Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Enrique]

Some thoughts on the rule of law, part 1:

https://priorprobability.com/2025/11/25/some-thoughts-on-the-rule-of-law/

[Enrique]

part 2 = https://priorprobability.com/2025/11/26/another-rule-of-law-puzzle/

[not guilty]

It appears that grand jurors are becoming more skeptical about charging bullshit matters that the Department of Justice has lately been presenting to them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/26/trump-halligan-grand-juries-rejection-stumbles/

That could prove to be a good thing.

[hobie]

MAGA: 'My empire of shit is collapsing!'

[Frank Drackman]

What’s your problem Private Pyle?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Are the walls finally closing in?

[Commenter_XY]

Paywalled.

GJ's are reflections of the larger community attitudes, values, and beliefs. How did we handle GJ's that voted the 'wrong' way in the last century? Finding another GJ to indict for another charge.

The bottom line to me is the prosecution needs to make the case.

[Riva]

That’s the opinion of the WP. Now cite a real newspaper.

[Area Man]

Wait. I’ve been told throughout my career that the grand jury just does the bidding of the prosecution, ham sandwiches and all that. That’s never been true, in my experience. But “smart people” said it was, so it must have been. Now you’re here saying it’s not? Blasphemy. Why, next, you’ll be saying we need to incorporate the Grand Jury Clause against the states. But our criminal-justice system will collapse if we do so—again as said by “smart people.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/should-all-states-have-to-use-grand-juries/

[Poxigah146]

Only because the DC jury pool is half non-white, 95% Democrat.

I'm sure they'd fall all over themselves to indict anyone for a "hate crime" if he dares insult a black or Jew, like the idiot in Mississippi.

[not guilty]

The FBI is reportedly requesting interviews with Democratic members of Congress who appeared in a video last week reminding U.S. service members of their duty to disobey unlawful orders. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/25/fbi-democrats-unlawful-orders-trump/

I don't see any reason for any of them to agree to be interviewed. There is simply no upside there.

[bloocow2]

It feels like yet another one of those "the process is the punishment" things. Where the eventual outcome (ie. the senators being found to have done nothing illegal) is never in doubt, but putting them through the ringer in the meantime will discourage others from following suit.

Gotta say though, I never would have paid that much attention were it not for the Trump administration Streisand-Effecting it into my news feed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The FBI should simply arrest them.

[Martinned]

Of course. The FBI should arrest all Democratic politicians. /s

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t you have 2 Englishmen to meet in Bruges?

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought they were Irish. In either case a good film.

[Frank Drackman]

I stand corrected, Irish it was.
Now "Harry" (Ralph Fiennes) was English as (Redacted) and what a tough guy, hard to believe it's the same guy who played that Milk Toast Charles Van Doren in "Quiz Show" it's almost like he's playing a Role or something.

Frank

[SRG2]

So troops should obey illegal orders, according to you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's kind of a moot point.

Whether or not an order is illegal as a matter of law is rarely know to someone in a position to disobey an order. And AFAICT, if an order that you thought was illegal is found to be legal by the courts, there is no defense.

OTOH, if an order is found to be illegal by the courts, the government still has to prove that you knew the order was illegal (or that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know the order was illegal, which for many of us amounts to the same thing.)

So the safest course of action is to obey an order unless you know for sure that it is illegal.

[SRG2]

That is not quite the same position as Dr Ed's, which is that troops should obey illegal orders, period.

Certainly there are times when a soldier may be uncertain, but in the case, say, of a civilian already in custody, an an explicit order to kill them is clearly illegal.

[David Nieporent]

OTOH, if an order is found to be illegal by the courts, the government still has to prove that you knew the order was illegal (or that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know the order was illegal, which for many of us amounts to the same thing.)

What? No. If the order is illegal, one cannot be punished for disobeying it whether one knew it or not.

It's only if one obeys the order, is prosecuted for doing so, and then uses "just following orders" as a defense, that the issue of whether it was known to be illegal comes into play.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ What? No. If the order is illegal, one cannot be punished for disobeying it whether one knew it or not.”

Correct, and perfectly consistent with what I said.

[Voize of Reazon]

You mean "if an order that you obey is found to be illegal ..." then the prosecutor must show it was clearly illegal before you can be punished. I think that is correct, as is your conclusion that you minimize the risk of punishment if you obey orders unless they are clearly unlawful.

However, that doesn't mean the statement "you have a duty to disobey unlawful orders" is wrong. It just means that a failure in that duty is excusable if the situation isn't clear-cut.

[not guilty]

"The FBI should simply arrest them."

And charge them with what offense(s)?

No such arrest would survive a probable cause determination.

[ReaderY]

I think “simply” here speaks for itself.

Involving judges tends to introduce complations.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Where the eventual outcome (ie. the senators being found to have done nothing illegal) is never in doubt.).

This is almost certainly correct.

However, it's possible that the government might dig up some evidence to show intent to cause service members to disobey specific orders that senators believed were illegal, like the drug boat strikes. If that happens and the orders turn out to be illegal as a matter of law, there might be some jeopardy.

[not guilty]

"However, it's possible that the government might dig up some evidence to show intent to cause service members to disobey specific orders that senators believed were illegal, like the drug boat strikes."

It's possible that the FBI agents could fabricate such evidence. That is precisely why these members of Congress should not agree to be interviewed.

Moreover, if the Senators (or House members) believed specific orders were illegal, like the drug boat strikes, what difference would that make? Reminding service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders is simply no crime, irrespective of the speaker's belief as to any particular order(s).

Everything on the subject video is protected by the First Amendment. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), is no longer good law. FBI agents take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution. Any prosecution here would run afoul of Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006). Investigation of these members of Congress for engaging in constitutionally protected speech itself may well violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and/or 242.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Reminding service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders is simply no crime, irrespective of the speaker's belief as to any particular order(s)."

It might be if there's a general intent to cause them to disobey lawful orders. That's the point.

[not guilty]

"It might be [a crime] if there's a general intent to cause them to disobey lawful orders. That's the point."

Under what federal statute(s)? And if such a statute does exist (hint: it doesn't), how could that statute here be applied to the subject video without running afoul of the First Amendment?

While multiple criminal statutes include a culpable mental state as an essential element, we don't punish thoughtcrime standing alone here. A crime typically requires both a mens rea and an actus reus.

[hobie]

To encourage our troops we quote the timeless: "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore...You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen...if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore"

[Commenter_XY]

Who knows what else the FBI interviewer might ask the congressional nutjobs during an interview = There is simply no upside there Am I right, NG?

[not guilty]

Except for characterizing these brave members of Congress as "nutjobs," you are exactly right, XY. Like a blind hog finding an acorn.

[Riva]

Who funded and orchestrated this seditious shit? Might be worth asking.

[bloocow2]

Why is it seditious?

[Riva]

There are no illegal orders. These pieces of shit are seeking to undermine the military and the administration by disrupting the chain of command with their creepy repetitive insinuations of something undefined as illegal to sow the seeds of doubt and encourage mass subordination, and even chaos in general (and the violent left is doing a great job with that already). All orders are presumed lawful. The military couldn't function under their resistance tactics. They pointedly felt no need to comment on that, just vague creepy implications of something illegal that must be resisted. This was quite purposeful. An old communist tactic in fact. We may be experiencing some consequences already. And, at the very least, refuse like Kelly can and should be recalled to active duty and courtmartialed for suborning mutiny.

[Glaucomatose]

If there are no illegal orders, then they’re not telling them to disobey anything.

[Riva]

No. If there were illegal orders, then their message might be justified. In fact, their tactic depends on there being nothing illegal. All orders are presumed to be legal. There was no purpose for their message under the circumstances, but (as noted above) to undermine the military and the administration by disrupting the chain of command with their creepy repetitive insinuations of something undefined as illegal to sow the seeds of doubt and encourage mass subordination, and even chaos in general. And again we may be seeing the results now.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If there are no illegal orders, then they’re not telling them to disobey anything."

It's possible that they believe that there are illegal orders.

As many folks have pointed out, there is very good reason to believe that the orders to destroy the boats in the Caribbean are illegal, for example.

And if the government can show intent to cause people to disobey those orders, and they turn out to be legal, there might be some issues.

[Riva]

No, it isn’t and they even have admitted that obvious fact themselves in interviews There are NO illegal orders and these pieces of shit fully understood that.

[not guilty]

Riva, do you claim that Presidents Harding, Coolidge or Hoover would have been authorized to order the summary execution of rum runners in international waters because of the Volstead Act?

[Riva]

Any president has inherent constitutional authority to interdict narco-terrorists seeking to invade the US with arms and poisons. And more to the point, even these seditious pieces of shit have admitted there are no illegal orders. As noted, their game was to undermine the administration and the chain of command by sowing seeds of doubt and thereby encouraging mass insubordination.

[not guilty]

"Any president has inherent constitutional authority to interdict narco-terrorists seeking to invade the US with arms and poisons."

One more time, Riva. Do you claim that Presidents Harding, Coolidge or Hoover would have been authorized to order the summary execution of rum runners in international waters because of the Volstead Act?

Yes or no?

"And more to the point, even these seditious pieces of shit have admitted there are no illegal orders."

Who "admitted" that? When? Where? Do you have a video clip or verbatim quotation, Riva?

[Riva]

Are you trying to imply that a president's inherent constitutional authority to act is not sufficient? He also needs a specific statute to authorize his conduct?

And by "whom" I'm obviously referring to the seditious pieces of shit we've been discussing in this comment chain. They have admitted there are no illegal orders in media interviews. And no, I'm not providing a link. Spare me your sealioning bullshit. It's quite easy to search for specific inteviews if you're really curious. If you find one claiming that an illegal order exists, don't keep it to yourself.

