Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has reportedly agreed to negotiate a settlement that will pay more than 1,300 people who said priests and lay staff members sexually abused them as children. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/12/08/new-york-archdiocese-child-sexual-abuse-victims-lawsuits/87677955007/

The New York Times reports:

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York said on Monday that it was raising at least $300 million as it moved to negotiate a settlement that would benefit roughly 1,300 people who have said they were sexually abused as minors by its priests and lay staff members.

The archdiocese said it had agreed with representatives of the accusers on a mediator and had begun to raise money by cutting costs and selling assets, including its headquarters and other real estate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/08/nyregion/ny-archdiocese-sex-abuse-settlement.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251208&instance_id=167668&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=211986&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

As Jesus said to his followers in the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Chapter 7 of the gospel of Matthew (RSV):

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

The fruits of the Roman Catholic Man-Boy Lust Association Church are political intrigue, corruption, misogyny and pederasty. It is difficult to imagine something more vile than abusing access to parishioners' children under the guise of religion in order to satisfy the abusers' carnal desires.

[Michael P]

It is not difficult at all to imagine something more vile. It is called the Democrat Party, with fruits that include political intrigue, corruption, misandry and murder (along other evil fruits).

[Malika la Maize]

How sad it must be to live life with such a facile, partisan (manichaean?) worldview.

[Michael P]

You'd have to ask not guilty.

[Malika la Maize]

I could ask you both. And in true partisan and manicheaen fashion you whatabout.

[Michael P]

It's not my fault you are too stupid to pick up on how my comment was a simple twist on NG's hate, and too partisan to realize when I emphasized the parallelism.

[hobie]

Hear hear! NG, it's time you stop hating pedo priests. you hater.

[Michael P]

NG has a hate-boner for the Roman Catholic Church as a whole, not abusive clergy specifically. hobie the hater is all in favor of that kind of take, though.

[Bwaaah]

^that^

[hobie]

Oh, I'm all in favor of hating on any denomination of the Doomsday Cult

[Nelson]

“ NG has a hate-boner for the Roman Catholic Church as a whole, not abusive clergy specifically”

Possibly because the Roman Catholic Church knowingly and actively aided and abetted pedophiles for at least a century?

How dare he be outraged by an international pedophile ring that claims to be a moral authority?

[Malika la Maize]

the parallelism.

Yeah, as I said, whataboutism. A frequent tool of the hopelessly partisan and manicheaen.

[Michael P]

The only whataboutism here is what you and NG write while trying to defend your hypocrisies.

[Malika la Maize]

Ipse dixit. You rattled, bro?

[David Nieporent]

It is not difficult at all to imagine something more vile. It is called the Democrat Party,

There is in fact nothing "called the Democrat Party."

(At least not in this country; perhaps some other countries do have one of those.)

[Michael P]

It is, in fact, widely called the Democrat Party. You might not like that, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[Joe_dallas]

DN is fully aware the "democratic" party has been unofficially called the democrat party for the since the last 100 years or so. Let him argue about something so trivial. In a court filing, the correct legal name will matter, in general discussion, not so much.

[Malika la Maize]

widely called
unofficially

Weasels gonna weasel.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. Say anything about "Democrats" and Malicia wonders, "Whuh?"

Weasels gonna weasel.

(cue: [blah][blah] disaffected [blah][blah])

[Malika la Maize]

You can’t stop Bwaari from criticizing Democrats, you can only hope to contain him.

And he’s a philosophical liberal, of course!

[not guilty]

I understand the temptation to tweak the opposition party. There was a time when I frequently referred to Rethuglicans and to the Rethuglican Party. I ceased doing that when others in response to me called out the epithet as a convenient excuse to avoid defending Republicans' perfidy.

I have never understood, however, why those who yap and yammer about the "Democrat Party" believe that the use of non-standard English is somehow persuasive. "Democrat" is a noun; "Democratic" is an adjective.

Is the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh simply irresistible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrGw_cOgwa8&list=RDUrGw_cOgwa8&start_radio=1

[Michael P]

How twee: The guy who gets his rocks off by writing about Justice "Uncle" Clarence Thomas, Judge "Loose" Cannon and AG "Bottle Blondi" claims to not understand why someone would be precise in naming the party that favors rule by Democrats over democratic governance.

[Malika la Maize]

Precise? “widely known?”

[Joe_dallas]

100+ years of common usage -

Rethugligans which is definitely derogatory NG - Are you sharp enough to notice your own double standards?

[David Nieporent]

There is no such "common usage." If you think there is, it's because you hang around drunk retards in your social life.

And there's no double standard by NG, as he said that he stopped doing that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure there is:
"Common usage refers to the ways in which words and phrases are typically used by speakers of a language, reflecting the collective habits of its native speakers. It can influence what is considered correct or standard in language, often guided by dictionaries and style guides. Wikipedia"

[Josh R]

I think DN was claiming "Democrat Party" was not a common usage for 100+ years.

I first became aware of it in the 1990s. Only GOP partisans were using it (and have ever since then).

[Joe_dallas]

Josh R - No DN is just playing his stupid word games. The term democrat party has been in usage since around 1890 and common usage since the early 1900's. One can debate the how common the usage was during different periods, yet for all practical purposes, the usage has been around for quite some time.

[Josh R]

Citations?

[Life of Brian]

Here's Google Books' take on usage over time. It shows usage back to the 1840s, and a surge up to modern-day levels around WW2.

[David Nieporent]

Here's Google Books' take on usage over time. It shows usage back to the 1840s, and a surge up to modern-day levels around WW2.

That of course doesn't tell how it's used. Like, for example, "bookkeeper_joe is a dumbass for ungrammatically saying 'Democrat Party'" would show up the same as "The Democrat Party appointed that judge." But for actual perspective on how "common" it is: try this one.

[Life of Brian]

I'll let you pull a few book excerpts showing usage along the "only dumbasses say Democrat Party" line. Let's just say those weren't screamingly apparent in a survey of hits from the 1800s.

And your Y axis scale gimmick is just that, and has no bearing at all on whether the term was in common usage before the latest partisan wave of the 1990s. As my graph shows, the usage over the last couple of decades is similar to that in the 40s.

[not guilty]

No matter how long the phrase has been around, its usage has been ungrammatical. Why do those who use it believe it to be persuasive?

Such a user may as well hang a sign around his neck proclaiming "I am an ignoramus and a boor!"

[Life of Brian]

No matter how long the phrase has been around, its usage has been ungrammatical.

Man, you just dropped by and flatly blew up Nieporent's day-long gentle finessing. There's no question "Democratic Party" is the original name, but suggesting it's actually grammatical (rather than a cynical hijacking of the English language for partisan gain) is pretty amazing.

"I am a Republican. I am a member of the party of Republicans. I am a member of the Republican party."

"I am a Democrat. I am a member of the party of Democrats. I am a member of the ________ party."

Please fill in the blank from one of the following choices, and don't forget to cite to whatever rule of grammar you believe supports that choice.

a) Democrat
b) Democratic
c) Hey... SQUIRREL!!!

[David Nieporent]

B. Duh.

Not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend: for some words the noun and adjective forms are the same. For others they are not.

[David Nieporent]

And your Y axis scale gimmick is just that,

I used no "gimmick." I simply showed that the correct phrase "Democratic Party" is overwhelmingly more common than the incorrect "Democrat Party."

[Life of Brian]

Not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend: for some words the noun and adjective forms are the same. For others they are not.

This is actually the glaring exception when it comes to political parties. But in any event, you've pointed to absolutely nothing to establish why they should possibly differ here other than the party's original cynical choice. Your pretending not to actually understand that is getting tiring.

[Life of Brian]

I used no "gimmick." I simply showed that the correct phrase "Democratic Party" is overwhelmingly more common than the incorrect "Democrat Party."

That's a lovely circular argument that the party's hijacked term for itself remains dominant, but in any event that's not what we were discussing.

[David Nieporent]

"Hijacked" doesn't mean whatever you think it means.

[Josh R]

Brian, do you agree that "Democrat party" has commonly been used as a partisan pejorative by the GOP for at least the last 30 years?

[Nelson]

“ DN is fully aware the "democratic" party has been unofficially called the democrat party for the since the last 100 years or so.”

Since they refer to themselves as the Democratic Party and everyone who isn’t hopelessly partisan knows that, your “conservatives call it the Democratic Party Party, so that’s what it’s called” is just sad and pathetic.

[David Nieporent]

Contra Michael P, it is not "widely called" the "Democrat Party," and contra bookkeeper_joe, it has never officially, unofficially, or otherwise been called the "democrat party."

The name of the party, since it was founded, has always been the Democratic Party. Every educated person has always called it the Democratic Party. I acknowledge that there are some dumbasses/demagogues who may say "Democrat Party," just as there are some who may say "Rethuglican Party." But the bare existence of a small number of frivolous people who do the latter would not make it accurate to say "It is called the Rethuglican Party."

Let him argue about something so trivial.

If it's so trivial, then why not use the correct name? Are you an environmentalist conserving electrons by not typing out the last two letters?
​
​
Note that just yesterday, some MAGA here thought it was Very Important to refuse to call Rachel Levine "Rachel Levine" because that isn't the name on his birth certificate, and there was no court-ordered name change¹ and only formal legal names should be used.

¹In the United States, no such court order is generally required, so it's just a disingenuous test anyway.

[Joe_dallas]

DN gets his dander up over something trivial

And yes its been common usage for 100 or so years.
Bloody murder playing word games

[Malika la Maize]

Unlike now did you do your homework as a child?

[David Nieporent]

And yes its been common usage for 100 or so years.

Pants on fire.

[Life of Brian]

See my Google Ngram link above. You're just haggling over the exact threshold of "common usage."

[Michael P]

He seldom has an argument beyond "when I use it a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- and the same for when you use a word".

[Armchair]

"Addressing a gathering of Michigan Republicans in 1889, New Hampshire Republican Congressman Jacob H. Gallinger said:

The great Democrat party, laying down the sceptre of power in 1860, after ruling this country under free trade for a quarter of a century, left our treasury bankrupt, and gave as a legacy to the Republican party, a gigantic rebellion and a treasury without a single dollar of money in it.[21]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term was used by the press in London, England, as a synonym for the more common Democratic Party in 1890:

Whether a little farmer from South Carolina named Tillman is going to rule the Democrat Party in America—yet it is this, and not output, on which the proximate value of silver depends.[22]"

[SRG2]

And here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

[Joe_dallas]

SRG2 , DN and others "
Life of Brian gave you a link which seriously undercuts you attempts to misrepresent & distort facts.

"Life of Brian 3 hours ago - See my Google Ngram link above. You're just haggling over the exact threshold of "common usage.""

[not guilty]

Well, one meaning of "common" is lacking refinement or coarse. So in that sense of the word, the phrase has indeed been in common usage for too long.

[Nelson]

“ And yes its been common usage for 100 or so years.”

By a tiny group of opposition whinybitches? Maybe, but I doubt it. It’s a modern phenomenon for conservatives to insist it isn’t the Democratic Party, but the Democrat Party.

And if it’s so trivial, why are you arguing against what they call themselves? Seems like you think it’s important.

[ThePublius]

"The name of the party, since it was founded, has always been the Democratic Party."

Not so.

"The Democratic-Republican Party splintered in 1824 into the short-lived National Republican Party and the Jacksonian movement which in 1828 became the Democratic Party. During the Jacksonian era, the term "The Democracy" was in use by the party, but the name "Democratic Party" was eventually settled upon[114] and became the official name in 1844.[115] Members of the party are called "Democrats" or "Dems"."

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

[David Nieporent]

I almost brought up the Democratic-Republican Party, since it is a spiritual ancestor of the Democratic Party, but they were actually independent entities, and there's a clear break between them during the EoGF interregnum (to mix metaphors).

