseth is] also not going to tolerate retired admirals and generals that come out of the woodwork during election season, use their rank—they’re still subject to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is enforced against lower-ranking officers. The statute says that retired or serving flag officers shall not disparage major civilian officials in the executive branch; Cabinet officers, vice president, especially the president.

And yet we’ve seen in these recent news cycles, I won’t mention all of the generals’ names, but they’ve called their commander in chief a fascist, a Nazi-like, a Mussolini character, an architect of Auschwitz, a liar, a cheat, who should be removed sooner—just terrible things, with impunity."

Read the whole thing:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/02/20/pete-hegseths-military/

[Sarcastr0]

That's an opinion piece by Victor Davis Hanson.

With some quick Googling, I couldn't find any examples of current generals calling Trump any of the names he listed.

[Absaroka]

I checked whether retired military are still subject to the UCMJ, and by gum they are (if entitled to retirement pay).

That seems like a really bad policy. I'm surprised it passes 1A muster.

Is anyone aware of any past prosecutions for retired military folks criticizing the government? I have surely heard a lot of quite pointed criticism of past governments by retired service people, but can't recall any prosecutions.

[Absaroka]

Apparently there is some debate on the issue (n.b. cases on non-speech crimes).

The hook seems to be that folks who served between 20 and 30 years are getting paid partly on the basis of being recalled in the event of war, up until age 65[1], and so are quasi-on-duty. It implies that people who serve 30 years might not be subject to recall??

Still seems like bad policy. If some president is doing dumb military things, I surely want to hear from the SME's.

[1]Heh. My Dad was one of them. Every few years he'd get a letter telling him that in the event the nuclear apocalypse happened and he didn't hear anything, he was to make his way to Fort XXX, which was a thousand miles from where we lived. He'd joke about pushing a grocery cart the thousand miles through the irradiated wasteland.

Not to say you don't get called back, e.g. the Korean War. The funny part was the 'if things are destroyed so badly we can't get a message to you, start walking' angle.

[Bwaaah]

I always found disaster planning to be an unsettling effort at not just predicting the nature of problems that would be triggered in the context of chaos, but of creating action plans to address those likely-to-be-wrong predictions. There was an oxymoronic quality to building discreet plans atop vast unknown scenarios. (I always quietly held suicide as my only confident measure for limiting my downside.)

Still, you could be sure to have a shopping cart ready to go. Nobody could honestly say you didn't do "disaster planning." And in any event, they still end up being disasters despite any attempts at planning.

[Don Nico]

"That seems like a really bad policy. "
But is part of the contract which produces one of the largest classes of double dippers in the US economy

[David Nieporent]

A mass purge of purportedly disloyal military figures? Where have I read about that before? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_Red_Army_Purge

[Ridgeway]

From time to time, MAGA likes to execute an Admiral (or a General, if one happens to be handy) pour encourager las autres.

[JohnSmith97]

Not surprising that you would forget about Obama firing generals, we all know that it was (D)ifferent then.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know the difference between firing one dude and a purge?

[Bunny495]

Problem with your question is there is no agreed-on definition of "a good idea". There is no question in my mind this will be a dog and pony show. As I have posted multiple times before one of Trump's superpowers is making liberals' heads explode and this is a classic example. So while Trump and his supporters will view this as a good idea liberals whos' heads just exploded will not view it as a good idea. This same line of reasoning applies to several other divides on how one defines "a good idea".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump summons all military top brass to hear secret crisis message in person? What could Trump say that would not inspire incipient mutiny plots—maybe rival mutiny plots and counter-plots.

This seems antithetical to keeping Trump consequence-free if things go sour down the road. Trump is not capable to stick to a message in front of any crowd, let alone this crowd. He could say anything.

A few ill-advised exhortations from Trump, some unpredictable domestic military action down the road, and military leaders, including Trump, could be looking at treason charges if Ds win the White House.

Remember when the Secret Service pulled Trump's chestnuts out of the fire, by thwarting Trump's demand to go to the Capitol on J6? This might look sort of like a replay, but this time with Trump determined not to get thwarted.

Who expects the focus of this conclave will be more about military defense against foreign enemies? Who expects it will be about a shift to domestic focus, with maybe a veneer of foreign defense applied as cover? Who expects not to be worried, one way or the other?

[ThePublius]

You always make the most negative construction of anything Trump or his administration does. It's not even rational or logical.

I see it as a realignment: the armed services has strayed from its warfighting mission, has bloated over the years to where we have 838 generals and flag officers during peacetime (about 2000 during WWII when we had over 12 million troops deployed), we have a revolving door of retired generals to defense contractors, are spending billions on bullshit like DEI, and so forth. We are totally unprepared for drone warfare, which is happening in Ukraine and elsewhere, while we plan sixth generation fighters that can't defeat cheap drones. A realignment is called for, necessary. That's what I hope this is the beginning of.

[Frank Drackman]

If you were ever a Military Officer you'd know their Commission says they will serve at "The Pleasure of the President"
Commission can be yanked just because the POTUS doesn't like somebody.

Frank

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm waiting - in vain I'm sure - for an explanation why this couldn't have been done remotely, rather than removing dozens of generals from their active duty posts.

[Malika la Maize]

The Trump administration says it is working to provide tens of billions of dollars to Argentina's President Javier Milei, in a financial bailout that many critics say clashes with President Donald Trump's “America First” platform.

On Wednesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed the United States is in talks to provide $20 billion to Milei. The announcement comes months after the Trump administration dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in an effort to instead support programs aligned with Trump's "America First" agenda.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admins-20-billion-bail-out-for-argentinas-milei-raises-eyebrows-10780604

[hobie]

Three reasons Trump is sending Milei our money:

1. Milei is a climate skeptic who has rolled back a lot of environmental protections.

2. Milei is anti-health. Like Trump, he withdrew Argentina from the WHO

3. Milei is anti-woman and LGBT. He's rolled back protections for both groups and has repeatedly denigrated both.

So he's basically a latin Trump

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

True libertarianism has never been tried!

[ThePublius]

"2. Milei is anti-health. Like Trump, he withdrew Argentina from the WHO"

This is cynical bullshit. Let me ask you, if I decide the NRA is corrupt and in many cases working against my interests, and I quit the NRA, does that make me anti-gun?

This anti-health, anti-woman, anti-LGBT stuff from the left just means you won't toe their line and keep your mouth shut and your wallet open.

The WHO sucks.

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t know what Milie is, but it strikes me as fishy that Trump would cut so much foreign aid and then give 20 billion to his sycophantic buddy.

[ThePublius]

When Trump so dramatically cut foreign aid, he was cutting off funding to NGO's mostly through USAID, who often work against US interests, and are steeped in corruption. Direct aid is something altogether different.

I don't recall you objecting to the billions Biden gave to Zelenskyy in "aid," especially since few can account for where all that money went.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a little different to give money to an invaded ally in defense of an attack that could be thought to be the precursor to one on a treaty ally and giving money to propping up a sycophant buddy, no?

[Joe_dallas]

USAID is a cesspool / slushfund for leftwing advocates, only a small percentage of outlays is actually spend on program services.

[Malika la Maize]

Cite?

And I’m not just talking about USAID.

Also, what “service” is Milie performing?

[hobie]

Don't strongmen and war criminals typically use Argentina to retire in and avoid trials?

[Malika la Maize]

Lol

[Joe_dallas]

As expected - neither of you could actually comment on the merits and/or substance

[Sarcastr0]

The merits of your empty partisan accusation about USAID? An accusation you've made many times before and gotten corrected on, only to insist 'everybody knows' and flounce off?

Deciding you're not worth engaging with is not the same as having no response to your constant stream of unsupported angry partisan assertions.

[Joe_dallas]

Its relatively easy to spot the excess non essential spending with many ngo's and relatively low levels of actual program services expenses.

[Michael Masinter]

Argentina's outstanding IMF loans will take priority, and its history of default are both reasons for concern.

[Armchair]

And we're 2 days away from the Democrat government shutdown.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5524565-democrats-government-shutdown-trump/

The math here is simple. The GOP wanted a simple continuing resolution, to fund the government at current levels for 7 weeks, while further negotiations could take place.

Democrats are mad. For the first time I can remember, they've fillibustered a CR. They want a shutdown. They want a fight. They want more than a trillion in new spending as their condition to keep the government open. It's absurd.

The GOP is the rational party here. The Democrats are insane.

[Malika la Maize]

More disingenuousness here, you *like* shutdowns.

[hobie]

I'd like to hear Ted Cruz's contemporary thoughts on government shutdown

[Armchair]

You appear to be assigning motives that are incorrect.

[Malika la Maize]

No, I’m not. Show us where you’ve condemned shutdowns in the past.

[hobie]

All the previous republican-caused shutdowns were deemed justified because they were just seeking reductions in government spending. So couldn't the libs curry support from MAGA by adopting the same? They could demand reductions in Argentina spending, military command transport, Vance's huge secret service vacation entourages and river swellings...

[Malika la Maize]

It would be nice imho but it’s a tack the Dems don’t take much.

[Joe_dallas]

Significant reductions in non essential spending is a good thing. If shut downs are what it takes to accomplish reductions in wasteful spending then so be it.

[Sarcastr0]

You got made fun of twice now, and here you are back again.

The shutdown is good,
and also is the Dem's fault,
and also lets not talk about what the spending discussions are about,
and also Trump cancelled all the meetings with Dems but it's still the Dems fault.

Being super partisan saves on thinking, but not on dignity!

[Armchair]

You seem to have no arguments, once again.

[Sarcastr0]

I made 3 of them, not counting pointing our you posted the same kind of empty 'Blame Dems' on this twice before and it wen bad for you.

[Armchair]

Right....like when you failed to link to any of these supposed arguments when asked?

Empty suit.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh jeez looks like you're getting wrecked again.

Can't wait till you repost on Wed!

[Bwaaah]

Nope. I'm still waiting for you to post a link. As I requested:

But if you'll provide me a link, I'll follow up and read it. I'm interested in seeing your "very effective arguments that shut Armchair down pretty quick."

You never responded. You just stood there with your pants down.

[Armchair]

Crickets....

I'll post on Wed about the Democrats utter failure, and Sarc will post again about his "amazing argument" that he never seems to be able to post.

[Bwaaah]

Is there an online analog to "the dog ate my homework?"

No. There is not.

[Kazinski]

I actually do support a 30 day or so shutdown.

It will give the opportunity for deeper layoffs, and allow the Administration to hit its target of a 10% federal government force reduction. Currently its estimated at just 5%.

A permanent reduction in force concentrating on non-essential, non-funded employees seems like the perfect opportunity to meet their goal, and hopefully stretch it.

And go ahead make fun of me, I'm not really the sensitive type.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Dems somehow think they can shut down the government until all of Trump's actions have been reversed -- ain't gonna happen.

This one is going to last a while...

[A Japanese Student]

Fact-check: this is not the first time Democrats filibustered a continuing resolution; it is the second time they did it against President Trump. See 115 Cong. Rec. S351-352, January 19, 2018 (Motion to invoke cloture on CR amendment rejected, 50-49)

[Armchair]

Look at that. As I mentioned, it was the first time I could remember.

But you appear to be correct. The 2018 issue resulted in a 9 hour shutdown of the government.

[Malika la Maize]

How young are you that you can’t remember 2018? If you’re getting basic facts like this wrong maybe be more cautious in your overall conclusions? Well, I guess your handle kind of says it….

[Armchair]

Shucks... I couldn't remember a 9 hour shutdown from 7 years ago. Super consequential. I'll mention you just couldn't seem to remember it either. If I was a betting man, I'd bet our little Japanese student needed to look up that fact too.

Well, maybe we'll luck out and have another 9 hour shutdown again? Won't that be nice. I'm guessing it won't happen, but maybe you'll take the opposite bet? No? Not going to put your money down? Surprise.

[A Japanese Student]

Another fact-check: that shutdown lasted for three days - January 20 to 22.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/jan/22/timeline-daca-trump-administration-and-government-/

[Armchair]

This requires a few more points.

1. Government shutdowns are not actually good in practice. They are inefficient and typically result in wasted funds. They may be "politically" good, but from a practical standpoint, they really aren't.

2. Democrats are mad. They want a shutdown, because they want to be seen as doing "something". It's particularly dumb, as what Democrats want are higher funding levels, and stopping funding as a way to get that? It's like spraining your ankle, then shooting yourself in the foot to be seen as "doing something".

3. There's not a good way out of this for Democrats. There's not much to negotiate on. It's a continuing resolution (at Biden administration funding levels). It's actually a pretty good deal for Democrats. You're not going to magically convince the GOP to increase funding dramatically, as the minority party, as opposed to a simple CR. The "Best case scenario" is the Democrats just support what's already on the table. Which makes them look like idiots for the original shutdown.