[David Nieporent]

Are you trying to imply that a president's inherent constitutional authority to act is not sufficient? He also needs a specific statute to authorize his conduct?

The president has absolutely no inherent constitutional authority to act. Also, there is nobody "seeking to invade the US" at all. These are random people on random ships more than a thousand miles away from the U.S. and not even capable of reaching the U.S.

And to be clear, they have not "admitted" any such thing.

[not guilty]

"Are you trying to imply that a president's inherent constitutional authority to act is not sufficient? He also needs a specific statute to authorize his conduct?"

No. My point in mentioning the Volstead Act is to point out that the sale and movement of alcoholic beverages within the United States was illegal during the 1920s, just as trafficking in drugs and narcotics within the United States is presently prohibited. (It's called an analogy.)

With that understanding, do you contend that the then-illegal nature of alcoholic beverage would have authorized Presidents Harding, Coolidge or Hoover to order the summary execution of rum runners in international waters? Or was their "inherent constitutional authority" somehow lesser than what you posit to be that of Donald Trump?

[Riva]

I wasn’t aware that bootleggers were armed state sponsored narco-terrorists invading our country.

[Absaroka]

Again, at least some years ago 'thou shalt not obey illegal orders' was drilled into every recruit by their drill sergeant. Is that OK, but it's not OK when someone else says exactly the same thing?

[Riva]

Don't know exactly what a drill sergeant may have said years ago but these pieces of shit are not drill sergeants training troops.

[John F. Carr]

It's not OK. They are encouraging the military to mutiny.

But there is Supreme Court precedent suggesting they should get away with it. When the extent of the fraud at Enron started to become clear its accountants were instructed to destroy the evidence. The company was convicted of obstruction of justice. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction. The specific request was to obey a pre-existing record retention policy. Which had the same effect - incriminating records were destroyed - but the wording of the order was of legal significance and the jury had been improperly instructed. Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005)

So I continue to be confident that none of the Congressmen will go to jail. I don't expect any charges at all.

[not guilty]

"It's not OK. They are encouraging the military to mutiny."

That, Mr. Carr, is a flat out lie.

You are one of the more responsible commenters here. I had expected better of you.

[Riva]

I suppose the refuse Kelly can try to argue that at his court martial. As noted above, there was no purpose for their message under the circumstances, but to undermine the military and the administration by disrupting the chain of command with their creepy repetitive insinuations of something undefined as illegal to sow the seeds of doubt and encourage mass subordination, and even chaos in general. And again we may be seeing the results now.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe, Mr. Guilty, that's not a lie? Maybe that's an opinion?

No? Not maybe?

[not guilty]

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion. But not to his own facts.

Mutiny is a defined term under Article 94 of the UCMJ, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 894:

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

The conduct evinced by creation and publication of the subject video, as a matter of law, fails to meet that definition.

The video expressly encourages service members to comply with their military duties, which duties include disobedience of illegal orders. Such compliance is the complete antithesis of mutiny under § 894(a)(1).

Encouraging a munity is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1792, which states:

Whoever instigates, connives, willfully attempts to cause, assists, or conspires to cause any mutiny or riot, at any Federal penal, detention, or correctional facility, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined under this title, or both.

This statute is inapplicable because the subject video is not directed to anyone at any Federal penal, detention, or correctional facility.

According to 18 U.S.C. § 2387:

(a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or

(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

Merely reminding service members of their sworn duty to disobey illegal orders, as a matter of law does not violate this statute, because compliance with such duty manifestly is not "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty."

According to black letter law, John F. Carr's assertion upthread is a false statement of fact -- not merely a statement of opinion.

[Riva]

They are most obviously NOT "[m]erely reminding service members of their sworn duty to disobey illegal orders." This is your own twisted interpretation. And no Congressman has ever, to my recollection, engaged in a similar conduct. Probably because, in light of no illegal orders, such conduct would be universally condemned. As noted multiple times, all orders are presumed to be legal. There was no purpose for their message under the circumstances, but to undermine the military and the administration by disrupting the chain of command with their creepy repetitive insinuations of something undefined as illegal to sow the seeds of doubt and encourage mass subordination, and even chaos in general. And again we may be seeing the results now.

[not guilty]

"They are most obviously NOT "[m]erely reminding service members of their sworn duty to disobey illegal orders."

You lie, Riva. For your convenience, a complete copy of the video, including text displayed onscreen, is here: https://ftw.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2025/11/21/mark-kelly-elissa-slotkin-video-donald-trump-called-treasonous/87404828007/

Please identify specifically what word or group of words therein does anything other than reminding service members of their sworn duty to disobey illegal orders.

[John F. Carr]

I was going by the dictionary, not the UCMJ. If a violent protest at the Capitol can be insurrection, organized insubordination can be mutiny.

[Absaroka]

"It's not OK. They are encouraging the military to mutiny."

The drill sergeants, or the congresscritters?

[Bwaaah]

I would go so far as to say it may be helpful if said by a drill sergeant. It's certainly an important enough point to be made in training.

It's probably unhelpful for a congresscritter to say it. Because it matters not what a congresscritter says, but why he says it. And, well, as we see, of that there is much conjecture.

Somebody needs to change the channel in here. Is there a handle you can press to flush it? What gummed up the news cycle? Is DJT stuck in the powder room?

Anyway, I'm not expecting any mutinies this week.

[Absaroka]

"It's probably unhelpful for a congresscritter to say it"

I'm of two minds about that. But even if it it is unhelpful I'm pretty sure we shouldn't hang politicians for saying unhelpful things, or we'll be hanging all of them, from both parties and both branches.

Oh, wait....

[Bwaaah]

You're onto something. Might be a wee bit Dr. Edish, though.

...but only if you succeed.

Should congresscritters be allowed to say that stuff? Of course they should. And they did. And there'll be no legal repercussions. And there shouldn't be. This one never even showed up on my debatable list. Seems like the first amendment easily covers it.

Sure is work'n up a lather though, isn't it?

[David Nieporent]

They are most obviously NOT "[m]erely reminding service members of their sworn duty to disobey illegal orders." This is your own twisted interpretation.

It is their literal words, and the only sane interpretation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is that OK, but it's not OK when someone else says exactly the same thing?"

It's speculation on my part, but it's possible that it's not ok if the intent is to cause someone to disobey lawful orders, even if the person believes the order is unlawful.

[not guilty]

Speculation doesn't feed the bulldog.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Certainly true.

[not guilty]

"It's possible that they believe that there are illegal orders."

So what if they did?

"The thought of man shall not be tried, for the devil himself knoweth not the thought of man": thus at the end of the middle ages spoke Brian C.J. in words that might well be the motto for the early history of the criminal law. United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie, 825 F.Supp. 485, 490 (E.D.N.Y. 1993).

[wvattorney13]

"I'm not touching you!"

[JohnSmith97]

If an (R) read that same script, the press would still be going on about dogwhistles. Due to the sacred (D), however, there is no danger of that from the same press.

[Poxigah146]

Trump should order the military to just kidnap them and throw them into the ocean, Desaparecidos style.

[ReaderY]

I would refuse as a matter of constitutional principle under the Speech and Debate Clause.

[A Japanese Student]

House of Representatives of Japan restores LDP majority after 3 representatives, who are expelled from the Ishin party, joins the caucus. This might affect the balance of the power because the House rarely does a roll call, instead each caucus voting as a bloc. 3-member caucus does lack power, though, and joining a bigger caucus at least allows them to have their voices heard. (Bills must be co-sponsored by 20 members; smaller caucuses might not get good committee assignment; etc.)

At least two of the members probably aren't joining the party, though. A provision of the election law automatically expels any representative who, while elected as a candidate in proportional representation district, moves to another party. They must remain independent party-wise until the next election.

[Frank Drackman]

Does the Japanese Congress have a "Nuclear Option"?? or is it still to soon??

[A Japanese Student]

I mean, if you have a majority in the lower house, you can do pretty much anything - including, installing their own choice of Prime Minister at any time (unless the PM uses a Uno reverse card called "dissolving the House"). There's no supermajority aside from constitutionally mandated ones.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why you lost WW2, no sense of Humor.

[Martinned]

By my count Sanae Takaichi is the 14th prime minister of Japan this century, so it seems clear that prime ministers typically last a lot less than one parliament's length.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Japan#21st_century

[Kazinski]

Happy Thanksgiving.

Today's Thanksgiving is the cheapest since 2021, and 8.13 cheaper than in 2022:

"Cooking a Thanksgiving dinner for your friends and family will cost less than last year, marking the third straight year of price declines. "The American Farm Bureau Federation’s 40th annual Thanksgiving dinner survey provides a snapshot of the average cost of Thanksgiving staples that make up a classic holiday feast for 10, which is $55.18 or about $5.52 per person.

This is a 5% decrease from 2024. Three years of declines don’t fully erase dramatic increases that led to a record-high cost of $64.05 in 2022."

“A vote for Trump means your groceries will be cheaper”. Former President Trump Campaigns in Pittsburgh, C-SPAN (November 4, 2024)

Promises made, Promises kept.

I will concede that he went further than that a few times. And of course a more realistic promise would be to reduce prices relative to wages, which is what Bessent has been emphasizing..

On a personal observed anecdote, Wal-Mart has rolled back the price of a 750ml bottle of Jack Daniels from 19$ to 17$. Now that makes for a very very happy Thanksgiving.

[Martinned]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkflation

[Michael P]

Do you think today's 750 mL bottle contains less than the 750 mL bottle from a few years ago?

You're giving Dr. Ed a run for his money.

[Martinned]

No, I think that Dr. Ed didn't check whether the hypothetical Thanksgiving dinner he's talking about really does still feed as many people as before.