(To be sure, Democrats for a while liked to trace their party lineage back to Jefferson — and they often had things like Jefferson-Jackson Dinners — although in the woke era that's less popular.)

[SRG2]

It is in fact widely called the Democrat Party by people who dislike it. It's a known pejorative usage. Nobody who doesn't dislike it calls it that.

[Armchair]

The 1919 New Teachers' and Pupils' Cyclopaedia entry for Woodrow Wilson states that "In 1912, Wilson was the Democrat Party nominee for President ..."[23] On July 14, 1922, a newspaper in Keytesville, Missouri, posted an advertisement for its primary elections with the Democratic candidates identified as "Representing: Democrat Party".[24]

[Sarcastr0]

None of that contradicts SRG2.

Everyone can see you trying to smuggle your shitposting into innocent discourse.

[Nelson]

“ It is not difficult at all to imagine something more vile.”

I believe that “minimizing and apologizing for organized pedophilia” is a new low for you.

[Michael P]

Your imagination is as vivid, and as detached from reality, as Malicia's.

[Malika la Maize]

Dude thinks parents having special moral duties to their kids is an “identitarian” thing that is false.

[Michael P]

Lies like that are why you get called Malicia, you ban-evading troll.

[Nelson]

Well, Michael, most people find it almost impossible to imagine something more vile than an organized pedophilia ring that has operated for at least a century.

You, however, think that it is not difficult at all to find something more vile. In fact, to you an organized pedophilia ring that has operated for at least a century isn’t vile at all. In fact, it’s less vile than a mainstream American political party.

That’s pretty much the definition of minimizing pedophilia.

[Kazinski]

That's small potatoes NG

"In April, Los Angeles county approved a historic $4bn settlement with about 11,000 claimants and allegations of sexual abuse in LA juvenile facilities that dated back decades. On Friday, the county said it had reached another major settlement for $828m, pending approval by the board of supervisors, the county governing body, and the county claims board."

About 5 billion in all from LA county for decades of sexual abuse from public officials and employees.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/17/los-angeles-county-sexual-abuse-settlement

What does the Sermon on the Mount have to do with the County of Los Angeles?

[not guilty]

Resorting to whataboutism is a confession of having nothing of substance on the original topic.

Why am I unsurprised that that is your go to tactic here?

Child sexual abuse, no matter where or by whom it occurs, is horrific. Kiddie diddling by those who gain access to children under the guise of religion is (im)pure, unmitigated evil.

Is the Catholic Church's strident opposition to abortion rights born of a fear that its priests will run short of altar boys to bugger?

As the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg said, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Show us on the doll where the priest touched you.

[Nelson]

Which priest? There were thousands of pedophile priests, so you’ll have to be a LOT more specific.

[Michael P]

"Kiddie diddling by those who gain access to children under the guise of religion is (im)pure, unmitigated evil."

It reflects the pure, unmitigated evil of the Democrat Party that you again include the "guise of religion" qualification here. Is it any less evil to abuse children through access to them in foster care, juvenile detention, or public schools? No, it is not, but you only direct your ire at a group you dislike, and spare the sinners you ally with.

[Malika la Maize]

Is it any more evil for a parent to molest their kid than a stranger? People kind of hold Churches to a higher bar (and so do the churches).

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do teachers and schools.

[Malika la Maize]

I’d say teachers are in the middle between parents/churches and strangers. What do you think?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not sure. Given that school is mandatory there is a larger possibility of interactions between students and teachers.

[Malika la Maize]

Are you conflating the possible scope of the problem in those institutions with the blameworthiness of those within each that do bad?

[Michael P]

Wow. I did not have "Malicia is okay with public schools, foster care and juvenile detention facilities molesting children because those are not churches" on my bingo card.

In my book, an act is evil in and of itself. It doesn't become less evil depending on which (legally competent) person commits the act. I should have remembered that identitarians do believe the moral content of acts like child abuse depends on the actor.

[Malika la Maize]

I didn’t have Mikie Q thinking that being a parent is just an irrelevant pc identity when it comes to their children’s well being on my bingo card. The party of family values, folks!

[Michael P]

I didn't mention parents either way, you loon. You can't engage with my actual comments, so you just make something up out of whole cloth.

[Malika la Maize]

I said it would be worse for a parent to do that to their own child and you said it doesn’t matter whether it’s a parent or not, you loon.

[Michael P]

I recommend you stop lying so much about what people write. You're just admitting to your own accusations.

[Malika la Maize]

Malika la Maize 38 minutes ago
Is it any more evil for a parent to molest their kid than a stranger? People kind of hold Churches to a higher bar (and so do the churches).

Reply Edit

Michael P 24 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Wow. I did not have "Malicia is okay with public schools, foster care and juvenile detention facilities molesting children because those are not churches" on my bingo card.

In my book, an act is evil in and of itself. It doesn't become less evil depending on which (legally competent) person commits the act. I should have remembered that identitarians do believe the moral content of acts like child abuse depends on the actor.

[Michael P]

What I wrote is approximately nothing like "being a parent is just an irrelevant pc identity when it comes to their children’s well being". As usual, you have serious trouble with basic facts and understanding the world.

[Malika la Maize]

I said it was worse for a parent to abuse their child.

You replied:

In my book, an act is evil in and of itself. It doesn't become less evil depending on which (legally competent) person commits the act. I should have remembered that identitarians do believe the moral content of acts like child abuse depends on the actor.

[Michael P]

What I wrote was about the evil of child abuse, not about "irrelevant pc identity" or the child's well-being in general. For someone who complains that my very narrow and factual criticisms are trolling, you are incredibly loose with facts.

[Malika la Maize]

I wrote it’s worse when a parent does it. In reply you wrote:

In my book, an act is evil in and of itself. *It doesn't become less evil depending on which (legally competent) person commits the act*. I should have remembered that *identitarians do believe the moral content of acts like child abuse depends on the actor*.

* mine to help you see what you wrote

You clearly argued my parent distinction was irrelevant, something only an “identitarian” would think mattered. Now you just want to walk it back because while you thought it was cute when you wrote it you see how bad it is once I pointed it out.

[Michael P]

It is not surprising that someone who is okay with public schools, foster care and juvenile detention facilities molesting children just because those are not churches also can't understand basic English.

[Malika la Maize]

You got caught arguing parents are an irrelevant identity and now can’t respond. I get it’s embarrassing.

[Michael P]

You can't read, and painted yourself in a corner where you can't admit you totally misinterpreted a simple statement. I get it, but you only make yourself look more childish by continuing to double down and blaming me for your failings.

[Malika la Maize]

I said it was worse for a parent to abuse their child.

You replied:

In my book, an act is evil in and of itself. *It doesn't become less evil depending on which (legally competent) person commits the act*. I should have remembered that *identitarians do believe the moral content of acts like child abuse depends on the actor*.

You clearly argued that it’s not worse when a parent abuses their own child, that that’s what an “identitarian” would think.

Busted.

[Bwaaah]

If you'd employ more of a sincere voice, Malicia, you'd fare better in argument. Instead, you get stuck trying to account for your bullshitty voice.

[Malika la Maize]

I’ve got on my high ankle socks today Bwaari, how do they taste?

[not guilty]

"Is it any less evil to abuse children through access to them in foster care, juvenile detention, or public schools? No, it is not, but you only direct your ire at a group you dislike, and spare the sinners you ally with."

As I said, child sexual abuse, no matter where or by whom it occurs, is horrific.

The Guardian article that Kazinski linked upthread does not refer to public schools. That is something you threw in gratuitously.

And yes, the abuse by officials in L.A. Country is (marginally) less evil, in that parents do not voluntarily entrust care of their children to foster care or juvenile detention facilities. Parishioners do entrust their children to priests for spiritual guidance.

You are vividly illustrating my point that resorting to whataboutism is a confession of having nothing of substance on the original topic. The vile conduct of the Catholic Church here is indefensible.

[Armchair]

"And yes, the abuse by officials in L.A. Country is (marginally) less evil,"

I'd argue it's MORE evil. In this case, the parents don't have a choice and then their children are abused.

[Michael P]

Indeed. I alluded to that in my reference to compulsory education, but NG was too busy implying that public schools don't have abusive staff to pick up on that.

[not guilty]

You lie, Michael P. I said that the Guardian article that Kazinski linked did not reference public schools, which is something that you threw in gratuitously. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. Nothing whatsoever is implied thereby.

[Michael P]

As I explained elsewhere, my inclusion of public schools was informed and relevant, not gratuitous. You should be careful not to lie before you accuse others of lying.

[Bob from Ohio]

Michael, you are violating the following:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" Mark Twain

[Michael P]

It's pretty obvious who the fool is when he claims "nothing whatsoever" is implied by what he writes. It's an admission that his comments are void of meaning and substance.

For example, take a description of something as "gratuitous". That implies either a reason to call it such, or that the speaker uses words without reason. The latter implication is closer to "nothing whatsoever", so apparently we should infer that is why NG used the word.

[Malika la Maize]

A factor is that the Church (or church, or mosque or what have you) holds itself out to a very high standard, so the betrayal is worse.

[Michael P]

You did not, in fact, say "child sexual abuse, no matter where or by whom it occurs, is horrific". You were very specific that your complaint was about acts "under the guise of religion".

I included public schools because they have been the subject of an increasing number of lawsuits over sexual abuse, such as those outlined at https://www.edweek.org/leadership/more-districts-are-paying-big-to-resolve-sexual-misconduct-claims/2023/02 .

You are proving the observation that complaining about whataboutism is merely a confession to hypocrisy.

[not guilty]

"You did not, in fact, say 'child sexual abuse, no matter where or by whom it occurs, is horrific'."

You lie once more, Michael P. I did say exactly that 56 minutes ago, and I copied and pasted it into my reply to you.

Try as you may, you haven't spooked the pixels off the monitor. Don't forget the first rule of holes: STOP DIGGING!

If anyone ever gives you an enema, your remains could then be buried in a cigar box.

[Armchair]

Whataboutism refers to changing the topic to something else. For example, if the question is the high murder rate by African Americans, whataboutism would shift to "well, what about all the white collar crime by white Americans". Looking at the murder rate by white Americans by comparison would not be whataboutism, but looking at the larger situation.

In this case, Kaz stays on topic dealing with Child abuse by large institutions. Child abuse is a problem that is often seen by large institutions that deal with children. You attempt to throw in a red herring with abortion, and attempt to ignore the child abuse issues elsewhere and "just" focus on the Catholic church, because of your antireligious bigotry.

[Krayt]

Whattaboutism is usually brought up as a defense, see, your side does it too, so it's either not wrong, or not that wrong.

I extend a hand to invite everyone to enjoy whattaboutism, and conclude with me its evidence that both sides are unredeemed lying sinners in pursuit of power.

Flip flop. Cover stories. Plausible deniability. This is the realm of the legally-trained power mongers aka politicians.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 3 hours ago
"Resorting to whataboutism is a confession of having nothing of substance on the original topic."

NG law license is on disability - disability from the extensive whiplash from his extreme double standards.

[not guilty]

What is the status of your law license, Joe_Dallas?

As I have explained time and again, I voluntarily sought disability inactive status because clinical depression -- which since has been under control -- was adversely affecting my ability to practice. Rather than seek reinstatement to active status, I elected to retire.

Some cretins here seem to think that is a "gotcha." It is not. My skills are still sharp.

[Joe_dallas]

Your double standards, hypocrisy, likewise remain quit sharp.

Your are obviously offended that your hypocrisy is exposed.

[Malika la Maize]

What double standard did you expose here?