4. But..I hear. There's much kvetching about rescissions. A few billion that got returned to the treasury. When Democrats are in power, they can change the rules on that, if they so wish. Personally, in this time of massive debt, it makes sense to be able to have Congress and the President agree that if money isn't needed somewhere, it can be returned to the treasury. But...if Dems want to change that rule, they can win the next election and do so.

[Malika la Maize]

Hasn’t Trump refused to even negotiate?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Negotiate about what? He's starting with his final offer.

[Armchair]

Just had a negotiation.

[Sarcastr0]

The one where he ended with AI slop pretending the House minority leader was Mexican?

Is that what a negotiation looks like to you?

To help you out some, the Dems are dumb but they're not that dumb. From past well poisoning, they knew how this was going to go.
This was not a negotiation, it was demonstrating that Trump's priorities are not in keeping the government open.

You'll try and pretend otherwise, but Trump's made that ridiculous.

[SRG2]

The only relevant question is, will the Democrats benefit politically from a shutdown? If the answer is yes, they should go ahead, if not, they shouldn't.

[wvattorney13]

Well, it isn't really "new" spending. It is current spending that was set to expire at year end. So--tomato, tomahto.

It also seems like a tax cut that the Republicans would be for and the Dems opposed. These are small business owners who make too much to qualify for a health care tax credit that buy their policies through the ACA marketplace. They will see their taxes rise tremendously next year. Again, these are many small business owners.

And because I personally benefit from it, I hope the Dems win on this one. Does that make me a hypocrite? Meh, maybe. But I like stuff that helps me out more than some grand principle.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Well, it isn't really "new" spending. It is current spending that was set to expire at year end. So--tomato, tomahto. "

A big part of why federal spending is so incredibly high now is all those temporary spending programs that could never be allowed to end; Every emergency leaves an apparently permanent increase in spending levels in its wake.

[wvattorney13]

I agree, but these things are always phrased depending on whose ox is being gored. Trump's tax cuts were supposed to be temporary and expire at the end of the year as well. The GOP argued that by not extending them, there would be huge tax increases on the American people.

Yet in this very similar "temporary" program, the GOP is calling the extension of it "new spending."

And the Dems argued from the opposite side. I think we should have consistent dialogue about what we call it when we extend a temporary law, and we shouldn't try to confuse people depending on whether we like it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ha ha right a Democratic shutdown. Republicans are in control of both the White House and both houses of Congress - and arguably the Supreme Court as well. But the majority of voters will blame this on the Democrats? I'd like some of what you're smoking.

[Don Nico]

The party that filibusters a short CR does get the blame.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yeah, sure it does. Not the party who had almost a year to pass 12 appropriations bills, and only got 2 to the finish line. You're going to need better spin that that!

[Mr. Bumble]

There is nothing new about that. When was the last time, with either party in control, that we had a regular budget appropriations?

[Kenneth Almquist]

Complaining about the Democratic filibuster while failing to acknowledge the Republican one strikes me as disingenuous, especially given the vote totals. The vote on the Republican CR was 44 in favor and 48 against, so it wouldn’t have passed even in the absence of a filibuster. The vote on the Democratic alternative was 47 in favor and 45 against, so the Republican filibuster is the only reason it didn’t pass.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00528.htm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00527.htm

[wvattorney13]

To me, that just shows that you had 7 Republicans absent from a vote for which the result was already decided. Neither CR would have passed so the 7 Republicans didn't need to return to D.C. or get out of bed to cast a meaningless vote.

The bottom line is that there is a majority to pass the Republican CR but not the Dem CR.

[Malika la Maize]

Saudi Arabia is not known as a center for comedy. But through Oct. 9, the country's capital, Riyadh, is hosting dozens of A-list comedians — many of them American — at the first ever Riyadh Comedy Festival.

The participation of big-name funnymen, including Dave Chappelle, Aziz Ansari, Kevin Hart and Jimmy Carr, has provoked criticism from fellow comedians, including Marc Maron, Shane Gillis and Stavros Halkias, as well as human rights groups and other commentators.

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/27/nx-s1-5555462/saudi-comedy-festival-chappelle-hart-maron

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have long said that antisemitism does not exist in a vacuum, that there is an equal hatred of Christians.

They aren't shooting up synagogues...

[Malika la Maize]

A shooting occurred on April 27, 2019, at Chabad of Poway synagogue in Poway, California, United States, a city which borders the north inland side of San Diego, on the last day of the Jewish Passover holiday, which fell on a Shabbat. Armed with an AR-15–style rifle,[1] the gunman, John Earnest, fatally shot one woman and injured three other people, including the synagogue's rabbi. After fleeing the scene, Earnest phoned 9-1-1 and reported the shooting.

[Malika la Maize]

On October 27, 2018, a man attacked Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha Congregation[b] synagogue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The congregation, along with New Light Congregation and Congregation Dor Hadash, which also worshipped in the building, was attacked during Shabbat morning services. The perpetrator killed eleven people and wounded six, in the deadliest attack on a local Jewish community in American history.[6]

[Commenter_XY]

Dr Ed....you erred badly here = They aren't shooting up synagogues...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Those, while tragic, were six and seven YEARS ago.
We've had two churches shot up in a month -- August 27th and September 28th.

2016 & 2017 were different times -- pre-COVID.
And they aren't shooting up synagogues POST COVID.

[Malika la Maize]

Six years ago, ancient times!

[Dr. Ed 2]

YES -- I would never have believed 2020, the lockdowns, BLM, etc.

[SRG2]

I have long said that antisemitism does not exist in a vacuum, that there is an equal hatred of Christians.

And history says you're FOS.

[loki13]

As J.D. Vance would put it, that's just blood libel on Christians.

The playbook is the same- you have to cry victim while using your boot to stomp on someone else's face.

"Those uppity transgenders are always keeping us Christians down. Gotta go after them!"

"You know who the real racists are? Black people, victimizing the whites. Heck, they think that we had slavery in the past! Can you imagine?"

"AntiSemitism only exists because of the hatred of Christians. I mean, you know what the original hatred of Christians was, AMIRITE?"

You can't make it up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I also wrote that:
"I have long said that antisemitism does not exist in a vacuum, that there is an equal hatred of Christians"

In case you really are too stupid to understand that line, let me try to explain -- my position is that there is an EQUAL hatred of BOTH Christians and Jews, that it is coming from the same people, who hate both groups for the same reasons.

It's called the "Judeo-Christian Tradition" and not everyone likes it.

[SRG2]

my position is that there is an EQUAL hatred of BOTH Christians and Jews, that it is coming from the same people, who hate both groups for the same reasons.

And your position is still FOS - it does not explain Christian anti-Semitism - if anything, it implies that it does not exist!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Those uppity transgenders are always keeping us Christians down."

Sigh. They're keeping women down by stealing their awards in sporting events. Please try to keep up.

OK, and in some cases they're keeping women down in their jail cells.

[bernard11]

I have long said that antisemitism does not exist in a vacuum, that there is an equal hatred of Christians.

This is deranged. Are you aware that there are, and always have been, Christian antisemites? Indeed, for centuries the Roman Catholic Church was institutionally antisemitic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In 2025, not 1025 or 1525....

[SRG2]

Definitely alive in Russia:

https://isca.indiana.edu/publication-research/research-paper-series/yaron-gamburg-research-paper.html

[Don Nico]

Indeed, bernard. Indeed!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Don't sweat it, Ed, there's plenty of room on the victim train.

[Malika la Maize]

Let’s be clear — perfectly clear — about what happened last week. On Thursday, a federal grand jury, acting on the urging of President Trump’s Department of Justice, indicted Comey, the former director of the F.B.I. This indictment was the culmination of a transparently vindictive campaign by Trump to get revenge on his political enemies, no matter the facts or the law.

Let’s rewind the clock to May 2017. At the time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and Trump was furious that he was implicated. Trump reportedly demanded that aides speak out in his defense and was so angry that he was screaming at television clips about the investigation.

While Trump has spent years denigrating the “Russia hoax,” it’s important to remember that there was already evidence of serious misconduct on Trump’s team. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort, had to resign in the middle of the campaign in part because of his own lucrative ties to Russian-allied leaders in Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/28/opinion/comey-indictment-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[ThePublius]

"Let’s be clear — perfectly clear — about what happened last week. On Thursday, a federal grand jury, acting on the urging of President Trump’s Department of Justice, indicted Comey, the former director of the F.B.I."

Perfectly clear? You left out the part about the grand jury. So, you're not being perfectly clear, you are being deceptive.

[Malika la Maize]

Uh, it’s right in the part you quoted…

[ThePublius]

IANAL, but I don't think the DoJ can indict, that that's up to the grand jury. Isn't that so?

[Michael P]

I'm not seeing your position here. What you quoted, with emphasis added:

Let’s be clear — perfectly clear — about what happened last week. On Thursday, a federal grand jury, acting on the urging of President Trump’s Department of Justice, indicted Comey, the former director of the F.B.I.

[Malika la Maize]

I thought you took ham sandwiches very seriously.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not to confuse you with the facts, but the grand jury only indicted on two of the three charges presented.

[loki13]

https://youtu.be/HukrHSxfVPQ?si=Nxa6xq5ErTiUAK35

I'd advise you to watch this, ThePublius. This pretty much captures what actual attorneys think about all of this.

It's the complete breakdown of the rule of law. The only (slightly) good thing is that it is so preposterous, that the only person Trump could use to do it is completely incompetent. But the mere fact that it is happening is further evidence that the DoJ has thoroughly imploded. Which has bad long-term effects on all of us.

Let me repeat- the same person who did this is now in charge of things that actually matter- you know, like most of the terrorism prosecutions that take place in this country.

So ... um, thanks. Thank you for your tireless service in defending the destruction of the rule of law. The one that protects all of us. I'd like to say, "You broke it, you buy it," but I'm guessing that you lack the basic knowledge to understand how badly you've broken it, and how difficult it will be to rebuild it.

Hope it was worth it!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's more what actual attorneys think.

[John Rohan]

Michael Flynn was perjury trapped by the FBI. He hadn't broken any law, but they convinced him that talking to Russians diplomats was illegal, and so were hoping he would lie about it. He did. (He should have refused to answer anything without an attorney).

So he lied to the FBI, which is a crime, but that's a very weak claim to paint him as a criminal.

[Malika la Maize]

The article isn’t even talking about that there.

“Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States.”

Whether he was “perjury trapped” or not the point here is that he definitely did something fishy involving Russia that even the administration didn’t like.

[David Nieporent]

they convinced him that talking to Russians diplomats was illegal,

How did they do that?

(Not that, "I only illegally lied because I was trying to cover up a crime I thought I had committed" is really the defense you hoped it would be.)

[J_A_H]

That's how they took down that biggest of all dangerous criminals, Martha Stewart. Caught her lying about something that wasn't itself criminal. Then charged her for lying about it.

[John Rohan]

This has been discussed on Reason many, many times. Since you are a regular, I don't know how you could have missed it. Here is just one example.

https://reason.com/2020/05/01/the-logan-act-doesnt-justify-mike-flynns-prosecution-it-further-politicizes-it/

[David Nieporent]

My question was not, "What could he have potentially been charged with?" My question was how "they" — whoever "they" is — convinced him that talking to Russians diplomats was illegal.

[John Rohan]

During the interview, they heavily implied he could go to prison if he had spoken to the Russians (which is totally false btw), and they discouraged him from getting a lawyer.

We have the FBI agents handwritten notes from 2017, that said: "What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

But I suspect you know all this already, you are just asking me hoping I'll slip up in some minor detail, so you can find a pretext to attack me, because that will be a "win" for you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious. How did lying to the FBI become a crime?

[David Nieporent]

Because Congress passed a law making it so.

[ThePublius]

I think it was a bit of unfortunate arrogance that led Flynn to agree to an interview with the FBI, let alone without his attorney present. Isn't he smart enough to know the adage "never talk to the police?" The FBI are federal police, and the only reason they want to ever interview someone is to build a case against them. This is just the same as if your local police invite you to have a chat with them, or if they start asking you questions during a traffic stop. If you are alone, as Flynn was, they have license to lie. Are there recordings of the interview? Did Flynn make his own recordings?

Again, I'm flabbergasted. Why did he agree to an interview?

[David Nieporent]

During the interview, they heavily implied he could go to prison if he had spoken to the Russians (which is totally false btw)

You know that the notes taken during the interviews, as well as the 302s, are public, right? There was no such "heavily implying" in there.

And that would have been a bizarre thing to imply, since the fact that "he had spoken to the Russians" was not secret and was readily admitted.

We have the FBI agents handwritten notes from 2017, that said: "What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Yes, and? How could private strategy discussions outside Flynn's presence — you will notice that there's no decision there, by the way — convince him of anything, let alone specifically that talking to Russian diplomats was illegal?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"On Thursday, a federal grand jury, acting on the urging of President Trump’s Department of Justice, indicted Comey, the former director of the F.B.I."

