Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Washington Post is reporting:

Planned Parenthood has spent tens of millions of dollars providing health care to low-income patients and has closed 20 clinics in the months since the Trump administration blocked the group from billing Medicaid — but weathering the funding cut on its own will soon become untenable, its leaders say.

The Medicaid ban took effect in July. A provision tucked into President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill cut the funding for health care providers that offer abortions and receive more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements each year for basic reproductive health services such as birth control, prenatal care and cervical cancer screenings.

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, pledged to continue performing the procedure. It also challenged the Medicaid ban in court, a fight that is ongoing. The group released a report Wednesday detailing the funding cut’s impacts to date — the same day a federal appeals court is hearing arguments in its lawsuit against the provision.

The 20 clinics the group has closed since the Medicaid ban became law are in addition to more than two dozen Planned Parenthood clinics that shut down earlier this year because of other federal funding cuts. Those that remain open are “being pushed to the brink,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/11/12/planned-parenthood-medicaid-health-care/

For those who seek to reduce the frequency of abortions, this prohibition of Medicaid reimbursement for non-abortion services doesn't make a lick of sense. Payment of federal funds to procure abortions has been prohibited for decades; this bill will do nothing to alter that prohibition.

A cutoff of funding for birth control, however, will lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of abortions performed (whether lawfully or otherwise). An embryo or fetus which is never conceived ipso facto will never be aborted. There is nothing "pro-life" about fostering conception of unwanted offspring.

A cutoff of funding for pre-natal care to indigent pregnant females is as cruel as it is counterproductive. Why do those on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war want to diminish the likelihood of infants being born healthier? As a Middle Tennessee preacher of my youth was fond of saying, not only does that fail to make good sense, it doesn't even make good nonsense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simple -- stop performing abortions in these clinics.

But abortions are 99% of the clinics business...

[not guilty]

"But abortions are 99% of the clinics business..."

Is that as true as everything else you have said?

[Brett Bellmore]

Planned parenthood routinely rigs its numbers by counting every little thing as a service. You show up for an abortion, if they give you a pamphlet on birth control, wham: Your visit was only 50% abortion!

The vast majority of their cash flow is tied up in abortion, to the point where, when they have the choice of running separate clinics that didn't offer abortion, or just shutting down entirely in an area, they pick the latter.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So just shut them down in white neighborhoods…why do you care if a black neighborhood in Chicago has access to a PP clinic?? Also, give them a billion dollars to build a PP clinic in Gaza and throw in a gender reassignment surgery center! Call it the Moshe Goldberg Abortion Clinic and Hershel Silverstein Gender Reassignment Surgery Center.

[jb]

This is all lies. The vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is provides contraceptives and STI testing, from both a number of services and revenue perspective. This is actually why it's so effective to deny them money for the non-abortion stuff; if you take away 90+% of their revenue, it's no longer a viable business to just be an abortion clinic.

If your theory about the vast majority of their money being tied up with abortion was true, they could just ignore losing all the other funding.

Adding a link with actual data: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/major-federal-and-state-funding-cuts-facing-planned-parenthood/

[not guilty]

jb, am I the only one who suspects that when MAGAts are challenged to furnish facts instead of wild ass speculation, they break out in hives?

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — If you check Bellmore's comment, you find it is not inconsistent with jb's linked evidence. Bellmore just assumes all the linked evidence is a pack of lies.

So there you have it. MAGA in a nutshell. If everyone is lying, then nobody can tell what is really going on. Then it can't be right or wrong to do anything, so that delivers license to do whatever you want.

MAGA, of course, does not concede a right or power to any other party to do as they please. That's just for MAGA. Elections make whatever MAGA wants legitimate. If MAGA loses an election, that's illegitimate too, because majorities want MAGA. Election losses only prove hanky-panky.

It's a complete political philosophy. For morons.

[ThePublius]

You know, Stephen, your constant use of "MAGA" to refer to some class of people you despise is quite reminiscent of Hitler's demonization of the Jews. He picked the Jews as a focus of his hatred and everything that was wrong in Germany and the world, providing a rallying point for his followers. Similarly, you and others on this board, and in the world, brand MAGA as evil, stupid, dangerous, and so forth. And you throw anyone you disagree with politically into that class. It's really quite detestable, and intellectually dishonest. You intentionally ignore the reality that people's views fall on a spectrum that's continuous, not discrete. Many Trump supporters don't like everything he says and does. Many, perhaps most, would not self-identify as "MAGA" as you so casually assign them to.

[Martinned]

You know, Stephen, your constant use of "MAGA" to refer to some class of people you despise is quite reminiscent of Hitler's demonization of the Jews.

So you're saying that the anti-fascists are the real fascists?

[Sarcastr0]

Hitler's demonization of the Jews

Deploying the Holocaust to explain why people shouldn't condemn MAGA is fucking wild.

Because of how ideologically diverse MAGA is, you see.

You can't make this shit up.

[ThePublius]

"Because of how ideologically diverse MAGA is, you see."

That's exactly my point. I reject this notion that all of these people you refer to as MAGA are monolithic with regard to political views and philosophies. But its convenient and useful to you all, to throw them in one bucket and denigrate them.

[Sarcastr0]

To pick an analogy that'll piss you off, the Nazi party was also ideologically diverse.

Doesn't mean we can't despise them.

MAGA wants bad things. They are bad.

MAGA are not the modern equivalent of Jews in Nazi Germany. That should be really offensive, but it's more funny because you're too thick to realize it.

[ThePublius]

I'm too thick? It's you who refuse to acknowledge and analogy, even to refute it.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I'm going to refuse to acknowledge the analogy between MAGA in America and Jews under the Nazi regime.

I don't think it needs much refutation; it's facially ridiculous and offensive.

You don't mean malice, but that's because you're too dumb to know what you're saying.

[David Nieporent]

That's exactly my point. I reject this notion that all of these people you refer to as MAGA are monolithic with regard to political views and philosophies. But its convenient and useful to you all, to throw them in one bucket and denigrate them.

That is an incredibly dumb argument. MAGA is an ideology. Well, it's mostly a cult. But either way, it's defined by having a common set of beliefs.

[Life of Brian]

But either way, it's defined by having a common set of beliefs.

Where can I find the catechism?

[David Nieporent]

Many Trump supporters don't like everything he says and does.

You could've fooled them! Well, Trump could've fooled them.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 5 hours ago
"not guilty — If you check Bellmore's comment, you find it is not inconsistent with jb's linked evidence. Bellmore just assumes all the linked evidence is a pack of lies."

No - Brett just correctly notes that JB's facts while correct are highly misleading. Misleading by omitting percent of revenue and percent of gross profit from abortions. Both of the omitted facts completely undercut the talking point.

As brett correctly notes, PP could spin off the abortion services. The reason they dont should be obvious. Why would PP spin off their most profitable service?

[David Nieporent]

Misleading by omitting percent of revenue and percent of gross profit from abortions. Both of the omitted facts completely undercut the talking point.

I will give bookkeeper_joe partial credit here. For once, he identified specific flaws rather than just handwaving about unspecified mistakes or omissions. But only partial credit, because he still didn't actually provide any facts himself; he just said that other people's were wrong.

As brett correctly notes, PP could spin off the abortion services. The reason they dont should be obvious. Why would PP spin off their most profitable service?

As jb correctly notes, this is illogical gibberish. If abortion is such a large and profitable portion of their business, then they wouldn't need to do this.

[Frank Drackman]

50,000,000+ dead black babies is a fact.
If they were Sea Turtle Eggs it'd be a Felony.

[Mr. Bumble]

jb's link discusses Medicaid patients only. Medicaid money can't be used for abortions thus the figures only apply to other services.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 5 hours ago
"jb, am I the only one who suspects that when MAGAts are challenged to furnish facts instead of wild ass speculation,"

NG - A better description would be that you (and JB ) are one of many that are easily fooled by misleading data and fail to pick up on the omitted information.

The article cited by JB cites the total number of services to show that abortion services are only 4% of total services, yet omits the percentage of service revenue generated by abortions which is around 35-45% and omits the percentage of gross profit generated from abortion services which is likely around 60%-75% of total gross profit from services.

The reason that PP wont spin off the abortion services to restore government funding should be obvious.

[David Nieporent]

"Likely!"

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, when given a choice of spinning off the abortion services from the non-abortion, creating a corporate firewall between them so that fungibility ceases to be an issue, they have opted to forego the funding, instead.

Abortion is their central service, everything else is, if not window dressing, at least secondary.

What Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report Proves

"Take an example. A woman walks into a Planned Parenthood clinic. She takes a pregnancy test, meets with a counselor, and chooses to have an abortion procedure. While she’s there, she also receives an STI test and a breast exam and is handed birth control on her way out the door. Planned Parenthood would count each of these “discrete interactions” — six in total — as a service, so abortion would be only 16 percent of that woman’s visit."

[Mr. Bumble]

As always figures lie and liars figure.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's got a 2018 NRO article and he's going to rely on that to claim everything that doesn't support his policy preference is lies.

Like he does.

[Bwaaah]

Which of Brett's assertion(s) do you dispute and with what evidence?

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - Brett's comment is reasonable description of the methodology used by PP to counts services.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe - you're making bare assertions yet again as though anyone listens to those from you.

[Joe_dallas]

I dont expect leftists living in echo chambers to have the capacity to grasp or any ability to understand basic facts.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastro - could you possibly take some effort to refute the data that Brett provides?

Still suffering from Brett derangement sydrome?

[Sarcastr0]

That bullshit article has been well discussed. But I'm quite sure your lazy ass hasn't read Brett's link so I'm not going to bother.

And you're the one making bare assertions of what's reasonable.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - you are living in an echo chamber - The attempts to discredit the article remain BS. As others have noted, total procedures paints a very misleading story which apparently you fail to pick up on. JB's link is the one with serious distortions with the omitted data. Of course, your commentary shows you are incapable to picking up on the omitted data.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc's got nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

The attempts to discredit the article remain BS We all know you've never read one article like this.

JB's link is the one with serious distortions with the omitted data.
bare assertion.

your commentary shows you are incapable to picking up on the omitted data.
Nah, it shows I'm not going to engage with a lazy ideologue.

You didn't read Brett's link,
didn't read JB's,
and certainly did no research on the debunking Brett's link.

But you'll blindly tie yourself to the one that agrees with what you want, and insist the burden is on me to bring you another source you won't read.

[Joe_dallas]

Sardumbo -
I work with financial information daily. Its easy to spot the omitted info which I discussed multiple times today. I explained why the report linked by JB is misleading and what was omitted.

All you are doing is showing you are a partisan hack with zero ability to comprehend even the most basic concepts.

[David Nieporent]

I work with financial information daily.

And climate data! And epidemiology! And Supreme Court decisions!

[Armchair]

"The vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is provides contraceptives and STI testing, from both a number of services and revenue perspective."

Is it?

"In 2022-23, 96.9% of the time, women seeking help related to their pregnancy at Planned Parenthood were sold an abortion rather than given prenatal care, provided care for a miscarriage, or helped to make an adoption plan. Prenatal services, miscarriage care, and adoption referrals accounted for only 1.7% (7,008), 0.9% (3,598), and 0.5% (2,148), respectively.["

As the chart below shows, the number of abortions planned parenthood is doing is rising...while the total number of actual patients it's seeing is falling.

https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2023-24-annual-report/

[jb]

Not sure if you know this or not, but contraception is something you give women before they get pregnant, not afterwards. Similarly, STI testing isn't really associated with pregnancy-related care.

In other words, your link doesn't respond to what I wrote in any way.

[Armchair]

This is what you wrote.

"The vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is provides contraceptives and STI testing, from both a number of services and revenue perspective."

I then quoted what you wrote. I then responded to what you wrote.

And your response is "Your link doesn't respond to what I wrote in any way".

There's no response to that. Either you wrote what I directly quoted and are just lying that you wrote it. Or...you're delusional. Which is it?

[not guilty]

"Not sure if you know this or not, but contraception is something you give women before they get pregnant, not afterwards. Similarly, STI testing isn't really associated with pregnancy-related care."

Uh, a woman's giving birth is not a one time event, and a birth control pill doesn't know whether the woman ingesting it has or has not had children. A woman who has had one or more children is just as much in need of planning to prevent an unwanted pregnancy going forward.

Similarly, a woman or girl who has had an abortion is in need of family planning to avoid the need for a future abortion. Perhaps her motto should be, "Knock me up once, shame on you. Knock up me twice, shame on me!"

And STI testing is very much associated with pregnancy-related care to a woman who wants to avoid infecting her offspring.

Again, what harm is going to come from preventing future unwanted pregnancies and providing prenatal care?

[Zarniwoop]

“Seeking help related to their pregnancy”

The fact that 96% of people who go to an ER for a broken arm get a cast doesn’t mean that 96% of the ER’s clients have a broken arm. Or that the U.S. should stop ER funding because ERs only treat broken arms.

The screed you posted is blatantly cherry picking and massaging numbers to rail against abortion generally and PP specifically. Your credulity is impressive.

[Joe_dallas]

Careful on cherrypicking data

A car dealership might sell 5 -10 cars a day, while selling 200 separate car parts from the parts department. 95% of items sold may be parts, yet sales $volume is 95% for cars. Brett's analogy points that out, while JB's link tries to imply that the 95% of items sold represents sales volume. A clearly false and misleading report that hides and omits key and comprehensive data.

[Joe_dallas]

jb 6 hours ago
"if you take away 90+% of their revenue, it's no longer a viable business to just be an abortion clinic."

JB - dont let yourself be fooled so easily.
Services other than abortion may be 90% ( or even 96% according to your cite), however revenue from abortion services are closer to 40% (ish), while gross profit from abortion services is closer to 60-70% of gross profit. The facts omitted from your citation are far more informative.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Planned Parenthood’s 2024 Annual Report doesn’t break down revenue by type of procedure, but the total non-government health services revenue is 17.3% of total revenue. Government health services reimbursements and grants is 39.1% of total revenue, and I suppose some of that could be abortion funding by states. (The Federal government does not fund abortion.) It’s hard to see how your guess of 40% of revenue could be correct. Certainly you need to support it with evidence if you want it to be taken seriously.

Your claim that gross profit from abortion services is closer to 60-70% of gross profit seems nonsensical. Planned Parenthood spent $1286.0 million on medical services had $1142.7 million in revenue for medical services. That’s a net loss (which is covered by donations and endowment revenue), so gross profit is negative $143.3 million. I’m not sure what you are trying to prove by taking a percentage of a negative number, even if there were some reason to believe the percentage was correct.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So shut down the PP clinic in the middle of Baltimore?? Why not just encourage white teen girls to not get abortions…or maybe just mind your own business, freak!

[Joe_dallas]

Dr. Ed 2 6 hours ago
"But abortions are 99% of the clinics business..."

In terms of visits/procedures , abortions are around 10%-15%, while revenue from abortions is around 35% (those are estimated amounts). Though abortions are the high gross profit procedures (while PP is a tax exempt entity, it functions as for profit enterprise, albeit with lots taxpayer funding at least until it got cut back)

[David Nieporent]

"Estimated" is an interesting euphemism for "pulled out of bookkeeper_joe's ass."

[wvattorney13]

Money is fungible. If you provide money to an organization that performs abortions and earmark it for non-abortion services, that simply frees up the funding that would have been used for those non-abortion services and makes it available for abortions.

[not guilty]

And there will be more such abortions (or in the alternative, more unwanted babies at risk of illness, abuse and/or neglect) if funding for birth control and prenatal care is cut off.

Would you agree that fewer abortions is better than more abortions? I'm pro-choice, and I thank that makes a boatload of sense.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We have more abortions now that Roe was overturned…that’s why I supported overturning Roe because Republicans figured out ways to circumvent it several years before it was overturned. Now that we can test embryos wealthy people will stop procreating the old fashioned way in several years and so RepooplicKKKunts’ position on the issue is even dumber than it was before that development.

[Krayt]

The rich have been sneaking HGH into their kids for decades now. A few extra inches are proven to be a statistical bool to lifetime income.

[Frank Drackman]

That's what she said!

[not guilty]

Still waiting wvattorney13. Would you agree or disagree that fewer abortions is better than more abortions?

[wvattorney13]

When I signed up for the board, did I pledge to be on here regularly to respond to any question that you pose? Also, it is a silly question to which I'm sure you can guess my answer. In fact, everyone likely has the same answer to it no matter what your opinion of legal abortion is.

So, please make your point instead of pretending I am here for your amusement.

[not guilty]

The point is that reducing funding for contraception and prenatal services is in no way "pro-life."

[Armchair]

Indeed.

Looking further into the finances, it's fascinating. PP has seen it's government dollars go up, at the same time that abortions go up, but other services (HPV for example) drop. But "other services" seem to increase.