[Joe_dallas]

that is a stupid question - even by your standards

[Malika la Maize]

It should be easy to answer this, why didn’t you?

[Joe_dallas]

Dude - this gets old - Are you living a cave - NG is one of the most hypocritical commentators posting here. Double standards abound.

[Malika la Maize]

Oh, so can’t supply anything. I guess you’re used to hearing that.

[Sarcastr0]

For fuck's sake Joe.

Whether through laziness, stubbornness, or stupidity, you never seem willing to actually back up your accusations when called out.

[loki13]

"Whether through laziness, stubbornness, or stupidity"

Why pick just one when all three seem evident?

[not guilty]

Hypocritical, Joe_Dallas?

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Joe_dallas]

We have got loki, maliki duoche II and a few others that are blind to NG's long history of his double standards and hypocrisy.
Fortunately that bubble is padded, though NG is suffering from his whiplash.

[Joe_dallas]

[Joe_dallas]

Malika la Maize 6 hours ago
"What double standard did you expose here?"

NG is the one exposing his own double standards and hypocrisy. One of today's examples is his attempt to equate the rethuglicans with the commonly used term democratic party. One is intentionally used as derogatory insult, the other has become a commonly used term and hasnt been used as anything resembling an insult for the last few decades.

I will point out that Kaz , armchair have pointed out several other examples of NG hypocrisy today.

[not guilty]

The pejorative "Democrat Party", you say, "hasnt [sic] been used as anything resembling an insult for the last few decades"??

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Joe_dallas?

[Kazinski]

But you seem to be blaming religion, Christianity in particular, when the culprit is people, and institutions that look the other way.

The LA settlement involved about 10x as many victims, and more than 15x as much money, so I think its far more than whataboutism.

[Nelson]

“ About 5 billion in all from LA county for decades of sexual abuse from public officials and employees.”

And that’s the difference between the Catholic Church and virtually all other non-religious or non-conservative (Boy Scouts) organizations. They don’t knowingly hide and protect pedophiles in an organized effort to silence victims and protect their illusions of moral authority.

[Bob from Ohio]

"decades "

Took decades to do the right thing. Why so long?

[Nelson]

So far they’re doing a lot better than the Catholic Church. By more than a century.

The Catholic Church ran an organized pedophile ring. Pointing out that others also were pedophiles will never change that, nor excuse it, nor minimize it.

Conservatives can’t just admit that religious organizations are not only rife with pedophiles, they help them hide from exposure and prosecution.

Schools and teachers, as a general rule, don’t. And never from the top. No one has ever said “the California Department of Education actively protects pedophile teachers”, nor even “the LA Department of Education actively protects pedophile teachers”

It has been said, and proved, that the Catholic Church, from the Pope on down, actively and intentionally prevented investigation and prosecution of pedophile priests and, if necessary to avoid arrest, helped them flee the jurisdiction or even the country.

It has been said because it’s true. On the other hand, teachers and districts and departments of education have NEVER done that.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, every day, on Planet Earth, the RC church does many, many good deeds; feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, treating the sick, visiting the prisoner, caring for the widow and the orphan, and not forgetting the aged. The RC church tends to them all, quietly, and without fanfare.

In every large organization, there are sick, deviant people who do evil. The RC church is no different. I will say that the disclosures (which had to happen) of this sick and perverse behavior have horrified and driven away many, many people of that faith. I hope that Pope Leo can heal these wounds (the victims, and the RC church).

Granted, the RC church has a checkered history (about 2,000 years). As a Jew, I have no love for the RC church. But it is wrong to say the RC church has nothing but spoiled fruit as it's legacy.

[loki13]

Let's be clear on one really important issue.

This isn't about some ... "sick, deviant people who do evil." If there were some priests that did evil, that would be one thing.

No. This is about institutional corruption and rot. This is about the widespread and systemic coverup and abuse, not just in one place, but worldwide, and the knowing involvement of the institution and the coverups that occurred over scores of decades that allowed it to continue happening. The lies, the deceit, the shielding of the guilty, and the knowing movement of abusers from place-to-place in order to continue the abuse- all facts that were known from root to bloom of this institution.

This isn't just about the behavior of the perpetrators, but the behavior of the institution that allowed these acts to continue and enabled these acts.

What you wrote truly minimizes the horror and the complicity by trying to do the "few bad apples" defense when it is so clearly inapplicable. Yeah, I think Benedict and Leo are a move in the right direction, but my god- the scale of the atrocities that was enabled must be reckoned with.

[not guilty]

Au contraire. Benedict a/k/a Ratzinger was ass deep in the coverup.

[loki13]

Correction accepted. I meant to type Francis, and definitely NOT Benedict. Benedict and JP2 are complicit AF.

Total brain fart. Thank you for noting that.

[Joe_dallas]

I am not defending the catholic church. They actively participated in the pedophilia via enabling the priests which abhorrent and rightfully condemned.

Reasonable estimates are that around 5% of the priests were pedophiles which is an extremely higher percentage than the general population. The General population has maybe 0.02% -0.1% pedophiles. At the same time protestant churches, ymca's, school systems, youth sport coaches, etc have estimated 2%-3% pedophiles.

Everyone naturally gravitates to careers and social activities that they enjoy and have the aptitude. Pedophiles are no different, they naturally gravitate to activities that provide access to children. The Catholic church fault was they tried to hide the pedophilia where as most other organizations kicked the perpetrator out of the organization.

[Nelson]

They didn’t just hide it. They actively abetted the pedophiles by moving pedophiles to unsuspecting parishes, silencing witnesses, interfering with investigations, and moving offenders out of jurisdictions to prevet prosecution.

There is a reason that conservative organizations in general and religious organizations in particular have an outsized problem with pedophilia. Because they purport to be “moral”, these organizations have a vested interest in hiding the evil in their midst. Which is what they tend to do (see the Boy Scouts).

Which is why in education, for example, you typically find the people and organizations involved actively aiding and supporting prosecutions and in religious organizations you find them actively interfering with and preventing prosecutions.

[Nelson]

“ In every large organization, there are sick, deviant people who do evil. The RC church is no different.”

However, most organizations don’t actively and knowingly aid the sick, deviant people, protect them from prosecution, actively work to silence the victims, and intentionally thwart the prosecution and incarceration of pedophiles.

“ But it is wrong to say the RC church has nothing but spoiled fruit as it's legacy.”

They actively participated in an international pedophile ring. To this day they are actively and intentionally shielding pedophile priests from arrest and conviction for pedophilia.

When an organization that purports to be moral intentionally and knowingly aids evil, “spoiled fruit” seems to be an apt description.

John Wayne Gacy brought joy and happiness to children as a clown. That doesn’t make him any less evil.

[Malika la Maize]

The Catholic Church is a pretty large, old organization. It’s had some bad apples and its leadership may have dealt with this issue poorly but it’s done a lot of good over the centuries.

[Commenter_XY]

Queenie, I am glad that you and I agree about this = ...but it’s [RC church] done a lot of good over the centuries.

It has. And continues today.

[Nelson]

As does their protection of pedophiles and refusal to be held accountable.

When they willingly turn over their records about accused pedophile priests and report new accusations, then and only then will they be able to pretend they are a moral organization.

When companies that pollute do things that aid the environment, it is called greenwashing and is rightly viewed as manipulative and insincere.

When Lost Cause adherents defend the Confederacy and claim the Civil War wasn’t about slavery they are rightly viewed as apologists and insincere.

When the Church prevents pedophile priests from being prosecuted and incarcerated while claiming to be moral because of the other good things they do, they are rightly viewed as hypocrites, enablers, and immoral.

When the Catholic Church starts helping fight evil instead of claiming that they are a net-moral organization because they do other good things, then and only then can they be viewed as actually moral. Until then they’re just trying to do enough good to offset the evil they are actively and knowingly engaged in. And rightly viewed as morally bankrupt.

[Bob from Ohio]

Anti Catholic bigotry didn't end with the KKK I see.

[not guilty]

Bob, do you regard the following words attributed to Jesus as "bigotry"?

"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

Matthew 7:21-23 (RSV). Those words are immediately preceded by these words:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.

Matthew 7:15-20 (RSV). The Catholic Church (which was first called that in 110 c.e.) has borne a lot of evil fruit over the millenia. Assuming that Jesus' words are accurately recorded, I have little doubt that he spoke them with foreknowledge that his teachings would be later corrupted by evil clergy who would make common cause with Constatine such that they and he could retain power.

Was Jesus a bigot, Bob?

[Bob from Ohio]

Neither of those passages say anything about the Catholic Church.

"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18

Peter was the first Pope.

You sound like the people who thought Al Smith or JFK would let the Pope rule.

[not guilty]

There is no reference in holy scripture to Simon Peter or anyone else holding the office of pope, which came along well after Peter's time. There is likewise no evidence in scripture that Peter traveled to Rome -- he was based in Jerusalem.

The maxim holds that history is written by the victors. The Catholic Church (which was first called that by Ignatius of Antioch in 110 C.E.) has propagated the myth of a First Century papacy in accordance with that maxim. During the Fourth Century Bishop Siricius of Rome became the first Roman bishop consistently called “Pope.”

[Nelson]

“ Anti Catholic bigotry didn't end with the KKK I see.”

Bob, pointing out that the Catholic Church ran an international pedophile ring isn’t anti-Catholic bigotry. It’s reporting facts.

When someone points out that a thing you like is corrupt and facilitates evil, that doesn’t equate to bigotry.

Saying “organized pedophile rings are evil” isn’t bigotry of any kind.

[Frank Drackman]

Sure, so did Jerry Sandusky/Hobie and the Nazi's gave us the VW Beatle, A-rabs gave us Arabic Numerals, and even the Injuns gave us Corn (they call it Maiz) Hey-Zeus, Queenie, you say something that fucking stupid and have the Balls (OK, I know you have anatomical Balls, I'm talking Personality "Balls", "Co-Hones", "NADS")
to give me Shit about Grammar????

Frank "well except for the 30 kids buried in his yard John Gacy was a nice guy"

[Malika la Maize]

Grammar is just one part of basic English you fail. What garbage country did you come from?

[grb]

Malika la Maize : "The Catholic Church is a pretty large, old organization. It’s had some bad apples and its leadership may have dealt with this issue poorly but it’s done a lot of good over the centuries."

And built a lot of gorgeously beautiful churches!
(many of which I saw while recently in Italy)

[Armchair]

A Bronx judge has tossed more than 450 lawsuits filed by people who claim city officials failed to protect them from sexual abuse while they were held in juvenile detention centers between the 1960s and 2010s, saying the plaintiffs did not have the legal right to sue.

Hundreds of New Yorkers who were detained as kids and teens have accused jail staff of groping them, raping them, forcing them to perform oral sex or otherwise sexually abusing them while they were held at Rikers Island jails, Horizon Juvenile Center or the now-shuttered Spofford Juvenile Detention Center in the Bronx. Their allegations span decades and accuse the city of ignoring a widespread culture of abuse within its facilities. Their cases were focused on holding the institutions accountable for their alleged abuse, rather than the specific perpetrators.

https://gothamist.com/news/bronx-judge-tosses-450-lawsuits-alleging-sexual-abuse-in-ny-juvenile-detention-centers

[not guilty]

I haven't read the order of dismissal, but did the city shuffle the perpetrators to different positions in order to hide the abuse, intimidate victims and vigorously frustrate attempts to discover the misconduct?

[Bwaaah]

It is government...seek to defend!

If it is church...seek to attack!

Because we know where "pure unmitigated evil" resides.

[Nelson]

Pointing out that the Catholic Church organizationally fostered and protected pedophiles doesn’t say anything about the case you are citing.