That said, I'm pleased that Americans at least drink in metric. I can see why you might need a stiff one (or two).

[defaultdotxbe]

Well we can say for sure that you didn't check. The American Farm Bureau survey he cites uses fixed weights and volumes for the items it prices.

[Michael P]

Martinned doesn't check much, even when we give him hints. He didn't even bother reading the bit that Kaz quoted: "a classic holiday feast for 10". Just about every story I see that discusses the measure mentions that bit.

[ThePublius]

No matter what the topic is, Martinned will find some way, some twist, to piss on any good news in the U.S., to denigrate the U.S. It's a derangement syndrome, and it's quite annoying.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"No, I think that Dr. Ed didn't check whether the hypothetical Thanksgiving dinner he's talking about really does still feed as many people as before."

Am I missing something here?

When did I speak of hypothetical Thanksgiving dinners?

I really don't have anything to be thankful for.

[Martinned]

My apologies. I got the Trumpist trolls mixed up.

[Kazinski]

You get me mixed up with Ed again you get muted.

[santamonica811]

Martin mixed you up with Kaz. He just typed in the wrong name. (Another poster had just written something extremely unflattering about you specifically, and so I assume your name was in his mind)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Probably the schmuck I blocked, which is why I blocked him.

[Michael P]

For the record, a "block" function usually prevents people from responding to your comments. Reason's comment system has a "mute" function instead.

That kind of attention to detail is how Dr. Ed earns his reputation here.

[Mr. Bumble]

@martinned: re. shrinkflation.
The shrinkflation came when changing liquor measure in the US to metric measure. Formerly liquor was sold in 5ths. Four fifths of a quart or it's equivalent one fifth of a gallon. Both equal 757.1 ML vs. the current standard 750 ML.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, those extra 7.1 ml's add up.

[Mr. Bumble]

I know it's not much of an example. Only 1 extra bottle per 100 +.
Much worse is the former pound can of coffee now 10/11 oz.
or 1/2 gallon of OJ, now 52 oz. or five pound bag of sugar now four pounds and on and on.

[Michael P]

Yeah, shrinkflation is definitely a thing, it just doesn't explain the price changes in the American Farm Bureau Federation's Thanksgiving basket.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and to be clear, I'm not saying it does.

[Frank Drackman]

And I won’t even mention my 8 inches isn’t what it used to be.

[Mr. Bumble]

The tape measure shrink?

[Frank Drackman]

Relativity

[Bwaaah]

I think it's a case of memory inflation.

And as for relativistic effects, you can expect length contraction when you're finishing your business at the speed of light. (At least from Mrs. Drackman's frame of reference.)

[not guilty]

Why are women so bad at parallel parking?

Because men keep telling them that this [holding fingers four inches apart] is eight inches.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or the half gallon (four pints) of ice cream that is now three pints -- 1.5 quarts.

Box takes up the same amount of space in the freezer, though...

[Mr. Bumble]

Air. Ice cream should be sold by weigh and volume.

[Kazinski]

Yeah but that switch to 750ml happened in 1979, so it certainly has no bearing on inflation or shrinkflation now or since 2020, although I will concede Trump was alive then so it was somehow his fault.

[Mr. Bumble]

If memory serves that was a result of the attempt to switch America to the metric system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metric_Marvels

Episodes

"Meet Meter Man" / Superhero Meter Man helps people convert length and distance to metric terms
"Mara-Mara-Marathon" / The difference between miles and kilometers
"I'm Your Liter Leader" / Superhero Liter Leader explains the difference between gallons and liters
"Eeny, Meeny, Miney Milliliters" / Liter Leader uses recipes to explain milliliters
"Super Celsius" / Superhero Super Celsius explains the Celsius temperature scale
"Wonder Gram" / Superhero Wonder Gram expresses her weight in kilograms
"Wonder Baby" / A young Wonder Gram converts pounds to kilograms

[Kazinski]

It took Convictions and draconian penalties enforcimg metric to get the UK to switch over, so that was on brand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1269043.stm

Personally I don't mind metric, I've lived it metric countries, so I am used to it.

My wife was 'WTF?' when she moved to the US. I still have to do a conversion for her occasionally.

[John F. Carr]

I was pleased recently to find a genuine half gallon of ice cream for sale. For a long time most half qallons have been 1.5 quarts and most pints have been about 14 ounces. I don't buy such substandard products.

[hobie]

You're a brave MAGA man making such a confession: "...marking the third straight year of price declines."

I will say, though, that last year I went on a turkey treasure hunt. In the end, the lowest price I found was at Marc's with $0.49/lb. This year I beelined it straight to Marc's again but it was $0.77/lb. Still, getting 15lbs of any meat at about $12.00 is a bargain in my book. Freezer is now filled with turkeys for both man and dog for at least a year.

[Frank Drackman]

Turkey for a Jive Turkey? Fitting.

[Mr. Bumble]

The cool cat was out of frozen feline.

[Malika la Maize]

“A vote for Trump means your groceries will be cheaper”.

Does groceries=Thanksgiving meal price?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/grocery/2025/09/23/why-grocery-prices-going-up/86296793007/#:~:text=Grocery%20prices%20are%20jumping%20up,We%20explain%20why.&text=Grocery%20prices%20are%20on%20the,pandemic%2C%20according%20to%20CPI%20statistics.

Also, for the plagiarism police, where you at, bros? If you want to be that way Kaz’s entry is a nightmare (no link and a jumble of “”””). For those who want to know it seems his citation comes from this source:

https://www.fb.org/news-release/cost-of-thanksgiving-dinner-declines

But of course that was never about principles.

[Kazinski]

I used quotes, and the quote self cites the source.

[Josh R]

Take out the turkey, and the price went up. Your sucking up to Trump is apropos because he cherry picks all the time (eggs!).

Inflation is stubborn, having creeped up since Liberation Day and the people aren't buying the spin to the contrary.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite, or is it just vibes?

[Josh R]

Liberation Day was April 2, 2025. The inflation rate in April was 2.3%, down from 3.0% when Trump took office. We are back up to 3.0%.

[Kazinski]

That's actually a good chart to illustrate exactly my point.

Inflation had almost the exact same pattern last year, it dropped to 2.4% by September of '24, but by January '25 it was back up to 3%.

So what's the difference between between last years dip and rebound, and this years dip and rebound?

A.: it dipped 0.1% lower this year before the rebound than it did last year.

[Josh R]

Nice try. The public isn't buying (nor should it) that the increase since Liberation Day is an expected pattern.

Having said that, we should expect inflation to drop after the effects of the tariffs fully kick in (unless the tariffs further increase). But, the lower inflation rate will be applied to a higher price thanks to the tariff-induced increase in inflation we are seeing now.

[Kazinski]

I didn't say it was expected, but it wasn't unexpected either.
Inflation seldom goes on a glide path in any direction for long. Look at the 5 year view of this graph, it hit 3% in June 2023, and has been oscillating in a similar pattern with 5 mini-peaks and 4 mini-valleys since.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1wmdD

But you didn't answer my question "what's the difference between between last years dip and rebound, and this years dip and rebound?", and the 3 other oscillations in the last 2 1/2 years.

Your answer: '(handwaving) Trump!!!'

[Josh R]

The difference is Occam's razor: we don't know what happened last year, but this year it's the tariffs. But by all means, the GOP and Trump (*) should keep on arguing it's just a fluctuation having nothing to do with the tariffs.

(*) Trump insists on arguing prices are down (cuckoo).

[Kazinski]

Take out the Turkey on Thanksgiving giving? Doesn't that miss the whole point?

Vegan Thanksgiving!!!! I hope you don't mind eating alone Josh.

Inflation is stubborn, because the Fed actually targets 2% inflation and its hard to calibrate it.

Core Inflation is lower now than when Trump took office in January.

"The January 2025 Consumer Price Index (CPI) report surprised to the upside, with the headline figure rising by 0.5% month-over-month (MoM) following a 0.4% rise in December 2024. Core CPI (excluding food and energy) rose by 0.4% after rising by 0.2% MoM in December 2024.1

This has led to a modest increase in the year-over-year (YoY) rates, with the headline CPI now at 3%, up from the 2.9% rise in December, and the core CPI at 3.3%, up from the 3.2% rise in December."

https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/markets-and-economy/economy/cpi-report-january-2025

[Josh R]

Take out the Turkey on Thanksgiving giving? Doesn't that miss the whole point?

Yes, you missed the point. Quoting the price of Thanksgiving dinner is cherry picking, not much different than just quoting the price on eggs. At least Thanksgiving dinner is multiple items, but when one item dominates and the whole set itself is cherry picked, you reach the wrong conclusion. Also, some people eat ham. They are getting clobbered.

See my above chart for inflation since Liberation Day.

And the polls and 2025 elections show what the public thinks.

[Kazinski]

Its cherry picking to quote the price of Thanksgiving dinner on Thanksgiving?

"Farm Bureau's classic survey menu has remained unchanged since 1986 to allow for consistent price comparisons"

They publish it every year, its not just some Trumpist plot. If it was up this year I am sure someone, maybe even me, would be pointing it out and you would have no complaint, so just suck it up, and pass the gravy.

And the Farm Bureau says fully half the ingredients are down in price, including the flour used to make the gravy.

"Half of the ingredients in the survey declined in price, including dinner rolls and stuffing. Low wheat prices helped bring down the cost of items requiring flour."

[Josh R]

Its cherry picking to quote the price of Thanksgiving dinner on Thanksgiving?

Yes. People's experiences go beyond one day.

The price of Thanksgiving dinner dropped by $2.90 in 2025. The price of the turkey dropped by $4.16 (16 lbs. dropping 16.3% from $1.60 to $1.34 per pound).