What I suspect is going on is this. Planned Parenthood is increasingly viewed as just a "place to get abortions". And all the services around abortions they are billing to medicaid. The initial consultation...medicaid charge. The initial pregnancy test....medicaid. The following pregnancy test...medicaid. Facility fee...Medicaid. Bed fee...Medicaid. Any line item that, while actually being part of the items for an abortion, but could be called something different is cut out and called something else and billed.

[bernard11]

What I suspect is going on is this

Never fear, everyone. Poirot is on the trail. Or is that Inspector Clouseau?

[shawn_dude]

Inspector Cleauxfrix.

[Poxigah146]

Exactly. They're like the not-so-clever college kids that insist that their parents' money is going to textbooks only, and that their wages from their part time job is going to weed and beer.

[Commenter_XY]

NG...PP will have no problem raising private funds to close any funding gap. Not to worry, the abortion mills will go on.

[not guilty]

Abortion has gone on for millennia and will continue to do so -- safe and legal or otherwise.

But absent reimbursement from Medicaid, Planned Parenthood will provide less birth control and prenatal care. How is that arguably a good thing?

The Washington Post article I linked to states:

Planned Parenthood has spent tens of millions of dollars providing health care to low-income patients and has closed 20 clinics in the months since the Trump administration blocked the group from billing Medicaid — but weathering the funding cut on its own will soon become untenable, its leaders say.

How is the conception and birth of unwanted, at risk offspring a good thing? Please explain that to me. As I asked wvattorney13, would you agree that fewer abortions is better than more abortions? Yes or no?

[Mr. Bumble]

Did the article mention how many tens of millions of dollars they have spent donating to mostly Democrat politicians?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yeah, like Republicans could hand out free birth control in Black neighborhoods!?! Use your brain!! Derp derp derp.

[Frank Drackman]

In Med Screw-el we used to joke that the only Birth Control the Blacks had were the looks of your average Black Woman, ever notice your average NBA/NFL/MLB Players wife doesn't look like Stacy Abrams?? or Kagrungy-Jackson-Brown??

Frank

[Martinned]

Have they?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/planned-parenthood/summary?id=D000000591

Maybe you should stop extrapolating from the eye-watering levels of corruption that have become the norm under the current regime.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 9 hours ago
"Maybe you should stop extrapolating from the eye-watering levels of corruption that have become the norm under the current regime."

You link's most current year is 2024 - so how does that show corruption under the current regime? If anything it can only show the corruption under the last administration!

[David Nieporent]

Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3), and thus cannot donate any money to any politicians.

[Armchair]

Prenatal care at planned parenthood?

"Only a small number of Planned Parenthood health centers offer the full range of prenatal care services. However, our health centers can refer you to another doctor or nurse in your area who offers prenatal services. "

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/blog/does-planned-parenthood-do-prenatal-care

[Sarcastr0]

Alternately:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-care/our-services/prenatal-postpartum-services

Many Planned Parenthood health centers provide early prenatal care, can help connect you to full prenatal care, and can help support you with postpartum care.

Seems disingenuous of you to skip the website on the issue in favor of a random blog post and then ignore the clear proviso 'the full range.'

[Armchair]

Seems disingenuous to use the organization's own pages?

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't use their page on the issue, you instead linked to a Feb 2022 blog post.

I don't believe for a moment that your search offered that up before the actual landing page for the services in question.

You cherry-picked, ignoring better pages for a deep cut that was brief enough you could misinterpreted what you found, with sufficiently bad reading comprehension.

It doesn't launder your bullshit that the link was to planned parenthood. If you were interested in facts, you'd have gone to the page with the facts on it. You didn't do that.

Disingenuous is a generous description of what you did.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Commenter_XY. Would you agree or disagree that fewer abortions is better than more abortions?

[Commenter_XY]

I would agree that fewer abortions is better than more abortions.

Money is fungible.

PP will have no problem raising money.

[not guilty]

Closing clinics indicates otherwise. Cutting off Medicare reimbursements is entirely counterproductive if the objective is to minimize abortions.

[Riva]

The abominable cancer of an organization called Planned Parenthood exists because of government subsidies. It receives almost $800 million a year to provide its services, earning a considerable “profit” for a nonprofit and generously compensates its executives with salary packages between $200 and $900 k. It would be a far more effective use of government resources to redirect these monies elsewhere instead of propping up this vile “business.” Planned Parenthood is not the sole, cheapest, or best provider for most non-abortion health services, such as STD screenings, contraception, and routine procedures. In fact, people can well afford to buy their own condoms.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm told the Egyptian Brotherhood runs soup kitchens. So there should never be sanctions against the group for its support of terrorism, because that would force soup kitchens to close. Why do you hate the poor?

How about giving to a soup kitchen which *doesn't* have a terrorist group attached to it?

And if you want to fund non-abortion services, find some organization which *doesn't* do abortions and give the money to them. How hard is that?

[Sarcastr0]

Your analogy lets on more than you think. Most of this country doesn't think of abortion as equivalent to terrorism.

Making policy with that extremist proviso is not something the GOP is willing to do, but wants to wink and nod to the more theocratic parts of their coalition.

You, based on your positions on this and gay marriage and Public Good Constitutionalism, seem of that latter group. Publicly going by what you believe would blow the whole thing up.

Hence all the bullshitting and tapdancing above to try and make the facts not what they are.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This shows that you're more wedded to your political talking points than to reality.

I've criticized Trump on the specific issue of abortion and related life issues, pointing out that he's willing to sell out the unborn in exchange for votes. He has other problems, too, needless to say.

I'm hardly alone in thinking things like this. But because folks like me do not propose to "solve" the problem of *Trumpismo* by replacing him with a Democrat, then under your talking points, we're all part of the Republicans' "coalition."

In reality, I'm not sure about the politically prudent course in a situation where one side sells out the unborn in exchange for votes and the other side attaches itself fervently to the abortion cause without regard to votes.

But your method lets you skip over the question of the humanity of the unborn and go straight to what makes you feel more comfortable - political insults.

"Publicly going by what you believe would blow the whole thing up."

I'm not sure what this particular insult means, but I'm sure you'd be prepared to defend and explain your position, and to provide evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

I have my personal opinion about when personhood begins (not a threshold, a continuum)

But more inline with my principles is that it's metaphysics. In this country we usually leave such fraught moral questions to individuals. Part of the enlightenment's small-l-liberalism is the concept of freedom of thought, particularly with the ineffable.

You prefer a more theocratic model on this issue and others. and less small-l-liberal.

At the moment despite Dobbs, the backlash has people with your set of beliefs decidedly in the popular minority. Were the GOP to move out with 'Planned Parenthood has done and does do some abortions, and we think abortion is like terrorism and will act accordingly' that would not play.

That's where your analogy wants to go, but as I said note the folks above juking the facts as hard as they can to get to the same place but based on a narrower reason that would be less offensive to a more secular and liberal public.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey noted that the choice whether or not to have an abortion is a matter of conscience that the Constitution significantly leaves to the individual.

It is a major matter of dispute among religions, who have a variety of views, sometimes strongly arguing it is an individual choice, perhaps one that is compelled (such as if a woman's life is at risk).

Abele v. Markle (II), an influential pre-Roe court of appeals ruling in part noted:

No doubt in the opinion of many people the nature of a fetus as a human being is a matter of absolute moral certainty. In their view, perhaps in the view of some of the legislators who enacted this statute, abortion is considered the deliberate killing of a human being. We do not doubt the sincerity of those who hold this view, nor minimize the depth of their conviction in this regard. But under the Constitution, their judgment must remain a personal judgment, one that they may follow in their personal lives and seek to persuade others to follow, but a judgment they may not impose upon others by force of law.

I respect the ability of the individual to choose applying their personal beliefs. There is no absolute right to exercise personal conscience. But freedom includes having a wide berth.

Roe v. Wade appropriate did so here.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No doubt in the opinion of many people the nature of a Black person as a human being is a matter of absolute moral certainty. In their view, perhaps in the view of some of the legislators who enacted this statute, lynching of Black people is considered the deliberate killing of a human being. We do not doubt the sincerity of those who hold this view, nor minimize the depth of their conviction in this regard. But under the Constitution, their judgment must remain a personal judgment, one that they may follow in their personal lives and seek to persuade others to follow, but a judgment they may not impose upon others by force of law.

There has frequently been theological debate over whether Black people have souls. This shows that the matter is fundamentally a religious issue, and that the decision of whether to lynch a Black person is a private and personal decision best left to a mob and its spiritual advisor.

/sarc

[Brett Bellmore]

Part of freedom of conscience is not forcing people to pay for something they find unconscionable. Particularly when the fraction of the population who find it so is quite large.

That's the big advantage of doing things in the private sector, that you don't force people who oppose them to be complicit, so they have less reason to fight you.

So, you want Planned Parenthood to face less (Not "no", obviously.) opposition? Stop insisting that it has to get tax dollars! That money should be reserved for relatively uncontroversial activities that are necessary enough to justify funding with money taken from people who aren't given a choice in the matter.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Trump pretty much literally wants to split the baby. Keep abortion legal (except for methods which are poll-tested as unpopular), without subsidizing abortionists.

Better than the Democrat plan, which is "abortion now, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever!"

But still not really what I'd call anti-abortion.

[Sarcastr0]

Part of freedom of conscience is not forcing people to pay for something they find unconscionable
Horseshit. Tell that to those against the Iraq War. Or all of Trump's adventurism. Or Trump's rampant self dealing and corruption.

And the private sector forces a lot of people to do a lot of things. You just have a pinched view of freedom that effects you particular socioeconomic state.

'Privatization is the REAL freedom' is a slogan not even MAGA really believes. But you might!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Such Thoreauian language as noted is unworkable as a general principle.

One example is the denial of federal funding of Medicaid to pay for most abortions. Many people think it is unconscionable that poor people are denied funding when they make a personal choice that an abortion is acceptable for them & the abortion is necessary for their health.

As a matter of federal policy, our tax dollars favor the conscientious choice of some people. Some strong opponents of abortion are still not satisfied, to the degree that abortion funding is allowed here in cases they deem immoral. See also, state funding that allows it.

Prof. John Hart Ely Jr., an early critic of Roe v. Wade [he later supported Planned Parenthood v. Casey], argued that the Medicaid Funding Cases that upheld this policy were a violation of equal protection of the law.

Those who selectively cite Ely for his anti-Roe comments tend to skip over that.

[Sarcastr0]

Part of the social contract is you're not making all of your own decisions anymore.

You can take it farther back, and realize social constraints on how you spend your resources is not even unique to humans.

There's some deep thinking libertarians. There's also some who use it as a brand with some catchy slogans so they can MAGA while pretending to think for themselves.

See also: all taxation is robbery.

[David Nieporent]

And if you want to fund non-abortion services, find some organization which *doesn't* do abortions and give the money to them. How hard is that?

Evidently, difficult. Who are all these organizations like the one you describe?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump administration blocked the group"

A lie, its Congress which did this.

"20 clinics the group has closed"

A good start!

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is another possibility with Trump's Epstein files -- Trump rescued one or more of the victims and he's protecting her.

We're talking someone who'd be in her late 30s now, may have a husband and children now -- who know *nothing* about what she was doing when she was 15.

Or she's part of MAGA -- don't you think the Dems would use this to destroy her?

[Martinned]

There is another possibility with Trump's Epstein files -- Trump rescued one or more of the victims and he's protecting her.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Riva]

After trying to leverage the suffering of American citizens in their shutdown, now it’s back to all Epstein lies all the time. Anything but actually, honestly put forward their real agenda. Because their real agenda is anathema to the public. Next, when the public becomes fatigued with this BS, it’ll be more Russian collusion fraud. Go Democrats!

[Josh R]

Because their real agenda is anathema to the public.

The voters were so pissed by the "real agenda" Democrats won bigly in the 2025 elections.

[Riva]

Democrats won in heavily democrat enclaves against mostly establishment republicans that declined to embrace President Trump, to the extent any elections even presented real alternatives to the democrat sludge. And what is that democrat agenda again?

[Josh R]

The margins were much larger than expected. Plus, you had the unexpected wins (easy at that) in GA. But, keep toking the copium.

[Riva]

But admittedly, there may be a better reason for Democrat electoral success and the explanation has the added benefit of explaining the shutdown. The polls were tight, one showing a dead heat in NJ. The VA AG candidate was exposed in texting scandal. VA, by the way, with a large federal workforce. Oh how to motivate such an off year electorate? And keep up the shutdown for headlines of SNAP recipients threatened with starvation. Now that the election is over, no more need to hold out ending their shutdown. Democrats are unethical refuse but they know how to exploit and manipulate gullible voters.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Melania was most likely a recruiter for pEestain and Ghizzstain.

[jb]

Another possibility is that Epstein was actually a space alien and Trump is conducting secret negotiations to try to prevent the Earth from being destroyed in retaliation for killing him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Then release everything -- absolutely EVERYTHING.
Unredacted, with the victim's names included.

That was offered -- by unanimous consent of the House -- and the Dems objected. The Dems objected.

What's coming out is Trump tried to stop the abuse.

[Zarniwoop]

Sometimes I think about blocking you for rampant stupidity. But your particular mixture of ignorance, wishful imagination, and credulity is so riotously hilarious that I never do.

[Josh R]

That was offered -- by unanimous consent of the House -- and the Dems objected.

Citation?

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Citation?" From Dr. Ed?
He'll post his dissertation here before we ever find out how his mind works.
See Zarniwoop directly above.

[David Nieporent]

That was offered -- by unanimous consent of the House -- and the Dems objected. The Dems objected.

It was not.

[Mr. Hook]

I think you've cracked it. After all, Trump is famously hyper-modest and averse to taking credit for anything that might make him look good. And he especially wouldn't want to draw attention to himself if it might hurt someone else. Yup, case closed.

[Kazinski]

I voted for that.

While I am pro-choice, or at.least against government bans on abortion, I don't believe taxpayers should fund abortions.

[not guilty]

"While I am pro-choice, or at.least against government bans on abortion, I don't believe taxpayers should fund abortions."

Uh, the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape, has been prohibited by Congress since 1980. Why do you bring up that red herring, Kazinski?

[Kazinski]

Because the money is going to Planned Parenthood.

And actually I am.against funding any NGO, because if it is funded by the government its a GO. The only reason to put in the level.of abstraction is for plausible deniability, like Planned Parenthood.

Or for that matter NGOs like Ecohealth Alliance which got grants from NIH so then it could fund things that government organization could not fund, like gain of function research.

[not guilty]

"Planned Parenthood" is not a magical incantation. How is PP offering less birth control and prenatal care in order to focus its resources on abortion services a good thing?

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the number of abortions they have provided it seems that they never have spent much on birth control services.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s the best criticism of PP—they don’t do a very good job. But if Republicans started handing out free birth control to young Black women they would be accused of genocide…which is why Trump said PP does a lot of “good things”.

[Martinned]

Based on your vibes?

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/#how-many-abortions-are-there-in-the-us-each-year:~:text=Back%20to%20top)-,How%20has%20the%20number%20of%20abortions%20in%20the%20U.S.%20changed%20over%20time%3F,-The%20annual%20number

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, I suspect that Planned Parenthood, through its provision and advocacy of birth control services, has prevented more abortions than an army of "sidewalk counselors" has ever dreamt of.

How is that provision of birth control and prenatal health services a bad thing?

[Mr. Bumble]

"I suspect..." .Martinned's vibes?

"How is that provision of birth control and prenatal health services a bad thing?"
Not something I said. I'm claiming that they are falling short on the "planned" part.

[not guilty]

Bumble, when I don't have hard and fast data at hand, I don't claim that I do. Here I am going on intuition and common sense, hence the "I suspect" qualifier.

Which is of course true. I do indeed suspect that.

[Krayt]

When abortion was overturned, the people who cheered said, "Contraception next!"

[Mr. Bumble]

Just when exactly was abortion "overturned"?

[Frank Drackman]

Good point, Dobbs just returned the decision to the "Several States" almost like we're a Republic or something. If a State's legislature passes, and a Governor signs, a Bill promoting the elimination of babies of inferior Races, I mean, of "Victims of Systemic Racism", who am I to interfere with their Black Baby Holocaust? Even with Abortion, I don't think there'll be a shortage of future Floyd George's anytime soon.

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why are "abortion services" a *bad* thing? What's wrong with "services"?

Also, you need to update your slogans - the new term is "abortion care."

[jb]

So by this logic, the government shouldn't give money to defense contractors either? Or if we're just talking nonprofits and Medicaid funds, why should we allow nonprofit hospitals to serve Medicaid customers?

[Michael P]

National defense is something that is both a common good and hard to provide privately. Abortion is the opposite.

[Sarcastr0]

So you are pro choice but just look pro life because of how hardcore a libertarian you are….

This is not a well thought out position.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And actually I am.against funding any NGO, because if it is funded by the government its a GO.

Kazinski lets the cat out of the bag. He is against funding anything, government or otherwise.

And no, Kazinski, government paying someone to do something government wants done does not make the party paid a part of government. The Midwest is not blanketed with communist farm collectives.