Are you accusing the judge of dismissing the case in order to protect the offenders and shield them from prosecution? If not, your post is a non-sequitor that falsely equates normal legal processes with the documented actions of the Catholic Church to hide and aid pedophiles within their organization.

[Malika la Maize]

Recently disaffected liberal!

[Bob from Ohio]

"did the city shuffle the perpetrators to different positions in order to hide the abuse, intimidate victims and vigorously frustrate attempts to discover the misconduct?"

They did something, it allegedly stated in the 1960s.

"city officials failed to protect them from sexual abuse while they were held in juvenile detention centers between the 1960s and 2010s,"

[Nelson]

“ They did something, it allegedly stated in the 1960s.”

Making a less-vague accusation with fewer details would be pretty much impossible.

“Something happened at some point in the last 60 years” isn’t proof of anything.

What happened? Who did it? Did an organization try to cover it up? What are the limits and parameters of this crime?

You are trying to say “these people are as bad as the Catholic Church because they did … something … on … some date in the last 60 years”. Pathetic.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The breadth of abuse of children is tragic and society should address each form of it.

[Riva]

I don’t know the details of any planned settlements, although given the past I suspect some cases may be false narratives based solely on dubious memories. The Church doesn’t always seem to have the best counsel and leadership decisions are not always understandable. And the Church has long been a primary target of leftists, communists states as well as democrat jurisdictions in the US.

But, Not Guilty, and this is the important part, none of this has anything to do with the Doctrine of the Faith. Your only purpose is to undermine that faith because you’re simply an anti-Christian bigot. Maybe antisemite would apply as well. I’ve never read any criticism by you of Islam though. Likely motivated mostly by your general contempt for the Christian and Jewish faiths rather than support for Islam.

[Nelson]

“ none of this has anything to do with the Doctrine of the Faith”

Sure, they actively ran an international pedophile ring and, to this day, shield their priests from prosecution.

But that doesn’t matter, they are still moral. Completely trustworthy. Not evil or hypocrites at all.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a terrible argument to say “but what they say sound ls nice!” But bots gonna bot.

[Riva]

How these childish insults impugn the Doctrine of Faith is apparently a secret you'd prefer to keep to yourself Nelson.

[Nelson]

It impugns the Catholic Church, genius. They are the ones who ran (runs?) an international pedophile ring.

[not guilty]

No, Riva, I don't have "general contempt for the Christian and Jewish faiths," nor do I "support ... Islam." I am a Christian believer, but I am quick to call out those who call themselves Christian but make a mockery of the teachings of Jesus.

The Catholic Church was born of an unholy alliance between those clerics who corrupted the teachings of the Christ and the Emperor Constantine, who co-opted the faith to maintain political power. The center of the church in the first century was Jerusalem, not Rome. The Christian Church began as a sect of Judaism -- Jesus was an observant Jew. The early church was a sect within Israel of those who believed in the resurrection of Jesus and regarded him as the promised Messiah, and Christianity spread to Gentiles through the ministry of the Apostle Paul and others.

[Riva]

I don't know what you are but your past comments mocking the Church and Christian teachings and calling into question the divinity of Christ raise some serious questions. Play whatever games you want now but you're not really clever enough to hide your contempt for Christianity and Judaism.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Catholic Church was born of an unholy alliance between those clerics who corrupted the teachings of the Christ and the Emperor Constantine, who co-opted the faith to maintain political power."

Pure nuts.

[not guilty]

Riva, when have I ever called into question the divinity of Jesus the Christ? Please be specific.

I don't hold contempt for Christianity and Judaism, but I do agree with the words of Mahatma Gandhi when he said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians -- they are so unlike your Christ."

[Dr. Ed 2]

The evil National Man Boy Love Association subverted both the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts, destroying both once-great organizations.

The evil entity was/is NAMBLA and it should be considered a criminal conspiracy -- like Jeffery Curley's parents attempted to do.

[Nelson]

The Catholic Church operating an international pedophile ring predates NAMBLA by at least a century. Unless NAMBLA has a time machine, the Catholic Church chose to do evil all by itself.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sarcastro yesterday flagged that the Administration's honoring of the festival of Immaculate Conception (a holy day of obligation for the Catholic Church) had a doctrinal slip-up.

This might have been the first time there was such an official message:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/268345/trump-issues-message-about-catholic-feast-of-immaculate-conception

Anyway, with power comes abuse of power, and we continue to deal with the fruits here. Some aspects of the Church worsened the situation, including some of its authoritarian ways.

[Kazinski]

I'm reading through Trump v Slaughter, which could also be called Humprey's Execution, because its pretty clear Humphrey's is not going survive.

I am sympathetic to the argument that giving all the power in these "independent agencies" was not Congress's intent, and a also some of the legislative and judicial power theses agencies wield is not executive power.

But the solution of merely severing the "for cause" removal seems inapt, because then Congress won't do the hard work and reassess its intent, and craft the agency the way it should of in the first place.

Seila law would have been the better case to start with because the CFPB was only 8 years old, Congress could go back to the drawing board and start over again without scrapping 100 years of regulations and practice.

But even if the Court did decide the FTC statute was not severable, and struck the whole statute. it doesn't mean all the regulations would just vanish, Congress could quickly incorporate them in a statute and then take more time to do the hard work and craft and FTC that is executive enforcing the rules, but not making law, and of course not expanding the President's power.

The court should strike Humphreys but not let Congress off the hook on doing its job and asserting its power, but properly within its own bounds.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said this yesterday, but it perfectly fits:

I think it would be fair to say that the authors of the Constitution didn't intend to give the President as much power as today's Presidents exercise. They didn't intend to give ANY part of the federal government as much power as all of them today exercise!

But this is on display in its most exaggerated form with the Presidency. While it's commonplace to say that the Constitution sets up three co-equal branches, that's not really true. It actually sets up a system of moderate legislative supremacy.

For instance, Congress can remove Executive or Judicial officers. Neither of those branches have any power to remove members of the Legislature. That's a design for legislative supremacy, if push comes to shove.

The problem is that over long years, Congress has ceded much of its power to the Executive branch, and to a lesser extent the Judicial branch. Too much trouble to exercise, with power comes responsibility and blame when things go wrong. And as the federal government has grown vast beyond any constitutional plan, there's just too much DETAIL for the legislature to cope with. A legislature probably can't remain supreme in practice once you create an administrative state.

But this isn't a fight between the Executive and the Legislature, really. It's a fight between the Executive and the bureaucracy, an unofficial forth branch of government. And in any fight between THOSE two, I have to take the side of the branch that's actually constitutionally legitimate, and elected.

If Presidents can't fire the bureaucracy, it has become the supreme branch of the federal government.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, it sounds like DOGE is the antidote = It's a fight between the Executive and the bureaucracy, an unofficial forth branch of government.

We need many more bureaucritter RIFs.

[Sarcastr0]

Firing people out of spite doesn't shrink government, it just makes those duties done worse by fewer people. And it creates misery both within the federal workforce outside.

If you want to shrink the duties of the government, then do that. Via the legislature, as required.

[Commenter_XY]

Vibe Man, what spite? The bureaucritters are a) are not needed, and b) the administrative state must be tamed. We have three branches of government, not four. The administrative state is acting as an unelected, unaccountable branch of gov't. That is ending, thankfully.

We agree on the Art 1 branch needing to legislate; we have gridlock to some degree.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s accountable. Congress can reverse any regulation. New Presidents regularly reverse regulations. Courts often strike down regulations.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's accountable because people who don't obey orders can be fired. Absent that, the bureaucracy would just do whatever the heck they wanted.

[Malika la Maize]

Those court and congressional actions don’t involve firings.

[Sarcastr0]

You ask what spite followed by a fountain of incoherent assertions that government bad.
Vibes indeed!

Your first paragraph and second are contradictory.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you're not wrong if all those people are doing necessary things, efficiently. To the extent that they're doing unnecessary things, we'll get by just fine without those duties being done.

[Sarcastr0]

The existence of a government responsibility has nothing to do with of Brett or even Trump thinks it’s necessary.

[Riva]

Not sure what you mean by “government responsibility.” It apparently has nothing to do with executive officials actually being responsible to the man elected as the chief executive. If you don’t like the Constitution and the democratic process, maybe you’re living in the wrong country?

[Armchair]

" Congress has ceded much of its power to the Executive branch, and to a lesser extent the Judicial branch. Too much trouble to exercise,"

Generally speaking, the issue is the party system. It skews and breaks how Congress was originally intended to work.

[Brett Bellmore]

Generally speaking, the issue is the growth of the federal government in general, and the rise of the regulatory state in particular.

The activities of the federal government have grown too vast to be controlled in any but the most general terms by any legislature, so the details of what get done, and thus the actual power, have been shifted to institutions with enough "bandwidth" to handle the job.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Generally speaking, the issue is the party system. It skews and breaks how Congress was originally intended to work."

We had parties from 1796 on. This explosion in government didn't start to the so called Progressive Era, about 100 years later.

[Bwaaah]

And then Humphreys came for me...

A small retail business I worked for shut down a number of years ago. The final straw was a shakedown by a Washington DC law firm that, under DC consumer law, could act as a "private attorney general" on behalf of DC consumers, and receive a bounty for violations of DC consumer law.

The law firm had a long list of small internet retailers all around the country that it was systematically charging with the same violation, and extracting settlements in lieu of protracted litigation.

What law did we allegedly violate? DC consumer law explicitly incorporated "violations of federal law." In this shakedown strategy, the alleged violation wasn't of a statute, but of an FTC advertising regulation created in the 1960s that became irrelevant in the internet age; the FTC hadn't enforced that regulation in decades. But there it remained useful to somebody, despite genuinely inconsequential violations of that regulation having become a norm in internet advertising.

At the time, Amazon widely applied that same customary practice. Of course, the law firm didn't waste its time going after them.

We settled for around $20,000, a sum greater than multiple years of our gross sales in DC. We got an 18 month payment plan. There was nothing sweet about calling the shakedown firm a month later and to tell them we were shutting down our business, and that we wouldn't be paying them. Their egregious action was the last straw for the owner of a small business who finally decided to toss in the towel.

The shakedown firm didn't even make us change our advertising practices; we just added a little asterisk and some unimportant fine print elsewhere. They knew very well that consumers weren't being hurt by our "unlawful" practice. (We had an actively-practiced, almost-unlimited satisfaction-guaranteed-or-your-money-back policy. No customer ever had a problem with that advertising practice of ours.)

[Bwaaah]

Oh...and here's an interesting factoid that I learned early in that litigation: typical business liability insurance excludes coverage for "alleged false advertising claims." The law firm, in devising its shakedown strategy, selected a violation that could be construed as indicating false advertising, and therefore insurers would bow out from the start.

And in case you're wondering what kind of "false advertising" I'm talking about...our ads typically pointed out the manufacturer's suggested retail price in addition to our own typically lower price, and the percentage difference. That was the alleged crime.

[Bob from Ohio]

Slaughter kills Humphrey's Executor, eh.

[F.D. Wolf]

From oral arguments yesterday in Trump v. Slaughter:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Ninety years. What other cases have we overturned that have had a pedigree of a hundred years?

GENERAL SAUER: Pennoyer against Neff was overruled by Shaffer against Heitner on its hundredth birthday by the...

In Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896), the Court held that Wyoming's becoming a state had implicitly extinguished Indian treaty rights. The Court expressly overruled Race Horse in Herrera v. Wyoming, 587 U.S. 329 (2019), in an opinion written by - you guessed it - Justice Sotomayor.

[Kazinski]

I doubt she was embarrassed, that was different I am sure.

But Humphreys was always a strange decision, just a few years after Myers, it didn't over rule Myers, just left it in tension with it for 95 years. Surely one or the other would eventually have to go.