I wonder how Trump responds when people try to explain to him that we don't prosecute our political enemies in this country.

[ThePublius]

hobie. Yesterday you said "Plus dude's truck has an NRA sticker and there is a reported Trump/Vance sign on the fence of his house" regarding the Michigan church shooting and arson. Despite examining every photo I could find online of that truck, zooming in and looking, I have been unable to locate an NRA sticker. Also, can you cite the report of a Trump/Vance sign on the fence of his house? Or did you just make this up?

[hobie]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-sign-spotted-outside-church-024736202.html

There's that sign. Yet another ANTIFA trannie trumper

[ThePublius]

Thanks. Where's the NRA sticker?

[hobie]

The NRA sticker was a rumor I saw on Facebook contemporaneous with the sign assertion. I don't know if it is true.

Anywho, my latest theory on this particular incident is that this tranny Marine shot up the Mormons because of the Utah tranny-loving Mormon shooting up Kirk. Just more internecine MAGA factional warfare

[ThePublius]

Who said that this assailant was a tranny?

[Malika la Maize]

He’s making fun of the people here and elsewhere on the right who rush to see trans perps in shootings.

[hobie]

One good thing about MAGA switching to labeling everyone as ANTIFA trannies, is that we get to hear less about how everyone is an antisemitic terrorist. Thems were the good old days

[ThePublius]

Yea, except in this case I don't think anyone has called this guy and antifa-tranny.

[Malika la Maize]

You might want to apologize for the “did you just make this up,” you being into civil discourse and all.

[ThePublius]

I might want to apologize? Who are you, the civility police? Oca ll people.

What about the NRA sticker?

"The NRA sticker was a rumor I saw on Facebook contemporaneous with the sign assertion. I don't know if it is true."

But you stated it as if it was true.

[Malika la Maize]

You often feign to be the civility police so I wanted to see if you’d practice what you preach.

“But you stated it as if it was true.”

I’m not hobie.

[ThePublius]

"I’m not hobie."

I know, I figured he'd be reading this.

[Malika la Maize]

There’s a reply button under hobie’s posts

[ThePublius]

Thank you, Capt. Obvious.

[hobie]

I wanted you to see what it is like when someone admits they were full of shit

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about? I didn't make any assertion of fact. You did, and then admitted it was a FB rumor (ha, ha!).

[Malika la Maize]

A Polish adventure skier has become the first person to climb Mount Everest and then ski down it without using supplemental oxygen, he and his sponsors announced.
The skier, Andrzej Bargiel, 37, completed the feat on Monday, taking four days to ascend from base camp and then two days to ski back down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/26/sports/andrzej-bargiel-mount-everest-oxygen-skiing.html

[Martinned]

Life is all about priorities...

Federal law enforcement, so far in 2025, vs same period in 2024:

Number of people charged in drug conspiracies: -15%

Number of people charged w/ money-laundering: -24%

Number of people charged w/ importing drugs into US: -6%

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/federal-drug-prosecutions-fall-lowest-level-decades-trump-shifts-focus-2025-09-29/

Who could have expected that Trump doesn't care about prosecuting people for money laundering?

[hobie]

Drug import charges down because we blow them up with drones and dispense with the charging portion of the process. If we just started blowing up banks as well, we could reduce money laundering charges significantly!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Think rationally here Hobie:
If we blow up the money, there's no need to prosecute the laundering of it...

[Bwaaah]

Report about what's being prosecuted. Report about how many have been arrested. Report about the wrongs of policing.

Report about everything related to crime except crime itself.

Murder is down substantially. But you have your priorities.

[Martinned]

For everyone's entertainment, here is a handful of ICE agents in Chicago running after a food delivery worker for no apparent reason other than the colour of his skin, and failing to catch him because those e-bike things are fast.

https://bsky.app/profile/wutangforchildren.bsky.social/post/3lzwt3qdezs2n

[Martinned]

I guess letting 50 year old good ole' boys join ICE regardless of their physical fitness has consequences...

[ThePublius]

Not even a 20 year old can outrun an eBike.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Martinned, the problem law enforcement always has is not enough 50 year old good ole' boys to tone down the testosterone-induced excesses of the 20 year olds.

[John Rohan]

Yeah, because legal citizens are really going to sprint like that when immigration authorities show up.

[Martinned]

Yes. That's what any sensible person would do in that situation. If he'd reacted half a second later, he'd be on a plane to South Sudan by now.

[ThePublius]

You're saying that even if he was here legally he'd be summarily deported? What makes you think that?

[Martinned]

The Regime avoids any and all due process on general principle, and deports whoever it can. What makes you think that he'd ever get the chance to prove his citizenship?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What makes you think that the ICEmen want to deport a legal when there are so many illegals to deport.

[Martinned]

All they care about is the colour of his skin. What other reason is there to sign up to Trump's SA?

[Martinned]

Also hilarious: QAnon shaman sues Trump for $40 trillion and targets Musk, T-Mobile and Warner Bros in rambling lawsuit

[hobie]

This is the thanks Trump gets for pardoning this lovable goofball. I note that in his 26-page-single-paragraph complaint he also names Israel as a defendant.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody questions that he's a nutcase, just whether that nutcase deserved such a sentence for harmlessly nutcasing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agreed.

[Ska]

Just wait until WB files a countersuit for stealing the Flintstones' Grand Poobah of the Water Buffaloes trademark headwear.

[John F. Carr]

I could imagine Trump's lawyers acting so badly that he gets a default judgment against him for $40 trillion.

[Malika la Maize]

Lots of great NFL games yesterday, interesting to see teams like Baltimore that are clearly good teams be 1-3 right now.

Question, are the NFL measures to achieve parity such as awarding draft picks and strength of future schedule based on previous performance progressive (in the ideological sense)?

[John F. Carr]

The Trump administration has taken advantage of the recent Florida truck crash by changing the rules for non-citizen commercial driver's licenses. In general, the licenses will be harder to get. Under the old rules a driver had to have legal status when licensed. The license might be valid for many years. Under the new rules a CDL must expire when the holder's visa or work permit expires. States must query a federal immigrant database to verify documents.

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-takes-emergency-action-protect-americas-roads

The notice called out several states for "systematic non-compliance" with old license rules: California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. California, Colorado, and Washington might be intentionally failing to enforce immigration rules. Texas is probably overwhelmed with applications.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, we see Trump lying about "emergencies" to justify his anti-immigration conduct. (To be sure, road safety is a legitimate issue. But making CDLs expire sooner will not in fact benefit road safety in any way, shape, or form. There cannot be an "emergency" need for that.)

[ReaderY]

It’s probably not advisable in a time of constitutional crisis. But I’ve long thought about a constitutional amendment that would regularize federal power with agreed new powers and limitations. Something like the following:

Explicit new powers, includimg a power to prohibit private discrimination and a power to regulate the environment. The disscrimination power might be limited by conservatives - for example, perhaps limited to race and biological sex, with the government not having power to prohibit songle-sex esucation or interfere with traditional mores and privacy concerns (dress codes, separate bathrooms, etc.) that don’t prevent people from holding a job.

There would then be explicit limitations on existing powers, including:

The powers to regulate commerce do not extend to regulate simple possession, personal use, or private intrastate sale by people not dealers or in the business of selling, nor to businesses that grow or manufacture and sell entirely within a single state.

The power to regulate navigable waters does not extend putside the waters themselves.

The power to spend money does not include the power to condition a grant to a state or local government on its passing or enforcing a law of general applicabiloty with respect to its citizens.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY — When passed, and subsequently amended, the Clean Water Act was not intended as a navigation regulation. It was intended as an environmental regulation. Navigable waters of the United States was a jurisdictional feature, to define the geographic extent of the act.

Subsequent court decisions and a reenactment clarified that the waters involved were not merely the navigable parts, but adjacent waters of environmental significance which affected the navigable waters. So, for instance, not-navigable salmon spawning beds on headwaters of the Columbia River and its tributaries were encompassed and protected by the CWA.

That standard was applied for decades, until this anti-environmental Supreme Court majority gutted the CWA. They were so eager to do it that they overlooked that the case they relied upon was not encompassed by the new standard they decreed. They literally delivered relief to a plaintiff who remained in continuing violation of even their corrupt new standard.

But never mind. Whatever it takes to get land developers back in the business of filling wetlands.

[ReaderY]

What I mean by “regularizing” the constitution is to give the federal government express powers to do what people now think it needs to do, and stop achieving this by torturing the original constitution, putting it on the rack and stretching it until it breaks and lets the federal government effectively do whatever it wants.

This would be achieved by expressly granting new powers.

Henced the proposed explicit power to regulate the environment as such.

The point is to start being more honest about and respectful of the Constitution’s powers and limitations, and to use amendment rather than judicial nullification with opinions that sound an awful lot like something Animal Farm’s Squealer would say. If we want the federal government to do something outside the original conception, we should say so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not happening, because it requires admitting that they're currently torturing the Constitution, and would get in the way of torturing it some more.

And if they ever allow another amendment, it amounts to admitting that their "amending it is impossible!" excuse for living constitutionalism is invalid.

[ducksalad]

Reader Y, suppose your constitutional amendment is proposed and sent to the states.

Suppose it fails to get ratified. Then what? Would that mean anything?

Or is it a case of "I'm keeping the mistress no matter what, but I'd feel better if you approved it"?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Navigable waters of the United States was a jurisdictional feature, to define the geographic extent of the act. "

It was enacted at a time when they were still willing to admit that federal jurisdiction had limits, and so they wrote the bill to be within those limits.

Later, the federal government became less interested in admitting that there were limits to its jurisdiction, so the courts helpfully 'interpreted' them away by treating "navigable waters' as including waters that weren't navigable, or often even waters.

Now you're complaining that the Supreme court merely partially rolled that back.

"They were so eager to do it that they overlooked that the case they relied upon was not encompassed by the new standard they decreed."

The Supreme court itself seems to have disagreed with you about that, not "overlooked" it.

[David Nieporent]

That standard was applied for decades, until this anti-environmental Supreme Court majority gutted the CWA. They were so eager to do it that they overlooked that the case they relied upon was not encompassed by the new standard they decreed. They literally delivered relief to a plaintiff who remained in continuing violation of even their corrupt new standard.

Once again, the relief they gave to the plaintiffs was unanimous.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Once again, that made the Court's blunder worse, at least in the abstract. It could scarcely have been worse as a matter of potential environmental harm.

[ducksalad]

So the grand compromise you're proposing is to legitimize some of what was usurped in return for setting harder boundaries that would limit further encroachment.

Your phrasing would need to be tightened up, for example, "The powers to regulate commerce do not extend to regulate..." should simply be "The federal government may not regulate...". Otherwise the dodge will be that some other section of the constitution beside commerce lets them do it.

Education would also need to be addressed.

[ReaderY]

No. Not only would the new powers let the federal government regulate certain of these things, it would let it regulate them beyond any current (relatively trivial) limits. That’s their purpose. Otherwise the amendment would be a pure conservative win rather than a compromise of any sort.

Under the proposed amendment, the federal government could for example regulate simple possession of environmental toxins or discrimination by purely intrastate businesses.

[ducksalad]

Then here are the excuses that would be used more or less instantly:

"Marijuana is an environmental issue. Water resources are used in its production. It is rational to control this is by eliminating the private demand for marijuana, and banning simple possession gives law enforcement a useful tool to reduce demand."

"The Gun Free School Zones Act is an environmental regulation. Sustainably addressing the environment requires a future supply of trained professionals. Children are that future, but they cannot fulfill that need if they have been shot dead. "

More generally, all activity, and all lack of activity, affects the environment, and therefore a power to regulate the environment is authority to regulate all action and inaction. That's not what you meant? Well, that's not the commerce clause meant either.

So I was wrongly interpreting your proposal. In the absence of an unambiguous ban on regulating certain topics, via any power, you are not proposing a compromise. It is simply regularizing what's already been done, in return for nothing, so we can salve our constitutional conference by saying now we're not in violation. While adding yet another elastic clause, this time based on the environment.

[ducksalad]

constitutional conscience, not conference. Sorry.

[John Rohan]

WOW if you think US courts are dysfunctional, compare them to India. Very interesting article from the BBC:

Justice on hold: India court crippled by a million-case backlog

The Allahabad High Court - one of India's oldest and most prestigious, once graced by figures like India's first premier Jawaharlal Nehru and future Supreme Court judges - is back in the spotlight.

This time, though, for very different reasons.

With more than a million cases pending, it is among the most overburdened courts in the country. Matters ranging from criminal trials to property and family disputes have been pending here for decades, leaving thousands of people in India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, trapped in legal limbo.

Consider Babu Ram Rajput, 73, a retired government employee who has been battling a property dispute for over three decades.