[Kazinski]

Yep, the cat is out of the bag.

End government funding for all NGOs.

If they need funding for something you think needs to be done, then dig deep Lathrop.

[Mr. Bumble]

+1

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The government is going to fund health care somehow.

For instance, people in prison, children, those in poverty with special conditions (such as the blind), and so forth.

In a wider sense, we have Medicaid and Medicare. A libertarian might oppose these programs, though they have wide support.

The government selectively funds childbirth, including denying payment for abortion care when the pregnancy significantly threatens health, and in the process favors certain religious and moral choices instead of letting the person using the care, using their own individual morality, to make the decision.

Net, that seems an anti-libertarian position to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

How is it that things government never did until a few years ago suddenly become things government is inevitably going to do?

It's almost like you just want government doing them, and so insist they're inevitable to spare yourself the need to defend that position.

[Sarcastr0]

What new thing are you talking about, as you intimate bad faith in yet another person?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fund health care.

Perhaps you could attend some sort of adult education program so that you'd be able to read the comments and find out these things for yourself.

[Martinned]

There are occasional embarrassing attempts to fight off the competition from vegan products by banning producers from calling them by "meat words" like "burger": https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w5v75deewo

A somewhat less tragic version of that is today's ECJ judgment holding that a non-alcoholic beverage cannot be called gin under relevant legislation: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-11/cp250140en.pdf

[Martinned]

The written judgment won't be available until noon, but the press release refers to Regulation 2019/787 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirits.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/787/oj

It doesn't say which provision the court relied on, but at first glance it's not obvious to me how a law about the labelling of spirits can govern the labelling of things that aren't spirits, because they don't have any alcohol.

[Brett Bellmore]

It certainly appears to be on-brand for the EU. Is it any different from saying that you can't use the word "Parmesan" in the name of a cheese if it's not from Parma?

[Martinned]

Yes. Protected Geographical Indications are a form of intellectual property. Just like brands they give local producers a way of competing on quality. Which is exactly what distinguishes the European economy from the Chinese and the Americans: we make quality products, because we have institutions that incentivise a long-term perspective.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not about quality, because it doesn't discriminate on the basis of quality. It doesn't matter how good your Parmesan style cheese made outside Parma is, it could win a blind taste test against the real thing, and it's still not allowed to call itself "Parmesan".

PGI's are, as I understand them, essentially truth in advertising on steroids. You're not allowed to use a 'misleading' designation even if somebody would have to be brain damaged to actually be misled by it.

From that perspective, prohibiting calling a non-alcoholic beverage "Gin" even if the name itself says it's non-alcoholic is the same sort of thing: Brain dead truth in in advertising.

[Martinned]

The point of trademark law is to facilitate competition based on quality. Without trademark law I could make a shitty beverage and call it Coca Cola, and the only way the Coca Cola company could beat me in the marketplace would be by being cheaper. That's the public interest in trademarks. That's why we have them.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-5/ALDE_00013069/

[Brett Bellmore]

The excuse is quality, the reason is favoring economic incumbents.

[Sarcastr0]

...You coming against trademark law in general, or this implementation in particular?

[Brett Bellmore]

This isn't trademark law. Trademark law says that if company A trademarks "Jolt Cola", you can't use "Jolt Cola" as your own product's name. You could market "Joke Cola", though.

It doesn't ban the "Mountain Dude" shirt that takes a close look to confirm it's not soda merch, that I picked up in a park gift shop.

EU law goes WAY past US style trademark law, which focuses on avoiding people being deceived about whose product they're buying.

[Martinned]

Yes, just like only Jolt Cola can use Jolt Cola, only the producers in Parma can use Parma ham. Same difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not the same. Under US law you're allowed to compare your product to a trademarked product.

[ThePublius]

"Same difference."

No, it's not the "same difference." Parma ham, parmesan cheese, Champagne, Rochefort, and so on are not only the regions the associated products are said to originate from, they are a type of product, those names having been used for those types for centuries.

[Brett Bellmore]

As part of their anti death penalty perspective, the EU also bans genericide...

[shawn_dude]

It's like nobody here's heard of bourbon.

[ThePublius]

"The point of trademark law is to facilitate competition based on quality."

No, it's not. It's to protect the investment that a company has in the production and promotion of its products, regardless of some vague notion of 'quality.'

Plus, the link you supplied has nothing to do with what you claim.

[Sarcastr0]

It's both-and.

Trademark law's purposes include both consumer-facing and business facing aspects.

[Martinned]

...and the reason why a company invests in the promotion of its products is because a reputation is valuable, because it's an indicator of quality. If your business strategy is to focus on being cheaper than anyone else, you don't need a trademark.

(Which is why supermarket chains like Lidl and Aldi, which I gather are now familiar to most Americans, traditionally sell very few branded products. The strategy they and their suppliers have is a straight-up lowest price.)

[Sarcastr0]

Brand loyalty has lot of overlap with quality, but it's not quite the same.

And that also doesn't mean every trademark system well made to curate quality, versus stifle competition. Witness trying to trademark stuff like 'taco tuesday' or the ridiculousness around the use of 'Super Bowl.'

Or "you're fired"

[Brett Bellmore]

Take Vidalia onions, for example. The rare instance of a geographic trademark in the US, you can only call it a "Vidalia" onion if it's from one of 22 counties in Georgia around Vidalia.

But it's not about quality. "Vidalia" onions are special because, being grown in soil with an abnormally low sulfur content, they are just sweet, no bite, because the bite depends on a compound containing sulfur.

But not everywhere in that area has such soil, so you'll encounter genuine "Vidalia" onions that aren't sweet. They still get labeled "Vidalia", and onions grown elsewhere that are sweet for the same reason can't be so labeled.

[ThePublius]

Yet there is nothing in U.S. trademark law about product quality.

[Bob from Ohio]

"indicator of quality"

Dude, a trademark is not an "indicator of quality", its a mark that identifies a product or company. Fast food companies have trademarks, dollar stores use trademarks.

This is your area of expertise? Sad!

[Martinned]

Dude, a trademark is not an "indicator of quality", its a mark that identifies a product or company. Fast food companies have trademarks, dollar stores use trademarks.

Yes, and they do that in order to enable them to establish a reputation. The purpose of a reputation is that consumers can reward them if they do good, and can punish them (by buying someone else's products) if they do bad.

Fast food companies most definitely provide quality. The USP of McDonald's is that you know exactly what you're going to get. It may not necessarily be nutritious, that's a different question, but a Big Mac tasts pretty much the same regardless of whether you buy one at 16.00 in Spokane or at 09.00 in Mexico City. That's an aspect of quality. Without trademark laws, McDonald's would have no incentive to promote such quality, because there would be nothing to stop me or you from setting up our own fast food restaurant next to a McDonald's, call it McDonald's too, and undercut our neighbour.

Dollar stores, too, get punished if they fail to meet their customers' expectations. Those expectations obviously reflect that it's a dollar store, but if they pull crap like this, the fact that they use trademarks enables consumers to punish them. In that way, trademarks enable competition on quality, which was my point all along.

[Krayt]

This is one place I disagree with America on the America-European differences on intellectual property. We are young, and the idea of products being named for a region they originally come from is not a thing here.

It is in Europe, though. I don't dismiss it out of hand as inherently ludicrous. I lived there for a while, and it's just another thing people do.

You aren't forbidden from making a similar product, and I wouldn't ban saying it's similar to Champagne, or Gouda, or Delft pottery, or a hundred other cheeses.

I, for one, look forward to visiting County Stinking Bishop some day.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We are young, and the idea of products being named for a region they originally come from is not a thing here."

Vidalia onions?

[ThePublius]

Vermont cheddar
Vermont maple syrup
Wisconsin cheddar
Monterey Jack Cheese
Thousand Island Dressing (Thousand Islands Archipelago)
Napa Valley Cabernet
etc.

[Bunny495]

Key Lime Pie

[Frank Drackman]

In the 80's I remember reading the ads for Aphrodisiacs in the classified sections of Penthouse, National Lampoon, many would use the word "Spurious" in the products name, banking on it's similarity to the word "Furious", I mean wouldn't you rather get the "Spurious" Spanish Fly instead of it's Non-Spurious competitor? That's how I learned what "Spurious" meant (by looking it up, not trying it)

Frank

[bernard11]

It doesn't matter how good your Parmesan style cheese made outside Parma is, it could win a blind taste test against the real thing, and it's still not allowed to call itself "Parmesan".

It doesn't matter how good your Bellmore Cola soft drink is is, it could win a blind taste test against Coca-Cola and it's still not allowed to call itself "Coca-Cola".

And taste is obviously not an objective standard. If I prefer Coke to Pepsi, or 100 million people do, that doesn't mean Coke tastes better in any objective sense. What the label does is assure the buyer that the stuff in the bottle really is Coca-Cola.

[santamonica811]

Bernard,
1. I do think you are arguing a different thing, though. Coke is a brand name, and no a single person here has written in favor of being able to falsely "copy" that brand. But parm cheese is a good counter-example. There, we're talking about the location.
2. I see the merits of the existing laws. But I also see the other side. If you make a cheese here in California (or Wisconsin, etc) that you want to taste exactly like parm, and you succeed. So, every single expert that tastes your cheese in a blind test, and every layperson who blindly tastes your cheese all agree, "Yup, that's Parm." . . . then we should be able to figure out a way so that you can so advertise it. Note that this has nothing to do with the quality of your cheese vs my own authentic parm. This doesn't matter if your cheese tastes "better" to the experts (or laypeople) than my cheese. Or my cheese is judged better. Merely, does your cheese taste like parm? Does it crumble like parm? Does it melt like parm?

Couldn't the argument be made that, if you have succeeded in making a cheese that is *identical* to my own cheese, it's actually deceptive to buyers to NOT call it parm, as that's the only description that will tell consumers what they really will be getting?

I think that at least one earlier posters, upthread, had a good suggestion when s/he suggested something like allowing these IP locations to be used in packaging and advertising. So, you maybe could not market your cheese as Parmesan. But you would be permitted to market it as "California Parmesan." Customer knows from this that it's not made in Italy, and knows that--in spite of the Calif location--it's gonna be tasting and behaving like parm. Wouldn't that work?

(Obviously, that doesn't apply to brand names. So, "California Coke" or "Santa Monica Coke" or "Flagstaff McDonald's" would not be allowed, in these cases of knock-off attempts stemming from those physical locations.)

[bernard11]

Good points, sm11. To which I would respond as follows.

1. No objection to the "California Parmesan" idea.

2. I don't think the geographical designations are all that different from brand names. They assure, more or less, that the product meets certain standards - of whatever value - and will be more or less consistent, which is the point, after all. Further, some of those originated a long time ago, when counterfeiters were eager to sell inferior cheese as Parmesan. Are the actual producers not allowed to protect their reputation?

3. If "California Parmesan" is in fact the equal of Parmesan Parmesan, then that will become known fairly quickly. Do you have any idea how many food magazines, newspaper columns, etc. will point this out? The California producers will be just fine.

[David Nieporent]

2. I don't think the geographical designations are all that different from brand names. They assure, more or less, that the product meets certain standards - of whatever value - and will be more or less consistent, which is the point, after all.

How does a geographic designation, which can be used by any one of scores of producers, give any such assurance?

Further, some of those originated a long time ago, when counterfeiters were eager to sell inferior cheese as Parmesan. Are the actual producers not allowed to protect their reputation?

Their respective reputations are based on their individual brands, not on the geographic location where their companies happen to be located.

[ThePublius]

"Yes. Protected Geographical Indications are a form of intellectual property. Just like brands they give local producers a way of competing on quality. Which is exactly what distinguishes the European economy from the Chinese and the Americans: we make quality products, because we have institutions that incentivise a long-term perspective."

That's not only wrong, but you managed to insult the Chinese and Americans in the bargain; par for the course for you, I suppose.

It's not about quality, it's about protectionism. They don't test other cheeses, there's no objective standard for quality of cheese, or any other such protected product. In fact, there are Parmesan cheeses made outside of Parma that are just as good and in some cases better.

As far as "we make quality products," as opposed to America or China, think Italian and French cars, and their 'reliability.'

I have in my fridge a quarter wheel of Rogue River Blue cheese, a cheese named World Champion at the 2019/20 World Cheese Awards. Yes, best in the world. So don't tell me we don't make quality anything in the U.S.

[Martinned]

Ooh! The World Cheese Awards! That settles it!

But seriously, it's the US. There is absolutely no way for me to know whether that's some kind of fraudulent astroturf thing. I'm sure they have a pretty website, but as a consumer that gives me absolutely zero guarantees.

[ThePublius]

It was in the news when it happened, knucklehead. You just deny anything that doesn't comport with your preferred narrative.

Here's the story in the NY TImes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/dining/best-cheese-rogue-river-blue.html

[ThePublius]

From the article:

"Rogue River Blue has long been a prize winner. In 2003, it was awarded best blue cheese in the World Cheese Awards in London. Nine years later it was named best American cheese at the awards in Birmingham, England."

[Martinned]

O, wait, so when American producers piggyback off European consumer protection and fraud laws, it is OK?

[ThePublius]

What on earth are you talking about? How is Rogue River piggybacking off of anything European?

You're just a pissy American hater, and can't even concede a point where you are clearly wrong. Grow a spine.

[ThePublius]

"Ooh! The World Cheese Awards! That settles it!

But seriously, it's the US. There is absolutely no way for me to know whether that's some kind of fraudulent astroturf thing. I'm sure they have a pretty website, but as a consumer that gives me absolutely zero guarantees."

You were wrong about this. Admit it.

[Sarcastr0]

Martinned's anti-American weirdness results in some silly blanket statements.

But also provides an opportunity to highlight/discuss modern American products that have a quality to take pride in!

iPhone &c. - rugged; human-machine interface innovations so good they set the standard.

Whiskey/Bourbon - not to my taste, but craftsmen abound in this area.

KitchenAid products, one of many military spinoffs.

We have a let 1000 flowers bloom thing with our craft brewing; something for everyone.

[Martinned]

You can call it anti-American weirdness if you like, but it is clear that (directionally) the US has fewer institutions that incentivise quality. More broadly still, the US is a society with less trust and lower quality institutions.

That doesn't mean that US manufacturers don't make quality products. Many institutions that incentivise that do still exist, including the trademarks that enable many of the products you mention. Apple works, as a company, because of IP law, which exists in the US much like it does in Europe.

Still, US consumers know that they can't count on the government to shut down dodgy products, and that tort law only protects them if they can put a class action together with a sufficiently large legal team. The result is that American consumers end up with concerns about the products they buy that the market doesn't fix, and with non-dangerous but still low-quality products a lot of the rest of the time.

(I would include more links, because this is a topic that is worth studying carefully, but I don't want to run afoul of the spam filter.)

You people can complain about EU regulation, and I started this sub-thread by describing bans on "vega burgers" and "non-alcoholic gin" as "embarrassing". But when done well, things like IP law enable competition to solve these problems. (Assuming, of course, that the marketplace is sufficiently competitive to begin with.)

[Sarcastr0]

The European industries you highlight aren't doing quality because they're forced to by regulation, they're going above and beyond because there's a market for that.

That's the same market impulse that leads to the above well-crafted American products - a decent amount of people like quality, markets themselves incentivize quality.

You're bringing in the *other side* of things - where quality falls below a specific threshold. That's a different issue.
----
As to that issue, in my opinion the US has issues with it's regulation of minimal quality levels on both sides - some is needlessly inhibitory, but others let plenty of harmful or scammy stuff through.

But so does Europe - your raw milk culture when it comes to cheese is unregulatable, and the EU recognizes that.

[bernard11]

It's not about quality, it's about protectionism.

It's not about either one. It's about consistency, and marketing, and establishing brand loyalty.

Suppose there was only one cheese maker in Parma. Who would object if they trademarked the word "Parmesan" as the brand name of their product?

[ThePublius]

You can't trademark a word in common usage, that's why.

[bernard11]

And if they did this a century ago, or at a time when "Parmesan Cheese" was not in common usage?

[ThePublius]

And if the queen had balls she'd be king. So?

[David Nieporent]

PDOs/PGIs are not a form of intellectual property. Who owns them? While trademarks operate as source identifiers, geographical origin rules do not. As you say later in this discussion, a trademark like McDonalds helps the company compete on quality, since McDonalds has every incentive to police quality to protect its brand. (Indeed, trademark law requires it to police the quality of those it licenses to use its marks (i.e., franchisees)). But geographic origin rules permit groups of competitors to all use the 'marks' and do not tell consumers the actual source.

[bernard11]

This is essentially just truth in advertising.

It's basic to the European (or French and Italian, at least) wine industry, for example (not to mention bourbon here in the US).

Grow all the Sangiovese you want, but don't call the wine you make Chianti.

There was something of a scuffle a few decades ago, when the French objected to American wine producers labeling their products Burgundy, Bordeaux, etc., as these are specific regions of France. The solution was to use the name of the grape instead. So we have American "pinot noir," but not "Burgundy."