[Drewski]

Not really. It worked fine for almost a century. Never stopped working fine, we just got a nihilistic President and an arrogant Court.

[Sarcastr0]

Cases in tension are not really strange in the law. Nor does that mean one or the other case needs to be overruled. Habeas jurisprudence is my favorite example of this phenomenon. But 95 years alone is enough to show the viability.

Make no mistake; this push to overrule Humphrey's Executor has little to do with harmonizing the law and a lot to do with the right's GWB-and-on interest in the unitary executive theory.

[Bob from Ohio]

So, left groups push for changes in established law all the time.

Marriage was between a man and a woman in the US since Jamestown and the the broader West for thousands of years.

I guess you opposed the effort to change that.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be coming at some comment I did not write.

[Bob from Ohio]

You were attacking the motives of the effort to repeal HE,

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not seeing the attack.

[not guilty]

"Marriage was between a man and a woman in the US since Jamestown and the the [sic] broader West for thousands of years."

Has anyone at any time opposed marriage between a man and a woman? Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), was decided on June 26, 2015. Every man and woman who was eligible to marry on June 25 remained eligible to marry on June 27.

[Bob from Ohio]

Left out putting "only" between "was" and "between"

[Bob from Ohio]

He had a second example too. Not very Wise of her.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.jns.org/florida-designates-muslim-brotherhood-cair-as-terror-groups/

So TX and and FL have officially designated CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations. Other states will follow.

From a practical standpoint, what material harm does this designation do to CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood?

What is the legal impact to CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, at least in Texas... I don't think the prohibition on owning property will stand up, too much like a bill of attainder. But the sentencing enhancements probably will, because they don't kick in until you have a conviction.

Haven't looked into Florida yet.

[Commenter_XY]

To date, the US Navy has sunk dozens of drug smuggler boats carrying illegal drugs destined for America (or Europe) in the Caribbean and Pacific. The drug smugglers have 'Mother' ships, in int'l waters, to which they carry their product.

What changes in a legal sense when the US navy starts sinking 'Mother' ships?

Presumably, these 'Mother' ships are much larger, and carry perfectly legitimate consumer products. It is one thing to plink drug smugglers driving a speedboat with illegal drugs. Quite another to sink a ship carrying illegal drugs and perfectly legitimate consumer products, flagged by a foreign country.

Is it an act of war to sink a Mother ship?

[Brett Bellmore]

If it's a flagged ship? Yeah, actually.

[Commenter_XY]

Is that an impeachable act = Ordering the sinking of foreign flagged vessels w/o congressional authorization to do so (since sinking the foreign flagged ship is an overt act of war)?

If it is not an impeachable act, why not?

I get the fact that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House says it is. I am trying to figure out how far a POTUS could go, before it is too far (constitutionally). Is sinking Mother ships one step too far? Or is something more needed?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hypotheticals, is there anything they can't do?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know what to say, more than the first sentence of your third paragraph. Indeed, an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House says it is. It is entirely a political decision, so the only question is whether the House WANTS to impeach over it.

Presidents in the past have committed acts of war and not been impeached over it. Clinton and Obama both committed acts of war, war crime acts of war, and while Clinton did get impeached, it wasn't over bombing a pharmaceutical plant in a country we weren't at war with.

I think that if Trump were to sink a large vessel flagged to a friendly country, he'd better have damned convincing evidence that, not only was it being used for drug smuggling, but that the crew KNEW it was being used for drug smuggling, or else he'd end up impeached. Because every single Democrat would vote to impeach, and a fair number of House Republicans don't really like him that much.

[David Nieporent]

I think that if Trump were to sink a large vessel flagged to a friendly country, he'd better have damned convincing evidence that, not only was it being used for drug smuggling, but that the crew KNEW it was being used for drug smuggling, or else he'd end up impeached.

Half the Republicans would call it fake news and say it never happened. The other half would say, "Yeah, it happened but it's no big deal; everyone makes mistakes." The third half would say, "Yeah, it happened and it's great; finally we have a president who doesn't care about morality or humanity and just blows shit up for fun!!! And it makes the liberals sad, so yay!!!!!" And the fourth half would say, "Whatabout Obama?"

This notion that there are Republicans in Congress who don't like Trump — or at least that there are Republicans in Congress who would admit that — is your typical fanfic about an imaginary GOP.

[Brett Bellmore]

It only takes 50% plus 1 to impeach, David. That's 218 votes. Republicans have 220 seats. There are 2 vacancies at the moment, so really 217 votes.

Assuming every Democrat and Democrat adjacent House member voted to impeach, you'd only need a few Republicans to defect, and/or a few more to abstain from voting, for the motion to succeed.

You really want to bet fewer than 1% of Republicans in the House dislike Trump enough to vote to impeach? When 23 of the Republican House members have already said they're not running again?

[Commenter_XY]

No bet = You really want to bet fewer than 1% of Republicans in the House dislike Trump enough to vote to impeach

[David Nieporent]

You really want to bet fewer than 1% of Republicans in the House dislike Trump enough to vote to impeach? When 23 of the Republican House members have already said they're not running again?

Yes. (Metaphorically; I don't actually gamble.) Donald Trump tried to have them killed almost 5 years ago, and only 10 House Republicans voted to impeach him, even though his popularity and stature was at its lowest ebb.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, I see, you're reasoning on the basis of an insane fantasy. Never mind, then.

[Sarcastr0]

Another Brett all-timer.

[Bob from Ohio]

He was just saying "Donald Trump tried to have them killed" is an insane fantasy.

Which it is.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob misses the irony in Brett dinging someone for an insane fantasy.

[John F. Carr]

I hope the House is losing its appetite for performative impeachments. Without backing from Senate Republicans impeachments are a waste of time.

A funding restriction is much more likely. No appropriated funds shall be spent to [insert list of prohibited acts]. But who would have standing to enforce the restriction when Trump declares it unconstitutional?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You'd need a 2/3 vote to override Trump's veto.

[John F. Carr]

The spending restriction would be part of a large appropriations bill, like the Boland Amendment and Rohrabacher–Farr amendnent.

5 billion for toilet seats
4 million for a gold statue of Trump outside the Pentagon
no money for blowing up drug boats
3 billion for genuine made in America combat boots

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, I was thinking the same thing, along with the question of whose flag it was.

HOWEVER, German subs were sinking US vessels before WWII (and I believe WWI) if they were carrying "contraband" and that wasn't an act of war for reasons I never understood.

The Nazis were big in Argentina in the 1930s -- two of my uncles went down there as crew on a merchant vessel -- and I vaguely remember something about US vessels being sunk off the coast of South America.

And the other question is if Venezuela is exporting crude. It's crude is sour with the highest sulfur content in the world, and it used to be that only the Citgo refinery in Texas could deal with it, but that was 50+ years ago.

What if the mother ship is an oil tanker.
Paging Greenpeace, Paging Greenpeace....

[Malika la Maize]

“the US Navy has sunk dozens of drug smuggler boats carrying illegal drugs destined for America”

How do we know that to be true?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm pretty sure the boats sank, what was left of them anyway.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s almost like there’s several assertions in that comment. Add math to basic English under the category of “things Frankie doesn’t know.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, a small boat built to meet current US Coast Guard requirements *can't* sink -- it would remain as floating debris.

[Krayt]

My dad had an old 14' aluminum with outboard. It had styrofoam under the bench seats, supposedly unsinkable in worst case scenario. I assume that includes two outboards.

It also had a plug in the rear with a cowling underneath that partially covered the hole in the front. If you had water, you could move at a decent speed, and the cowling provided a vacuum that drained out the water.

[Brett Bellmore]

We "know" in a strict sense almost nothing the government claims. But I'm not sure we're actually at the point where the government making a claim carries no weight at all; Despite hysterical Manichean ravings on the part of Democrats, Trump would not actually go out of his way to bomb innocent fishermen.

[Malika la Maize]

He doesn’t have to be going out of his way, he could just be wrong. As you concede government officials often are. This is why in our justice system we have a process to contest executive claims before it can act with serious consequences.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. But that having been said, Trump would actually go out of his way to bomb innocent fisherman.

[Malika la Maize]

"Fly safely. You know why I say that? Because I'm on the flight. Otherwise I wouldn't care."

[Ska]

Intent and indifference are the same to you? And contextually, in a scenario where intent leads to action and indifference maintains inaction, still the same?

[Malika la Maize]

Selfish indifference doesn’t have to be the same as intent to be pretty damning, but you do you.

[Ska]

"Trump would actually go out of his way to bomb innocent fisherman."

"You know why I say that? Because I'm on the flight. Otherwise I wouldn't care.""

You think your retort makes sense following the statement you replied to? That they're the same? Just because Trump sucks doesn't mean you have to suck, too.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Was any named "Peter"?

With the Administration's honoring of the festival of the Immaculate Conception, ending with the words to Hail Mary, I also wondered if any of the dying fishermen spoke those words.

[Krayt]

This is the same administration apparenly fine with a woman with two kids in tow, snagging on barbed wire in the Rio Grande as they swam over, drowning. At least according to supporters around here.

As Jesus said, "Fuck 'em!"

[Estragon]

Of course. Even the supporters of this murder boat policy must acknowledge the rationales for these strikes are shifting. Interdiction of drugs to the US on any large scale does not look like this. Plus, as has been pointed out repeatedly, this is not a primary, or even significant, source of fentanyl trafficking, which was the original stated rationale.

So now we have Trump claiming that each boat sunk saves 25k American lives… I guess from cocaine? I do not believe that any reality-based numbers support that assertion. So if it’s not interdiction— the purposes of these strikes must be something else. I would argue that whatever exactly that is— and I have stated my suspicions here before— those goals would be equally served by blowing up innocent fishermen.

[not guilty]

I have my doubts that the boat crews here were "innocent fishermen," but that doesn't matter. We are well beyond the provisional sixty day period specified in the War Powers Act.

Defining and punishing piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the Law of Nations, declaring war, granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal, making rules concerning captures on land and water and making rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces are all powers granted to Congress by Article I, § 8 of the Constitution.

The President has no authority to act unilaterally here. Donald Trump deserves to be impeached, convicted in the Senate and thereafter prosecuted criminally pursuant to Article I, § 3. Pete Hegseth and those who command these unlawful operations deserve to be prosecuted and imprisoned.

[ThePublius]

"...Trump would actually go out of his way to bomb innocent fisherman."

That is a scurrilous lie.

[David Nieporent]

You mean because Trump is too lazy to go out of his way to do anything? Maybe. But Stephen Miller would definitely go out of his way to do so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, he could just be wrong. But, since he's almost certainly not picking out the boats to bomb himself, that requires a lot of people besides himself to be wrong.

Look, I'm not defending these actions, I think that, even if they are smuggling drugs, they ought to be hauled into court, not just summarily executed.

But I think it's at least likely that they were smuggling drugs.

[Malika la Maize]

Your faith in the federal government is noted.

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't require a lot of faith to think that they're usually doing what they intend to do. I think the federal government is, generally speaking, about as competent as any other extremely large organization which doesn't face a lot of competition, which is to say, "not terribly". But I think they're fairly careful about who they go out of their way to kill, at least.

[Malika la Maize]

“It doesn't require a lot of faith to think that they're usually doing what they intend to do.”

Man, I’m bookmarking this!

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "It doesn't require a lot of faith to think that they're usually doing what they intend to do."

Again, the clearest match to Trump's frolicking explosive fun in the Caribbean was "disappearing" Tren de Aragua gang members to a gulag in Central American. Then (as now) the justification for exception extra-legal measures was terrorism. Then (as now) scant documented proof was offered as justification. Then (as now) we were told to trust Trump and the administration.