He bought land at an auction in 1992, but the previous owner challenged the sale - and the case remains unresolved to this day.

"I just hope my case is decided while I'm still alive," Mr Rajput says.

The high court's struggle mirrors a broader crisis in India's judiciary, where too few judges and a constant flood of cases have caused crippling delays.

With a sanctioned strength of 160 that experts say has never been completely filled, the court is severely understaffed. Delays in police investigations, frequent adjournments, and poor infrastructure further add to the backlog, leaving the system stretched beyond capacity.

Each judge faces hundreds of cases a day - sometimes over 1,000. With just five working hours, that's less than a minute per case. In practice, many aren't heard at all.

...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz4y4p80po

[Martinned]

Yes, India has had a crazy backlog for decades. One of the consequences of that is that it allows the government to bully its opponents into submission simply by filing charges against them. Since the case won't be heard for years anyway, these people often change their view about something unrelated (e.g. by becoming loyal BJP members), and then the charges are magically dropped.

[Malika la Maize]

One last sports story. I watched the UVA victory over FSU on ESPN Friday. Thrilling overtime game where underdogs defeated a Goliath. UVA fans were rocking and rushed the field in excitement.

But it appears 19 people were hurt.

Should field or court rushes be cracked down on? On the one hand I hate to see any injuries and the potential is bound to be there. On the other these kind of events are iconic to those involved and we can’t make every fun thing totally safe.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/field-storming-after-virginias-upset-win-over-fsu-leads-to-19-people-being-treated-for-injuries/#

[Bunny495]

As a double graduate of FSU who was a student when Bobby Bowden was first hired I have been a long-time fanboy. My impression of the game was very different than your claim of "underdogs defeated a Goliath". Not to mention several top tier sports analysts view of UVA's failure to control the crowd.

While UVA was an underdog there were multiple questionable calls. Perhaps the most blatant was in the second overtime when UVA sent the kicking team out after scoring (the rules require going for a two point play) and then the zebras stopping the clock and resetting it to the full 25 seconds instead of assessing a delay of game penalty on UVA. There were at least three controversial calls on FSU (Little retaliating after he suffered a hands to the face from a UVA player who was not penalized and Duce's no TD catch and offensive PI call).

As for rushing the field several analysts pointed out that normally spectators/students are not allowed on the sidelines (you are suppose to have a pass hanging around your neck to be on the sidelines if you are not a player or coach and the number of players and coaches is limited by rules). The zebras have stopped games in the past if spectators entered the sidelines and had the sidelines cleared before the game was resumed. The student section at the endzone had a huge number of students enter the sidelines and were literally inches from the endzone more than three minutes before the game ended.

I do agree that life can have dangers but have to point out there are rules to lessen any danger and the zebras screwed the pooch multiple times and without exception it favored UVA.

As an aside coaches are able to submit game film to their conference if they think the zebras messed up and there is no question FSU will submit film showing how bad the zebras were in this game.

[Sarcastr0]

Currently reading "A Swim in a Pond in the Rain" by George Saunders.

It's a study of seven short stories by Russian authors for an audience of aspirational writers. So it takes an eye towards their craftsmanship.

I've got no stories in me, short or not - I tend towards D&D campaigns. But I do have a fascination with how creatives relate to their talent.

So far, Saunders has a lot more salesmanship in his thinking than I'd think - he has something he wants to say, but on the way to it he's super worried the reader will lose interest.

[loki13]

Huh.

I'm curious- I assume the seven authors are different, so I'm wondering about the authors he selected. I'm curious to see who he chose- there are some obvious choices (Chekov- OF COURSE!, Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoyevsky) but did he go with this some more modern authors? Tolstaya? Osipov?

Also, D&D? Feel like sharing?

[Sarcastr0]

I dunno, he may say!

OK now I get to go on with D&D.
I do a lot of heavy adaptation - take a written adventure/campaign and mess it all around to make it my own.

My favorite is my take on a Pathfinder campaign called Strange Aeons. The conceit is that the PC's wake up with amnesia - and their backgrounds are written by other players in collaboration with me.
Chapter 1 they awaken in an asylum and get to deal with some surreal nightmare-like effects
Chapter 2 they come into a town under siege by fish men, and discover each of them had close ties to the town somehow
Chapter 3 they go on a river voyage - encountering foes by day, and doing research and later dream excursion rituals by night, taking them on 7 dream quests.

I'm currently working on a Space UN campaign where player characters have the usual fighting abilities, but also unique diplomatic resources,
Adventures will take place along each of the 3 scales and be inspired by some modern political crises (Hostage crisis, breakup of Yogoslavia, etc.).
The issue here is finding ways for the PCs to have differing agendas without causing too much PC-PC conflict.

Saunders' relentlessness about economy of story and maintaining interest should serve me well if I can integrate it in. I've run some sandboxy campaigns that had some flabby middles.

[loki13]

That's a much more fun topic than the usual BS we get here!

Ugh ... Saunders is preaching economy of story and maintaining interest, and hasn't introduced the seven authors? Physician, heal thyself! From the Amazon description-
"Paired with iconic short stories by Chekhov, Turgenev, Tolstoy, and Gogol, the seven essays in this book are intended for anyone interested in how fiction works and why it’s more relevant than ever in these turbulent times."

Eh... Chekhov is a no-brainer, as is Gogol. Turgenev is fine. Tolstoy ... I'm not as big of a fan. But to each their own.

As for D&D- a West Marches campaign (think SERIOUS sandbox) might be something for you to look into. OTOH, if you have a good group that is really into it, I would suggest looking at FKR and rule-lite systems that allow for more collaborative gaming with less emphasis on rules. YMMV.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not a rules-light guy. I like a bit of battle-chess among my collaborative storytelling.

I just completed a converted-to-pathfinder Curse of Strahd, which was a great sandbox to design, but the second time I ran it that group had some issues being directionless.

[loki13]

I can understand that. Personally, I never did the 3e/PF switch.

My systems tend to be either heavily modified TSR-era rules for campaigns, 5e if I'm dropping in (there's always a game), or rules-lite (usually one-pagers) for one-shots.

[Sarcastr0]

The one-shots I have in my back pocket are a d20 modern conversion of an Eclipse Phase one-shot (based on that Zombie-ant fungus), and a Pathfinder conversion of a Paranoia scenario.

[Sarcastr0]

“Always be escalating. That’s all a story is, really: a continual system of escalation. A swath of prose earns its place in the story to the extent that it contributes to our sense that the story is (still) escalating.”

Super hard to apply to a pure sandbox, but of course the best sandboxes have some hidden order in mind, just hidden from the players.

[loki13]

Well, I would argue that the difference between a sandbox played properly and storytelling is illusionism (railroading).

It's a different mode. If you hide the rails, they're still there. If you're playing a sandbox properly, you sacrifice storytelling and you instead accept that what you will have is "emergent story," which, like life, can be exciting, or boring, but is not preordained.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree, except I think it's a continuum more than a choice.

A pure sandbox will have emergent events, but not an emergent *story* with the rising action towards a climax that we find pleasing.

But you can add underlying purposes, and link areas to other areas with quests and people, to create some incentives towards certain story beats.

I've not had consistent success keeping order and agency as in-tension elements, but when it's cooking, it's pretty great.

[Keldonric]

My group hopped around a bit — we used GURPS alongside the more background-oriented systems. One of our best one-shots was set in a demon-infested Wal-Mart (one of the players worked there in high school).

[Keldonric]

My kids got me to switch over from 2e to 5e some years ago. That was an adjustment — the mechanics were very different. THAC0 was not missed.

I still have my books though.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow. I came lateish to the hobby and picked up at 3.5. I've mostly stayed there.

[Ska]

Chapter one and two sound like act 1 of Divinity: Original Sin 2 but chronologically reversed. Sounds pretty cool.

We had a GM homebrew a Pathfinder game using PF's ruleset but in their own universe - a sort of alternate universe with a Roman legion flavor and a completely different pantheon of gods. It was great; we all were really into it and the GM had spent a couple years crafting this world before rolling it out to us. Creating a different setting but actually building some depth to it made it worthwhile. For the players, adapting fantasy classes to a low-magic universe that mirrored a real historic period had us invested in classes you wouldn't typically play.

[Sarcastr0]

Tons of potential in a low magic setting. One of the DMs who rotates in our games likes to do Western stuff. It's pretty fun.

[Sarcastr0]

My favorite character I've recently made was Dick Cainetti, an ex-con PC in a superhero game who was tough and strong and had a noble heart but lacked the judgement to make wise long-term decisions.

[loki13]

What system were you using for that? A lot of them have trouble balancing the different power levels (the BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner problem).

[Sarcastr0]

We use Mutants & Masterminds 2e. It's got the same balance of power issue you describe.
The DM just eyeballs it and asks folks to up/down their power-level as needed.
It's not been frictionless.

[loki13]

Never played M&M 2e, but I've heard about it.

I played a revival using the Marvel FASERIP system a while back, and that was fun. But overall haven't had much success with systems that try to do superheroes.

[Keldonric]

I like the D&D mention — I haven’t played in some years, but my kids are active players. My son was tapping away on his phone in the car the other day, and when I asked what he was working on he said, “I’m working on a campaign.”

[Sarcastr0]

😀

I got some written word creative impulse, but I don't have it in my to write a whole thing.
And I like to perform, but don't have it in my to do a whole theatre thing.
I like to improvise, but not like improv-troop level.

D&D has a mix of all 3 for me.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0 — In your estimation, would a switch to LARPing be creative ascent, or descent?

[loki13]

I'm not him, but there's four sub-issues here.

Traditionally, in the "nerd hierarchy," LARPing is considered even ... nerdier ... than roleplaying. In other words, people who play games like D&D look at LARPers and say, "Bruh. That's too far."

OTOH, the massive success of cosplay has made that a much less tenable distinction.

On the third hand, LARPing is much more common and accepted as "just" roleplaying in, inter alia, Europe.

Fourth, and finally, if you expand "LARPing" to include civil war re-enactment and similar things (and why shouldn't you?) you end up with ... classification problems. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

For most of my life, LARPing was something I looked down upon...sort of. People did say it was an easy way to get laid, so I was curious. But not so much I made a dedicated search for a group.

Nowadays, I see it as more of a sidegrade. As loki mentioned, the costume bit has gotten a lot more normalized.
I did one. Ironically enough in my summer associateship. I found myself getting too competitive, actually. Embodying the character made it harder to embrace sucking as a good story beat.
But fine for other folks.

See also wargaming - it's the other side of things with less story more tactics. And more painting lots of expensive tiny little dudes. That might be a level of hell for me, but other folks love that bit of craftiness.

[Ska]

I played WH40K, and as someone who built models the painting miniatures and creating my own sets and mods for miniatures was right up my alley. Considering I grew up playing Tactics II, Squad Leader, and a lot of the Avalon Hill bookcase games, a fantasy game where you measured the distance between miniatures and used radial templates to see how AoE on explosives affected targets - all those aspects were already hobbies for me.

Dressing like a character and running around a park was way beyond something I was willing to do to play a game. I'd play war and manhunt, but I wasn't playing as a character. It was just tag with different rules.

[loki13]

WH40k?

I've heard that it's God's way of saying, "You have too much money for a cocaine habit."

[Keldonric]

Facts. Even without bringing the hobby supplies into it. I played SW Legion and X-Wing as well. There’s a cartoon out there reflecting on how things can snowball: https://spikeybits.com/x-wing-miniatures-mistakes-were-made/

[Keldonric]

What did you run in 40k? When I played, I ran Harlequins Midnight Sorrow.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not play, but I do like to follow the setting semi-ironically.

White Scars fan here.

[Ska]

I got stuck playing Imperial Guard because I was the new guy and my buddies were already playing Space Marines and Aeldari. I didn't use any real lore, I kind of half baked some renegade Astra Militarum faction since we were all just playing against each other.

I also had a set of Beastmen thrown in. I thought the minis were cool and fuck it, we didn't need it to make sense. We just were playing cutthroat three team conflicts for the hell of it - and yes spending way too much money on paint and fake shrubbery.

[Bunny495]

Just my two cents but from my experience LARPing seems way less nerdy than what I will term stuff like D&D. I would also point out the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) has a significant number of members and is (at least to me) LARPing for big boys. While traditional LARPing uses foam weapons that even with a direct hit are not really painful to most peeps SCA stuff uses real metal (like steel) weapons and requires significant armor like chain mail or a full suit of armor often with a metal helmet.

To some extent SCA relies on at least loosely related history while LARPing "fights" are often made-up fantasy with no historical basis though there are what might be termed off shoot LARPing groups that have at least some basis in reality. In any case the number of peeps who are involved number in the millions with the number of LARP groups is simply too long to list here so I can only post a wiki link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_live_action_role-playing_groups

[Martinned]

It turns out John Searle passed away earlier this month. He's one of those people that I would have sworn had died long ago, but it turns out he lived to be 93.