[TwelveInchPianist]

The real question is, can sparkling wine made in Champaign, Illinois be called Champaign?

[bernard11]

I don't know, but I think it can't be called Champagne.

[ThePublius]

It can't be called Champagne in the EU, but it can be called Champagne everywhere else in the world.

[Drewski]

Embarrassing how? The purpose of consumer labeling is to help the consumer determine what they're buying, not to help your buddies get a few sales by misleading people. If someone wants vegan substitutes, they can find them. If someone doesn't, they should be able to differentiate.

The notion that basic, neutral consumer laws such as thing should be leveraged for activist causes is a corrupting one. But you're a pretty bad person who is not concerned with civic good, only with winning points for your pet causes.

[Martinned]

1. I'm not a vegetarian.

2. It's ridiculous to claim that a label that says "vegan burger" is somehow misleading because it says burger.

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of like "Non-Dairy Creamer" of course "tasteless torn newspapers" probably wouldn't sell very well.

[Krayt]

EU does have some problems like this. Regulators gotta retulate, so they defined jelly as made with fruit.

"What about carrot jelly?" asked long time carrot jelly makers.

"Well, we'll define carrots as fruit."

The US does stupid stuff like this from time to time, too. The Congress has a special fund to help the Great Lakes, the five giant lakes around Michigan and nearby states. Some congressmen wanted some smaller lakes to tap into that, so Congress redefined Great Lakes to add a handful of relative puddles in places like New York.

I've no problem adding additional lakes to receive money, if you've decided to do that, but this is a lazy way to go about it.

[Martinned]

This stuff is agrigultural protectionism. In the US you have the same thing, but (so far) only at state level: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/07/23/744083270/what-gets-to-be-a-burger-states-restrict-labels-on-plant-based-meat

[Krayt]

When I went to Europe as a pup, a software manager there, really an AI proffessor, this was back before AI was cool. Ok, it was always cool, but it was just small projects or explorations at that time.

Anyway, he said, "US tomatoes taste like crap because of fertilizers on them!"

Well, no, that's not why. That's what the EU blathers when it hampers imports of veg from the US. If it tastes worse in a real double-blind study, it's because they're picked so early they are like rocks, for safe shipment, but are really picked too early to ripen properly.

Anyway, that was my first demonstration of BS patter governments used to justify trade war protectionism. Japan famously stopped cheap US rice imports for decades arguing the Japanese had delicate stomachs.

[Martinned]

The point of intellectual property law, including PGIs, is that the consumer can decide for him/herself. Isn't that great?

[Brett Bellmore]

My cousin the geneticist, last time I saw him, was still feeling guilty about his part in producing tomato strains that would turn red without getting soft. It's not just that they're picked early, tomatoes picked early, but at the "breaker" stage, will still ripen.

It's that they're specifically bred to LOOK ripe when they're not, because unripe tomatoes are easier to handle without losses.

[Drewski]

1) I don't give a shit.

2) No, it isn't. A Maastricht University study showed that consumers are confused by such labeling. You're just too dumb to understand that these things are testable.

[Martinned]

1) You're the one who talked about "your buddies".

2) There are lots of studies, many of them bought and paid for. You could start by linking to one.

[Drewski]

How about you link to the "bought and paid for" studies, then? They're a little more obscure than the easily-found one I mentioned (because they don't exist).

[David Nieporent]

It's rent seeking. The purpose of the laws is to make it harder for consumers to find the vegan substitutes. Manufacturers are not trying to trick people; that would make no sense, because all it would do is result in unhappy or lost customers. If your intended market is vegetarians, you want vegetarians to easily be able to tell that your product is not meat; making them think it is would cost you sales. Sure, you could pick up a few sales to omnivores by tricking them. Once.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Once."

See, Johnny Dangerously.

[Martinned]

The judgment is now out, albeit only in French (the language of the court) and German (the language of the case).

It looks like the key provision is art. 10(7) of the Regulation, which indeed seems pretty unequivocal:

Without prejudice to [other provisions], the use of the legal names referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article or geographical indications in the description, presentation or labelling of any beverage not complying with the requirements of the relevant category set out in Annex I or of the relevant geographical indication shall be prohibited. That prohibition shall also apply where such legal names or geographical indications are used in conjunction with words or phrases such as ‘like’, ‘type’, ‘style’, ‘made’, ‘flavour’ or any other similar terms.

So it seems like this isn't the court's fault, but more dumb regulation.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, it was exactly "Protected Geographical Indication", as I thought.

[Martinned]

No. The same provision mentions PGIs and the specific labels mentioned in paragraph 2 of art. 10. One of those labels is "gin". Gin is not a PGI.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I know that it's not literally a Protected Geographical Indication, but your quote above demonstrates that it was PGI adjacent, based on the same legal reasoning.

[Voize of Reazon]

Because "exactly" isn't literally "literally", I presume.

[Martinned]

Today in Strategic Autonomy-news: The cloud company Solvinity, which is used by the Dutch government for DigID, the tool we all use to identify ourselves on government and near-government websites, as well as for lots of other government functions, is being acquired by our American friends at Kyndryl.

I'm as curious as you are whether the Dutch government is going to use national security legislation to stop this.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/11/dutch-cloud-firm-solvinity-taken-over-by-us-it-giant-kyndryl/

https://nltimes.nl/2025/11/12/dutch-governments-caught-guard-american-tech-firm-buying-dutch-cloud-company

[Stephen Lathrop]

I do not know much about that technology. I suspect it may lie behind ineradicable bugs which make one person I know incapable to keep passwords in working order.

The problem seems to be that years ago, before cloud computing was a thing, he had an identity name and password which went into limbo after he ceased employment at the business which had the account. Now that forgotten and unrecoverable stuff seems to lurk in servers that get consulted every time his computer boots up and checks for cloud connections.

The check seems to think there is an illegitimate discrepancy of some kind, and demands that he change his current password(s). Again and again. He has tried to get around it by severing and disallowing all cloud connections. That seems to work, until background processes which operating systems perform, especially during system updates, reconnect his computer to the cloud. There seems to be some kind of insuperable interest among computer vendors to keep every computer cloud connected.

Anyone else have this problem? Anyone know how to make it stop?

[Brett Bellmore]

Wipe the computer clean and go into the witness protection program.

No, seriously, he needs to make a complete break from his previous online identity, so the systems don't connect him with anything prior.

[ducksalad]

The most horrifying thing Microsoft has done - out of a very long list of evil acts - is trying to guess who you are when you set up a new machine and then "help" you.

Bought a new computer to use at work exclusively for CAD and code development. Whole point was to be clean and separate.

After the setup the Documents folder had stuff in it. Clicked on it - at work with the door open - to find that it was preloaded with my wife's personal photos, my banking and tax documents, etc. And then it tangled up my home license for Office with my employer's site license for Office, in way that I still haven't been able to completely unfuck.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd try turning the computer off and then back on. Works for me.

[Brett Bellmore]

HP customer service will tell you that reformatting the hard drive is an essential first step in solving any computer problem that cycling the power switch won't solve.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, you can do that too, I'm currently running Country (and Western)

[Krayt]

Well, it does work.

There was a famous early meme recording, not called such at the time, where a guy brought his laptop in for repair. They reinstalled the OS, formatting the hard drive.

Sadly, he was an author, and that blew away his only copy of a book in progress. The virulent tirade he left on their voice mail was a beautiful thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

It works if you have a software problem. The problem is that HP tech support will demand you do it even if you have a hardware problem.

Because they've found that most people will just swear and go away at that point, and solve their problem without costing HP warrantee support any money.

[Krayt]

I once asked our IT guy what's up with the ridiculously long and ever-growing complicated password requirements. I knew the answer already but I said, "After all, the worse it is, the more likely it is people will just write it down and leave it by their computer, defeating the purpose."

"I know", he sighed.

[ThePublius]

Well, that's a rather simplistic analysis. Many accounts are hacked into using dictionary attacks and 'social engineering,' of a sort, collecting and building a database of a target's life and building a list of possible passwords based on schools, birthdays, cars, all kinds of things. When you use a complex password you should use a different one for every account, and you should store them in a secure password vault, not write them down. I use a password vault set to generate fairly long passwords that include upper and lower case letters, numbers, punctuation, special characters, and so forth. I could never write down all of those, and in fact, I don't even know what they are, as they are automatically filled in when I log in somewhere.

The one stupid thing that IT security insists on is changing passwords often, which has been proven to be nearly worthless, if you have good passwords to begin with.

[Frank Drackman]

How do you remember the Password to get into the Password Vault??

[Bwaaah]

As I've now seen consistently with the process of growing old, eventually, if you live long enough, you won't be able to remember that password. And even if you can remember it, you won't be able to type it all correctly (especially on a touch screen).

We're all screwed, eventually.

[bernard11]

And even if you can remember it, you won't be able to type it all correctly (especially on a touch screen).

A pet peeve of mine. I use 1Password and have a long but not hard - for me - to remember password. Works great on my laptop, but a nightmare to enter accurately on my phone.

[Bwaaah]

My mother is ninety-something years old, and has only an iPad. "Logging in" is on a list of things she can no longer do herself.

[David Nieporent]

If you can use a phone, presumably you have fingers, and/or a face. If you have those things, you can get into the 1password vault on your phone without needing to enter the main 1password password.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know that writing your password down and leaving it by your computer totally defeats the purpose. It's not going to keep the password from protecting you from threats that lack physical access to your desk, which is like 99.9% of them.

[Bwaaah]

Quite correct. And if you write it amid a handwritten page of innocuous names and numbers and notes, and place that off to the side in a pile of papers, you can add another 9 to your improbability.

With just a bit of strategic thinking, security through obscurity can be quite effective.

[John F. Carr]

See "The Purloined Letter".

[Bwaaah]

To Wikipedia...two minutes of reading...and hey...good one! Yes.

(That's about as close as I generally get to literature.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

On the other hand, after you put that password in the pile of old papers, along with your $2,000 cash reserve, you will some morning wake up in a funk, get annoyed with the mess, and trash the pile.

[Bwaaah]

That, I fear.

[Bwaaah]

I remember when "password" was sufficient. Now it's "Passw0rd!Passw0rd!"

[Bunny495]

Everyone who sits at the cool kids table is using face rec or thumbprint instead of a password. Time for you guys to get out of the dumb jocks corner.

[ducksalad]

So if I get an Elon Musk rubber mask, maybe I can access his bank account?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not if the recognition software is properly written. Computer cameras can actually see your pulse, for instance, and rubber masks don't have a pulse.

[Martinned]

Today in Brexit:

[Von der Leyen and Starmer] also agreed to launch talks on the permanent sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) deal and an agreement on linking emissions trading systems.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ursula-von-der-leyen-keir-starmer-brexit-prime-minister-european-commission-b1257860.html

Of course, ideally this should have been part of the withdrawal agreement the Tories made. But better late than never, I guess.

Incidentally, this is one of the many things that are stupid about Trump's "trade deals". They are not trade deals, they are tariff deals. Proper trade deals, like the ones the US used to make before Trump, and the ones the EU makes, cover a wide range of issues, including questions like "if there's an outbreak of mad cow disease, how do we catch it quickly and make sure it doesn't spread over the border?"

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I noticed Rory Kinnear gets to play the prime minister now…it’s because nobody knows what the pm looks like. Michael Sheen hardest hit. 😉

[Frank Drackman]

Don't mean to offend (well maybe a little bit) but nobody gives a fuck about your European news.

[ThePublius]

+1

[Krayt]

Apparently President Trump cares about trade with EU. And therefore you do.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually I don't, they need our Shekels way more than we need their Brie.

[Bwaaah]

Yer gettin' a little too far out over yer skis when yer tellin' Frank Drackman what he cares about.

[apedad]

The Rapist-in-Chief has never done anything honorable in his life.

But he can change that by resigning immediately.

[Frank Drackman]

Flashback much? Bill Clinton left Orifice January 20, 2001

[Krayt]

Yes! Back then you were all about a special prosecutor going "wherever the facts may lead", twisting arms to overcharge people to tag the next person in line, loving process crime after process crime, until you finally got something valid to tag the President with.

Then you faceted his law violation was so horrendous he needed to go through impeachment. But the Senate wisely declined to remove him for such an obvious political attack.

"God damn it!" you squeaked, "So close!", your honest concern for rule of law, thwarted.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually I was happy Billy J got to stay (literally) in Orifice.
1: the case was Bullshit to begin with as evidenced by Newt and the guy who (briefly) suck-seded him's "In Flagrante Dilecto" admissions.
2: A President AlGore would have been harder to beat in 2000, as it was "W" was only able to win by those 538 votes in Flordia.
3: I agreed with Bill J, Oral Sex isn't Sex.

Frank "it depends on what the meaning of jizz issssssssssss, I mean "Is"

[Martinned]

Another judgment handed down today, this time from the European Court for Human Rights. This might be some kind of record, in terms of how many controversial topics are affected by a single case:

In the case of A.R. v. Poland the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.

The case concerned restrictions on abortion rights in Poland.

In a judgment of 22 October 2020, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional provisions of the Law on family planning, protection of the human foetus and conditions permitting the termination of pregnancy, which had allowed for legal abortion in the event of foetal abnormalities.

The judgment was not published until 27 January 2021. The ruling prompted widespread protests, including demonstrations involving thousands of participants all over the country.

At the time of the delivery of the Constitutional Court’s judgment, the applicant had been 15 weeks pregnant. Results of medical tests confirmed that the foetus suffered from a genetic disorder. She travelled to the Netherlands where the pregnancy was terminated in a private clinic.

The Court found that the interference with the applicant’s rights had been the result of the situation of considerable uncertainty in the time between the Constitutional Court’s judgment being handed down in 2020 and its publication in 2021. It had been unclear during that time whether the restrictions on abortion on the grounds of foetal abnormalities had already taken effect or if abortion could still be legally performed.

The interference with the applicant’s rights had not been “in accordance with the law”, owing to both the composition of the bench of the Constitutional Court which had given the judgment of 22 October 2020 and because there been a lack of foreseeability required under Article 8, owing to the general uncertainty as regards the applicable legal framework caused by the delay in the publication of the Constitutional Court’s ruling. It followed that there had been a violation of that provision.

https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-poland-7

So yes, we have:
- Abortion
- The fake Polish judges
- The practice of not publishing judgments, which (under Polish law) meant that they hadn't taken effect yet

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, imagine what your Continent could do if they'd put that effort into something productive, like fucking.

[John F. Carr]

The Polish court could have avoided one of the grounds of objection by keeping the decision secret until it went into effect. I don't see how that is better. Petitioner was worried that the decision would be published just as she was about to get an abortion, so she left the country. Every pregnant woman could potentially see abortion law changed without notice.

[Sarcastr0]

I guess now we know why Trump spent more effort keeping the files from being released than reopening the government.

[Frank Drackman]

There's a reason they don't release raw FBI files, for example, I could say "Sarcastr0 Boo-fooed me when I was 8" and the Agent would have to document
"Reporting Party states "Sarcastr0" sodomized him at the age of 8"
even though I'd be totally lying (I was a pretty tough 8 yr old, anyone trying to go Barney Fag with me would get the Lorena Bobbit Special)
but if they released the report it'd be
"Sarcastr0 accused of raping 8 yr old!!!!!!!!"

Seriously, keep it up with the Epstein Bullshit, maybe get Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington, Barbarino, and Horshack in on it too.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0 raped an 8 year old? I thought I heard that previously. But I didn't think it was true.

Wow.

[Frank Drackman]

Allegedly, Allegedly, but we know that 8 yr olds aren't able to lie.

[Bwaaah]

"Allegedly." Yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

If we now know, why weren't you able to cite something?

[Sarcastr0]

This is all over the news including FOX; asking for a source seems like you're sealioning.

But here you go:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/12/jeffrey-epstein-donald-trump-emails-00647447
“Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever,” Epstein wrote in a 2019 email to Michael Wolff, an apparent plea from the president for Epstein to leave Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club. “[O]f course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

Epstein also wrote in an email in 2011 to Maxwell that Trump was a “dog that hasn’t barked” — what appeared to mean that Trump had not disclosed details about Epstein’s activities. Epstein added that a victim, whose name was redacted, spent hours with Trump.

And https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/epstein-offered-reporter-photos-donald-girls-bikinis-kitchen/story?id=127473941

"would you like photso [sic] of donald and girls in bikinis in my kitchen."

"ask my houseman about donad [sic] almost walking through the door leaving his nose print on the glass as young women were swimming in the pool and he was so focused he walked straight into the door."

"my 20 year old girlfriend in 93 ,, that after two years I gave to donald,"

"you see , i know how dirty donald is. My guess is that non lawyers ny biz people have no idea. what it means to have your fixer flip."

"yes thx. its wild. because i am the one able to take him down."