[Riva]

And, a necessary reminder to the idiot voters in NY and democrats in general, who are all badly in need of some education, from Prof. Paul Rahe (hat tip Scott Johnson from powerlineblog.com):

On Thanksgiving, it is customary that Americans recall to mind the experience of the Pilgrim Fathers. We have much to learn from the history of the Plymouth Plantation. For, in their first year in the New World, the Pilgrims conducted an experiment in social engineering akin to what is now contemplated; and, after an abortive attempt at cultivating the land in common, their leaders reflected on the results in a manner that Americans today should find instructive.

William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth Colony, reports that, at that time, he and his advisers considered “how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.” And “after much debate of things,” he then adds, they chose to abandon communal property, deciding that “they should set corn every man for his own particular” and assign “to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end.”

The results, he tells us, were gratifying in the extreme, “for it made all hands very industrious” and “much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.” Even “the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

Moreover, he observes, “the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times . . . that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing.” In practice, America’s first socialist experiment “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.”

In practice, “the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”

Naturally enough, quarrels ensued. “If it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men,” Bradford notes, “yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And [it] would have been worse if they had been men of another condition” less given to the fear of God. “Let none object,” he concludes, that “this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”

The moral is perfectly clear. Self-interest cannot be expunged. Where there is private property and its possession and acquisition are protected and treated with respect, self-interest and jealousy can be deployed against laziness and the desire for that which is not one’s own, and there tends to be plenty as a consequence.

But where one takes from those who join talent with industry to provide for those lacking either or both, where the fruits of one man’s labor are appropriated to benefit another who is less productive, self-interest reinforces laziness, jealousy engenders covetousness, and these combine in a bitter stew to produce both conflict and dearth.

[David Nieporent]

Plagiarized from https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/americas-first-socialist-republic-3.php

[Riva]

Accusing me of plagiarism? Did you miss the part where I attributed the block quote to Prof. Rahe courtesy of Scott Johnson from powerlineblog. Is falsely accusing me of plagiarsim really what you want to do, counselor?

[Bwaaah]

That's pretty stealthy quoting. I missed it.

David wastes his breath on plagiarism. But he straightened me out there. I'm just saying...I didn't know that was a quote.

There are conventions that solve that problem. They're easy for people to spot. You don't do that?

It's as if it matters little if people misunderstand you.

Am I talking to myself? I think I'm talking to myself.

[Riva]

You sloppy misread my introduction to the quote and engage in some half assed effort to excuse this asshole’s false accusation of plagiarism? I guess, after fucking attributing full credit to the author and the source, I should add, “oh, by the way, please read the preceding attribution again”?

No, asshole quite intentionally accused me of plagiarism both to distract from the substance of the quote and to attack me personally. Fucking disgusting.

[Bwaaah]

I should add, “oh, by the way, please read the preceding attribution again”?

You bother to type all that, but not just

"

[Riva]

It is not customary to use quotation marks for long block quotes. I used a colon mark after the introduction. The introduction you decided not to read, you imbecile.

[David Nieporent]

It is customary to use the blockquote html tag for long block quotes. And to provide a link.

[Bwaaah]

Much better. Yes.

[Riva]

No it is not. And my post clearly attributed the author. You falsely accused me of plagiarism. You’re a fucking disgrace who is apparently doubling down on the slur. Is this how you advise your clients? It doesn’t seem like something that would mitigate liability.

[David Nieporent]

Did you miss the part where you didn't actually do a block quote at all?

[Dr. Ed 2]

There has to be more because this doesn't quite make sense, but what we know so far is that a 29-year old illegal alien, one of the Afgan "refugees" that Brandon brought into the country back in 2021, walked up to a female member of the WVA National Guard and shot her in the chest, dropping her. (Even if she was wearing a vest, this is not unexpected, as are injuries such as broken ribs.)

The perp then takes her weapon and shoots her in the head at point-blank range, shoots another Guardsman in the head, and is himself shot, receiving four non-life-threatening wounds. A fourth person, identity unclear, is also shot. The perp is then tackled to the ground.

A Park Police helicopter lands and one or both of the shot-in-the-head Guardsmen is bundled aboard in "scoop & run" fashion and flown to GWU's Trauma Center which is the only reason they are still alive, if both actually are. At best, both are very seriously injured but it is truly amazing what a good Trauma Center can do today, and I say that as someone who has personalty benefited from one.

What's not being said is that sometimes you keep someone alive on machines until loved ones, particularly children, have a chance to say goodby to them. We should hope for the best, but I would mot be surprised for there to be fatalities here, particularly after the announcement that the WVA Governor has walked back. In the event either wounded Guardsman dies, this would come under the Federal Death Penalty.

This is being considered an act of terrorism.

Thoughts:

1: Thank you, Brandon.

2: To what extent was this motivated by all of the leftist propaganda we have seen over the past few months?

[Martinned]

Hang on, I'm old enough to remember that the Trumpist line was that Biden callously abandoned the Afghans to their doom, and now the Trumpist line is that Biden was too generous to the Afghan people? Make up your mind!

[Frank Drackman]

Would you please please please please please please please stop talking??

[Michael P]

Of course you think "the Afghan people" are an undifferentiated mass. Figures.

[Martinned]

Feel free to explain the distinctions you'd propose to make.

[Michael P]

The argument has consistently been that Biden abandoned Afghanistan, as a country, to the Taliban; including by ignoring that the Taliban had suborned some of Afghanistan's government before the US withdrawal. And it has also consistently been that the Biden administration was not appropriately vetting the individuals it brought to the US.

The nuance (and I use that word liberally) of a country versus diverse individuals living there is often lost on people who think the residents of that country all look the same.

[Martinned]

What does that mean "abandoned Afghanistan, as a country" other than the people there?

As for this part: "people who think the residents of that country all look the same". Please, pot, kettle.

[Michael P]

There's room elsewhere for a philosophical debate about whether a country is more or less than just the people there, and exactly who fits into "the people there", but you entirely missed the distinction between the country (or its people) as a whole and individuals from that country. Maybe that is because you think they're an undifferentiated mass and all look the same.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like "Europeans"?

[hobie]

"The nuance (and I use that word liberally) of a country versus diverse individuals living there is often lost on people..."

Oh the irony! Now do Israel/Judaism.

[Malika la Maize]

Singling out all Afghans particularly for case by case review because of one Afghan’s action shows how non-collectivist Dear Leader is!

[Mr. Bumble]

Does it? How many were admitted and not properly vetted?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s Thanksgiving so:

My point is Trump is calling for a change in reviewing a group because of the actions of one member of that group, and I’m saying that doesn’t seem very non-collectivist to me, in response to Mikie Q’s weak sauce reverse Judi attempt that Martinned is the collectivist in the conversation.

[Malika la Maize]

Judo

[Mr. Bumble]

Fair enough, Thought you meant to say Jedi.
Have a good Thanksgiving.

[Michael P]

I criticized Martinned because he wanted to lump all Afghans together, and your response is to criticize me because Donald Trump wants to review each Afghan asylum-seeker individually.

You're very ... special, bless your heart.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Hang on, I'm old enough to remember that the Trumpist line was that Biden callously abandoned the Afghans to their doom, and now the Trumpist line is that Biden was too generous to the Afghan people?"

BiteMe failed to make a distinction between those ho were on our side and those who were engaged in trying to kill us.

[Kazinski]

He did callously abandon the vast majority of Afghans, because only an infinitesimal percentage could be airlifted out.

Maybe it was inevitable, but he didn't even try to give them a chance.

Then one of the very select few he decided to bring here was that guy.

[Kenneth Almquist]

> 1: Thank you, Brandon.

According to CNN, Rahmanullah Lakanwal applied for asylum in 2024, but he wasn’t granted asylum until April 2025. So that should be, ”Thank you, Trump.“

> This is being considered an act of terrorism.

Sites like Redstate are claiming, without evidence, that this is terrorism because portraying foreigners as scary is what they do.

[Michael P]

18 USC §2332b:

(5) the term "Federal crime of terrorism" means an offense that—
(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and

Do you think it fails that definition? The factually apparent motivations would tick either or both of the top-level "or". (On the other side of the "and", I think this attack violated sections 930(c) and 1114 of Chapter 18.)

[Michael P]

*facially apparent. Gboard is tempting me to give up on Android entirely.

[hobie]

"is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct"

Oh my god!! You're killing me today, Michael. Now do J6! Bro, you're, like, making my Thanksgiving morning.

[Michael P]

You're as incoherent as ever, which is probably why you keep wanting me to make the argument that you can only arm-wave at.

[Bwaaah]

Smited by Hobie. It's like watching a retard trying to riff on how stupid you are.

[Malika la Maize]

Recently disaffected liberal!

[Bwaaah]

Because in your world, a "liberal" doesn't use the word "retard." And in your world, a "liberal" stands quietly behind a moron like Hobie, because you're both on the same "liberal" team.

Because in your world, "liberal" is synonymous with "Democrat." But that's a pretty dumb definition given the ever-shifting tides of the two-party system.

Liberalism is a range of philosophies, Malika. They are enduring. They are global. And they transcend American Democratic fads (such as requiring so-called "diversity statements" from prospective college professors).

It appears to me that in addition to being an ardent booster of the Democratic narrative, Malika, you are a liberal too. You and I have much in common that you prefer to avoid.

[hobie]

My Lib-dar (which is kin to Gay-dar - which tingles when half of you hayseeds comment - which is itself a play on Radar) does not tingle when you comment, Bwaah. I don't think we share commonalities.

[Bwaaah]

I think you dislike a lot more people than I do, Hobie.

[John F. Carr]

Like the attack on the USS Cole was terrorism. Terrorism is very broadly defined. Any violence against the government that is not carried out by regular uniformed soldiers recognized as lawful combatants might be considered terrorism.