[windycityattorney]

I read some of his works in a Philosophy of Mind class in undergrad. I enjoyed his writing style and enjoyed that class. His early thought experiments about computers and AI (i.e, chinese room thought experiment) were certainly interesting.

Not sure if he had time to comment on large language models and AI self-teaching/learning. Haven't thought of him in many years.

[John F. Carr]

A social media post wonders why so many Italians are marching in the streets over Palestine. Some of the instigators are the intelligentsia. The cause of the Palestinians has been fashionable on the far left since the Cold War, when the Soviet Union backed the PLO. But there are too many marchers to explain away as left wing professors gone wild. Why is Palestine such a big deal in Italy now?

Are the protests mainly an excuse to act out against Prime Minister Meloni, who finds an advantage in being on friendly terms with Trump?

Meloni has recently agreed to recognize Palestine if Hamas releases hostages and stays out of government. So not any time soon. Imagine if Trump said "I will take Democrats' offer of a budget deal with increased health care subsidies, on the condition that all Democrats in Congress resign and do not seek reelection."

[Martinned]

All through the postwar era, until the re-alignment of Italian politics in the 1990s, the PCI, the Italian Communist Party, was the main opposition party. (With the Christian-Democrats in government.) Today's Democratic Party and Five-Star Movement, in particular, will be the heirs of that culture.

[M L]

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2025/09/29/trump-appears-to-strong-arm-netanyahu-toward-gaza-deal/

Trump’s leverage over Netanyahu is apparent in the terms of the emerging deal. Contrary to claims by left- and right-wing antisemites, lately joined by Tucker Carlson, the Israeli leader does not control Trump, but rather defers to Trump on every issue on which they differ openly.

Those issues are few — thanks to the stark intransigence of Israel’s enemies, who play into Netanyahu’s hands by rejecting Trump’s diplomatic efforts.

[Poxigah146]

https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/09/28/armed-federal-agents-patrol-millennium-park-mag-mile-to-chants-of-shame/

The left is caterwauling over the picture of this family. Apparently every low skill migrant mestizo family from Central America is entitled to come to the United States, at our expense.

[hobie]

Looks like Lindsey Halligan - yet another former beauty pageant contestant and insurance lawyer cum interim USA for EDVA - had to do two things a USA never does: personally conduct both the grand jury inquiry and also presenting the indictment. Presumably because there is no one left in the office who would do it.

Not only did the judge scold her for presenting two differing signed versions of the indictment, but she also took the wrong side of the court room.

[loki13]

In order for Trump to conduct his vengeance tour, he put a friggin' unqualified moron in charge of one of the most important offices in the United States.

Remember- the E.D.Va. is, along with S.D.N.Y and D.D.C, one of the most important districts in the United States. And Halligan is now in charge of it. In order to get the PR for a prosecution that will go nowhere, Trump is destroying that office.

Good job!!!!

[hobie]

When you purge the DOJ of the hundreds of attorneys and agents that worked on the J6, then purge all the lawyers that won't indict Enemies of Trump (EOT which is similar to FOB. Does Trump have any actual friends? The last one died in 2019), decimated the Civil Rights Division, and finally dismiss all the attorneys that worked on the election theft and document cases, you're just left with pageant contestants and fox rejects.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pageant *winners* have transferable skills.

Erica Kirk was one...

[David Nieporent]

Is marrying a successful person properly termed a "skill"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask Hillary.

[not guilty]

When Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton in 1975, he was bright but (relatively) impecunious. Each of them had recently become employed as a law professor.

When Bill was elected to office as Attorney General of Arkansas, Hillary went to work for the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, and she earned more money than he until he became President in 1993.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just why do you think she was hired by Rose..?
Cattle futures ability?

[Bob from Ohio]

"When Bill was elected to office as Attorney General of Arkansas"

No connection to the Rose hiring!

She is and always has been a nepo baby, or nepo wifey if you are a pedant.

[David Nieporent]

Did you catch that Ed Whelan suggests she's not actually legally entitled to serve in her position?

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/re-was-lindsey-halligan-validly-appointed-as-united-states-attorney/

[loki13]

Yeah, that's yet another issue. Did you catch the youtube link I put above. It hits a bunch of issues- including the small problem that she will have serious issues because, assuming it isn't dismissed before her own deadline, there is no way that she is going to get approved by the Senate or the judges.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simple -- Main Justice hires her and takes the case. Bondi signs the paperwork.

[Estragon]

Seems pretty clear that Bondi doesn’t want to do that.

[Estragon]

Yes. I believe much of the 120 day interim period was taken up by Mr Seibert.

[Commenter_XY]

If it is a terrible case, wouldn't the judge simply say, "Case dismissed" (along with 50-100 pages of reasons why)? That happens, right? Yeah, it does.

Let the process run it's course. If you and NG and David are right and this is a terrible case, the fed district court judge will unceremoniously toss it quickly. And that will be that. Win some, lose some. Better luck next time, DOJ.

That is how the process is supposed to work, I thought.

[Sarcastr0]

Let the process run it's course.

What a bad faith POS you are.

You say the process is the punishment over and over again. Not to mention your gloating about Comey getting indicted only a few days ago.

This is a case so bad the rank-and-file DoJ who remain won't sign on. It's so bad they couldn't get an indictment with one of the charges. It's so bad Trump had to fire the MAGA US Attorney to get in someone so personally loyal they'd do it.

There is no process to trust; it's been suborned. Hopefully our judiciary will be up to this test.

But it's not a 'wait for the process' situation and you're not a 'wait for the process' person. So pretend you're someone you're not.

[Commenter_XY]

If the case is so bad, the judge will dismiss it.

[Martinned]

Because the US judiciary is famously willing to stand up to Trump?

[loki13]

Sarcrast0 already explained this to you. But I will assume, despite all evidence to the contrary, that you're actually curious.

Again, you have been on the record many times gloating about this. Luxuriating the fact that someone will get indicted and/or "bankrupted" and/or forced to do a perp walk REGARDLESS of the merits. I'm pointing that out, because you can't both repeatedly post how spiteful you are, and then act like you're all about justice and process. Okay?

Our justice system does have multiple safeguards. So yes, we all know ("we" being lawyers and people who understand the law across the ideological spectrum) that this is not a case that should ever have been brought. Assumedly, this will get dismissed at some point in the not-too-distant future.

But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We've already seen the complete destruction of multiple safeguards. Let me remind you- the Trump-appointed (and MAGA) USA already did a thorough investigation that had been ordered by Trump to try and bring a case ... already, that's... bad. But at least he was competent enough (safeguards!) to say ... there's no crime. You can't proceed. That's how it is supposed to work.

So Trump fired the person he appointed, did not further investigation, put in a person with no criminal law experience, and had them file the charges ... and barely got two of three past a grand jury. Which already tells you exactly what the USA already knew. If you can barely get a charge past a grand jury ... when you present only evidence you want and the standard is probable cause ... HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET A CONVICTION WHEN THE STANDARD IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND IT'S UNANIMOUS, AND THE OTHER SIDE GETS TO TALK AND PRESENT EVIDENCE (and rebut your evidence)?

And I will repeat- the only attorney who would sign this was Halligan- not a single other attorney in the office would put their name to this.

I know you're not an attorney, so you don't understand just how bad this is.

So let me make this simple-
What you are saying is this...

The King (President) can bring any charges against any person for any reason, individually targeting them because the King wants to because they are the King's enemies. The King can use the power of the state against that person.

Best case scenario- the person ends up in front of a normal judge and spends a lot of their money and time and stress to fight off government overreach that should never have occurred while people like you chortle and talk about how funny it is.

Worst case? They end up in front of one of the King's appointees, who string the case out forever and make sure it is as expensive and long-lasting and damaging as possible before the inevitable happens, either in that court or on appeal. Paging Judge Cannon.

That's the problem. It's why people who understand the issues- whether of the left, the right, or the middle ... are talking about this. It's basic rule of law stuff. Which bothers ... you know, law-type people. It's not just "fun and partisan games so Commenter_XY gets their jollies off of other people suffering."

[not guilty]

"If it is a terrible case, wouldn't the judge simply say, "Case dismissed" (along with 50-100 pages of reasons why)? That happens, right? Yeah, it does."

That can happen at the close of the government's proof in chief or at the close of all proof if the judge concludes that evidence is insufficient for any rational trier of fact to find every essential element of the offense to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

A dismissal prior to trial is exceedingly rare.

[loki13]

Even worse, not only did the grand jury refuse to return on one of the three charges she presented (which she signed anyway, because of course she did), she could only get 14/23 to sign off on the other two.

So let's review. No one in the office agreed that there was evidence to proceed. She decided to proceed anyway- but only her, because no other attorney would sign it. She brought three charges, and the grand jury refused one of them and she barely got the grand jury to sign off on the other two. She screwed it up anyway, and she's the only attorney in the office to sign it- which is never done.

It's a clownshow. And it will get worse. Wait until she has to appear to in real court, and not just in front of the magistrate judge.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Trump supporters love to complain about how "DEI" substitutes race for competence. I'm waiting for them to explain why it's any better to substitute loyalty to Trump for competence.

[loki13]

In fairness, and from what I've seen, loyalty to Trump is a good proxy for competence!

Just ... inversely related.

[not guilty]

Andrew McCabe, in a podcast with Allison Gill, has discussed the indictment of James Comey and his own participation in the events that Senator Ted Crude was questioning Comey about in the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm2ziBAta-Y While the YouTube clip that I link here is lengthy, McCabe's discussion of the counts that were found begins at about 30:38.

McCabe says (beginning at 34:16) that he never said to anyone that Comey authorized him to share anything with the Wall Street Journal -- he said "I didn't have to, because I had the authority to authorize it myself." McCabe said that at that time, FBI policy was that there were only two people in the organization who could authorize a disclosure to the press -- those being the director and the deputy director.

McCabe declared (beginning at 36:48) that "no one in the Justice Department or the FBI, who is working on this case, has contacted me in any way. I have not been interviewed"!! That is astounding. What kind of Keystone Cops operation has Pam Bondi's DOJ devolved into?

[not guilty]

Andrew McCabe also stated on the podcast (beginning at about 51:16) that he expects Comey's defense counsel:

"will request that the judge go back and review the actual evidence that was submitted to the grand jury and make a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to merit this probable cause finding. And it is possible since the prior U. S. Attorney evaluated that evidence days before and said it wasn't enough to bring it before a grand jury, uh, it's very possible that a judge will come to the same conclusion, and that would dismiss the indictment outright."

I disagree with McCabe's suggestion that dismissal on that basis is an available remedy. Courts are loath to go behind the face of an indictment and second guess the grand jury's probable cause determination. SCOTUS opined in Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956):

In Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, this Court had to decide whether an indictment should be quashed because supported in part by incompetent evidence. Aside from the incompetent evidence, "there was very little evidence against the accused." The Court refused to hold that such an indictment should be quashed, pointing out that "[t]he abuses of criminal practice would be enhanced if indictments could be upset on such a ground." 218 U.S. at 218 U.S. 248. The same thing is true where, as here, all the evidence before the grand jury was in the nature of "hearsay." If indictments were to be held open to challenge on the ground that there was inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury, the resulting delay would be great indeed. The result of such a rule would be that, before trial on the merits, a defendant could always insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. This is not required by the Fifth Amendment. An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. The Fifth Amendment requires nothing more. [Footnote omitted.]

There are certain bases for a pretrial dismissal of an indictment, but the quantum of evidence considered by a grand jury is not one of them.

[Kenneth Almquist]

At this point, I’m pretty sure that Halligan invented the charges out of whole cloth and managed to bamboozle the grand jury.

People here have made arguments that Halligan wasn’t actually purporting to quote Comey when she wrote “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” in paragraph 1 of the indictment. But that only excuses the first paragraph of the indictment.

In paragraph 2 she asserts that Comey “had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation coneerning PERSON 1.” Keeping the identities of PERSON 1 and PERSON 3 secret gives her some wiggle room, but if she can’t establish that she was referring to a leak other than the WSJ leak that Cruz asked about, I can’t think of any possible defense for including this assertion in the indictment. The FBI did a thorough investigation of that leak, and concluded that Andy McCabe authorized it, based in part on Andy McCabe’s statement under oath to the Inspector General that he had done so. Halligan had no basis to believe that McCabe would change his story. She doesn’t have any record of Comey authorizing the leak because if such a record existed, the FBI investigation would have found it.

[not guilty]

The refusal to interview Andrew McCabe was likely decided before Lindsay Halligan came on board, but it is thoroughly inexplicable.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bill Taylor 138888@dnews2022
According to @SenBooker
13 NJ High School Graduates were appointed to the US Service Academies this year, Army, Navy, Air Force, Merchant Marines.