And how did that work out? After a few days reporting, it was clear many deported were not gang members. The evidence for the rest was mostly thin to non-existent. The vast majority of the 238 Venezuelan immigrants sent to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador had no criminal record in the United States or anywhere else in the world.

Why? Because then (as now) it was just a stunt. Whether Trump is packing brown-skinned people shoulder-to-shoulder in a foreign hell-hole prison or blowing them up on the high seas, he knows his supporters are entertained.

And their pleasure doesn't depend on the imprisoned or killed having done what they're accused of. Trump's supporters don't care. They don't care if the drugs (providing they existed) were even going to the U.S. They don't care if Trump is pardoning drug lords while he murders nobodies. They don't care if Trump "proves" gang membership with a crudely doctored photo. Their entertainment is the only important thing.

And guess what? Then (as now) there's no problem finding someone in law enforcement to round-up phony gang members. Or murdering survivors clinging to wreckage. When the very top of the government is openly corrupt like Trump, all standards relax downstream.

[shawn_dude]

If we went back to Reason discussions in 2015, I wonder what we'd find the conservative poster take is on Texas Governor Greg Abbott's claim that Obama was going to invade Texas? Do you think the average Reason conservative/libertarian would think Abbott was nuts and trust the feds?

I think this trust for the administration has more to do with who is currently in the Oval Office and not a general belief that the government is competent regardless of the party in power.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, he could just be wrong. But, since he's almost certainly not picking out the boats to bomb himself, that requires a lot of people besides himself to be wrong.

It would not. It would require the one or two people who make the call to be wrong.

Last week, Rand Paul tweeted stats from the Coast Guard itself saying that when they interdict boats that they suspect are carrying drugs, they're right 79% of the time. (IIRC; that's ballpark and the exact number isn't important to the point.) That means that 21% of the time — one-fifth of the time — the government is mistaken and the people are innocent. In other words, it's not some rare occurrence that requires screwups by a massive number of people. It's routine for them to be wrong.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t shake Brett’s faith in the federal government (at least when it has an R beside it).

[Brett Bellmore]

That's true, in the waters the Coast Guard deal with, there's an enormous amount of innocent traffic. I think in the area they're doing this, there's much less traffic.

But I've already said that I'd prefer that we stop the boats and search them, and send the crew through the legal process if drugs are found. All I'm saying is that I don't think they're deliberately targeting innocent fishermen, I think they're intending to actually target drug smugglers, and for the most part are probably doing just that.

[Malika la Maize]

As a libertarian, even if they are only 5% wrong that’s pretty terrible, right?

[Bob from Ohio]

"innocent fishermen,"

C'mon Brett, don't accept their dumb framing that the crews might be "innocent fishermen".

The videos show that none of these boats are fishing boats. None of the dead are innocent fishermen.

[ThePublius]

Here's your innocent fisherman, idiot:

https://x.com/JohnLeFevre/status/1998221178788340075

[SRG2]

Despite hysterical Manichean ravings on the part of Democrats, Trump would not actually go out of his way to bomb innocent fishermen.

Would he approve of bombing suspected drug dealers who might nonetheless be innocent fishermen?

[ThePublius]

Fishermen don't drive long, narrow boats loaded with blue barrels with four 150HP (or larger) outboards on them. It's kinda obvious.

Also, many fisherman who are sometimes innocent are also sometimes drug runners.

[David Nieporent]

You know all those photos on social media are fake, right? (I mean, the photos are real, but are not photos of the boats that the U.S. is destroying; they're random stock photos on the Internet.)

[ThePublius]

No David, I've watched videos of USCG interdictions of these boats. I'm not seeing these on social media.

[ThePublius]

Here's your innocent fisherman, idiot:

https://x.com/JohnLeFevre/status/1998221178788340075

[SRG2]

i.e., yes he would approve

[Mr. Bumble]

Fishermen, hahahahahaha!
Not a net or pole in sight.

[SRG2]

i.e., yes he would approve

[hobie]

If you think about it, apart from our reasonings, we don't seem to be any different than Somali pirates or the Houthis.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've said this before: Government is nothing more than a highly evolved protection racket, and subject to devolving into just a protection racket any time the forces compelling it to be anything more weaken.

One of the things that weakens them is forgetting that...

[Krayt]

FundamentalbTheorem of Government Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one.

Ever since some guys picked up clubs and wandered down to a farmer trading post and demanded they make payment for services rendered.

All across the Earth, and throughout history, you went into government to be corrupt and make a better life for your family.

They just have to hide it better in countries with a free press.

[Sarcastr0]

Whenever you don’t want to defend something Trump did you just switch to Omni-cynicism.

It’s a weak dodge of a weak person.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't switch to cynicism about government, it's my default state.

[Malika la Maize]

Brett Bellmore 8 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
It doesn't require a lot of faith to think that they're usually doing what they intend to do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah. I have very little faith that they intend to do what they SHOULD intend to do, but I think they generally ARE doing what they intended to do, rather than something else by mistake.

So, while I don't think they should intend to summarily execute drug smugglers, if that's what they do intend to do, they're generally going to be killing drug smugglers, not random fishermen.

Because killing random fishermen isn't what they set out to do.

[Malika la Maize]

Because they have bad/illegal motives but really good fact discovery skills?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, something like that. Not phenomenally good, but decent fact discovery.

[Malika la Maize]

Decent shouldn’t be the criteria for lethal force.

[Brett Bellmore]

No argument with that. I'm only saying that they're not killing random fishermen and pretending to be interdicting drugs.

[Sarcastr0]

SHOULD

We live in a Republic, not a Brettocracy.

You've been throwing a multi-decades tantrum because you can't deal with that.

[SRG2]

But you override the default in defence of Trump, generally speaking

[not guilty]

"Is it an act of war to sink a Mother ship?"

I haven't done a deep dive here, but in this hypothetical, have civilian crew members been arrested and detained pending trial before the boat was sunk?

Whether it is or is not an act of war, wantonly killing civilian noncombatants on the high seas in the absence of Congressional authorization is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b).

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is it an act of war to sink a Mother ship?"

Sure, but not every "act of war" results in a war.

Its a term of art which means an act which justifies the victim nation responding with military force.

[Malika la Maize]

On President Trump’s proclaimed “Liberation Day” in April, when he announced the tariffs that have upended global trade, he vowed that “jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country.” The imposition of taxes on imports, the president promised, “will pry open foreign markets and break down foreign trade barriers,” leading to lower prices for Americans.

So far it has not worked out that way, forcing Mr. Trump to move to contain the economic and political damage.
At the White House on Monday, the president announced $12 billion in bailout money for America’s farmers who have been battered in large part by his trade policies.

Tariffs continue to put upward pressure on prices, putting the Trump administration on the defensive over deep public concern about the cost of living. On Tuesday, the president will go to Pennsylvania for the first of what the White House calls a series of speeches addressing the “affordability” problem, which last week he dismissed as “the greatest con job” ever conceived by Democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/08/us/politics/trump-trade-affordability.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Is the cost of government ever factored into the cost of living?

[Malika la Maize]

Taxes like Trump’s are reflected in prices.

[Frank Drackman]

Good, about time the poor paid their "Fair Share"

[Malika la Maize]

The poor don’t buy much, ya goof, so that leaves those of us that work to pay most of it. And only a few, select groups Trump likes gets bailouts (once again from our money) from his goofy taxes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you conflating tariffs with taxes?
In your experience what has become more expensive because of tariffs?

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie goes through alot of lube, if he used the Amurican-made KY he'd be golden.

[Malika la Maize]

Your mom doesn’t really need it if she’d stick to more conventional positions, but given her face I’m happy to comply.

[Mr. Bumble]

Looking for another time out from EV?

[Malika la Maize]

Are you talking to Frank?

[Frank Drackman]

I think he's talking to "Deez"
You wanna do a "Yo Mama So Ugly" Free-Style-Show-Down???, I'll Bee-otch-Slap you like B-Rabbit did to Papa Doc in "8 Mile" (which is about the sum of my Rap knowledge)
Bumble?? Spin that (Redacted)!!
Yo momma breath smell like (redacted)
Mm, yo momma feet smell like fish
Wow, yo momma feet smell like butt
And her butt smell like feet (you're not making this easy, Kyle!)
Yo momma so (redacted) fat
She ain't ever seen the ground before
And yours so fat, it take a week to get around the ho

Frank "Fresh-F-D"

[Malika la Maize]

If only your momma had taught you basic English…

[Malika la Maize]

A tariff is a tax on imported goods.

Trump himself walked back some tariffs after the Democratic victories in November focusing on affordability, so he knows they are making some things more expensive.

[Nelson]

“ Are you conflating tariffs with taxes?”

Yes. https://taxproject.org/are-tariffs-taxes/

“ In your experience what has become more expensive because of tariffs?”

Coffee, chocolate, tropical fruits, produce, beef, pork, appliances, cars, softwood, concrete … just to name a few.

[SRG2]

Are you conflating tariffs with taxes?

No conflation needed. Tax is the genus, of which tariff is a species. One could of course remain defiantly stupid and deny this, so go ahead.

[Nelson]

“ Are you conflating tariffs with taxes?”

No response, Bumble? I called your bluff.

[Commenter_XY]

The way to address affordability is a) continuing to focus on lowering inflation, and b) real income growth.

You're saying tariffs put 'upward pressure on prices' but the data don't unequivocally support that. Question: Where is inflation happening more, tariffed goods or non-tariffed goods? You might be surprised by that answer, Queenie.

Another way to address affordability. I'd like to see POTUS Trump and Congress do away with income taxes for people making 150K and below. Tariff revenue may well make it possible to do that (Lutnick discussed this at some length in numerous podcasts).

[David Nieporent]

Another way to address affordability. I'd like to see POTUS Trump and Congress do away with income taxes for people making 150K and below. Tariff revenue may well make it possible to do that

That would be a terrible idea even if your math weren't so far off as to be absurd.

[Commenter_XY]

Do tell....why so terrible? And what makes you smarter than Lutnick?

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, we find ourselves agreeing.

Look, while I wouldn't mind not paying income taxes, (It would make my impending retirement much more comfortable!) depriving the huge majority of voters of any remaining reason to be concerned about the amount of federal spending would indeed have horrific consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

People have other reasons to be concerned about government than lowering their tax rates.

Not everyone is a middle-class greedhead.

[loki13]

"You're saying tariffs put 'upward pressure on prices' but the data don't unequivocally support that."

Ugh. Why do people say things like that? Because the tariffs were both previewed, and then pre-announced (they were given a long lead time), what do you think happened?

Seriously, what do you think?

Well, for those who were able to (durable goods, supply chains), most companies built up their inventories and ordering as much supply as possible at pre-tariff prices.

What does that mean? Well, we've been seeing companies in a lot of areas largely be able to "hold the line" on prices as they sell-through on the inventory they built up. Obviously, in some cases (perishables) you can't do that- which is why, for example, you saw the prices begin to spike in certain areas (coffee) but consumers were largely shielded from the worse of the immediate effect.

This continued, and we are also entering the holiday season (discounted prices). That means that the price hikes we've seen have been a lot less than what we will be seeing. Except for the areas where Trump has already cancelled the tariffs (like coffee).

But this is a pretty simple issue; you can look at statistics. You can look at news reports. Or ... you can just go to the store. Go on.

At a certain point, who do you believe? Your ideology, or your lying eyes?

[Kazinski]

The evidence doesn't show that Loki, here is y/y monthly inflation data from the Cleveland fed since the beginning of 2024, can you point to where tariff inflation started kicking in?