[Magister]

Like January 6th 2021, right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that citizenship makes a difference.

[John F. Carr]

Some of the January 6 defendants were sentenced as terrorists.

[not guilty]

"Some of the January 6 defendants were sentenced as terrorists."

Which ones?

Domestic terrorism is not a federal crime. Sentencing guidelines sometimes call for a terrorism enhancement.

[Bwaaah]

"U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly applied the enhancement for a federal crime of terrorism to the defendants’ convictions for destruction of government property"

[Voize of Reazon]

Governments certainly love to redefine loathsome terms to their advantage but the original definition of terrorism, the definition that earned it its ignominy, was violence directed against the public for political ends.

[not guilty]

Wrong, Michael P -- 18 U.S.C. § 2332 prohibits killing a national of the United States, while such national is outside the United States. And that statute neither defines, nor even mentions, a "federal crime of terrorism."

I suspect that you intended to cite § 2331, which at subsection (5) provides:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

How do you surmise that the shooting in D.C. of national guard personnel meets that definition?

[Michael P]

I meant what I wrote. You just missed the "b" at the end of the section number.

[Bwaaah]

Too late. He's onto some kind of a well-formatted expedition.

[not guilty]

You are correct, Michael P, that I missed the "b". Mea culpa.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe the Name "Ramadanmedulla Buchenwald" was a clue???

[hobie]

I wonder if any Muslim - living or dead - was named Shamalama Dingdong

[Mr. Bumble]

Probably, before they became Shamalama X.

[Frank Drackman]

I heard he's still playing the Dexter Lake Club.

[Michael P]

"Man called Adolf Hitler Uunona wants to be re-elected in Namibia"

https://metro.co.uk/2025/11/25/man-called-adolf-hitler-uunona-wants-re-elected-namibia-24799177/

(As the story notes, Mr. Uunona seems to diverge sharply from his namesake's policies and politics, in a positive direction.)

[Commenter_XY]

It is really a shame the terrorist survived the encounter.

[hobie]

We need to find the person responsible for putting troops on American streets (harms way) where they don't belong.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It is really a shame the terrorist survived the encounter."

I initially thought the same thing -- and then I realized that a living prisoner can be questioned. Can be cheaply bribed when at ATX Florence for a while. Etc.

Shot four times and still had to be tackled -- I'm thinking they wanted him alive...

[hobie]

Nov 24: "A National Guard member from Alabama has died. Alabama National Guard Staff Sgt. Jacob Bobby Hill, of Sylacauga, was assigned to Joint Task Force-D.C., a group of troops mobilized to the district this summer under the direction of President Donald Trump."

Happens all the time.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.al.com/news/2025/11/alabama-national-guard-soldier-dies-after-being-mobilized-to-washington-dc.html
"A National Guard member from Alabama has died in a “non-duty-related incident in Washington, D.C.,” according to military news site Task & Purpose.

Alabama National Guard Staff Sgt. Jacob Bobby Hill, of Sylacauga, was assigned to Joint Task Force-D.C., a group of troops mobilized to the district this summer under the direction of President Donald Trump.

Task & Purpose reports that Army officials did not respond to inquiries about the incident, citing an ongoing investigation."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Motor vehicle accidents are not uncommon amongst the prime demographic (men 18-35). I noticed the "non-duty related incident" part....

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, basic research found:
"On Nov. 13, Hill died after suffering a medical emergency at the Virginia hotel his unit was staying at. National Guard task force officials in charge of the D.C. mission told Task & Purpose Monday that Hill’s death was a “non-duty-related incident.” It appears to be the first death of a National Guardsman ordered to Washington."

He was 30 years old, so my guess is that he died as a consequence of the COVID vaccine. Anything else, they would be saying....

[hobie]

Them soldiers could have been home at the trailer eating Thanksgiving vienna sausages and writing anti-neegro screeds on the Volokh Conspiracy. Instead they got shipped out to America for a vanity project and got shot.

[Frank Drackman]

Was his name "Beaumont" because then you could say "Beau-mont got-shot" like Samuel Jackson said in "Jackie Brown" (it's funnier when he says it)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, what you fail to understand is that in rural America, the Guard & Reserve are considered well-paying part-time jobs.

Hobie, what you fail to understand is that a lot of these people volunteered for this duty because they need the money.

And Hobie, there is an aspect of Bright Lights, Big City to this -- DC is a very pretty city at night...

[Dr. Ed 2]

If they are naming the Guardsmen, that means they definitely are still alive and have a chance.

https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-shooting-white-house-afghan-national-138fbe6872d7ac30b20973783b39002c

Whoever made the decision to "screw the rules" and land the helo for the "scoop & run" (which forced Reagan National to temporarily close to incoming flights) probably saved their lives in getting them to the trauma center a few minutes quicker.

This is the part that is left out of the gun control debate -- states with anti-gun laws also have quicker access to a trauma center so of course there is going to be fewer GSW deaths. Massachusetts, the most anti-gun state in the country, has a dozen at this point if you include the one in RI that covers the border communities.

[David Nieporent]

but what we know so far is that a 29-year old illegal alien, one of the Afgan "refugees" that Brandon brought into the country back in 2021,

Dr. Ed is right about one thing: he doesn't make any sense.

If this person was an Afghan refugee brought here by Joe Biden, then the person is not an illegal alien.

[Martinned]

I see that in yesterday's thread the question of jury trials came up again. I might as well clarify my position: Any defendant should be able to opt for a trial in front of three judges instead of a jury. And if you do that, you might as well make it the default.

Similarly, there shouldn't be rules of evidence that are designed solely to avoid "prejudicing" the jury, and procedural rules that are tailored to the existence of a jury, like a great unwillingness of appellate courts to overturn jury verdicts. Hold a trial, write a judgment, and if someone wants to appeal, let the appeals court decide what they think of the judgment below.

In short, this: https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2023/04/07/12-angry-men-the-case-against-the-jury/

[Martinned]

Note that the British plan involves only some of this. Most notably, it substitutes a single judge for a jury, which seems much more dicey to me. Also, the British plan is not about improving the criminal justice system, but about cost cutting.

[Mr. Bumble]

Kind of like health care.

[Martinned]

British health care can be pretty bad, but it's still better than what the US has. (Which is why there is no better way to argue against any and all reforms to the NHS than to say "why are you trying to turn the NHS into the US?" That's a guaranteed debate winner in front of any part of the UK electorate.)

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know any Foreign Despots who go to England for their Heart Surgery.

[SRG2]

Rolls-Royce fallacy - thinking that the best is representative of the average,

[ThePublius]

"British health care can be pretty bad, but it's still better than what the US has."

That's not only complete bullshit, it's the exact opposite of the truth.

I can see a doctor and a dentist and any other number of specialists on short notice - like a week or two - something that's impossible in the U.K. And, in my view, and that of many U.K. residents who visit the U.S. for medical and dental care, U.S. physicians, dentists, and other specialists, and our health care facilities, are the best in the world.

Fuck off, Marrtinned, you America hater. Find some Dutch or U.K. blog to haunt.

[Mr. Bumble]

" Find some Dutch or U.K. blog to haunt."
That might get him in dutch with the authorities and have him being fined or jailed.

[Martinned]

There is very little risk of being jailed for one's opinions in the Western world, outside of the United States (where you might even end up dead).

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/weekly-dispatch/2025/11/06/deaths-ice-custody-detention-trump-mass-deportation/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/14/sami-hamdi-british-commentator-ice-deportation

[Martinned]

I'm sorry if facts displease you. That's not a very promising sign for your Thanksgiving dinner.

Meanwhile, have some light reading on the topic of comparative health outcomes:

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2895526/

[John F. Carr]

Judges are generally selected by the government to trust the government and agree with the government.

I wonder if a summary judgment process in criminal trials would make a big difference in practice. Under present law even if the evidence in a criminal trial is undisputed the defendant can pray for a miracle from the jury. Under a summary judgment standard the sandwich guy case might not have gone to the jury.

[Magister]

Has it shifted from defendants praying for a miracle from the jury to federal prosecutors praying for a miracle from the jury?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Solar is causing problems in Germany:
https://archive.ph/O4Tv7

[Frank Drackman]

Schatz, Ich mochte fernsehen, scheint die Sonne?

[hobie]

Looks like a good problem to have. I just can't figure out why the rest of the world isn't clamoring for our advance, clean-coal technology

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, high voltage is not fun.

It's not just that it burns things out, but they start exploding and then start burning. Go high enough and it stops being healthy for human beings -- something may be safe for use at 120 volts, but not at 1,200 volts...

Hobie, think of voltage as pressure, just like water. Well as you increase the pressure, you increase the volume coming out of the hose as well, and that increases the heat and that ....

[Martinned]

Today in "every law we don't like is either a First Amendment violation or a taking, or both":

RealPage is suing New York, challenging a new state law that bans landlords from using algorithms to set rents.

RealPage claims that its software, which landlords have used to collude on rents, is protected by the First Amendment.

[A Japanese Student]

If they banned writing or sharing that software, they have a stronger claim. I've seen people argue anticircumvention law or crypto export control, as unconstitutional. But I doubt the rent law regulates software written on paper.

[ducksalad]

How does it get enforced? That's where the First Amendment might come in.

Some economist publishes a journal paper about methods for setting rent, with equations - an "algorithm". Some landlord reads it. Landlord happens to set rent at a value near what the paper says. What are you going to do?

If they are just banning the collusion, that's a different issue and it's well established that the government can ban fixing prices. Although it's always seemed odd to me to have acts that are perfectly legal but only if you don't talk with anyone else about them.