Of the 3 US Naval Academy appointments, 2 went to @MikieSherrill’s twins, the Hedbergs.

https://x.com/dnews2022/status/1972324607668482431

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
Maybe if they graduate they'll get to "walk" unlike their mother.

[Frank Drackman]

That can’t be right, Naval Academy graduates about a 1,000/year and accepts more than that. My very very large B-rain tells me 3/1000 is 0.3%, NJ’s % of the population is way more than that.

[Bob from Ohio]

Well, it is "According to @SenBooker" so is likely wrong.

Its not the number really, its her appointing her children!

[Commenter_XY]

The cheating continues, just in a different context. It is a thing with her.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Mets fans were finally put out of their misery after the Mets for one last moment (after the Reds lost) were in control of their destiny. The baseball gods laughed.

The Guardians finished their remarkable comeback (the Tigers barely -- thanks in part to the Astros final choke job -- avoiding saying to the Mets "hold my beer") after the Tigers lost. They decided to have one last comeback in the 10th anyway just for kicks.

Congrats to the Giants new QB, with repeated shots of his mom in the stands, for your first career win.

[jb]

Feels like the Giants' first career win with the way they'd been playing the last few years.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Minus that win last season that hurt their draft chances.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The baseball gods recognize Steve Cohen for exactly who he is.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

During the afternoon sports programming there was a chyron noting Mayor Eric Adams suspended his mayoral campaign. After he insisted not too long ago that he would not do that.

There now will be an increased pressure on Curtis "cats are great" Sliwa to suspend his campaign. I have seen multiple Curtis Sliwa campaign signs in my neighborhood (it has a Republican city councilperson and would be prime Sliwa territory).

My sympathies (well, not really) to NYC Republicans who feel pressured to vote for Andrew Cuomo.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or maybe not. Interesting that Cuomo might need Republican votes to beat Zardoz Madmani.

[John F. Carr]

As I see the race from a few hours away, two candidates are disqualified for moral failings leaving a nut and a snowball's-chance-in-hell.

Luckily for the City, Mamdani probably can't impose his campaign fantasies by executive order.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The "fantasies" are "specters" of the opposition.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure they are.
Guess you can't wait to shop at Trader Madmani's.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump has imposed a 100% tariff on movies made outside of the US. I assume that would be a tariff based on the production costs.

1: What would that be based on? Production costs? Earnings?
I could see both being problematic -- if it is production costs, what about the foreign distribution rights, the portion of the product that isn't imported? And if it is on US Earnings, I could see an opposite of what Big Pharma does -- sell it below cost in the US so as to make it well known, knowing that your profit will be from overseas.

2: Mel Gibson, a purported Christian even though he often doesn't act like one, is making a second religious movie, currently being filmed in Rome and Israel. He is doing this with his own money and for religious reasons.

A: If he donates the movie (i.e. US distribution rights) to various churches, will they have to pay the tariff?

B: The Vatican is technically a foreign nation with which the US has diplomatic relations. Assuming Trump can tax churches, can he tax a foreign government -- i.e. if Gibson gave the rights to the Vatican.

C: Say the churches show the movie for free -- only charging those expenses relatable to projection (i.e. theater rental, staffing, security)? Would Trump be able to collect anything?

D: What if the churches showed the movie for free, but requested a "donation" to the church?

3: The State of Israel (or Iceland, Greece, Spain) produces a movie (in their country, with their people) that essentially says how great their country is and why people would want to go visit it. (All four very much want tourism dollars as well.)

I can think of legitimate history-based movies that each country could make -- Greece being the least political, simply wandering around Athens (etc.) with a camera comes to mind.

Where do we draw the line, and can we tax the political speech of allies?

While 100% may be excessive, I think the tariff in general is a good idea because Canada has been subsidizing moviemaking for decades now, with much of Hollywood moving up to the Province of British Columbia. Well what Trump is doing is leveling the playing field -- the Canadians give $10M and we take $10M, it thus becomes a level playing field with Hollywood.

[John F. Carr]

I think he only announced an intent to impose tariffs and has not performed the official tariff ritual yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does this mean I'm going to have trouble getting Monkey King 4?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Whoa! I'm going to have to go back and watch the first three!

[Brett Bellmore]

Totally worth it, I assure you.

[ducksalad]

As always, IANAL, but:

I thought tariffs applied to tangible goods being imported.

There is no stage at which the copyright is imported across a border. It's not like there's a Canadian copyright on some fancy piece of parchment and someone brings it across the border.

Instead, some person goes to the copyright office and applies for a US copyright. That gives them control over distribution within the US.

[A Japanese Student]

You don't even have to "apply" for a copyright. Unless you live in a country that hasn't ratified the Berne Convention for some reason, copyright exists as soon as you author the work, globally, without registration.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

[ThePublius]

It's more complicated than that with certain copyrighted works, particularly software, which is subject to import/export regulations (which are quite onerous to comply with).

[Kenneth Almquist]

Thirty years ago they would have had to import prints of the movie (or import a negative and make prints here). Perhaps no one has told Trump that everything is digital these days.

[A Japanese Student]

I'm more interested in the legal authority for the movie tariffs. It's definitely not IEEPA, so what is it?

[David Nieporent]

Legal authority, shmegal authority. "Legal authority" is such a 20th century concept.

[hobie]

How are movies relevant to national security/emergency?

I'd be miffed if everyone was paying $10 a pop to see Porky's VI while I have to pay $20 to see Parasite.

[LexAquilia]

They are an important tool when managing the nation's cognitive infrastructure. Fortunately, we have some watchful guardians protecting our national security by securing and protecting our cognitive infrastructure.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Item: The president initially threatened a 100% tariff on foreign-produced movies in May, arguing that other countries offer tax incentives that have drawn filmmakers abroad. In his post on Monday, he singled out California, saying the state "has been particularly hard hit!"

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in precious metals news:
Gold continues to close in on $4000.00/oz and more surprisingly sliver is reaching Hunt brothers territory ($49.45/oz in 1980).

[loki13]

On the one hand, I'm deathly curious to see how Bad Bunny and the NFL Super Bowl will combine. It's going to be ... interesting ... to see how that plays out.

On the other hand, things seem to be changing (deteriorating) so rapidly that it's kind of hard to forecast anything a month from now, let alone think about how things will look next year.

Still, it is somewhat surprising that the NFL made this particular decision given ... everything.

[Mr. Bumble]

Roc Nation announced a long-term partnership with the National Football League in August 2019. The company became the live-music entertainment strategist for the league, executive producing all Super Bowl Halftime Shows since 2019.[3

[jb]

Presumably folks at the NFL still get some input into the selection of artists, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wouldn't know it by their recent choices.

[loki13]

Again, I know that "the usual suspects" here probably wouldn't know Bad Bunny from the Easter Bunny, but given that our Fearless Leader:

1. Loves to get himself involved in sports; and
2. Still has a grudge against the NFL for not letting him into their club; and
3. Will probably look to turn a halftime show sung in Spanish into some mangled bit of verbiage about "Woke Leftists Stealing ur Kids to sell to the Black and Transexual Immigrants from Hellhole Countries(tm)"...

...I am shocked that the NFL went this direction. Maybe I'm wrong! Maybe Trump won't try to make it about himself, and let the rest of us just ENJOY SOMETHING WITHOUT HIM INJECTING HIMSELF INTO IT.

HA HA! Like that could happen. He shuts up for two days and people assumed he died.

[M L]

Are you some boomer trying to be "hip" and into shitty rap music? How cringe.

[Estragon]

“boomer trying to be "hip" and into shitty rap music”

You see the irony here— right?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Yellow Rolls-Royce was on TCM.

The film has three vignettes about owners of the title vehicle.

The middle one is probably the best with Shirley MacLaine providing a wonderful performance. Art Carney (as a mobster's driver) is also quite good. Word of the day: amoral.

Nice to see a middle-aged Ingrid Bergman in the final installment along with Omar Shariff. It is somewhat thin. The first episode, also with its share of stars, was okay.

The film is best seen, if possible, in a movie theater.

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW just stumbled upon "The Freshman" on the ROKU channel.
Great cast and a fun movie filmed (exteriors) in a different NYC.

[santamonica811]

There's a Roku channel????

[Mr. Bumble]

https://therokuchannel.roku.com/

[loki13]

You know, it's interesting how people repeat the same so-called "facts," in order to justify things that aren't ... quite right. Above, someone brought up Martha Stewart ... because someone always does, don't they?

I recommend looking at the very brief Wikipedia summary of the scandal in case you never actually knew what happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case

But to recap how everything unfolded...

There was a company (ImClone) that was involved in a bunch of shady practices for some period of time. Anyway, they were about to announce that the FDA was going to deny their new drug approval.

BEFORE the announcement, the CEO and other insiders dumped their stock. Yeah, that's classic insider trading. A lot of people went down for that.

So here's the thing. The CEO and the CEO's daughter dumped stock. They did so through their broker ... the same broker that Martha Stewart used. The broker called Stewart right after the stock was dumped and sold Stewart's stock 10 minutes later.

Stewart was investigated as part of the investigation into Imclone (which had congressional hearings ... it was a big scandal). She claimed it was all a coincidence, and that the stock just happened to be sold due to a previous "stop loss" order she had with the broker that happened to be triggered. Which was going to be fine...

EXCEPT ... her broker's assistant had told Merrill Lynch's lawyers that the broker had pressured him to lie about the stop-loss order. And that he had received money to back up the broker and Stewart's knowing lie.

Also? Stewart faced a separate civil SEC suit for insider trading and settled that.

Now, what can you learn from this?

1. It wasn't politically motivated. This was the Bush DOJ- hardly on the warpath against Stewart or insider trading.

2. Stewart's big problem wasn't so much just the lie- it was that she lied and (with the broker) affirmatively covered it up, hindering the bigger investigation.

3. Finally, was it "fair?" I don't know- it depends on how you view insider trading, market transparency, and lying and coverups, I guess? Compared to what we are seeing now, it does seem like small potatoes. The vast majority of the time, stuff like this just happens and no one is the wiser. It always takes a massive scandal or true stupidity for all of this to happen.

But the bigger issue is, as always, that we treat "white collar" crimes so leniently. They are almost never prosecuted. When they are prosecuted, they often result in little jail time (and cushy jails, usually). And people crawl out of the woodwork to defend it.

It's America- when you commit crime, do it in a suit, and make sure you take as much as possible.

[Estragon]

I have long said: we should put up a statue to Martha. A rare example of someone rich and famous actually being held accountable for something.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about giving Congress the Martha Stewart routine.

[Estragon]

You should call Speaker Johnson’s office and encourage him to move on this!

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/03/nx-s1-5485340/congress-stock-trading-bill

[Mr. Bumble]

Loki13:
It was bullshit from start to finish. But you be you.

[Bob from Ohio]

The permanent people at DOJ wanted a high profile scalp.

They went after Senator Stevens for the same reason.

one reason I do not cry for the Eastern District of Virginia being "destroyed".

[Estragon]

“And people crawl out of the woodwork to defend it.”

Welp, that’s a bingo!

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What would have happened if she'd said "I don't know - my stock broker trades my stocks, he has a license, I hope he is honest."

"Sometimes he calls me, sometimes he has prearranged sell orders, sometimes he calls me about sell orders. Sometimes he wants me to buy things too. God's honest truth, he could be somehow stealing me blind and unless folks like you caught him, I doubt I would ever know."

"Now can I offer you some suggestions as to how you could redecorate your office?"

[Estragon]

Can someone explain to me why the MAGAs are Martha truthers? I’m puzzled

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Republican Party is the party *for* the wealthy, but it can’t be the party *of* the wealthy because they need 50% of the vote to win. The sad story of Martha Stewart, the former billionaire whose current net worth in only $400 million or so, might not seem like the type of thing that the typical MAGA voter would care about, but the conservative infrastructure in the United States is set up to make them care. An accurate account of the facts isn’t going to do that, making it necessary to take some liberties with the facts.

[Michael P]

Martha Stewart's biggest failure was to not be in Congress when she traded securities based on non-public information.

[Josh R]

What I got from the Gaza peace proposal announcement:

1) All hostages returned within 72 hours.

2) Hamas is removed from political power and its leaders can leave to third countries.

3) Gaza is de-militarized (getting rid of weapons and the tunnels that house them).

4) A coalition of Arab and Muslim nations take governance of Gaza for now.

5) The IDF withdraws in phases, dependent on the above 4 steps being achieved, but the IDF remains permanently in control of a security perimeter.

6) A Peace Board headed by Trump is tasked with the long-term political solutions for both Gaza and the West Bank.

7) Netanyahu categorically rejects a Palestinian state or PA control over Gaza.