Date--- CPI --- PCE

2024-01-01 3.090884781 2.698751449
2024-02-01 3.153171121 2.705057427
2024-03-01 3.47738507 2.927939233
2024-04-01 3.35736395 2.826154013
2024-05-01 3.269029057 2.661672909
2024-06-01 2.971397107 2.54837344
2024-07-01 2.894753198 2.594376777
2024-08-01 2.530730296 2.412994957
2024-09-01 2.440633031 2.260766437
2024-10-01 2.597904905 2.477692536
2024-11-01 2.749380396 2.587803413
2024-12-01 2.88805722 2.72809469
2025-01-01 3.000483112 2.60737953
2025-02-01 2.821548952 2.710484673
2025-03-01 2.390725254 2.359433671
2025-04-01 2.311288862 2.277425998
2025-05-01 2.354896535 2.458086065
2025-06-01 2.669213018 2.59351298
2025-07-01 2.704902397 2.601506433
2025-08-01 2.916174284 2.739549113
2025-09-01 3.012676776 2.787442415

https://www.clevelandfed.org/center-for-inflation-research/inflation-charting

Inflation has been in a narrow range in fact it was almost identical Jan 2024, Jan 2025, and the last measurement, although it dipped for a few months spring- summer of 2024, and spring of 2025, both times it rebounded to 3%.

I defy you to show any meaningful difference in the pattern of inflation. In a narrow range between 2.4% and 3% in the last 2 years.

Typical for you to make these assertions with no evidence whatsoever.

Here is the actual evidence, and doesn't show it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/controversial-anti-ice-nativity-scene-022022689.html

Grrrr.

[John F. Carr]

Another internal dispute within the Archdiocese of Boston. The Archbishop can smite the local priest, if he cares to.

[Krayt]

I'm gonna assume you are opposed. The grrrr is evidence their button pushing works.

[Nelson]

OK, that is pretty funny. And a succinct way to make a point.

[Malika la Maize]

Days after President Trump declared he had “no problem” releasing a video of a second strike on a boat in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 that killed two alleged drug smugglers hanging to remnants of the hull, he reversed himself on Monday and said he would let Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decide whether to make it public.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/08/us/politics/trump-boat-strike-video-hegseth.html

[Michael P]

As usual, no thoughts from the empty-headed, only parroting other empty heads.

There is actually no contradiction between one person having no problem releasing something and another person (possibly) having a problem with doing so.

[Malika la Maize]

Is one in charge of the other?

[Commenter_XY]

Releasing the video to Congress, in a secure facility, is one thing. If that has not been done, it should be.

Regarding video release to the public, I don't know that I want CHN or RUS to know the technical capabilities of our drones.

[loki13]

"Regarding video release to the public, I don't know that I want CHN or RUS to know the technical capabilities of our drones."

XY believes that the Trump administration should totally be releasing same-day video of the strikes on social media in order to make him get his jollies of brown people getting blown up ...

But when it comes to videos of two struggling people waving for help and then getting ruthlessly murdered 45 minutes after their boat was blown up, XY is all about operational security. You know, just like Pete "I was exonerated when I totes bragged about our pilots blowin' shit up in Yemen because I declassify things with my mind" Hegseth.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly, and give Trump credit for listening to the person who quietly asked "shouldn't you check and make sure it isn't classified?"

It isn't just CHN/RUS -- four missiles on ONE small boat?

The Hellfire missile was designed to kill tanks -- penetrate, delay, explode inside, with the explosion confined for maximum lethality.

It would go right through a boat, punching a clean 7" hole and exploding some distance below. A hole in a boat can be quickly stuffed with clothing -- it's an emergency but a manageable one, and that's without a boat designed not to sink -- as USCG regs requirement for small boats made in the US.

Beyond that, I'm not going to speculate that it may be possible to avoid being sunk.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or that there may be some vulnerability to the Hellfire that we'd prefer not to have known.

35 years ago, the Patriot Missile, designed to shoot down aircraft, was being used to defend against SCUDs, and there was a defect in that which led to it following a SCUD into a tent full of nurses and detonating therein, causing significant loss of life.

[Nelson]

“ Regarding video release to the public, I don't know that I want CHN or RUS to know the technical capabilities of our drones.”

Right. Because without that video, they would have no clue as to the capabilities of our drones.

If they need that video for intelligence purposes, they suck at spying. Hint: they don’t suck at spying.

Do you just pick the most believable apologist rejoinder out of the universally unbelievable options and hope no one will notice it’s ridiculous?

Perhaps you could acknowledge that transparency here is no threat to America, but highly valuable to accountability and public trust?

[Joe_dallas]

ever heard of delegation?

[Malika la Maize]

I thought that was unconstitutional?

[Joe_dallas]

Not in that situation , which should have been obvious to you.

[Malika la Maize]

So Trump’s not the boss? Could’ve fooled me with that last Cabinet meeting/Dear Leader Praise session.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika - continuing with stupidity. he delegated it! Bosses have that power.

[Malika la Maize]

So it should be released. Thanks.

[Joe_dallas]

Ask the Sec of Def - Trump delegated the decision to him.

[Josh R]

More accurately, Trump declared he never said he would have "no problem" releasing the video, calling it "ABC fake news." It was Rachel Scott, "the most obnoxious reporter" according to Trump, who asked the question. Mary Bruce and her are doing God's work.

[loki13]

At some point, you would think that someone would ask Great Grandpa Trump why he has such a problem with women reporters.

But I guess the question answers itself.

[Malika la Maize]

Paramount’s hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery on Monday included a list of investors lined up to back the offer. Perhaps none stood out more than Affinity Partners, the private equity firm founded by President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner…

The inclusion of Affinity Partners adds a new political twist to the fight for Warner Bros. Discovery. The Trump administration will need to approve of any deal. The president has long been critical of CNN, one of the company’s properties. If the Ellisons are able to close an agreement with Affinity’s help, a piece of the parent company would be owned by the Trump family.

It is highly unusual for a president to have a direct say on major corporate deals, which are typically reviewed by independent regulators at a distance from politicians’ input. But on Sunday, Mr. Trump said he would be “involved” in the regulatory review of the Netflix deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/08/business/media/jared-kushner-paramount-bid-warner-bros-discovery.html

[hobie]

It's getting harder and harder to keep up with all the quiding and the quoing

[Michael P]

But there is no quoting because two internal quotation marks per comment are just two too many to fix.

[Malika la Maize]

“What a whiny bitch” said Malika regarding Mikie. Lol

[Michael P]

You sure have a fragile ego, Malicia.

[Malika la Maize]

Says guy who can’t stop trolling my comments upset about my not using quotation marks.

Tell us where the lack of marks touched you, Mikie…

[Bob from Ohio]

"Says guy who can’t stop trolling my comments upset about my not using quotation marks. "

Says guy who can’t stop trolling Frank's comments upset about his punctuation

Heal yourself.

[Malika la Maize]

This is a telling stan.

“Honey, I get my relative took a shit on the floor, but your relative left a towel on the floor, so totes same???”

Bob. Principals over principles, always and forever.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its "telling" that you are criticizing anyone for "trolling" over such things.

[loki13]

There has also been reporting (WSJ) that Ellison personally promised the Trump Administration sweeping changes to CNN if he was approved.

Again, all of this is friggin' insane, and the fact that people support this corruption is crazy. The same people that made up fanciful hypotheticals to oppose other politicians turn a blind eye to the actual corruption and abuse of power that is being done in front of them.

It's always helpful to approach any scenario as if you were under Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In other words, don't start by saying, "DERP ITZ OK BECUZ CLINTON EMALEZ AND BAMA DETH KAMPZ!"

No. Take the action and instead say, "Would I be okay with this if a future President of the opposite persuasion did the same thing in the opposite way? Am I good with the principle?"

So on this one-

President AOC will not allow any business merger to take place without her express permission. Company X wants to buy Company Y.

However, Company Z demands that it be allowed to buy Company Y. Company Z promises AOC that it will take the media divisions of Company Y (say, Fox News or something similar) and make them cover AOC more favorably. In addition, they will allow Soros's son a sizeable investment that he can use to fund future Democratic candidates if they are approved.

Does that seem like it should be allowed? I would say ... HELL NO. Just like this should be a HELL NO.

[hobie]

What you need, loki, is this glass of kool aid I'm holding.

[Malika la Maize]

These people have the temerity to talk about “draining the swamp!”

[Armchair]

Speaking of sinking ships....

Ukraine has started to attack ships at sea. Technically they're flagged in Gambia, in practice they are part of Russia's "shadow fleet" of oil tankers, shipping Russian oil around the world.

1. Is this right for Ukraine?
2. Is this a good idea for international law and the international community?
3. Do the tankers being flagged in Gambia have any real signifigance?
4. Should Ukraine expand these attacks?

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/ukrainian-attacks-against-gambian-flagged-oil-tankers-black-sea/

[Malika la Maize]

March 4, 2023. Speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled quickly. Quickly. I will get the problem solved and I will get it solved in rapid order and it will take me no longer than one day. I know exactly what to say to each of them.”

[DDHarriman]

He's trying. Hard to stop the Ukrainian oligarchs when they're profiting so immensely off the war with so little risk to themselves since so many of them fled back to their homelands - Israel.

[Malika la Maize]

He said he’d have it done on day one.

[DDHarriman]

So?

[Nelson]

“ He's trying.”

Giving Russia everything it wants and more while requiring Ukraine to surrender a sizable percentage of their country isn’t trying.

Trump isn’t interested in a negotiated peace. He’s interested in being able to say he stopped a war because he thinks he is deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.

And to get that he will do everything he can to force Ukraine to surrender everything Russia wants. You know Russia? The unjustified invader who started the war and will just move on to the next country they want to invade?

[Kazinski]

What's your plan for saving the Donbas region that Russia already controls the vast majority?

What's the European plan?

What's the UN plan?

What's the Ukrainian plan?

Nobody has a viable plan, or even a hail Mary.

[Bob from Ohio]

"even a hail Mary"

They do, its "Czarina Elizabeth of Russia will die saving Frederick the Great from defeat" wish.

Putin will die or be overthrown and the new ruler(s) will make peace.

[shawn_dude]

Because the first thing people do when they have a viable plan of attack is publish it! Duh.

And why would Ukraine have to give up the parts of the Donbas Russia doesn't control, too, which is part of Putin's demand and Trump's "plan?"

The issue here is we're all tiptoeing around Russia's nukes and Putin's unknown willingness to use them. Otherwise, we'd just arm Ukraine with an endless stream of the best conventional weapons and watch them blow up bits of Russia's military infrastructure one oil refinery at a time.

[Kazinski]

Who is going to attack?

Ukraine doesn't have capacity, nobody else wants to commit troops.

I was asking for peace plans, not war strategies.

[Nelson]

Rewarding a brutal invader for their unjustified invasion rewards that behavior and encourages the next one. Putin has invaded several neighbors, including Ukraine (occupying Crimea). He will not stop through appeasing him because there is no appeasing him.

So sure, Neville Chamberlain. Let’s see how appeasement works out. Because its track record is so good.

[Nelson]

“ What's your plan for saving the Donbas region that Russia already controls the vast majority?”

I don’t have to have a plan. The Ukrainians will continue to fight until the Russians have to accept it isn’t worth the dying. Everybody knows they will never give up. And it’s their home, not the Russians, so they can just stay where they are, unlike the Russians.

The Russian military is strained to the breaking point and the appetite for this war has long since faded in the Russian populace.

You seem to be under the illusion that to win, the Ukrainians have to defeat Russia. They don’t. All they have to do is refuse to surrender and continue to kill Russians, both of which they seem to be doing very, very well.

But apparently you, like Neville Chamberlain, believe that appeasing a brutal dictator will stop him. That’s a foolish thing to believe.

[SRG2]

He's trying.

And evidently failing. Perhaps if he weren't so often parroting Soviet, er, Russian peace plans, he might have been more successful.