[John F. Carr]

My understanding is a century of precedent says using words is not a defense in antitrust cases.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Other forms of collusion, e.g. fixing prices in a smoke-filled room, would also involve speech. How is this different?

[thesafesurfer]

How long before Ilya writes an article that blames Trump for the shooting and portrays the Afghan immigrant as a victim?

[Dr. Ed 2]

GPS Interference Snarls Venezuela
https://archive.ph/CQVs2#selection-1185.0-1185.34

You can do blue-water navigation without GPS, using a sextant and such, but I don't know how, I doubt Gen Z druggies do.

[Frank Drackman]

You and a Sextant? You'll put your Eye out!

[Mr. Bumble]

Better for Ed to stick with dead reckoning.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with Dead Reckoning, at least in the Gulf of Maine, are something called "tides" and something called "currents."

When I was a boy we used to use it in the fog -- it was all we had (no radar, no GPS, no depth finder). So we'd run a compass heading and then shut off the engine and listen for foghorns. (Back then, every one was different.) It wasn't uncommon to be 20 miles sideways from where we wanted to be.

We were going 10-15 knots -- these go-fast drug running boats are going what -- 80-90 knots? Without GPS, they are going to get WAY off course rather rapidly. And you really don't want to show up in the territorial waters of a third state with a deck cargo of visible drugs...

[John F. Carr]

According to Wikipedia they only go 25 knots on the open sea.

The faster you go the less time you have to go off course.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's not that fast -- the new "Sentinel" class USCG Cutters can do 28 knots, the old "Island" class could do 29.7 knots. A lot of lobster boats can go almost that fast -- the USS Iowa could do 33 knots.

[Michael P]

Yesterday, Gaslight0 answered without evidence that US inflation under the Autopen regime "recovered better and faster then most other countries" (after randomly accusing me of flipping on support for Ukraine in a thread where I had said nothing, at which point not guilty dragged in one of his dumb standby comments with zero support). As usual, Gaslight0's claim was false; out of major Western economies, only the UK had more inflation than the US (24% vs 23%).

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global-inflation-by-country-2020-2025/

[hobie]

And?

[Malika la Maize]

One potential issue is that Biden (who I think was terrible on inflation) didn’t take office until 2021.

[Kazinski]

We know.
CPI:

2020 1.2%
2021 4.7%
2022 8.0%
2023 4.1%
2024 2.9%

[Magister]

The United States did recover better than other countries, despite Republican opposition rooting for a recession. Value today of a euro in 2021 seems to have changed about the same as a dollar between 2021 and now.

[Commenter_XY]

Happy Thanksgiving, VC Conspirators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_(United_States)

Go easy on the pies. 😉

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Apple crumb is the best.

https://teachnthrive.com/history-passages/u-s-passages/when-was-the-first-thanksgiving-thanksgivings-in-america-from-the-16th-century-until-today/

[Malika la Maize]

Pumpkin is the norm, but give me pecan any day.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Pecan is better than pumpkin. Pumpkin is more standard. So much pumpkin. Even the "submit" button is sorta pumpkin colored.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sweet potato better than both.

[Nelson]

Sweet potato isn’t better than anything. Including a lot of inedible things.

[thesafesurfer]

Excellent comment on the Fani Willis Georgia electors case dismissal.
https://shaferdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Statement-of-Counsel-for-David-J.-Shafer-11.26.25.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Because many don't read links:
"1
STATEMENT OF CRAIG A. GILLEN
GILLEN LAKE & CLARK, LLC
ATTORNEY FOR DAVID J. SHAFER
On behalf of David Shafer and his legal team, we thank Pete Skandalakis and
the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia for the decision to file a Nolle
Prosequi (Nol Pros) dismissing all charges brought by Fulton County District
Attorney Fani Willis. We appreciate Mr. Skandalakis’ objectivity and
professionalism in evaluating the charges against Mr. Shafer and his decision to
dismiss all the charges against him. This nearly four-year nightmare is finally over.
Mr. Shafer is completely innocent, and we were always confident that an
objective review of the facts and law by a competent and objective prosecutor would
lead to his complete vindication."

[Kenneth Almquist]

Your link contains self-serving statements such as this one:

Both state and federal law requires election contests to be expeditiously heard and resolved. But the lawsuit filed by Mr. Shafer and President Trump was never heard at all. In fact, it was not set down for a hearing until January 8, 2021 – a full month after federal law required the case to be resolved and two days after Georgia’s electoral votes had been counted and certified.

Let’s review the history to see why this case was never heard. The election was on November 3. The lawsuit in question was filed more than a month later, on Dec. 4. Or at least that’s when they attempted to file it; I think they didn’t actually get the paperwork filled out properly and the filing fee paid until Dec. 7. In any case, plaintiffs’ motion for emergency injunctive relief was filed on the 7th.

The following day, the Biden electors filed an emergency motion to intervene. They suggest that the lawsuit was filed in “an attempt to sow confusion and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election” and ask the judge to resolve the case as quickly as possible.

The same day, plaintiffs withdrew their request for emergency injunctive relief. The next day, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the emergency motion to intervene, saying among other things that because they have withdrawn their emergency motion, there was no emergency and thus no justification for an emergency intervention. The judge was apparently persuaded by this argument, because she issued an order saying that because the emergency motion for injunctive relief has been withdrawn, “the action shall proceed in the normal course.”

That led to the hearing being scheduled on January 8. But the hearing did not occur because plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on January 7.

Rather than admit that Shafer and Trump filed a frivolous lawsuit that they never intended to seriously pursue, Shafer tries to blame the courts. But the courts can’t force a plaintiff to file a lawsuit expeditiously. They can’t provide injunctive relief if the plaintiff insists on withdrawing the petition for an injunction. And they can’t rule on the merits of the case if the plaintiff insists on dismissing the case.

[David Nieporent]

Shafer was responsible for counterfeiting and submitting fake electoral votes purportedly from the state of Georgia.

[Martinned]

Noteworthy judgment out of the High Court in London last week.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Abu-v-Secretary-of-State-for-Justice.pdf

Borrowing from Joshua Rozenberg's summary:

The justice secretary was challenged by a prisoner suffering from mental illness who is serving a minimum 19-year life sentence for terrorism offences. Except for a period of almost eight weeks when he was permitted to associate with one other prisoner, Sahayb Abu was segregated from all other inmates from April this year until October.
(...)
For more than four months, Abu was locked in his cell for 22 hours each day. He had no contact with other prisoners and very limited contact with prison staff, mental health nurses and chaplains. Abu, who had existing mental health difficulties, claimed that this prolonged segregation had been severely detrimental to his mental health. He referred to auditory hallucinations, panic attacks, suicidal thoughts and acts of self-harm, as well as the lack of timely psychological intervention.

According to expert psychiatric evidence before the court, Abu had manifested symptoms consistent with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. The judge found that the segregation regime had subjected him to intense mental suffering which went way beyond the inevitable element of suffering inherent in segregation. The mental health support provided to Abu had not mitigated his symptoms of trauma and distress

For these reasons, Mr Justice Sheldon ruled in a 149-page judgment yesterday that the home secretary had breached article 3 of the human rights convention [forbidding torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] from 21 August until the High Court hearing on 13 October.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/inhuman-treatment

[Commenter_XY]

Life is tough for captured and incarcerated terrorists, deservedly so. I don't weep for the murderer, eurotrash.

[Martinned]

I know, that's why I thought this judgment was noteworthy. If you're not capable of compassion on Thanksgiving, maybe I should try again at Christmas.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

[Commenter_XY]

Try that with hamas, eurotrash. Let us know how you make out.

[hobie]

Looks like XY and MichaelP are in a perpetual partisan lather. I wouldn't count on Christmas being any different.

[not guilty]

Does XY celebrate Christmas?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

TBF, Jesus thought the end of times was coming. That sort of thing was toned down long-term.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DWcotWoLm7c

[Martinned]

The subject of this article from March was released from prison in Louisiana this week, after more than 30 years of incarceration and more than 25 years on death row.

https://boltsmag.org/the-human-cost-of-jeff-landrys-drive-to-resume-executions/

1. This is only a secondary reason to oppose the death penalty. Innocents who are convicted of life in prison also suffer irreperable harm. The primary point is that the state shouldn't be killing people unless it cannot be avoided.

2. Another big win for the jury system: "The jury deliberated for just under three hours. They prayed together. And they returned their verdict: guilty of murder in the first degree. "

3. It will be a surprise to no one that once again it is a poor person who got caught on the wrong end of the US criminal justice system.

Neither of Chris’ court-appointed trial lawyers had ever defended someone against the death penalty. (Their training was a single seminar on capital defense.) Court records indicate that their plea to the jury for mercy was lackluster at best.

[Michael P]

Thank goodness that Republicans have taken over the state and are releasing the victims of perjured testimony and tampered evidence that date back to Democrat dominance in the state, huh?

[Martinned]

Who cares? The death penalty is evil regardless of who is doing it.

[Frank Drackman]

Unless you're an unborn child.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t get him crying about zygotes!

[ThePublius]

The death penalty is justice delivered to evil doers, and protection for potential future victims.

[Frank Drackman]

And great for starting a Religion, what would Christianity be if on Easter we celebrated “Jesus getting 25 to Life”

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The victim's families who think the death penalty is "evil" sometimes disagree. Secular law probably should tone down on talk about evil.

The death penalty is in effect a lottery where a statistical handful of murderers are executed. The public safety value is limited.

A few cases involving prison murders (or those who are violent in prison) or escapees or the like are harder cases there.

[SRG2]

Before you pat the GOP on the back too hard, the state is still trying to get him back inside. I note that in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas did execute him, though, as with Duncan, there was no crime to begin with.