[Frank Drackman]

You're leaving out the ones where he said he set you up with little boys in return for (redacted)

[Bwaaah]

[Clintonian oral not-sex?]

[Martinned]

TV conspiracies: we’ve hacked their computers but they’ve perfectly cleaned up the evidence!

Real conspiracies:
To: conspirator
From: famous person
Attachment: evidence.png

[ThePublius]

"Epstein added that a victim, whose name was redacted, spent hours with Trump."

Yea, because while the original documents as released did not redact the victim's name, the Democrats on the committee redacted the name to make Trump look bad. In fact, the victim said she never witnessed any wrongdoing by Trump.

""Oversight Committee Republicans were quick to point out that the victim's name was not redacted in the documents that were originally provided to the committee at large.

"It's because this victim, Virginia Giuffre, publicly said that she never witnessed wrongdoing by President Trump," noted the committee Republicans. "Democrats are trying to create a fake narrative to slander President Trump. Shame on them.""

'Hoax': Republicans slam Democrats for sharing altered Epstein documents to 'create a fake narrative' around Trump

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's the weak-ass GOP line.

Read the quotes above; even if you believe her, Virginia can't cover for any of that.

[Michael P]

The quotes above are a serially dishonest dead guy being vague and implying he had dirt that Joe Biden and Democrats never released. The only "there" that's there is whatever prejudice you brought to the topic. For example, Trump "asked ghislaine to stop" luring attractive young employees away from Mar-a-Lago: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5484136/trump-jeffrey-epstein-mar-a-lago-ghislaine-maxwell -- that's what Trump "knew about the girls". This dump doesn't provide anything more than empty innuendo.

I note you also left out the quotes where Epstein was explicitly trying to fabricate leverage to save his own reputation.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump knew about the girls but stayed quiet is not a good thing!

Yeah, the 'asking to stop' thing is no endorsement of Trump's integrity. It shows he knew and condoned it until he didn't.

And you ignore the quotes about how Trump didn't just know about the girls, he was fascinated to the point of walking into doors.

I'm awaiting the 'technically it's ephibophelia' defense any time now.

[Michael P]

You're just proving my point. There has never been any evidence that Trump "knew" anything about "the girls" except that Epstein was luring them away from the Mar-a-Lago spa.

Oh, and other girls supposedly once swam in Epstein's pool when Trump was there. Scandal! Shock! Horror! They may have even exposed their upper arms to the eyes of unrelated males! Fetch the fainting couch!

[Sarcastr0]

There has never been any evidence that Trump "knew" anything about "the girls" except

Yeah, so there's evidence.

other girls supposedly once swam in Epstein's pool when Trump was there.
You're kind of an idiot.
Good job defending Epstein's girls.

[Estragon]

“ I'm awaiting the 'technically it's ephibophelia' defense any time now.”

Wait no longer! Megyn Kelly is there:

“As for Epstein, I’ve said this before, but just as a reminder, I do know somebody very, very close to this case who is in a position to know virtually everything. Not everything, but virtually everything. And this person has told me from the start years and years ago that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person’s view, was not a pedophile. This is this person’s view, who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type.

“Like, he liked 15-year-old girls. And I realized this is disgusting. I’m definitely not trying to make an excuse for this. I’m just giving you facts, that he wasn’t into, like, 8-year-olds. But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby.

“And that is what I believed, and that is what I reliably was told for many years. And it wasn’t until we heard from Pam Bondi that they had tens of thousands of videos of alleged — forgive me, they used to call it kiddie porn, now they call it child sexual abuse material — on his computer that for the first time, I thought, oh, no, he was an actual pedophile.

“I mean, only a pedophile gets off on young children abuse videos. She’s never clarified it, I don’t know whether it’s true. I have to be honest, I don’t really trust Pam Bondi’s word on the Epstein matters anymore.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"Epstein wrote"

Very credible guy.

[Estragon]

I thought this was over

[Michael P]

It's never over for the people with TDS. They are going to take vague comments about well-known matters and insist that those comments mean Donald Trump was intimately involved in the things that one woman accused Jeffrey Epstein of doing -- while ignoring that the same woman stated under oath that she never saw Donald Trump doing anything improper.

[Estragon]

“It's never over for the people with TDS”

People like Lauren Bobert? People who care so much about child sex predation that they’ll shoot up pizza parlors with no basements? People like that?

I think we know that this goes beyond Ms Guiffre. Mike Johnson said there are 1000 victims. Maybe he has TDS too.

“Donald Trump was intimately involved”

Sounds like he’s been pretty intimately involved in whipping House members to keep this under wraps! On to the Senate! Are there 60 votes?

[windycityattorney]

Then just one of you pedo-defenders need to explain why Ghislaine Maxwell is at minimum security club-fed after meeting with Todd Blanche.

JUST ONE CREDIBLE REASON why that happened? Against all federal prison regulations?

Oh she said Trump was an angel and a gentleman at all times? The only person on planet earth who can release her from her 20yr fed sentence by commuting her sentence... she said nice things about him, did she now? Fancy that. And he sent the deputy AG/former personal lawyer to her FL prison to extract that valuable information? And then she was moved to club fed? Pshhhhhhhhhhh

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Dirsh said the same thing

[windycityattorney]

That is not a credible reason why Ghislaine is at club-fed.

Perhaps you can show me an example, other than Maxwell, where the deputy AG visited an already convicted/sentenced sex offender? I would take that as a response.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I guess now we know why Trump spent more effort keeping the files from being released "

know!

Well, I'd like to see ol Donny Trump wiggle his way out of THIS jam!

*Trump wiggle his way out of the jam easily*

Ah, Well. Nevertheless,"

@BronzeHammer October 1, 2016

[Estragon]

Past performance no guarantee of future results. Every investor knows this. It’s the same as before until it isn’t. Can you smell the flopsweat? Bullying Bobert seemed to not have the desired effect. Rumors today turning dark for Trump— can this get to 60 votes in the Senate? Probably not…

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep hope alive!

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, even making the focus 'will Trump get away with this' is kind of a tell you don't really care what he knew and condoned.

[Bob from Ohio]

Give it a rest. You are only interested because you think its the ONE Weird Trick that will finally get Trump, same as all the other Epstein truthers here these days.

[Sarcastr0]

You do have a habit of assuming everyone is the same transactional sociopath you are.

[Bob from Ohio]

Point to your 2021-2024 comments here about Epstein then.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What if instead we pointed to all your comments crying about victims being denied justice but you being suspiciously silent and almost defense when it’s someone you like?

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't care even last week!

It was fun to point out MAGA hypocricy, but I didn't really take it seriously - I didn't think there was any there there by this late date; it was all free-floating QAnon energy.

Turns out there's more than I thought. Not because it'll bring Trump down but because it looks like Trump turned a blind eye to Epstein's purveying of underage girls.

[Josh R]

Perhaps the most damning email came from reporter Michael Wolff in 2015:

I think you should let him [Trump] hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency.

On the merits for anyone else, Trump's actions would raise the greatest of suspicions. But with Trump, it's quite possible there is nothing more than low-level embarrassing stuff. He is so narcissistic, he will attempt to quash anything that even slightly goes against him. In the Russian 2016 interference probe he would have been exonerated without a special counsel had he cooperated. But no, he couldn't stand the fact that Russia did interfere on his behalf.

On the politics, let's not forget the Democrats only became interested in releasing the files after Trump took office in his second term. Before that, it was the MAGA right (including Patel and Bongino) that demanded their release because they felt the Deep State was protecting elites. Electorally, pissed off Trump haters who are recent converts to releasing the files make no difference, but pissed off MAGA voters could.

[Bob from Ohio]

"reporter Michael Wolf"

Another very credible guy.

[Michael P]

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/wolffs-admission-to-lies-in-his-book-puts-him-in-legal-jeopardy/

Wolff likes to mix fiction in with fact when he's talking about influential people, and he has an unhealthy obsession with Trump, much like a lot of the people here.

[Sarcastr0]

Better sit in for a long one; your 'nothing to see here' posting on this is gonna take a while.

[Michael P]

Your incessant gaslighting and spamming of vacuous conspiracy theories are only rivaled by loki13's inane and equally unhinged rants on the same topic.

Why do you believe Barack Obama and Joe Biden were just as protective of Jeffrey Epstein's supposed co-conspirators as Donald Trump?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know why neither bothered to release the docs.

But Trump's done way more work than either of them to keep this stuff wrapped up.
He's also done a lot more promising than either of them to bring the docs to light.

So you have a ton of extra work to do dismissing this new info, and any future info that comes out.
But Biden won't really do the job - Trump's made certain of that.

Rots of ruck with your future toolish toiling.

[Michael P]

So your argument is that Obama was fully complicit in Epstein's lenient retirement from child sexual abuse, Biden was complicit or senile, but Trump is uniquely terrible because the information might finally come out.

Figures.

[Sarcastr0]

your argument is that Obama was fully complicit

Sweaty. Working way too hard.

[Josh R]

I don't buy into your narrative.

I think the files haven't been previously released because there is little there. MAGA world won't accept that conclusion and they still don't get why Trump hasn't released them (did Trump join the Deep State). I'm sticking with Trump won't release them because of low-level embarrassment.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, it already looks like he condoned Epstein's actions.

I agree that smart money is there's not much more there. But there's plenty here now.

[Josh R]

Condoning is the type of low-level embarrassment that is a nothing burger electorally, but that Trump can't stand being exposed.

[Krayt]

I recommend continuing to name Open threads as Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc. Even though they are every day, it makes for easy visual identification when thumb-whipping down the Volokh scroll wall, and lets you know you've got the right one, and whether a day has been missed somehow.

[Bwaaah]

+1

[apedad]

Here's a link where you can shop for your ignorant friends or family members:

https://emflag.com/3x5-confederate-outdoor-flag-om/

"Product Description

Enhance your outdoor decor with this high-quality 3'x5' Confederate Outdoor Flag, crafted from durable printed nylon. This flag, formerly known as The Confederate Naval Jack, is a striking representation of history, featuring vibrant colors and intricate design elements. The flag adheres to the specifications set forth by the Secretary of the Confederate Navy on May 26, 1863, making it a faithful reproduction that resonates with historical significance.

Celebrate history with pride by adding this 3'x5' Confederate Outdoor Flag to your collection or display!"

[Poxigah146]

That's a terrible price.

[Bunny495]

Price seems reasonable for a quality flag. I am required by international law to fly various flags on my boat when traveling outside America. These flags are usually attached to the starboard yardarm and exposed to sun and weather. If you check Amazon for what are termed courtesy flags it is common to see reviews like if you get a 90 day permit visiting the Bahamas you will need three of these flags as they do not last. I have no experience with this company but learned the hard way lots of flags are basically use a short time and discard. You get what you pay for.

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B000MJJI66/ref=acr_dpx_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews&tag=reasonmagazinea-20#reviews-filter-bar

[Krayt]

That's a terrible price.

Price seems reasonable for a quality flag.

"Durable printed nylon.

When you care about the subject matter.

I am reminded of an ancient Saturday Night Live original cast ad skit, with shoes that were "fine petroleum products".

All I have to say is if you look wistfully on slave owning days, please do honor it with a quality flag printed on plastic.

[Commenter_XY]

What happens if you fly a Jolly Roger flag?

[Frank Drackman]

You have your "Pride" flags and we have ours

[Frank Drackman]

Is your link where you shop for your ignorant friends/fambily members??

[ThePublius]

Damn! If it was stitched and embroidered, not printed, I might have ordered it. I collect flags.

[DDHarriman]

Ive already got 2

[apedad]

Alvin (TX) woman admits to death threats against public officials

Abigail J. Shry admitted that on Aug. 5, 2023, she placed a call to the chambers of a federal judge and made derogatory statements and threats to anyone that went after then former President Donald Trump. She also made a direct threat to a then sitting congresswoman, all democrats in Washington D.C. and all people in the LGBTQ community.

At the hearing, Shry claimed that at the time she made the calls, she did not think it was illegal to do so. She said she thought it was freedom of speech and that she did not intend to act on the threats.

In her calls, Shry stated, “You are in our sights, we want to kill you. If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly...” She added that “you will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.”

Sentencing is set for Jan. 14 before U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison. At that time, Shry faces up to five years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 maximum fine.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/alvin-woman-admits-death-threats-against-public-officials

Trump pardon coming in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . . .

[ReaderY]

A question for people who know British law:

in Magna Carta, the nobles got a provision that only Parliament could strip a peer of noble title or work corruption of blood rendering the stripping permanent through the bloodline. My understanding is that this has been British law ever since. The last time there was a stripping of titles was in World War I, when it took an Act of Parliament, the Titles Deprivation Act, to strip titles from British nobles who committed treason - fought on the side of Germany - during World War I. And even that didn’t strip the HRH title. There was a former British Prince whose passport title ended up being HRH Mr.

So how does the King get to strip a noble’s title on his own? Wasn’t preventing this sort of thing a big part of what Magna Carta was about?

[Martinned]

I discussed this question with some smart people on social media last week.

Basically, the conclusion is that a peerage (=the right to sit in the House of Lords) can only be removed by statute. But all other titles, honours, medals, etc can be removed by the King under the royal prerogative. It's not even clear that Andrew Windsor can complain in court about any of that.

https://davidallengreen.com/2025/11/an-instance-of-the-royal-prerogative/

Of course, since the House of Lords Act 1999 the royal princes no longer sit in the House of Lords. Whether they still have a peerage (in the sense of being part of the group that is represented by the representative peers) is a tricky question.

If you want an even more detailed discussion of this entire situation, I can recommend this blog post: https://constitution-unit.com/2025/11/08/prince-andrew-and-the-future-of-the-monarchy/

[Frank Drackman]

Can you still smell the tar and feathers from your previous life?

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY — After one of the gun bloggers invoked Magna Carta one time too many for my patience, I did a shallow several-hours-long dive into various fascinations of Magna Carta. What I emerged with was: Holy Crap! If you set yourself up to explain to others what Magna Carta means, you had better have 30 years or more of scholarship to get ready to do it.

That work requires contextual analysis relying on historical survivals which are thin on the ground to begin with, and requires cross-contextual readings among about 6 languages. I say, "about," because I could not even find a clear explanation about what the relevant languages are.

How many American gun advocates are qualified to tell you how, "Law French," differs from Medieval French? How much do you have to read in Old Saxon to understand context for mysteriously-named legal practices which show up in Magna Carta text?

I think the British legal community finally gave up taking responsibility for answers to questions like those in the 19th century. They seem more or less to have decided, "Forget it, nobody has to know about that stuff anymore." Of course the historians have not given up.

But please, if any of that matters to you, I confess continuing ignorance. Correct me. I know it has been one of history's longest-running historical shows. I do not mean to disrespect it. More the opposite.

[Martinned]

Speaking of intellectual property law, here is one from a lawyer on LinkedIn (lightly edited):

Birkenstock has won the copyright case about copycat sandals in the Netherlands.

In yesterday’s judgment, the district court Midden Nederland (Utrecht) injuncted Scapino’s copies of the Arizona, Boston and Florida models. After a detailed analysis of these three sandals, the court concluded that they met the threshold for copyright protection.

The characteristic Umriss, visible cork sole, and lines in the footbed (among other things) were all considered creative expressions of the sandals’ author, Karl Birkenstock.

Although protection for two other models was denied, this is hopefully an important step toward broader recognition of the copyrights protecting Birkenstock’s iconic sandal designs across Europe — and against the flood of imitations on the European market.

Interestingly, the court did not wait for the upcoming Mio and konektra/USM Haller judgments [of the EU Court of Justice] (expected on 4 December). About the German BGH decision of 20 February, the Utrecht court is brief: it simply states that it has “reached a different conclusion.”

For the record, the AG Opinion in the Mio and Konektra case is here. Because it is a prejudicial question case, it only explains the law without giving a conclusive answer about the legal dispute at bar, but my sense is that the AG's proposed answer favours Birkenstock, because it seems to say that things like sandals are capable of being works in the sense of copyright law.

[hobie]

Trump: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and statutorily rape a trafficked minor, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?...It's, like, incredible."

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe even leave her to Asphyxiate (NOT Drowned, there's a difference) in an overturned Oldsmobile???

[hobie]

I thought you hayseeds were all gung ho against pedophilia.

[Drewski]

Frank has always been pro-pedophilia, and not shy about it. Just go back and look at the stories he tells routinely of him peeping in on his daughter's sleepovers.

[Frank Drackman]

Someone had to make sure they’re sleeping.

[ducksalad]

Cmon, hobie. All it says is that he spent several hours with her, and you assume the worst.

They could have been discussing Victorian literature or playing a very intense game of chess. It could even be he was counseling her on how to get free - a rescue project! - and he's too modest and respectful of her privacy to go boasting about it.

[apedad]

Trump playing chess?!?

Checkers maybe, but not chess.

[ducksalad]

Ahem.