My comments:

1) Why would the Arab and Muslim nations agree to this deal given Netanyahu's intransigence on a Palestinian state and a permanent IDF security perimeter around Gaza? Are they hoping the Peace Board changes his mind (or he is no longer in power down the road)?

2) I will say one thing for Netanyahu: he doesn't waste time with self-congratulatory and hallucinatory meanderings.

[ThePublius]

It's a tough topic.

I'm an absolutist on this; I think Israel should just take over the whole strip, making it part of Israel, and amend their constitution in some way to provide for full citizenship for Palestinians, yet maintain Israel as a Jewish state. I know, it's convoluted, but I wouldn't want a neighbor who could potentially (and quite likely) revert to launching missiles into Israel.

[loki13]

Without going into the history (blah blah blah Balfour Declaration), I can explain simply why your plan will not and cannot work- at least not any time in the foreseeable future.

Demographics. The number of Palestinians is approximately equal to the number of Israelis (counting Israeli Arabs within Israel) and, even just counting Palestinians within the territories, is really close.

Even assuming that you don't allow any current refugees to return (and assuming NO right to return for past refugees), the birth rate for Palestinians > Israelis ... yes, even including the ultra-Orthodox.

Which means that if you grant them full citizenship, they will quickly outnumber the Israelis. That's the essential problem, and why, in the past, Israel always wanted a two-state solution. They knew what the problem was.

Which is why we have our current problem-
1. Israel can't give the Palestinians ... you know, rights and citizenship. Because then Israel would not be Israel. I am sympathetic to that.

2. But if they continue to hold on to "Palestine" without doing (1), then they have set up an apartheid system. Which ... that doesn't last and will result in eventual pariah status. Well, moreso.

3. So the hard-conservative position in Israel is to simply ... kill, starve, and expel the Palestinians, and take it over. Which avoids (1) and (2), but is more than a little ... war crime-y.

Personally, I don't see a lot of good solutions there. A lot of blame to go around, but not a lot of solutions.

[Brett Bellmore]

The basic problem here, and it's not on the Israelis, and they have no obvious way to solve it, is that a controlling faction of the Palestinians are, bluntly, genocidal maniacs, who set out to kill as many Israelis as they can any time Israel lets up the least tiny bit.

If not for that you'd have had a two state solution and peace decades ago.

Fortunately for Israel, they're not terribly competent genocidal maniacs, they don't have enough self control to fake being reasonable for long enough that Israel relaxes.

Unfortunately for Israel, everybody in the region KNOWS that they're homicidal lunatics, so nobody will take them off Israel's hands.

In the end there is going to have to be de-Hamasification. Hamas are, literally, the ideological descendants of the Nazis, and they're the price we pay today for not thinking the Middle East was important enough after WWII to do a proper job of de-Nazification there.

I said above, a controlling faction. Maybe if you kill enough Hamas that they lose control, the rest of the Palestinians can be reasoned with. Might take a generation, though, given genocidal indoctrination in Palestinian schools.

[Sarcastr0]

loki discussed the difficulty in finding a solution, without condemning any particular group just noting their requirements and incentives.

You focused on who is to blame, suggested no solutions, just that it will be ruthless and all costs must be borne by Palestinians.

It's a remarkable contrast!

[Bob from Ohio]

Loki does often cosplay as the Last Reasonable Man, yes.

"without condemning any particular group"

Would not want to condemn Hams, nosiree.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I focused on who's to blame, because if you deliberately blind yourself to who's causing a problem, you can't solve it.

Think you could have 'solved' WWII without focusing on Nazis being to blame? Just being ruthless, and all costs must be borne by Germans, couldn't possibly be the answer! [/sarc]

I repeat: Hamas are just relatively incompetent Muslim Nazis. Literally! They're an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Hassan al-Banna, a personal friend of Hitler's.

They ARE the problem, and there is no solution while they remain.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, you focus on what group must be bound but not protected, and what group must be protected but not bound.

That's not a virtue. I know you feel righteous and all, but it's just dehumanization in service of illiberality.

You are a terrible libertarian.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your idea of virtue is to be so open minded your brains fall out, so tolerant that you can be face to face with evil, and not recognize it.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not softhearted to see you are seeking good guys and bad guys like a child. Collective guilt by Nazi association and all.

[Commenter_XY]

Why not ask the palestinians themselves what they think? Golly gee, they do. Strong majorities support hamas and would gladly see hamas repeat another Simchat Torah pogrom. They tell us so, today. Let's remember, they were dancing in the streets on 10/7, celebrating the horrors of that day. It is a whole of society effort by the palestinians in gaza. This shows why Abbas, now in his 20th year of a 4-year presidential term, refuses to hold elections. He would lose to hamas.

Not terribly difficult for a rational human being to figure who the bad guys are.

[Sarcastr0]

If I didn’t know better, and I don’t, it sounds like Commenter has found his Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem.

Explain how your analysis differs from explaining why we gotta wipe them all out. I’m all ears.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Explain how your analysis differs from explaining why we gotta wipe them all out."

Well, for starters, it doesn't explain why we gotta wipe them all out...

[Michael P]

Hey, he can recognize evil. How do you think he decides what to defend and excuse?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, we have reached the point where the very real threat of Iran, which only the US and Israel can deal with, has made the Palestinians into a local problem and not just an Israeli one.

After WWII, we deNazified Germany and deCulted Japan -- and the Arab world knows this. And they know that Eurotrash like beaches, and that Donald Trump builds hotels.

I'm not surprised that Arab nations are volunteering to disarm Hamas.

[Don Nico]

Loki,
Current data shows a steady Jewish fertility rate of approximately 3.06 children in Israel in 2024.
In 2020, the rate for Mizrahi women in Israel was 6.6
The rate for Arab citizens of Israel is 2.7.
The rate in Gaza in 2022 was 3.35
I'd say that neither your 1) or 2) is assured. Several years of PA reform and regional peace enforce by other Muslim forces mighthelp bring about an actual solution.

[loki13]

Your numbers are off. I suggest doing a deeper dive. Nevertheless, the more important thing is that you don't seem to understand what seemingly small differences in fertility do over the course of 10, 20, and 30 years.

So in the combined area (Israel and the Palestine regions combined), you have ... well, it's tough to pinpoint, given the last few years, but the most recent reliable statistics has the breakdown as just over 51% of the population as Jewish, approximately 45% of the population is Arab (incl. some Christian Arab) and the remaining "other".

Which ... that usually surprises people.

Israel itself faces two demographic issues- the first is that there is a large divergence between the fertility rate between different groups (the Charedim, or ultra-Orthodox, have a fertility rate of ~6, which is significantly higher than the overall rate of 2.4, bringing the overall average to 2.8 or so). As I'm sure you are aware, since you do a lot of research and have a deep level of knowledge in this area, there are major fissures in Israeli society because of this burgeoning population (they are given special dispensations not available to others).

The second problem is that even counting this population, it still falls below the fertility rate of Palestinians (Arabs)- ESPECIALLY the ones in the Gaza, which are the ones that have been most radicalized.

In short, the two groups that are growing the fastest are ... well, you can do the math. But what do I know? I obviously don't know much about the problem. Feel free to google more.

Anyway, I am hopeful for peace, as always. I mean, I've been hopeful for peace for a long time! Still waiting. I think that the conditions are less amenable to a resolution than they have ever been, but ... maybe it is darkest before the light. You never know.

[loki13]

What I got from the Peace Proposal Announcment-

How do you announce a peace proposal without at least running it by either the people that are involved in the conflict OR the people that you are saying will need to police the agreement?

I can announce a lot of Peace Proposals for the Middle East, since I too don't have to worry about what anyone will think (or do) in reaction to it.

[loki13]

It reminds me of what a diplomat said regarding how other countries deal with the United States now ...

"It's a serious country led by an unserious person."

[Mr. Bumble]

Loki13, substituting for Martinned or Martinned2.

[Michael P]

Lots of diplomats are envious of Trump. The current situation is a huge improvement over being ruled by either an autopen or that cackler.

[Josh R]

I presume Trump ran it by the Arab and Muslim nations at the UN last week. He need not run it by Hamas because he is willing to forgo the deal if Hamas does not accept. Again presumably, Hamas would consult with the Arab and Muslim countries before deciding whether to accept.

[loki13]

The UAE (and other Arab countries) convinced Trump that annexation was not possible, and (in their minds) convinced Trump that a two-state solution was the only possibility.

How does this square with the seventh point? In other words, the deal they discussed (a two-state solution) is explicitly not the deal that Trump is announcing?

[Josh R]

We now have more detail and two states are not in the deal. Instead, the agreement states "when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence." Netanyahu is already selling this part to his cabinet as no Palestinian state.

A few other points:

1) The Peace Board, not the Arab-Muslim coalition will rule Gaza in the interim. The Arab-Muslim coalition will provide internal security.

2) Israel explicitly agrees to not occupy or annex Gaza (nothing about the West Bank).

3) Gazans can stay (no need to move while Trump Towers Mideast is being built).

4) The UN will once again be in charge of delivering aid.

[loki13]

Interesting. I was going on what you wrote, supra.

I think that Hamas would be foolish to reject this and to put the pressure back on Israel. But I also saw in the news today that Israel announced that it will resist Palestinian statehood- which is what I suspected ... they announced with Trump that they accepted it, but are now saying that they will resist the primary goal of the program (which is what brought the other countries on board) in order to force Hamas to reject it.

More of the same. Again, Hamas should accept it and then we will see if Israel was ever serious ... which isn't a slam on Israel, but my own analysis of Netanyahu's political imperatives.

[Josh R]

The text I quoted above doesn't support a Palestinian state. It merely acknowledges that the state is "the aspiration of the Palestinian people." Moreover, "establish[ing] a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence" has been the status quo (off and on) since the Oslo Accords which never promised a Palestinian state. As such, it seems to me Israel can agree to this proposal while rejecting a Palestinian state.

As of now, I think the Arab and Muslin nations either got hoodwinked into believing this proposal will further a Palestinian state or were de facto bribed by Trump.

[loki13]

To the extent that Israel can publicly say that there will not be a two-state solution, the peace proposal is doomed.

The only question is whether Hamas is going to accept it and put the onus back on Israel (the Netanyahu government) to find some way to back out, or if Hamas is going to reject it and give Israel the ability to say that Hamas was unwilling.

As always, expect the stupidest and worst outcome that will do the most harm. That's usually the right bet.

[Don Nico]

"How do you announce a peace proposal without at least running it by either the people "
You know the answer to that. DJT had his picture taken with all those fellows who can eventually make Hamas accept an offer that they can't refuse.

[Martinned]

Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Nobody can make them accept anything. You can kill them, you can capture them, you can even torture the, but they're religious-ethnic nuts, so they are going to do what they're going to do.

(Obviously it is exactly this extremism that makes terrorist groups prone to fracturing and quarrel amongst themselves. That's how the Algerian regime beat their islamist uprising in the 1990s.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why would the Arab and Muslim nations agree to this deal"

There is going to be a security area whether they agree or not. Bow to the inevitable, posture as ending the"genocide" and get credits with Trump.

If Saudi Arabia approves it, most of the others will fall in line. Money talks.

[Josh R]

Trump bribed these nations to sell out the Palestinians? Deplorable but possible.

[Bob from Ohio]

"sell out the Palestinians"

You prefer continued death and destruction I guess.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s what happens when you lose wars, nations vanish, it’s why there’s no Confederate States, East Prussia, or South Vietnam.

[Josh R]

What state should the Palestinians be citizens of?

[Commenter_XY]

Jordan.

[Josh R]

C_XY, the ethnic cleanser.

[Commenter_XY]

They were citizens of Jordan for years under King Hussein.

[loki13]

I can't even. Such a casual use of "they."

I'd have to actually explain basic ideas (pre-1967, post-1967, events of 1970-71) in order to explain how stupid this response is.

But I shouldn't need to ... because this was OVER FIFTY YEARS AGO.

Are you stuck in a time-warp, or genuinely have no idea what you're talking about?

[David Nieporent]

Also, nobody in Gaza was a citizen of Jordan, then or now.

[Josh R]

Are you proposing that Jordan (again) annex the West Bank?

[Don Nico]

Jordan does NOT want them. It never has.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don, Jordan was the other half of Palestine, the half for the Palestinians.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually it did want them, until it got a few of them. Then they decided that no way in hell did they want any more of them.

[Don Nico]

If Gazans aren't allowed to leave the strip they don't need what you identify with citizenship; i.e., a passport. They just need an identity card issued by the governing authority

[Josh R]

They are allowed to leave. And, Palestinians include residents in the West Bank as well.

[Commenter_XY]

Here is a link to the 20 point proposal. You missed some.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/gaza-peace-proposal-donald-trump-israel-netanyahu-5376411

[Martinned]

The interesting thing about this "peace plan" is why Netanyahu signed up for it.