Perhaps the lesson to draw is that the Confederate states are prone to convict and try to execute innocent people whether the state government was Democratic or Republican.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Justice Breyer, in his anti-death penalty dissent in Glossip v. Gross (Glossip wasn't executed; more problems were later found with his case as well), noted that long delays in executing people are constitutionally problematic.

He noted that, over time, problems are repeatedly found in these cases. Sometimes, guilt itself is found to be at best questionable.

There was an uptick in executions in the U.S. this year, but it can mostly be explained by the increase in Florida. Florida now is scheduled to have 19 executions scheduled. Texas has only five.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/upcoming-executions

LWOP is only a "devil or deep blue sea" option in some respects. People have been executed after being on death row for over thirty years. Other than the likes of Charlie Manson, I don't think people should be in prison for that amount of time for most anything.

(If a person needs to be separated from society, U.S. prisons leave a lot to be desired as places to put them.)

[ducksalad]

Both pro- and anti-death penalty people should be able to agree that holding someone for 30 years and then executing them doesn't meet either of their goals.

[not guilty]

Is Florida going to start using an electric sofa to carry out multiple executions simultaneously?

[Frank Drackman]

That Moose-lum Ban (that wasn’t really a Ban) is looking pretty good right now.

[DDHarriman]

One of the Seditious Six, the ex-CIA Democrat one, said just recently that National Guardsmen will start to randomly shoot civilians soon, then a day later an ex-CIA Afghani national randomly shoots National Guardsmen.

The Democrat Color Revolutionaries are making their moves. They already are advertising sedition to active military men. They're "greasing the skids" for their next phase. If you follow history, the Left's next phase always involves mass murder. Always.

[Riva]

They certainly wanted chaos when they sowed the seeds for mass insubordination. I think that, given the heightened violence coming from the left, other outcomes should also have been foreseen. Few things in modern history compares to the reprehensible conduct of these seditious pieces of shit, and there’s a lot of stiff competition for reprehensible conduct among democrats to choose from.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t ask your government to break the law, folks!

[Riva]

No, don't suborn mutiny, especially if you're subject to recall into active duty and a court-martial under the UCMJ.

[hobie]

All these traitors have to do is start running for reelection early. Because then all these machinations against them would be considered lawfare. Amirite?

[Riva]

It would be a rather fitting homage to history if these democrats ran for reelection on a platform of sedition.

[hobie]

What's next? Soldiers balking at vaccination orders?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I were a uniformed member of the Guard, I'd be pulling out my weapon when I heard someone shout "Allah Sucks" after yesterday.

NB: "Allah Sucks" is easier to spell, and reflective of my viewpoint.

[ReaderY]

People who plan mass murder always say that about their opponents.

It’s the Trump Administration, not the Democrats, who set up concentration camps and created a secret police (ICE) outside of regular law enforcement and who are attempting to deploy the military against citizens in the streets.

Baselessly accusing people who merely warn about the obvious dangers of such behavior of mass murder is something that people who actually plan mass murder regularly do.

Democrats have never advocated mass murder. The over-the-top extremism of the lie is remarkably similar to the accusations against Jews Nazi trolls like yourself regularly spewed out in the years before the Holocaust.

Here, the Nazi comparison is historically spot-on.

[JohnSmith97]

ICE is secret police? Seems way to well known to be called "secret".

Any reason the (D) party didn't remove it during their leadership during the ~22 years since it was created?

I guess the talking points came out, all leftists have to refer to a prison as a "concentration camp".

And look, a nazi comparison.

[ReaderY]

Prior to Trump, ICE didn’t conduct surveillance on or detain American citizens. Did you know it regularly does that now? Or are you BSing that because it has the same name as before, that means it’s the same organization, in order to help keep its new policing activities secret.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-patrol-surveillance-drivers-ice-trump-9f5d05469ce8c629d6fecf32d32098cd

[not guilty]

"One of the Seditious Six, the ex-CIA Democrat one, said just recently that National Guardsmen will start to randomly shoot civilians soon, then a day later an ex-CIA Afghani national randomly shoots National Guardsmen."

Do you have a citation or link to Sen. Slotkin saying that?

[DDHarriman]

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1993781096517976460

The Ex-CIA ringleader of the Seditious Six.

[not guilty]

Your link identifies that post as having been submitted by Greg Price.

Again, do you have a citation or link to Sen. Slotkin saying what you attribute to her?

[David Nieporent]

One of the Seditious Six, the ex-CIA Democrat one, said just recently that National Guardsmen will start to randomly shoot civilians soon,

Voltage!

[DDHarriman]

https://notwhatyousignedupfor.org/

Democrat/ANTIFA organizations recruiting military members for their future hot coup.

Things are getting ugly as CIA/Democrats progress on their color revolution plot.

[Malika la Maize]

You forgot to use “color revolutionary,” for shame.

[DDHarriman]

Do you think its alarming that organizatik s with foreign donors are actively recruiting our active military to communicate over secret channels to discuss immoral, but not illegal, orders?

[Malika la Maize]

Planes, Trains and Automobiles is the (lonely) Thanksgiving classic.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. RIP John Candy.

Friends also has some good Thanksgiving episodes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Something we can agree upon. John Candy, gone too soon and probably underappreciated.

[Bwaaah]

I identify with the shower curtain ring salesman. I too had a similarly significant place in the world.

Who doesn't like/know/use shower curtain rings?

Happy Thanksgiving to all. With only a little bit of luck, there's much to be thankful for.

[Frank Drackman]

"What do you think the Temperature is???"
"One"

[Bwaaah]

Well... Yes. But only if you're counting. Otherwise, you might just find yourself asking inconsequential questions, such as about the temperature.

"Beautiful country though, isn't it?"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciate the chance to provide my .02.

More and more blogs in recent years have closed down comments. I guess many might say "no great loss," but I think feedback is useful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I noticed this with the higher education blogs -- while higher education is notoriously biased to the left, and while the publications were as well, the comments leaned to the right.

[hobie]

So basically the Libs achieve and the hillbillies grouse. Sounds about right.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The hillbillies are going to stop funding it, though...

[ReaderY]

Given the broad interpretation of the Speech and Debate Clause, could Members of Congress being investigated for their speech sue to halt the investigations? The grounds would be that the very existence of such an investigation constitutes an inquiry (a “question”) about their speech that is being conducted outside of Congress, and hence is forbidden by the Clause.

[ducksalad]

Not only could they sue, they could draft a bill saying they get $500,000 if they win.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-500k-lawsuits-senators-shutdown-deal/

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Speech and Debate clause covers speech in the House and Senate. It also covers legislative activity more generally. I don’t think the video qualifies.

If the purpose of the investigation is to intimidate and harass, rather than to investigate a crime, then it violates the First Amendment.

[not guilty]

"Given the broad interpretation of the Speech and Debate Clause, could Members of Congress being investigated for their speech sue to halt the investigations? The grounds would be that the very existence of such an investigation constitutes an inquiry (a “question”) about their speech that is being conducted outside of Congress, and hence is forbidden by the Clause."

No, I don't think so, in that the video was made and published other than in Congress or any committee thereof. The protection of the Speech or Debate clause of Article I, § 6 extends only to legislative acts. It would not seem to apply to publication of the video here. For example, Senator Mike Gravel's arrangement with Beacon Press for private publication of the Pentagon Papers was not subject to the clause:

Legislative acts are not all-encompassing. The heart of the Clause is speech or debate in either House. Insofar as the Clause is construed to reach other matters, they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. As the Court of Appeals put it, the courts have extended the privilege to matters beyond pure speech or debate in either House, but "only when necessary to prevent indirect impairment of such deliberations." United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d at 760.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972).

While the FBI can request interviews, the members of Congress can decline those requests, so no harm, no foul. OTOH, anyone who is arrested without probable cause based on the video would have a cause of action for damages here pursuant to Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006).

[hobie]

In the annals of bringing a nuclear weapon to a knife fight custody battle:

"A woman from Brazil with family ties to the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, is being detained at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Louisiana, the authorities said.

Bruna Caroline Ferreira, the mother of Ms. Leavitt’s 11-year-old nephew, was pulled over and arrested on Nov. 12 on her way to pick up her son from school in a suburb of Boston...

Ms. Ferreira was previously engaged to Ms. Leavitt’s brother, Michael Leavitt, but they never married, Mr. Pomerleau said. They have shared custody of their son, who lives with Mr. Leavitt in New Hampshire, he added. Ms. Ferreira lives in Revere, Mass.

[said Mr. Leavitt] "“My only concern has always been the safety, well being, and privacy of my son.”

(yeah, sure it is, buddy)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/26/us/karoline-leavitt-ice-family-member-bruna-ferreira.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Paywalled of course.
Just what are you trying to say?

[hobie]

here's a free one for you poor schlubs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/26/us/karoline-leavitt-ice-family-member-bruna-ferreira.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4U8.jaFm.VGh9-eqoKcfn&smid=url-share

[Life of Brian]

Cool. Now what are you trying to say?

[hobie]

I like to make my writing mercurial and use big words. The Libs here always get what I'm saying. But the hillbillies? Not so much.

Sigh.

But anyway, I find it amusing to imagine(?) that the dad just called up the White House and had mom permanently removed from the country. That's an entirely coincidental, helluva way to get full custody.

[ThePublius]

And your narrative is such bullshit.

[Michael P]

Did you really expect anything else? That's classic hobie.

[DDHarriman]

Pay attention to the Lefts new rhetoric. Its not just "illegal orders" its "illegal or immoral orders" that they are challenging.

This is the same tactic they used with trannyism. First it was "gender and sex are different" then within a blink it was illegal for anthropologists to sex a skeleton became its transphobic.

[hobie]

I thought Hegseth told all the generals that the troops were de-moral-ized from all the trannies. So we're trying to help them moralize.