The following remarks [are] credited to J. H. Blackburne, the Enghsh chess master:
''Draughts is a less attractive game, infinitely less, but it is more scientific. You see, a step at draughts is irreparable. At chess, however, you can get back, change the disposition of your men, and possibly win."

"CHESS as a showy game may claim the sway.
But DRAUGHTS for depth will bear the palm away;
Chess can be played by Philidor's though blind.
OUR GAME requires both sight and thoughtful mind."

-John Drummond - in his 2nd Edition 1851.

Last year at the Ohio [checkers] tournament there was this chess master that showed up. We talked a bit and he told me how fascinated he was with checkers when he attempted to solve a problem. He was amazed that the solution was about 35 moves deep and that he could not solve it. He claimed that he had no idea the about the amount of depth the game had and the precision needed to play it. He never played in the tournament, but showed up nonetheless in great respect for our game. I never saw him after that first day, but maybe he will make another appearance this year, I won't know because I won't be there. Checkers can fascinate people, they just need to give it a chance like that guy did.

The above unbiased remarks are posted at the American Checker Federation.

[apedad]

HA!

OK, let's just agree Trump is an idiot.

[Commenter_XY]

An idiot who managed to beat Hillary and Kamala. Are they morons for losing to an idiot?

[apedad]

(from July)

Legislation Requiring Cash Acceptance Faces an Uphill Battle

Two U.S. Senators have introduced the Payment Choice Act, the latest attempt to ensure that consumers can use cash at physical retail stores. While several states and cities have passed similar laws, previous efforts to enact cash acceptance legislation at the federal level have stalled.

Under the proposal, businesses that accept in-person payments at a physical location would be required to accept cash for transactions up to $500. Additionally, retailers would be prohibited from charging cash-paying customers a higher price.

The bill’s sponsors, Senators Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.), noted that approximately 4.5% of U.S. households lack access to banking services, making cash transactions necessary for these individuals. The Senators also argued that the dollar is the nation’s legal tender and that any business operating in the U.S. should be willing to accept it.

https://www.paymentsjournal.com/legislation-requiring-cash-acceptance-faces-an-uphill-battle/

Business owners know their customer base and plan their business practices accordingly and I don't see why the govt should be involved here.

[hobie]

I hope it passes just to crush the rackets used by fitness franchises. None accept cash so they can get direct deposit from your bank account. Once they latch onto that, it is almost impossible to break free.

[M L]

Poor hobo got his bank account overdrawn by Big Booty Boot Camp.

[ducksalad]

Many of us are old enough to remember when the push was to limit extra charges for credit cards. Now we've reached the point where it's cash that needs protection.

I'm with you. It very much pisses me off when businesses won't take cash; however, everything that pisses me off does not need to be banned by federal law.

There is a positive aspect though - as long as they're working on mandating cash acceptance, that means they haven't started work on prohibiting it.

---
Similar situation on radio. When I was a kid they felt like FM needed protection so they passed a regulation that AM radios over a certain price had to have FM also. Now in 2025 they've gone the other way and passed a law that car radios have to retain AM capability.

They always need to be mandating or prohibiting something. Leaving it alone isn't in their mindset.

[M L]

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason they're trying to mandate AM radio capability is that local traffic safety information is typically broadcast AM. You'll see that often in the mountains near here, signs alerting you to listen to a specific AM frequency for up to date traffic advisories.

[ducksalad]

Well then, they need to make turning it on mandatory. Perhaps make 16-year olds taking their first driver's license test demonstrate they can do it within 15 seconds, after all it can be hard when the dash console has twelve menus and two hundred options.

Make it part of traffic stops. "Ma'am, I need to see your driver's license and insurance card, and hear either the Dana Show or some high-school football analysis coming out of your speakers."

Wait, what about self-driving cars? We need to force Tesla AI to listen to talk radio....maybe it already does.

[John F. Carr]

The 4.5% figure sounds low. You can't get a bank account without the right papers or if you have had a bank account closed with a negative balance.

I support requiring cash acceptance for everyday transactions. I don't care if I can slap a wad of bills on the counter to pay for an airline ticket or pet reptile.

[Commenter_XY]

Americans should never, ever give up physical money.

[M L]

So what are liberals up to today?

Hundreds of Babies, Toddlers Referred to UK’s De-Radicalisation Programme ‘Prevent’

The vast majority of these referrals are for “Islamist Extremism”.. ‘Prevent’ is an element of the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism programme ‘Contest’ set up in the wake of the 7/7 London terrorist bombings.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/11/13/hundreds-of-babies-toddlers-referred-to-uks-de-radicalisation-programme-prevent/

Um. Ok.

The stupidity of leftist thinking never ceases to amaze.

Meanwhile, also referred to in the piece: "Concern About Migration Listed as ‘Right-Wing Terrorist Ideology’ by UK Anti-Terror Programme"

[Martinned]

Wait, your complaint is that the UK government is too islamophobic? Leaving to one side that it's nonsense, I'm fascinated by your lack of concern for consistency.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Liberals are drinking oat milk while chatting about Nick Offerman as Chester Arthur.

[apedad]

"Don't mean to offend (well maybe a little bit) but nobody gives a fuck about your European news."

(h/t Frank Drackman)

[shawn_dude]

LOL Breitbart. I bet if you clicked through, there'd also be something about what Bat Boy is up to today.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My "The Morning Dispatch" news email had a few stories involving Israel. Two of them ...

"Trump officially asks Israeli president to pardon Netanyahu"

President Trump sent an official letter to Israeli President Isaac Herzog calling on him to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and claimed the corruption charges against him are "political lawfare." [Axios]

"Israel’s president says ‘shocking’ settler violence against Palestinians must end"

Israel’s president and high-ranking military officials on Wednesday condemned attacks a day earlier by Jewish settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, calling for an end to a growing wave of settler violence in the occupied territory.

President Isaac Herzog described the attacks as “shocking and serious,” adding a rare and powerful voice to what has been muted criticism by top Israeli officials of the settler violence. Herzog’s position, while largely ceremonial, is meant to serve as a moral compass and unifying force for the country. [AP]

[Martinned]

Yes, Trump mentioned a pardon for Netanyahu when he addressed the Knesset as well. He seemed quite unconcerned by the question of whether such a thing as a presidential pardon exists in Israel.

[Martinned]

It turns out it's quite easy to check that. In Basic Law: The President, section 11(b) gives the President the power to "pardon offenders and modify sentences by reducing or commuting them."

https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawThePresident.pdf

[Martinned]

Opposition leader Yair Lapid has said, in response to Trump's letter, that "Israeli law states that the first condition for receiving a pardon is admission of guilt and expressing remorse for one's actions". It's not obvious to me which law that might be.

The website of the President suggests this might be more of an issue governed by custom:

Granting pardons
The president possesses the legal authority to pardon offenders and modify their sentences by reducing or commuting them.

Anyone may write to the president to request a pardon, either personally, through someone authorized to speak on their behalf, or through a first-degree relative. Individuals may ask the president to modify any sentence imposed by a court, including the following sentences: imprisonment; community service; driving disqualifications; fines, including traffic fines and administrative fines; and life imprisonment, which may be commuted, and requests may also be submitted for the further commutation of already-commuted life sentences. Individuals may also request reductions to xxx; the erasure of records of traffic violations; and modifications to disciplinary action taken against licensed traders (suspension or cancellation of a license).

According to established policy, the President considers a request for a pardon only after the end of all judicial proceedings in the case.

Requests for pardons are addressed to the president and are conveyed to the Pardons Department in the Ministry of Justice or Ministry of Defense, depending on the context. Requests for pardons are examined after receiving the information and opinions necessary for a decision to be made, including facts and opinions from relevant authorities. At the end of this process, the opinions are presented to the minister of justice or minister of defense before a recommendation is made to the president.

In all the years of the existence of the institution of pardons, the act of granting a pardon has also been an expression of each president’s vision, worldview, and values system, which play a significant and deliberate role in his decision regarding whether or not to grant a pardon.

The president’s signature on each pardon requires the countersignature of the relevant minister.

https://www.president.gov.il/en/institution/

[loki13]

Trump is a president whose lack of knowledge is only exceeded by his lack of curiosity, and the sum total of those deficits cannot disturb his confidence that everything works as his addled brain believes it does.

Insane Clown President: Magnets, How Do They Work?

[loki13]

"is meant to serve as a moral compass and unifying force for the country."

Trump: "I see those words, but I don't understand what they mean."

[loki13]

Reminder:

In December 2018, Esptein wrote an email about Trump that said, "because I am the one able to take him down."

July 6, 2019, Epstein was arrested by Trump's DOJ and held in the Manhattan Correctional Center.
He was denied bail, and appealed the decision.

While the appeal was pending, Epstein was found unconscious on July 23, 2029, after being (allegedly!) attacked by Nicholas Tataglione.

Who is Tartaglione? A dirty former cop, murderer ... and someone currently working with right-wing influencers to get a pardon from, um, Trump.

Anyway, Epstein was then placed on suicide watch in an observation cell. Through a ... bizarre series of glitches which include a failure to observe him, malfunctioning cameras, falsified records, and unusable footage, Epstein managed to "kill himself" early in the morning of August 10, 2019.

Trump's DOJ announced "there is nothing to see," and because of his death, all charges against him were dismissed so there was never any public airing of evidence or the issues.

Meanwhile, we have been repeatedly told that, among other things, Trump isn't in the files (he is), and that there is no client list or list of names. Of course, we do see emails like the one called "LIST FOR BANNON STEVE" which is ... a list of names.

Also, it's kind of weird that some people think that there is some whole giant conspiracy of lizard people who talk about raping kids using code words like "pizza" when in actuality what really happens is the following:

From: My Rich Friend
To: Epstein, Jeffrey

Hey, it was fun using the poors for that human polo game at Mar-a-Lago last week!!!! You up for some child rape this weekend? Also, I hear there is a sale on Bentleys- I need to pick up a few, you in?

[Martinned]

Raskin on Ghislaine Maxwell: "The fact she was able to be transferred to a prison camp where no sex offenders had ever been allowed to enter before, much less live there, is an indication they've got some kind of meeting of the minds about what Trump can provide to her & what she can provide to him"

[Dr. Ed 2]

SHE IS NOT A SEX OFFENDER!

A sex Offender has been convicted of sex offenses, i.e. unlawful penetration. She didn't penetrate any of those girls.

She's AN ACCESSORY to sex offenses but that doesn't make her a "sex offender."

[David Nieporent]

Every word you said here was wrong. Every single word. Your definition of sex offender is fictional. Your claims about what she did are false. Your claims about what she was convicted of are fabricated.

Why do you lie like this?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Epstein's advice to Steve Bannon regarding questioning Kavanaugh's accuser was prime too.

https://www.alternet.org/epstein-trump-kavanaugh/

[Michael P]

So much for the "last reasonable man" shtick. It's too bad there wasn't a Democrat president from 2021 to 2025 who might have investigated those claims, I guess?

[John F. Carr]

WBUR reports the Massachusetts legislature is advancing a bill to ban so-called book bans. There are several bills in the legislature, including H.3591, H.3584, and H.3598 as well as a Senate bill that WBUR did not identify. The essence of the proposals is the librarian is in control of book selection and the school committee is not. As a matter of constitutional law, I think the school committee ought to be able to remove books for any reason or no reason without anybody complaining about rights violations. As a matter of statutory law, Massachusetts does not have to grant the school committee such power. Municipal subdivisons do not have constitutional rights enforceable against the state.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/11/13/book-ban-procedure-bill-massachusetts-senate

[ducksalad]

So at a federally owned medical facility, only the MDs and NPs can write prescriptions. The POTUS cannot write prescriptions. However, he can fire any MD or NP who declines to prescribe something he wants prescribed, and replace them with someone compliant.

Is it the same thing with the librarian and school board? Or does it include employment protection, in which case the protection then itself becomes the main problem, as drunken, AWOL, and incompetent librarians claim they're being fired for not removing a book.

[John F. Carr]

A school librarian who has served three years for the same district has tenure. Quoting Massachusetts General Laws chapter 71 section 42:

A teacher with professional teacher status, pursuant to section forty-one, shall not be dismissed except for inefficiency, incompetency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, insubordination or failure on the part of the teacher to satisfy teacher performance standards developed pursuant to section thirty-eight of this chapter or other just cause.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But they can eliminate the library -- at which point she only has tenure if she is certified in something else.

I had a student in that situation -- she had something like 13 years in as an art teacher but was getting her elementary classroom endorsement so she would have *a* job if her district eliminated elementary art, as expected, for budget reasons.

[Bob from Ohio]

"librarian is in control of book selection and the school committee is not"

No way that goes horribly wrong one day.

[bernard11]

Neither the librarian nor the school committee is divine, so error is possible either way.

[David Nieporent]

You miss BfO's point, which for once has some merit: a school board is accountable; a librarian who essentially can't be fired is not.

The problem is that the merit of his point is based on a misrepresentation (advertent or inadvertent) of the proposed bill by John F. Carr: while the librarian would be in charge of picking books, the school board could still choose to remove books from the library if the criteria are met; the librarian could not prevent that.

[ThePublius]

"Seattle’s new mayor Katie Wilson: "We will not allow grocery chains to close stores at will""

She says food deserts are not natural, they are caused by corporations abandoning our communities.

No. They are caused by rampant shoplifting and crime-ridden neighborhoods making running a retail business there untenable.

State control of retail stores? That's not legal.

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1988786486108647862

[Brett Bellmore]

Under current economic jurisprudence, some degree of state control of retail stores is probably 'constitutional'.

To hold otherwise would be Lochnerism, after all. As soon as money changes hands rights leave the room.

[apedad]

Where/when did she say, "degree of state control of retail stores?"

Even the Daily Caller writes, "Wilson said during her mayoral run that corporate grocery chains should not be allowed to only sell food to those who can afford it and expressed support for a 'public option,' meaning that government-run grocery stores would be established."

[ThePublius]

First, who are you quoting? It isn't me, I never said "degree of state control of retail stores."

She did, however, say "We cannot allow giant grocery chains to stomp all over our communities, close stores at will, and leave behind food deserts."

"We cannot allow." What part of that is confusing?

[Brett Bellmore]

He's quoting me, obviously.

[ThePublius]

Got it, thanks.

[apedad]

I'm quoting Brett, obviously.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- how can she stop them from closing stores in her jurisdiction?

Their maximum liability is the building and what's in it.
She could seize it, but can't force the company to stock it, nor to staff it. Nor to pay the significant electrical bill so all the perishable goes bad and all the frozen melts.

Bear in mind that there is only 2-5 days worth of food in a store so once the decision is made to stop restocking it, it's empty in a week. She might have an issue if the same company has stores in the White neighborhoods, but those can close too.

And it's like cities burnt flat in riots -- the stores haven't come back.

[John F. Carr]

Pass a law giving Mayor Wilson the right to match any offer for sale of a building most recently used as a grocery store. Same for Mayor Mamdani. See how that works.

In Massachusetts land used for agriculture is taxed at a lower rate. In return, the town has a right to match any offer for sale of the property. Before it turns into McMansions the town can turn it into a vacant lot.

[David Nieporent]

"Seattle’s new mayor Katie Wilson: "We will not allow grocery chains to close stores at will""

I forget who observed that Ayn Rand's heroes were all unrealistic cartoon characters, while her villains were all-too-believable.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I want everyone in this great city of ours to have a roof over their head. I want universal child care, free K-8 summer care"

That's nothing. I want everyone to have a beach house.

[loki13]

Update-

Oral arguments just concluded in the hearing on the motion to dismiss the indictments of Comey and James due to Halligantions of the DOJ (improper appointments and lack of proper attorney for Grand Jury).

Judge promises ruling before Thanksgiving.

Note- unlike the many, many, many other dumbass USA appointments that the Courts have found invalid, this one might have severe repercussions because ... again, Halligan. She was the indictment signer and the only attorney before the grand jury. That matters.

And it matters so much for in the Comey case because it was brought just before the SOL ran out. James has a plausible argument that it should be dismissed with prejudice, but Comey's case ... looks fairly strong. IMO. Of course, this is only one of many very strong issues for both of them, so there's that.

4D Chess Time- Honestly, a dismissal on these grounds might be the best result for Trump. He could throw a tantrum about judges blah blah blah while trying to keep the mounting evidence of his unhinged communications and Halligan's sheer incompetence under wraps.

[loki13]

Most notable issue for the hearing, and one that I flagged earlier (and eventually led to muting the usual moron... suspect)-

Judge Currie repeatedly pushed back on the DOJ's argument that Bondi "ratified" the Halligan shenanigans. Judge said that not only was it nonsensical as a matter of law, but more importantly, Bondi could not possibly have ratified the conduct when the DOJ admitted in a later filing that it did not have the transcripts or the record of the hearing, and Bondi could not possibly ratify conduct when she didn't know what the conduct was or even tried to learn what it was by obtaining the complete transcript.

It's always gratifying when reality wins out over lies.

Because ... they lie. They lie. They lie. And a lot of the commenters here are only too eager to extend their tongues out to lick the boots of the liars.