The fact that Hamas claim to be considering it is pretty predictable. That's what they said the last few times as well. As others have said here, they have no intention to stick to their promises anyway, so they might as well sign up to whatever anyone puts in front of them.

But Netanyahu is in a different position. He has at least two good reasons why he shouldn't even want to sign up to a fake deal that he has no intention of sticking to. For one, any peace deal will annoy his far right coalition partners, like the Religious Zionist Party and Otzma Yehudit. Which is particularly bad because, without a permawar, there is no reason why parties like Shas shouldn't blow up the coalition and demand new elections, which would presumably result in Netanyahu out of office and in prison.

And it's not like Netanyahu has shown any signs of caring what Trump thinks about anything. From bombing Syria to bombing Iran to bombing Qatar, he has done lots of things this year that the Americans tried to stop him doing. So why suddenly sign up to this Trump deal?

[loki13]

I assume for the same reason that we're seeing.

He announces he will support it, and then Israel will quickly start talking about how there will never be a Palestinian state. He's trying to force the dynamic of Hamas rejecting it.

In other words, to try and recover some of the high ground that Israel has so disastrously lost in world opinion ... which they won't, but it will at least give cover to the US to keep supporting him.

[Frank Drackman]

Can’t wait for the riots when (The) Zoran Ramadan-damn-he loses in November.

[Ska]

I don't see him losing but I won't throw out that plywood in the basement just yet.

[Frank Drackman]

The Marxist Stream Media’s already erected him, like they did with Tom Bradley in 1982, Hilary Rodman in 16’ and Cums-a-lot last year. Gonna be a lot of Amgry Moose-Luna in the Big Apple, might want to avoid Tall Buildings.

Frank

[John F. Carr]

The intermediate appeals court of Massachusetts found an employee adequately made a religious claim for exemption from the COVID vaccine despite the arguably secular statement that the vaccines contain "proteins [that] are not natural to human genetic system." Her claim is essentially the same that appeals courts have been finding to be religious in nature.

A plaintiff, like the plaintiff here, who believes that she was created in God's image and that her body is a temple of God and thus needs God's approval to expose her body to foreign substances, expresses a religious belief.

The court acknowledges that precedent allows employees to claim all sort of beliefs as religious:

UMass Memorial interposes the objection that "this would create a blanket privilege allowing employees to opt out of any and all employer requirements simply by stating they prayed and received guidance."

That is the law. If the employee is lying, tell it to the jury. The sincerity of plaintiff's beliefs is a jury question. She got tripped up in the deposition, claiming she practiced Voodooism but also stating that Voodooism is not a religion.

Rachelle Jeune v. UMass Memorial Health Care System, case 24-P-1047.

I was thinking health care networks could buy insurance for wrongful termination claims during disease outbreaks. Fire all the vaccine refusers and let the insurance company deal with the claims. Selling such insurance may be against public policy.

[Frank Drackman]

Just Bullshit that I have to have a “Religious” Exemption for anything,
Try this, I don’t have to get the Covid, Flu, Tetanus shots because it’s none of your (Redacted) Bees-Wax.
I’ve had the Plague Shot, and Yellow Fever, and Small Pox, and Rabies, have you’
No? Good, I don’t care, I’ll find some other reason not to hire you, like you’re a Notre Dame fan.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I've often said that: The only reason we need religious liberty in the first place is that we're unfree. If we were free, you wouldn't need it, because anything it would make even the slightest sense to let you do out of religious motives, you'd be allowed to do regardless of your motives.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Even if not against public policy, I can see major punitive damages.

Remember that UMass is public.

[not guilty]

In what jurisdictions are punitive damages against a governmental unit available?

[ThePublius]

That is incorrect, Ed. Don't conflate Umass Memorial with the University of Massachusetts.

"UMass Memorial Health Care System is a non-profit private health system that serves Central Massachusetts and is the clinical partner of UMass Chan Medical School. Although it has a strong connection to the public University of Massachusetts and a public mission to serve the community, the healthcare system itself is structured as a private, non-profit entity."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Selling such insurance may be against public policy."

Not to mention a terrible business model.

[Martinned]

The sincerity of plaintiff's beliefs is a jury question.

Is it? I thought it was not a permissible question full stop.

[John F. Carr]

Traditionally we didn't like to question sincerity of belief because most claims came from members of large groups we all believed in. And traditionally defendants in discrimination cases did not want to fight over sincerity when it was obvious that the courts would allow banning of human sacrifice and wearing white after Labor Day.

A row of dominoes falls.

First, government and business broke with tradition during COVID and imposed surprising new restrictions.
Second, people discovered a whole new set of beliefs to defend themselves, because "my government has gone nuts" is not a recognized legal argument and "my god hates spike proteins" is.
Third, juries are going to be asked to find that religious beliefs are too crazy to accept. Using constitutionally permissible jury instructions.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a rebuttible presumption, IIRC.

But you took the legal bits and prefered to get sociological with it. IOW: hot takes incoming!

broke with tradition during COVID and imposed surprising new restrictions.

Not surprising.
And not a break with tradition, if you just look at the last pandemic in 1918.

If you think the government went nuts, that's on you. Or, more likely, your media telling you so.

[Commenter_XY]

In 1917-19....

Were churches and synagogues closed?
Did authorities threaten to take away children from their parents?
Did authorities prevent funeral attendance?
Did authorities threaten people's livelihood for refusing a vaccine?
Were businesses shut down based on an arbitrary essential or non-essential designation?
Were schools shut down nationwide?

Not surprising, you're incredibly ignorant of US history.

[loki13]

You are ignorant of the history ... or being purposefully deceptive with your wording.

The various social distancing and closures that we used were modelled after the "Spanish Flu" (actually, it probably originated in the US) outbreak.

Let's start with an easy one- there was never a nationwide school closure. That was done by the states- almost all of them, but by the states. Different states had different policies. Did you know that they also closed during the 1918 outbreak? Also determined by localities? There were places that didn't close, but might as well have given the 50%+ absenteeism rate.

There were forced (mandatory) quarantines. There were enforced social distancing rules. There were arbitrary shutdowns (one place only allowed elevators for buildings that were greater than six stories). There were compulsory isolation procedures. There were government mandates that shut down non-essential businesses- and that included churches.

I ask this in all seriousness- why do you repeatedly and continually spout nonsense about things that are just not true? And when you find out it isn't true, do you ever, for even a second, reflect on what that means before you continue to the next untruth?

Seriously. It's okay to be wrong ... it's how you learn. The problem occurs when you just choose to keep believing the same wrong sources and never realize that you want to be lied to.

[Joe_dallas]

I am not a fan of the religious exemption. However, before condemning those hesitant to getting vaccinated, one should attempt to understand the multitude of reasons for those hesitating or refusing to receive the covid vax. For large segments of the population, the vax provided very limited benefit. It was only the high risk population where the protection provided significant benefits and reduced risks. (over 65 and other health impaired individuals). Children and young adults through age 35 or 40 received virtually no additional benefit from the vax.

[hobie]

As if the speech at UN didn't humiliate America enough, here comes MAGA at the Ryder Cup.

You know, I got my two mansions in the black-ass hood fully paid for. No one is going to bother themselves with these lowly neegro neighbors of mine. No one is going to touch me. This glorious civil war you've been dying for is gonna be between all you crackers out in the sticks.

And once you've all decimated yourselves, my overly-large-chimp army is gonna roll the stragglers like it's Century City in 1972.

[Frank Drackman]

"Chimp Army"??
Used to be a website called "Chimp Out" I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what the subject matter was.
Your plan sounds very Charles Manson circa 1969, that's what "Helter Skelter" referred to (OK, I know it's British English Slang for an amusement park ride, Charlie didn't know that, (Charlie didn't Surf either, but that's another story)

Frank

[hobie]

You're not as cinophile as you play to be, Frankie. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. To this day it drives your white fear that some brown man will take over that Dairy Queen that went under and his engineer son will ask your daughter on a date

[hobie]

You see, that is the problem with Charlie Kirk-think, Frankie. While you rubes are encouraging your youth to avoid college and your women to avoid careers, the more educated Muslims and Indians are taking over the mayorships of major cities across the world.

You could avoid that if your kids were more educated

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Late Night with John Oliver had a good segment on Benjamin Netanyahu, which people can check on YouTube.

The usual great finds (the babysitter ad, for example), jokes (the Jeter bit), and serious material.

Given the usual limitations of news segments, the show has an impressive batting average.

[Frank Drackman]

John Oliver is such a punctilious little worm, I just want to throw him in a wall locker somewhere.

[Bunny495]

Have to post a shout out to one of my favorite movies that seems to accurately reflect how many pols act. Well worth a watch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There

[Frank Drackman]

I like to watch.

[Estragon]

Do your Anton next

[Poxigah146]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/29/politics/judge-suspends-trump-plan-to-eliminate-voa-jobs-hnk

Why does this fairy think he's entitled to respect?

[not guilty]

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that former prosecutors and legal observers in Georgia are asking questions as they try to make sense of reporting that the Justice Department has sought out travel records from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. https://www.ajc.com/politics/2025/09/observers-try-to-make-sense-of-fani-willis-subpoena/?utm_cohort=evening_campaign_a_evening_cohort_a&utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=evening_update&utm_content=15120432

The New York Times reported late Friday that federal prosecutors in the Northern District of Georgia had secured a subpoena from a grand jury seeking records related to international travel they believe Willis took around the time of the 2024 election.

[Martinned]

Someone in my socials flagged this paragraph from Robert O. Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism (2004), which I will leave here for you to reflect on.

We saw in the previous chapter how the self-indulgently bohemian Hitler spent as little time as possible on the labors of government, at least until the war. He proclaimed his visions and hatreds in speeches and ceremonies, and allowed his ambitious underlings to search for the most radical way to fulfill them in a Darwinian competition for attention and reward. His lieutenants, fully aware of his fanatical views, “worked toward the Führer,” who needed mainly to arbitrate among them. Mussolini, quite unlike Hitler in his commitment to the drudgery of government, refused to delegate and remained suspicious of competent associates—a governing style that produced more inertia than radicalization.

Page 155 here: https://files.libcom.org/files/Robert%20O.%20Paxton-The%20Anatomy%20of%20Fascism%20%20-Knopf%20(2004).pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

How amusing! That felonious illegal alien Superintendent of Schools in Des Moines, Iowa?

Registered to vote since 2012. In Maryland.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can't be true. We have it on good authority from David Notsoimportant and others that this is so rare as to be almost nonexistent.
Waste, fraud and abuse is a MAGA lie.

[jb]

Missing from this is any evidence that he, you know, actually voted.

[ThePublius]

Is it against the law to fraudulently register to vote, even if you don't vote?

"Yes, it is a crime to fraudulently register to vote, even if you do not end up casting a ballot. Federal law prohibits providing false information to register to vote in an election that includes a federal candidate. The specific penalties, which can include prison time, depend on the specific federal and state laws violated."

Now, I can see if he lived in MD and registered there and failed to correct that when he moved to Iowa, but I would like to know - is he registered to vote in Iowa, too? And, as you point out, has he voted in MD since he moved to Iowa?

[jb]

Maryland has automatic voter registration (although I'm not sure it was in effect at the time), so it's probably easy to accidentally register to vote. That doesn't make it legal, but someone who inadvertently registered to vote and never actually voted is not much of a signal in a debate over the scale of vote fraud.

[Absaroka]

Fair point!

[Bwaaah]

New York passed an automatic voter registration law that essentially required a potential registrant, such as via a driver license application, to OPT OUT of registration by checking a box that indicates, "I am not eligible to vote." In that way, you can be registered without taking any action, without making an representations, and therefore have no liability for the effects. (The law looks pretty intentionally design to avoid any possible enforcement actions.)

[Absaroka]

I dunno. If my wife of 40 years finds I have a Tinder account, my defense of "there is no evidence I actually used it" seems unlikely to reassure her. I don't worry about election integrity, but Brett does, and to him I suspect this is evidence that voter rolls have more errors than he likes.

[John F. Carr]

The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers is considering whether to discipline former District Attorney and US Attorney Rachael Rollins. Based on her lawyer's comments, I infer she made a deal with bar discipline staff for a light punishment or none and the board wants a more serious punishment. Any decision is subject to further review by the Supreme Judicial Court.

Based on media reports of the events that led to her resignation as US Attorney, disbarment would be an appropriate penalty. She reportedly tried to obstruct an investigation into her conduct.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/09/30/rachael-rollins-lawyer-comments-on-perplexing-discipline-process-with-the-massachusetts-board-of-bar-overseers/

[John F. Carr]

The Boston Globe reports she agreed to accept a public reprimand for "improperly disclosing confidential information to a Boston Herald reporter". The apparent violations of 18 USC 1001 don't seem to have been considered.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/09/29/metro/rachael-rollins-former-us-attorney-public-reprimand/