[DDHarriman]

Its hard to believe that people around here would be totally okay with partisans and foreign governments recruiting active duty US soldiers over lawful but subjective morality.

But here we are. The Seditious Six were successful, they shifted the Overton Window of constitutionality from "what the constitution says" to "what the constitution says and what the Democratics think is moral". Which, frankly, is congruent with their Living Constitution beliefs.

They've never believed the rule of law. Thats always been platitudes. They only care about BAMN amd violence.

[not guilty]

"Pay attention to the Lefts [sic] new rhetoric. Its [sic] not just 'illegal orders' its [sic] 'illegal or immoral orders' that they are challenging."

Link or citation, DDHarriman?

But civil disobedience as to immoral governmental action (which of course includes accepting the consequences thereof) is a proud American tradition since 1776.

[DDHarriman]

I linked it above and the Seditious Six used similar language in their call to arms video.

[ducksalad]

Damn. Three hours before guests arrive. Put the turkey (9 lbs) into the oven. Controller failed, oven shuts down as soon as it comes to the set temp. Groceries closed. Domino's closed.

Turkey fondue?
Turkey tartare?
Download some PETA brochures and hand them out at dinner?

[ThePublius]

Gee, I'm so sorry. I have an oven that's troublesome, and quits sometimes. So, I feel your pain.

Do you perhaps have a toaster oven? You could halve the turkey and get half into it. Nine pounds is not a very big bird.

[ducksalad]

Thanks. Actually thought about that, but we were planning to use the toaster oven for the green bean casserole, and somehow a half turkey just seems kind of lame.

New plan. Set oven to 400 instead of 350. Mrs. Ducksalad sits in front of the oven, every time it hits 400 and shuts down, she waits until it cools to 300 and then restarts it. I read the VC open thread.

[Brett Bellmore]

My oven problem was trivial next to yours; Got a nice Frigidaire gas oven, which among other features has a probe. Turkey was in a couple hours before I remembered that, and decided to try it out.

It registered that the probe was plugged in, but didn't display the reading.

OK, reading the manual, Frigidaire has some REALLY bone headed programmers: The oven only displays the probe temperature if the probe was plugged in before the oven was turned on. For no good reason. Plug it in after turning on the oven? It knows it's plugged in, but won't tell you what it reads.

Well, it didn't take long to fix, anyway.

Best of luck with your turkey. I'm probably having to spend as much time at the oven as your wife, because I'm roasting it in a shallow platter, and have to keep on top of the renderings lest they overflow.

[ducksalad]

Is the shallow platter to get crispy skin further down the sides?

We just pulled the turkey after the 3 hour flying-the-plane-on-manual ordeal. Fully cooked but the wings and bottom are soggy, as usual.

[Brett Bellmore]

It did have that effect, but, no, it just didn't really fit in my roaster with enough room to spare.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe the temperature probe (some kind of variable resistor?) has enough variance in electrical performance as to warrant re-calibration upon each use, which begins with a baseline reading that, if not at ambient temperature, results in too much interpolation error over the full range of oven temperatures?

I'm just feeling like siding with the Frigidaire people on this, and trying to fill in a decent reason to reject your criticism of their logic.

[Jmaie]

I roast rack of lamb as hot as the oven will go in order to get a decent caramelization by the time it reaches medium rare. Starting out on a cold oven will result in no caramelization by the time it’s done.

[Bwaaah]

I wasn't suggesting that cooking should begin at turn-on time; just the re-calibration of the probe.

[ducksalad]

My friend, you have been reading a law blog for years, and that's what you came up with? Re-calibration?

Perhaps the reason is to reduce the chance that users will try to mess around with the probe inside the oven while it's hot. Users perhaps less intelligent and careful than Brett, yet more inclined toward litigation.

And that's my opinion as an electrical engineer who sometimes writes calibration routines for temperature sensors.

[Bwaaah]

I like that. That makes more sense to me.

(And IANAEL)

(And I think oven thermocouples elements are chosen quite because they behave relatively predictably across the full temperature range of the application.)

[Bwaaah]

(And IANAELIANAEE)

[Bwaaah]

I changed my mind. Making the probe not work would not prevent a person from trying to make it work, as Brett did. Depending on people to understand what's going on by reading the manual is beyond aspirational; few people do that (except with engineer types like Brett). I believe that making the probe not work is likely to exacerbate the problem of people messing inside a hot oven.

I don't like the theory of the probe being disabled for safety, unless it's one of those dumb-ass theories that inadvertantly makes things more dangerous.

[Brett Bellmore]

The socket for the probe is actually in the face of the stove, covered by the door when it's closed, and stays cool even when the oven is hot. Good design there.

My theory is that they just wrote the code to accommodate the intended order of use, and nothing else.

There are other code deficiencies; For instance, if you're using the timer, and the timer runs out, you have to shut the timer off and turn it back on in order to get a few more minutes. I'd have had the +/- buttons appear when the time was up, in case somebody wanted to add a few more minutes. And the broiler won't turn on if the oven is already hot, unless you shut off the oven and let the temperature drop for a while.

Really, they only programed it for the intended use scenarios, rather than general utility.

[Bwaaah]

Sounds like they stopped at good enough before they got to good. (Thanks for adding info.)

[Bwaaah]

ducksalad: "New plan. Set oven to 400 instead of 350. Mrs. Ducksalad sits in front of the oven, every time it hits 400 and shuts down, she waits until it cools to 300 and then restarts it. I read the VC open thread."

This is the kind of pragmatism that warms my heart. If I saw a way with duct tape, I'd be all over that too. But sweat equity from Mrs. Ducksalad at the helm, and you showing her how Mr. Ducksalad is the master of his domain, is just about as much home as I can dream of on this Thanksgiving.

The food'll taste better for Mrs. Ducksalad's effort. It won't be just a turkey; it'll be an accomplishment. And you can add something reflective about what you read or wrote on VC. No matter. They don't listen to you anyway. That's family.

[ducksalad]

Glad you're not still upset about me calling you and Krayt clingers who need to be replaced.

Happy Thanksgiving. I haven't admitted to anyone that I even read here, much less post, and plan to keep it that way through the holiday. That's my family.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. No problem regarding me being a clinger. I have fond memories of Reverend Arthur. And there you were, kind of sounding like him. (ouch)

Ahhh...memories...my shit life. (LOL)

Happy Thanksgiving. Sincerely. To you.

[hobie]

Yeah. Hayseed or Marxist Lib, Happy Thanksgiving to all!

[Bwaaah]

I'm going to figure you meant well and wish you the same, Hobie. And I deleted two comments I wrote (but didn't post) to you today. So happy Thanksgiving, Hobie. Sincerely. I hope it is as much as possible what you want it to be.

[hobie]

Of course I meant it. In a small way, all of you are my brothers now. Even Frank.

[Bwaaah]

If aliens ever come here (extraterrestrial kind, not Canadian/Mexican kind), and look us over, good luck to anybody who tries to tell the aliens how different they are from Frank Drackman.

And especially if the aliens can do that mind-reading thing, we're all gonna look like internal conflict networks coated in hypocrisy. The aliens will observe that Frank's the straight guy.

I know. It sounds unbelievable.

(And for those of you who can't laugh at this, I wish you a happy Thanksgiving anyway.)

[hobie]

Didn't have any takers for Airbnb today until I posted my menu online...then got slammed. Two lucky contestants, trapped in my warm ghetto mansion in a snow storm, just got the following:

Completely deboned roast turkey (bones for concentrated turkey stock)
Southern cornbread stuffing with PEI oysters
Turkey stock gravy
Fresh cranberry sauce
Roasted sweet potato discs covered in honey, pistachios, dried cherries, and Shropshire blue cheese (a fucking excellent cheese, BTW...like if blue and cheddar had a baby)
Muffin tin puff pastry parcels filled with exotic mushrooms, garlic, chives, thyme and cream.

You hillbillies should be impressed. I did all that, and still managed to effectively quarrel all morning with a bunch of mask-hating insurrectionists on an obscure legal blog.

[ducksalad]

PEI oysters? How come there aren't PEI pearls? Explain that.

[Voize of Reazon]

Wikipedia to the rescue:

The Ostreidae, the true oysters, include most species of molluscs commonly consumed as oysters. Pearl oysters are not true oysters, and belong to the order Pteriida.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I remember something about Japanese and American oysters being so genetically similar that it was a major crisis when people started growing the Japanese ones in Maine, the fear was that the sperm in the water would fertilize the remaining American ones.

The European ones were different enough so they could be raised.

[not guilty]

Yesterday DDHarriman posited, "There are four distinct species of humans alive today."

Among human primates, homo is the genus; sapiens, the species.

What are the other three species? Inquiring minds want to know.

[John F. Carr]

Linnaeus divided humans into four or six varieties or subspecies, which one may render in English as white, red, dark, black, wild, and monstrous. In modern times these are disregarded as politically incorrect and led at least one scientific organization to cancel Linnaeus.

In modern understanding, three to five species of Homo survived to the last 100,000 years. None are considered extant as distinct species. Some recent headlines proclaim Neanderthals did not go extinct, instead merging with humans. Smells like clickbait.

[Bwaaah]

Fascinating venture into human categorization. But it kind of misses a mark of relevance in that it doesn't distinguish the category of humans generally referred to as "douchebags."

[Krayt]

Linnaeus divided humans into four or six varieties or subspecies, which one may render in English as white, red, dark, black, wild, and monstrous. In modern times these are disregarded as politically incorrect and led at least one scientific organization to cancel Linnaeus.

I have no desire to defend this out of some mistaken sensibility. I will point out though, now, as with gender, and then, as with race, cultural standards carry major fucking social expectations when pontificating eternal truths.