Don't be like that. At a certain point, the fault isn't on the liars- it's on you for choosing to believe them.

[Life of Brian]

Loki orgasmic that crotchety old Team Blue judge had the same feelz he did. Must be rough sledding IRL these days.

Meanwhile, Comey's reply brief -- stuck back in the old boring domain of the law -- breathed not a hint of a suggestion that Bondi's review of the proceedings was inadequate to ratify Halligan's conduct.

I guess we'll see if Judge Ratched comes up with any actual legal standard upon which to base her feelz come opinion time.

[loki13]

BTW, I flagged what I thought was the most notable issue of the hearing. The one that I suspect others will be hearing about from various sources is the "Nixon moment."

To recap-

The judge ordered the DOJ to sent the "complete" grand jury proceedings.

The DOJ ... didn't. They sent a tiny portion (literally the cross-x of a witness for one part).

The judge then ordered, um, complete means COMPLETE.

The DOJ then sent what they said was the complete transcript of the proceedings. While noting that they had never asked for, or had them, before- which meant that Bondi didn't ask for, or have them, before. OOPS.

But wait! During the hearing, Judge Currie noted that, apparently, there is a missing chunk from what the DOJ provided.

So even the COMPLETE COMPLETE proceedings still didn't have everything.

RELEASE THE (COMPLETE) HALLIGAN FILES!

(I kid, but only kind of. How bad was Halligan that they feel the need to desperately and repeatedly cover it up even though it will obviously be found out? .... it's a question that answers itself, isn't it?)

Anyway, I honestly think that at this point Judge Currie is likely to grant the motions to dismiss, not only because of the strength of the legal arguments and the facts, but also because she stated she'd have an order before Thanksgiving, and didn't order a more fulsome explanation of the missing material.

[Zarniwoop]

Anyway, I honestly think that at this point Judge Currie is likely to grant the motions to dismiss, not only because of the strength of the legal arguments and the facts, but also because she stated she'd have an order before Thanksgiving, and didn't order a more fulsome explanation of the missing material.

Got a good source for play-by-play reporting on the hearing? I noticed the still-incomplete-transcript issue too; apparently there’s nothing after 4:28pm, and the indictments were completed a few hours later - also, reportedly, well after a GJ typically goes home for the night.

But if the court reporter stopped work and went home, there’s not much else the judge could order DOJ to produce.

[loki13]

Obviously, the judge could have made that a focus ... if she had any questions about the propriety of the hearing. There are ways to get people to explain things.

I don't think that there was any lingering doubt, though. At a certain point, I think Judge Currie was like, "Enough of this clown show. Why bother making them lie to me again?"

By the way, the Bondi Declaration was the greatest self-own (other than, um, EVERYTHING about Halligan). The judge literally started by asking (paraphrase) "Why did you need that?"

Translation- you knew you effed up, which is why you did that. In other words, you pretty much destroyed your main case.

She then pivoted to noting that Bondi couldn't possibly have ratified conduct both because the DOJ didn't bother to try and get the transcripts ... and ... because even at this point THEY STILL DON'T HAVE THEM!

Woof. For anyone who remembers what the DOJ was ... this is sad. It is truly shocking watching District Courts around the nation realize that the DOJ is just a bunch of liars. The presumption of .... irregularity.

Anyway, I honestly think the main issue isn't whether the INDICTMENT SIGNER was invalidly appointed, or whether the DOJ will be called out (to the extent that a judge would use a phrase like "inconsistent") .... it's the remedies issue.

On that, if I was a betting man? I think .... I'd give Comey a good shot, less sure about James.

[loki13]

By the way, to explain further what I meant at the top...

Yes, Judge Currie could have held the DOJ's feet to the fire on the
"missing court reporter during a super important part of the Grand Jury Proceedings" issue. And yes, I would have enjoyed that.

Except, as entertaining as that would have been ... it doesn't matter. Do you know why? Because it just goes to show that Halligan was not competent. Seriously ... what friggin' USA would DISMISS THE COURT REPORTER while holding the Grand Jury over and talking to them?

None. Zero. It wouldn't happen. Do you know who would? An attorney that didn't know what side of the court to sit on. An attorney who would sign a "no bill" and hand it in. An attorney who had no business in front of a grand jury in general, and certainly not on her own.

[windycityattorney]

Not to detract from your point; but every courtroom I go into (in state court even) there is a recording system that is passively listening to anything said while court is in session.

So even without a court reporter; anything said during a hearing is recorded and is preserved and a court reporter can be appointed after to listen to the recording and make an official record.

We have had to do that for certain misdemeanor pleas (in my jx those don't require a court reporter) and a client wants to withdraw a plea. A court order for the recording of the proceeding to be transcribed is entered and some weeks later, we get the full transcript.

I have to imagine federal courts have the same thing as they are typically vastly better funded/equipped than state court's.

[David Nieporent]

I have to imagine federal courts have the same thing as they are typically vastly better funded/equipped than state court's.

Federal courts of course do that, but I'm not sure whether that applies to grand jury proceedings.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I just met a surgery resident that is a Catholic that is being required to perform surgeries on people’s masturbating hand which is against his religion!!! This looks like a job for Josh Blackman!!!!

[Kenneth Almquist]

According to the government’s filings, the grand jury proceedings were recorded, and the recording was sent to a transcription service. So it wouldn’t be a case of the court reporter going home, but it could be that the system stopped recording. Halligan has zero experience in the Federal system, so it’s entirely possible she screwed up. For example, if she scheduled the grand jury proceedings to end at 4PM, the recording equipment might have been turned off because the schedule showed that the proceedings were over for the day.

[Estragon]

Yeah I wonder if we have to consider the real possibility that Blanche and Bondi gave this to Halligan in the hopes that it would get screwed up and go away. That way, they can be seen as doing client numero uno’s bidding as asked, but are insulated from having to actually pursue this bullshit and then have someone else to blame when this gets tossed.

[David Nieporent]

the real possibility that Blanche and Bondi gave this to Halligan in the hopes that it would get screwed up and go away

Remember, Trump is the one who expressly ordered Bondi to pick Halligan.

[Zarniwoop]

Yep. It's stereotypical Trump, in fact: making appointments based on "they say nice things about me and look good on television" instead of tired old concepts like competence and experience.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, she may be a great insurance lawyer, for all we know.

[loki13]

And we know your type too, even if you're posting under a different name (again). KTHXBYE!

[loki13]

Anyway, I am waiting for the next series on Fox News...

Fucking Kids- Trump's Secret 4D Chess Move to Win the Mid-Terms?

Next up on Hannity- was Sleepy Joe and the Biden Crime Family too senile to Make America Great Again by having sex with children? Why Biden's absence from the Epstein Files shows that he was asleep at the wheel.

[M L]

I don't get this. Virginia Guffrie said Trump's a great guy, did nothing wrong . . . and Dems are now trying to convince people that he did something . . . based on the words of desperate criminal rapist and universally reviled public figure, Jeffrey Epstein? And oh by the way Dems tried to redact the name to juice the hoax?

[grb]

Shorter ML : I don't care if Trump knew Epstein was peddling underage girls as long as one victim says Trump didn't abuse her.

Even Shorter ML : I sold my soul long ago to whore for Trump.

[Michael P]

Where is the evidence that Epstein was peddling anyone? (He was convicted on charges related to being the "john" in prostitution, not being a pimp.)

You need to get your facts in line before you start casting aspersions on others.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit stop digging.

[Michael P]

You also need to get your facts in line before you criticize others. You don't have anything except your prejudice and nastiness, a perpetual rage against people who disagree with you.

[Sarcastr0]

You're defending Jeffery Epstein.

Your complaints about prejudice and nastiness can fuck all the way off.

[Michael P]

I am not defending Jeffrey Epstein in the slightest (see my comment below for example). I am asking where is the evidence for the particular crime that grb tried to impute third-hand guilt about. It's not a crime that anyone has been convicted for, or as far as I know charged or even alleged in court filings or serious reporting.

That you are so intent on attacking me rather than answering the question ... answers the question.

Yet again, you prove my point.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's vibes man. Vibes!

[windycityattorney]

There is a prince without a castle over in the U.K. Why do you think he lost his titles and lands? What friendship did he have that led to this??

Also, even though he gave multiple different competing answers... Trump at one point said he was mad at Epstein for taking his massage girls away. WHY WERE UNDERAGE GIRLS WORKING FOR TRUMP DOING MASSAGES? How many of the victims who came forward said they were recruited and groomed (by Maxwell and Epstein) and it started with massage jobs??? Why is nobody asking Trump why the f he had underage girls working at his club giving old rich dudes massages?? How is this not a red flag?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why is nobody asking Trump why the f he had underage girls working at his club giving old rich dudes massages?? "

Perhaps because he didn't have underage girls working at his club giving old rich dudes massages? God you guys love to slurp up the bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, it sure seems like your 'he wasn't pedaling he was the john' is defending Epstein.

All in service of Trump, of course.

But you're not covering yourself in glory here at all.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You're defending Jeffery Epstein."

Do you remember when Hitler killed John Lennon?

[M L]

grb: Isn't that exactly why Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar a Lago? Genuinely asking, I don't follow this closely.

Sorry, no. Whether actual policy issues or personal stuff, you won't find me defending Trump all the time. There are plenty of others willing to do that. Just the opposite.

EDIT: Now I am googling. Washington Post: "Epstein wrote that Trump knew of sexual abuse by didn't participate" So what's the deal? Is WaPo a right wing rag now? Are you guys that love to talk about Trump "F****** Kids" just descending deeper and deeper into severe mental illness? Are you going to change up your narratives on the fly? Claim it's just some sick joke that is only funny to soyboys?

[Michael P]

And in particular, the WaPo reads a lot into a dangling pronoun:

“Trump knew of it. and came to my house many times during that period,” Epstein wrote in an email to himself on Feb. 1, 2019, several months before he was arrested on sex trafficking charges and killed himself in jail. “He never got a massage.”

... for whatever level of belief we should put in an email by a scumbag to himself, knowing he was on a short line and that the current President (Trump) was not going to let him skate on light charges like Obama did.

[John 4]

This is what a cultist looks like, folks.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And then she committed Trumpicide.

[shawn_dude]

You're ignoring the significant list of young girls who complained about Trump at the Miss Teen USA contest, the other Epstein survivors that have mentioned trump, and the series of civil lawsuits against Trump for sexual assault. At the very least, Trump is known for sexually assaulting women and enjoying the company of minor girls in inappropriate ways while being a witness to underage sex trafficking by his friend and covering for him.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump’s first military order in January 2017 was to assassinate a little American girl and 9 of her little friends…so he has literally killed a little girl.

[Bunny495]

Not sure how you define significant list. There were also claims by contestants "that chaperones announced his arrival and told them to cover up, and she did not recall any inappropriate behavior."

[Michael P]

This is your city: https://www.chron.com/food/article/eataly-expands-houston-galleria-italy-21126912.php

This is your city on leftism: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15287597/westfield-emporium-san-francisco-california.html

Construction costs for just one venue in a Houston mall are almost 10% the price of an entire mall in San Francisco.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you're comparing like with like, given geographical and urban structural differences.

But I agree that progressivism has an issue with roadblocks beyond utility.
I'm reading a book about it!

Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back
By Marc J. Dunkelman

[Zarniwoop]

Article 1: buildout of a single 20,000 square foot store within an existing structure in Houston.

Article 2: total valuation of a 1.5 million square foot mall in Cali (multi-story, so it has to be earthquake-engineered, too, in ways Houston probably doesn’t).

Shockingly, the cost for these two things is not the same! STOP THE PRESSES!!1!

I can’t recall seeing such a silly apples to oranges comparison here at the VC in quite some time - at least a week or two.

[Michael P]

Do you think that the costs for the two should be closer together?

Because my point was rather obviously that the San Francisco mall price reflects severe adverse impacts from its environment. External factors being equal, the mall should cost much more than 11.5x as much as the Houston build-out. And it did, until recently.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Three executions were scheduled this week.

One will not occur. After SCOTUS (with Jackson dissenting without comment) refused a final stay, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt stopped the scheduled execution of Tremane Wood today, commuting his sentence to life without parole.

==

Also: Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should stay a mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that would require a 7-year-old girl residing in Dallas, Texas, with her mother to be sent back to Venezuela.

Sotomayor and Jackson dissented from a denial.

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/castro-v-guevara/

[Bob from Ohio]

"Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt"

What good is it for the most conservative state to elect a GOP governor if he's just going to act like a Democrat.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Good to see you admit that only democrats have the moral and legal sense required to know that executing someone who didn’t kill anyone is wrong! Thanks for the compliment.

[M L]

THIS, and only this, is what will sink Trump and the GOP in the midterms, and in the future, if anyone actually wants know . . .

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/11/13/trump-deputies-spar-over-h-1b-visas/
https://x.com/Anc_Aesthetics/status/1988773629698400517
https://x.com/honestpollster/status/1988476482000159032
https://x.com/honestpollster/status/1988478495903645906
https://x.com/MattMorseTV/status/1988470567260090681
https://x.com/honestpollster/status/1988477122998931644
https://x.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1988608687024529618

[M L]

THIS, and only this, is what will sink Trump and the GOP in the midterms, and in the future, if anyone actually wants know . . .

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/11/13/trump-deputies-spar-over-h-1b-visas/
https://x.com/Anc_Aesthetics/status/1988773629698400517
https://x.com/honestpollster/status/1988476482000159032
https://x.com/honestpollster/status/1988478495903645906

Lots more links at the first link.

[Sarcastr0]

Ignorant bigots are mad!

We have some MAGA people who do H1B stuff and have tried to lay down the cost-benefits here.

Bigots don't do cost-benefit though.

[apedad]

How 'bout this?

Trump’s Company Quietly Sought Record Number of Foreign Workers

President Donald Trump’s company quietly sought nearly 200 foreign workers this year for Mar-a-Lago and other businesses despite his hardline stance on immigration—even as he railed against immigration.

According to Department of Labor data, the Trump Organization has requested a record 184 foreign workers in 2025 for Mar-a-Lago, two golf clubs, and a Virginia winery. The company’s visa requests have climbed steadily—from 121 in 2021. Over Trump’s years in office, his businesses have sought at least 566 foreign workers, Forbes reported.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-company-quietly-sought-record-number-of-foreign-workers/

Sure he hates us libs but that's better than being lied to and shit on, dontcha think?

[M L]

Yep! That's the kind of thing that will sink them. We're in agreement.

[Bwaaah]

Links to Breitbart and X? You think that looks better on you than it does on anybody else?

It's rare that I'll take any of those detours down to the turlet. This is no exception.

Good luck with all that.

[M L]

What's your problem with it? Note, I am not making a policy wonk argument about H1Bs here - although that would be a good and, admittedly probably better and more useful discussion to have. I would not post these links in such a discussion, as they would be irrelevant and not persuasive.

Instead I am pointing out the political reality that this 100% the kind of thing that will obliterate any chances of the GOP holding onto their newfound voters. Do you disagree?

[shawn_dude]

Non-persuasive links = anything from Breitbart. Bias aside, they have a very poor reputation for factual reporting.

As for voters who hate non-white immigrants, in a two party system where the other party constantly promotes and has elected a non-white president, who do you think the standard MAGA racist immigrant-hater is going to vote for if not the GOP? Their choice is Republicans, some sort of third party neo-confederate sort of thing, or don't vote.

[David Nieporent]

That's unfair. How can they have a poor reputation for factual reporting, when they don't do any factual reporting?

[grb]

ML's comment above is a good segue to this :

When the WaPo bent the knee pre-election for Trump, I cancelled my subscription. This was done within fifteen minutes of seeing the story appear; I didn't have to wait for cancelations to become a trendy fad. And it was a full print subscription. And a painful choice. I started reading the paper back in the late 70s while at school. I often didn't have the money to buy it, and would swing thru the Student Center to inevitably collect a full WaPo & NYT from remnants abandoned at tables and chairs. In the decades since, I always had a full subscription whenever it was available where I lived. But I thought cancellation was the correct decision and I was right.

As was doubly proved today. Jeff Bezos's crew of Trump whores just ran a pro-corruption editorial. I absolutely kid you not. Someone named Zachary Karabell was given this task and eagerly complied. The entire substance of the op-ed is this: People shouldn't bother getting upset about Trump's gross criminality. They shouldn't worry if he sells government favor for personal gain. Per Karabell, corruption has existed in the past, so no biggie. The public shouldn't care if Trump is selling the presidency. Per Karabell, the republic won't fall - so it's really not worth getting concerned about it.

A link is below. I didn't need to exaggerate its contents. Trump degrades, debases, and corrupts everything. No need to worry about the institutional soul of just one newspaper; Trump's sleaze and slime will coat the entire country before his grotesque & criminal presidency petters out in ignominy and shame. The entire fucking country will need a long shower to clean off the filth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/13/trump-graft-democracy-chester-arthur/?commentID=f009323f-4020-4b20-85f2-67b286966f95

[Sarcastr0]

To be clear, WaPo opinion is the one that has gone to pot.

WaPo reporting has thusfar continued with it's standards of reporting.

CBS has as well...for now.
https://www.niemanlab.org/reading/bari-weiss-wants-to-take-down-cbs-news-standards-and-practices-unit-for-having-too-much-power/

This is the kind of thing to pay attention to re: WaPo and CBS's credibility as sources of facts.

[ThePublius]

So when news outlets cease being megaphones for the Democratic party and progressive movement you declare that they've lost credibility. Got it.

(BTW, it's "its" not "it's" in your post. 🙂 )

[grb]

And I added an extra "t" in peters-out and didn't follow proper grammar with Bezos's vs Bezos'. Somehow the five minutes allotted for editing never proves enough.

That said, I should probably trail behind you, ThePublius, doing this Grammar Nazi shtick. But it's (or its) the actual substance of your comments that always fails basic scrutiny, not yor spelling.

[ThePublius]

Likewise, I'm sure.

(Didn't you notice the smiley face? Lighten up.)

[grb]

(The Wapo's pro-corruption op-ed put me in a grumpy mood)

[ThePublius]

Ha,ha, gotcha. Thanks.

[shawn_dude]

If you're going to strawman, be more creative, please. Just a humble request.

Sarcastr0 appears to be saying the exact opposite. He says that as long as the WaPo and CBS's factual accuracy remains, things are okay. So, if by "cease being megaphones for the Democrtic party and progressive movement" you mean "cease having factual accuracy," you'd be correct. And I don't mean that rhetorically, I mean that a hard right publication that has high factual accuracy and maintains high ethical standards of reporting is still a good source of information, though you appear to thing it would be a "megaphone for the Democratic party."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I did the same thing…and then I cancelled my NYTimes subscription I can’t remember the specific event though.

[Bunny495]

I am all for a complete release of the JFK files and have been for decades. Sad to say that has not happened. Same goes for the Epstein files. From what I have seen released so far the "artist" formerly known as Prince Andrew is the only one who has come close to punishment. Maxwell is in jail but I don't see any real connection to the files, more like a lot of stuff that was already well documented.

The recent stuff about Trump's spending time with Virginia is tainted by the dem's redacting her name in their release of this information. Seems like a dirty trick to me. Not saying there is nothing to it as much as it was dumb to redact a name in an email that had already been released with the name unredacted.

No question there were some high-profile peeps who hung with Epstein. Seems the ones who have been confirmed were more associated with the dems than the pubs. Not saying there were no pubs, just that Bill Clinton seems to head the list and there was the crazy painting of him in a dress prominently displayed in Epstein's NY apartment.

Point is both dem and pub admins seem to have been reluctant to release the files even though there seems to be embarrassing stuff about their enemies. There has always been speculation about a MOSSAD connection and things in the files related to methods and spy craft that were the real reason both dems and pubs did not want to release the full files. Thing is everyone already knows Clinton is a horndog that hit one lot of women (who in my mind were not top tier babes) and Trump was an ego centric cad who treated women as disposable play things (and to my tase seemed only interested in the top tier babes). I don't really see much of anything the Epstein files could contain that would alter these perceptions much. Both Trump and Clinton never showed much of a preference for underage girls (in fact Trump always seemed to favor full figured women with big breasts).

Bottom line is I don't think the worst stuff in the files is about sex, rather government secrets the deep state does not want made public.

[grb]

Bunny495 : " ... government secrets the deep state does not want made public."

I'm sure you're safe if you wrap the tinfoil tighter around your head.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Why did two prosecutors that reported to Bushes treat pEestain with kid gloves?? Why did Starr or Derpawitz tell Acosta he was an intelligence asset?? Btw, Starr would get the best job in conservative America by being appointed president of Baylor after pEestain and he would have been very close to Bush in Crawford.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody told Acosta that.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Starr and Derpawitz defended pEestain and Starr got a huge promotion after he defended him. Baylor is the largest most conservative private college in America and it is deep in the heart of Texas…clap clap clap.

[David Nieporent]

Your juvenile namecalling just makes you look, well, juvenile. And no, Starr did not get any huge promotion after he defended Epstein.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Drayton McLane is the big bear at Baylor…he was always around the little girl groper at Astros games. Starr’s tenure at Baylor ended in disgrace but I’m sure Bush and McLane took care of him.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Bush brothers conspired to give pEestain a sweetheart deal!! Bush senior was accused of groping minor females!! Do the math!!!

[grb]

Bunny495 : "Both Trump and Clinton never showed much of a preference for underage girls ..."

Suggestion : You might want to do some research on Trump's gross sexual obsession with daughter Ivanka. He had a long history of talking about her in public like she's the choicest meat - starting (in public) when she was only fourteen. On multiple occasions he told people (in public) he'd be, well, doing her for sure if it wasn't for the whole father-daughter business. He told Howard Stern it was OK to call Ivanka "a piece of ass". In a 2015 issue of Rolling Stone, Trump said this about Ivanka: 'Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father...'

Ya know, when it comes to laying out reasons not to have sex with your own daughter, the happiness of your marriage shouldn't head the list. But apparently this was an obsession Trump couldn't control - not even during live interviews. According to former White House aide Miles Taylor, Trump “talked about Ivanka Trump’s breasts, her backside, and what it might be like to have sex with her" in the Oval Office, leading a revolted General Kelly to remind the president this was his own daughter.

Although this doesn't involve MOSSAD, here's a conspiracy theory for you to chew on: If Epstein was the criminal mastermind people claim - dangling underage girls before prominent figures to compromise them - all he had to do was find an Ivanka look-alike for Trump. Lord knows his fixation with his daughter was well-established public knowledge by then.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Then that would make Gaetz, who is the current brother in law of arguably the future’s most powerful defense contractor, an intelligence asset. I will just say I’ve been around very powerful people including one guy who on paper clearly looked like a Mossad agent and generally these people really only care about money and they are type A overachievers but they did have to get a break at some point and maybe two…so they aren’t Lex Luthor crazy geniuses or anything.

[ThePublius]

Open thread, open topics.

So, you all must know I'm into 'vintage photography' - film, flashbulbs, developing my own film for B&W and color negatives, and color slides. The only thing I don't do anymore is print. I digitize negatives with a DSLR and use the Negative Lab Pro plug-in for Adobe Lightroom.

Anyway, I recently got a Yashica 44, a beautiful, little TLR (twin lens reflex) that takes 127 film for 4x4cm negatives. It was a clone of Rollei's "baby" Rolleiflex. Yes, there was a lawsuit. It's remarkable how beautifully made these are, as well as the Japanese mass market accessories, like the Bouncemaster flash gun I just got: nice molded plastic, metal parts, little machine screws, and so on. Nice. I've amassed an inventory of flashbulbs over the years. The batteries for these have gotten expensive, but are still available. The capacitors not so much. I hope mine is still good. It looks good, no signs of physical leakage. I should have checked it when I had the unit apart for capacitance and leakage resistance, I just forgot. Oh, well.

Anyway, 127 film is virtually unobtainable. I bought some B&W rolls that expired 50 years ago! Fortunately, B&W ages O.K., color not so much. I shot a test roll I will develop and figure out what speed I should shoot it, and if I should push process it, and evaluate the base fog in case I need to address that. But, there's nothing like old school B&W photos that you develop yourself. The flash bulb photos should amaze and confuse my friends! I recall as a kid that when folks used flashbulbs they would just eject the spent bulbs into an ashtray; those days there were ashtrays everywhere.

This camera was made in 1959, the flash gun probably soon thereafter.

With the 127 film, since 120 film is available new, I will be cutting it down for 127 format, and then I'll have fresh, non-expired stock for pics. Should be fun.

Oh, and I also shot some 120 in my Bronica S and Rolleiflex 3.5F, and also some 35mm in my mom's Miranda Sensorex. And, yes, I also shoot digital with my Canon DSLRs. 🙂

Anyone else?

[grb]

Did you ever try 5x7 cameras? That looks like Big-Dog-Photography...

[ThePublius]

No, but I've done a lot of 4x5 sheet film photography with a Speed Graphic when I was in high school. It was fun. You get these enormous, high definition negatives. I have shots of Manhattan from the roof of my high school on 16th St.; I still have those negatives somewhere.

[bernard11]

I have a 4x5 field camera that I used to use a fair amount. No darkroom these days, and the cost to have the film processed, on top of its price, makes each shot an investment.

Still, my own opinion is that occasionally shooting large format is hugely beneficial for any photographer. The need to manually control every single aspect of the shot, and the compositional options, really helps develop discipline for other work. With digital, especially, it's really easy to get sloppy.

Even smaller format film photography helps, since you go out with a finite number of rolls and have to be a bit careful.

[Bunny495]

Unless you are doing 8X10 view camera stuff you are a wimp.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, you wanna pay for that film stock?

[Mr. Bumble]

Glass plates.

[ThePublius]

That would be cool. No problem keeping the negatives flat!

If you ever see glass plates or tin types or Daguerreotypes at a flea market or antique store or yard sale, grab them!

I think I'll get up early tomorrow and develop some film. My new setup isn't complete yet, but I can manage.

[Mr. Bumble]

"If you ever see glass plates or tin types or Daguerreotypes at a flea market or antique store or yard sale, grab them!"
I did about thirty years ago. Found a box of 3 or 4 dozen glass plate negatives at a garage sale. Haven't looked at them for years (always afraid I'll break one). If memory serves they'd be about 100 years old (from the 1920's).
Any idea on how I could have prints made?

[grb]

Ken Burns, The New York Times :

"After the American Civil War, thousands of Matthew Brady’s glass plate negatives “were sold to greenhouses around the nation, not for their images but as replacement glass. In the years after Appomattox, the sun slowly burned the image of war from thousands of greenhouse panes.”

I have a vague memory of a photograph of one of those greenhouses in Burn's PBS series with ghostly images of his original pictures still visible. But a quick search didn't find one.

[grb]

NBC News:

"President Donald Trump’s directive to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War could cost as much as $2 billion, according to six people with knowledge of the potential cost. The name change, which must be approved by Congress, would require replacing thousands of signs, placards, letterheads and badges, as well as any other items at U.S. military sites around the world that feature the Department of Defense name, according to two senior Republican congressional staffers, two senior Democratic congressional staffers and two other people briefed on the potential cost. New department letterhead and signage alone could cost about $1 billion, according to the four senior congressional staffers and one of the people briefed on the potential cost. One of the biggest contributors to the cost of changing the name would be rewriting digital code for all of the department’s internal and external facing websites, as well as other computer software on classified and unclassified systems, the four senior congressional staffers said."

And when we have a president who's not masculinely-challenged and DOD head more than an ex-TV talk show yakker, it'll all need to be changed back. Who knows what the cost will be to repair all the damage from this clown-act presidency? MAGA find this buffoonery entertaining, but it comes with a cost.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trumps-pentagon-name-change-cost-2-billion-rcna242438

[loki13]

That's just to start. Think of how many more billions we'll need to have DEPARTMENT OF WAR written in a tacky gold font that makes every DoD installation look as tacky as an '80s steak house ... or the White House?

[grb]

The golden fungus has now spread outdoors :

https://digbysblog.net/2025/11/08/the-louis-xiv-exhibit-at-knotts-berry-farm/

Trump keeps insisted his Oval Office bling wasn't bought straight out of Home Depot, even though people have posted the exact same products from the company's website, right down to every squiggle & ogee curve. Probably his aides just lied to Trump given they surely see him as a dotty old fool.

Meanwhile, our "master builder" president recently had a long embarrassing fumble during an interview because he was too damn stupid to know brass and bronze are different metals. Great omen for the ongoing White House Desecration Project, huh?

[loki13]

Well, "re-decorating" the White House does provide him cover for looting it and taking the good stuff to Mar-a-Lago, like he did with the Resolute Desk.

The corruption is so brazen and open, and yet still there are people here who can't wait to give aid and comfort to Trump.

"Sure, we all know that he likes to grab 'em by the pussy. And that he bought a Miss Teen Pageant so he could hang out in the dressing rooms. And there are so many accounts of him sexually assaulting women. And the Ivanka stuff. And that he seems to have worked really, really hard to keep all the Epstein stuff under wraps, usually by just lying (What Birthday Card? Barely Knew Him! Maxwell is the real victim. My name isn't in the files ...etc. etc. etc.). But if we squint so hard that we close our eyes, and also put our fingers in our ears, it's possible that Trump was trying to save all those girls from Epstein, right?"

[ThePublius]

"No, Trump did not move the Resolute Desk from Oval Office to Mar-a-Lago"

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/resolute-desk-moved-to-mar-a-lago/

The only thing that is "so brazen and open" is your thirst for things, factual or not, that make Trump look bad.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Anyway, seems strange. Isn't Trump the peace president?

He stopped more wars than we can count. Why not have a Department of Peace? Seems more appropriate.

[John F. Carr]

PBS Newshour reports: Military personnel seek legal advice on whether Trump-ordered missions are lawful. Officers planning missions against nacroterrorists and/or fishermen are calling The Orders Project for advice.

In other Newshour news, the program lost its weekend episodes to budget cuts and its late western show when a partner backed out.

[wvattorney13]

"PBS Newshour reports: Military personnel seek legal advice on whether Trump-ordered missions are lawful. Officers planning missions against nacroterrorists and/or fishermen are calling The Orders Project for advice."

Complete fake news crap. PBS is circling the drain. I can't believe that taxpayers funded this pretend "journalism" for more than 60 years.

[David Nieporent]

In what way is it fake news? You think it's somehow false that our soldiers want to obey the law and disobey illegal orders?

[Bunny495]

Maybe not fake news but it does seem to be slanted. Of course the usual disclaimer about anonymous sources applies. Maybe more to the point Lieutenant Colonel Frank Rosenblatt (the expert PBS was relying on) really shaded the importance of the memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), often referred to as the "golden shield." That memo basically said Trump's orders are legal so don't worry. While it may be possible to punish Trump/DOJ over illegal orders it would be almost impossible to punish those that actually carried out the orders.

This is not the first thread on this topic and it does seem Trump has been targeting drug smugglers. It also seems that the DOJ has provided cover for those that carry out those orders. The real question is why military members are calling an outside NGO (guessing it is an NGO) for legal advice and how many are doing it.

As an aside Rosenblatt's defense of Bergdahl and the NIMJ's position on trans in the military speaks louder than any claim they are not biased.

[bernard11]

The real question is why military members are calling an outside NGO (guessing it is an NGO) for legal advice and how many are doing it.

To get objective legal advice? That's my guess, anyway. Seems like a sensible thing to do.

[David Nieporent]

That memo basically said Trump's orders are legal so don't worry. While it may be possible to punish Trump/DOJ over illegal orders it would be almost impossible to punish those that actually carried out the orders.

I guess you missed that whole Nuremberg thing.

The real question is why military members are calling an outside NGO (guessing it is an NGO) for legal advice and how many are doing it.

I don't think it's a mystery why someone might choose to consult an independent lawyer as to the lawfulness of a seemingly unlawful order rather than relying on the assurances of the person who gave said seemingly unlawful order.

Finally, Rosenblatt, as a member of the JAG corps, was appointed as Bergdahl's military lawyer; I'm not sure what you think it "speaks" about his "bias" that he did his duty.

[Litoky]

What's on my mind is the First Amendment complaint in Woodcock v. Univ. of Kentucky, and the embedded question of the worth or vagaries of the IHRA 55 definition of antisemitism. Might is be said that 55 conflates or equates the religion of Judaism with the government of Israel?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Watching The Donna Reed Show. It's a pretty good show. The father is not the typical doofus sitcom dad. Plus, who can dislike Donna? They have a wonderful life and everything.

Jeff is denied a chance to write an op-ed in the school newspaper about excessive homework. The sympathetic advisor assures him that she doesn't want to censor him. It's just that the school board okayed the homework practices. Not for him to complain.

She won't censor. She just won't let him include the op-ed in the newspaper. Jeff's sister Mary thinks it is a First Amendment issue.

This was pre-Tinker, though after Barnette. He prints out the op-ed and distributes it at school. He's caught and removed as editor. He leads a boycott of homework. The teacher is hurt but decides to outlast the boycott.

His dad notes that it is not a good way to respond to disappointment. The dad is disappointed that someone else became head of pediatrics at the hospital. He didn't get it because a beloved senior doctor was given the honor. Not a big injustice.

He notes that the teacher has to do a lot of homework, including taking an adult education class, while Jeff was enjoying his summer vacation. Mary notes that high school has a lot of homework too. Dad also noted the advisor had the power to reject the op-ed. It was her call.

Jeff, who likes the teacher, ends his boycott. He goes back to being the editor and writes an op-ed that quotes someone (supposedly Herbert Hoover, but he hasn't been quite accurate so far quoting people) on the importance of free expression.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Look up!