[Armchair]

See, that's whataboutism. Or the red herring argument.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s whataboutism to pint out that Trump epically failed to live up to his promise?

[loki13]

I suppose it's poor form to point out that Trump lies, because then you'd be forced to point out every time his lips move.

Anyway, I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that the President of Peace who claimed to have ended the war between Cambodia and Thailand ... well, that didn't work. Not just because he didn't actually do the work, but also because it didn't stop the conflict.

Always remember- he just wants the PR (like when he announced that he ended the conflict between India and Pakistan, when all he did was make a post about it after the work was done by ... India and Pakistan) and doesn't actually care about what happens, unless he and his cronies can get a cut of the action.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, he really did end the war between Azerbaijan and Albania.

[Josh R]

I guess he earned his FIFA peace appease prize.

[loki13]

Watching the President of the United States prostate himself and our country in a shameless bid for foreign baubles, crowns, geegaws, and made-up awards is friggin' humiliating.

Made even moreso because you know everyone else sees it for exactly what it is.

"Just give the toddler a pixie stick and a gold star so he won't make a scene."

[Malika la Maize]

No, he’s a tough guy, like me!

[Josh R]

Watching the President of the United States prostate himself

I want to stay as far away as possible from Trump's prostate.

[loki13]

....I wish I could say that the typo was on purpose.

Given his diet, I assume that Trump's prostate has the gravitational pull of a small planet. Which explains why everyone in his orbit is an ass-kisser, I guess.

[hobie]

Some of my favorite videos the past two months are of Ukraine's new cruise missiles [Flamingo] destroying Russian oil refineries. I'll bet it is like the video game of their dreams for the young Ukrainian operators

[Commenter_XY]

Seeing it from the UKR perspective: In an existential war, there are no rules, save survival. So yes, if UKR wants to survive, they have to expand the naval attacks and raise the cost to RUS to an unsustainable level and try to kill their economy. That is where UKR is operating from, presently. They have to win the war. Sadly, they won't.

If The Gambia wants to declare war on UKR, they can. Since The Gambia has ~3MM people, zippo trade with UKR, a piddling army, a brown water navy...that declaration of war might be impractical.

[John F. Carr]

When the West thinks Ukraine's acts are bad for business, they will be stopped. When insurers start demanding high war risk insurance premiums to sail around Africa, the West will think Ukraine's acts are bad for business.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, it was British losses to American privateers around the British Isles circa 1780 that helped end the Revolution.

[David Nieporent]

It was not.

[ThePublius]

It certainly was! You just refute Ed's comment with apparently no knowledge of the naval impact in the revolution. Read this, from the U.S. Naval Institute:

The Royal Navy Lost the Revolution

"The British failure to contain the French fleet in European waters resulted in a worldwide struggle for supremacy that spread to Gibraltar, India, and the West Indies, and ultimately cost Britain the 13 colonies."

[SRG2]

This is why some revisionist (in the true sense) historians regard the US revolution as part of a world war with UK and France being the main protagonists.

[ThePublius]

O.K., I'm not following that comment. Are you saying that the author of the USNI article is a revisionist who's mistaken?

[SRG2]

No. I am saying that some modern historians have concluded that the American Revolution was part of the conflict between Britain and France of the time which, spreading as far east as India, and involving other countries as well, was of sufficient magnitude and breadth to constitute a world war.

[ThePublius]

Ah, gotcha. Yea, a 'world war,' perhaps, for England and France, not so much for the colonies. But, as far as I recall, the revolution predates the English and French (with the Dutch and Spanish) conflict that followed in 1778, no?

[SRG2]

Britain and France had been fighting each other off and on for decades by that point - there happened to have been no recent battles before the American Revolution but shit had been happening for a while, as no historian would phrase it.

[David Nieporent]

How do you contend that the language you quoted about the French fleet proves Dr. Ed's claim about "American privateers around the British Isles circa 1780"?

However, I did do some additional reading on the subject this afternoon, and it appears that the privateers' impact was bigger than I had previously believed, so I will retract my contradiction of Dr. Ed. (And, to be sure Dr. Ed merely said that said privateers "helped" end the Revolution, and I guess that vague claim couldn't be wrong anyway.)

[ThePublius]

"American privateering also plagued the Royal Navy. In 1776 and 1777, combined British losses to privateers totaled around 350 ships. The success of American privateers also precipitated animosity and eventual war between Britain and France. The French repeatedly allowed American privateer captains into their ports to refit, resupply, and sell their prizes. French ministers usually evaded Britain’s diplomatic protests over these breaches of the Treaties of Utrecht and Paris.3"

ibid.

[ThePublius]

"American privateering increased drastically until the end of the war. Damage to British merchant shipping was so severe that the Royal Navy was obliged from 1777 onward to convoy all shipping.26 American cruisers such as Lambert Wickes’s Reprisal and John Paul Jones’s Bonhomme Richard combed British waters for prizes. Other privateers attacked British ships off the American coast and in West Indian waters. American privateers enjoyed great success in the later years of the war. The Continental Congress issued 69 letters of marque in 1777 and 163 by 1778. In 1779, the number of privateer commissions was 209, and 556 by the end of the war in 1781."

ibid.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot the David Notsoimportant rules:
1. David is always right.
2. If David is wrong, see rule #1.

[ThePublius]

And I doubt he will ever come back here and acknowledge his error.

[ThePublius]

Am I right?

[Sarcastr0]

No

[BrotherMovesOn]

Apparently both you and Bumble are *bzzzzz* incorrect.

[ThePublius]

Sarc, "no" what? Did David. come back here? Or are you refuting that privateers helped end the revolution? Try to be more specific.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit quibbling.

You know what you meant, and what he did.

[ThePublius]

"Quit quibbling."

Do you even know what that word means? DN made a demonstrably mistaken refutation of Dr. Ed's comment, and I corrected it. What's the issue with that?

[ThePublius]

"Apparently both you and Bumble are *bzzzzz* incorrect."

Apparently, you don't have the intellectual curiosity to recognize that Bumble and I are both correct. Read the article, dummy!

[Sarcastr0]

And I doubt he will ever come back here and acknowledge his error.
ThePublius

Am I right?
ThePublius
--------------
Grow up. DMN acted like an adult. You're pretending you didn't say what you did and acting like a child.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"And I doubt he will ever come back here and acknowledge his error."
He literally did so hours before you made this comment!
Clearly you're not the sharpest blade but I'd think you could keep up with your own thread.
As for Bumble, to quote Clark Griswold in Christmas Vacation "Do you really think it matters Eddie?"

[Nelson]

What fresh idiocy is this?

[ThePublius]

Your idiocy?

[Nelson]

I’m not MAGa or hard right, so I don’t do bizarre revisionist history or conspiracy theories.

It’s Dr. Ed’s (and, to a lesser extent, Brett Bellmore’s) stock in trade.

[loki13]

"They have to win the war. Sadly, they won't."

Define "win." You constantly post about this war, and how it's going, but you don't seem to have any real knowledge of it.

Ukraine doesn't need to "win" in the sense of marching on Moscow. They just need to keep making Russia not win. Russia invaded in February 2022, and most people assumed that they would roll Ukraine.

We are almost four years into it. Russia has sustained over a million casualties. What's more is that the rate has dramatically increased; in 2024 they lost more troops than 22-23 combined, and in 2025 they lost more troops than the three prior years combined, DOUBLED.

And they have been throwing all those lives away for almost no gain in actual territory- that massive loss of life amounts to less than 5000 sq. km. About the size of Jefferson County in New York State (home of Waterloo) to give you an idea.

So yeah, despite your consistent pro-Russia propoaganda, things aren't actually going that well for them. They are throwing their young men into a meat grinder, destroying their own economy, and not accomplishing anything. That's not to say that they aren't also wrecking Ukraine as well, but they certainly aren't "winning," and Russia has already lost significant amounts of their material and are resorting to using motorcycles and dismounted and unsupported infantry (hence the high casualty rates).

[John F. Carr]

Russia is gaining territory and its per capita casualty rate does not seem to be higher than Ukraine's.

Meanwhile, Ukraine stares down the barrel of population collapse (Reuters, December 4, 2025)

Maybe 2026 will be the year when Russia's economy collapses and its Cold War military stores are exhausted. Maybe not. Maybe Ukraine will collapse instead. If Russia could be trusted Ukraine would have good reason to accept Trump's peace plan.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ukraine still has to push Russia out of occupied territory. Including Crimea I guess.

They are barely hanging on in a defensive war. How do they take the offensive?

[Nelson]

They only have to out-wait the Russians. Which is easy for them to do, since they live there and the Russians don’t. The appetite for endless war isn’t inexhaustible and sooner or later Russians will have had enough.

If Russia “wins”, everybody loses. We’d be going back to an era where unjustified invasion is rewarded.

Plus, of course, Russia has the trustworthiness of Donald Trump, so no one would ever believe they would honor their agreements. After all, this whole thing started because Russia chose to invade.

[loki13]

I reject what you said above; not because I have a rosy view of things for Ukraine (I don't- they are in an existential fight), but because you don't have the same understanding of how detrimental this has been for Russia. You say that "Russia is gaining territory."

Seriously, do you pay much attention to this other than to argue? This is something I pay a lot of attention to, and saying that they are gaining territory is true in only the most trivial of senses. It's like saying that a street-level drug arrest is a victory in the war on drugs; trivially true, operationally false.

"If Russia could be trusted Ukraine would have good reason to accept Trump's peace plan."

Let's see... how to unpack this.
First, if pigs could fly, then I wouldn't have to drive to the store to get bacon. But pigs can't. If Russian could be trusted, then ... but they can't. I'd say that "everyone" knows this, but Trump ... he keeps falling for it.
Second, it's only "Trump's peace plan" in the sense that he wants to claim credit for it. It is "Russia's peace plan" with allowances for Kushner and Witkoff to make some money. Except ... not really, because it was only a trial balloon to waste everyone's time and sow dissension in the west, because Russia won't accept their own peace plan.

Why are Americans so insular and so unwilling to have a basic curiosity about the world?

[David Nieporent]

First, if pigs could fly, then I wouldn't have to drive to the store to get bacon.

Can you goysplain that to this Jew? Where would you get the bacon in that case?

[Sarcastr0]

The pig would fly to your house, and then you'd baconize them.

[DDHarriman]

Bacon comes from pigs.

Does your kind eat pork? Or is that a human thing?

[Bwaaah]

Quick! Jump! (a jewsplanation)

[DDHarriman]

Woah, have they shown their evidence to Sarcastr0 for his approval/permission?

Otherwise that's clearly murder. Straight murder. War crimes.

[Malika la Maize]

Your slavish trust in federal officials has been noted here before. For most of the rest of us checks and balances are wanted.

[DDHarriman]

Ok great. Can you add it to Sarcastr0's catalog of my Greatest Hits?

[Malika la Maize]

Are you into Sarc as well as Feds boots?

What a weird kink.

[DDHarriman]

Great comment! You're on a roll!

[Krayt]

"Don't go into Cambodia!"

"They run supply lines through there!"

"Don't do it!"

"Don't do it!"

"Ok, do it."

[Michael P]

Those involved with the criminal justice system have disproportionately high rates of mental illness and substance-use disorders, prompting speculation that health insurance, by improving treatment of these conditions, could reduce crime. Using the 2008 Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, which randomly made some low-income adults eligible to apply for Medicaid, we find no statistically significant impact of Medicaid coverage on criminal charges or convictions.

https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/REST.a.1625/133739/The-Effect-of-Medicaid-on-Crime-Evidence-from-the?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Another leftist myth bites the dust.

[David Nieporent]

Um, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that health insurance would reduce crime, but "one study of one two-year period in one state didn't show X" does not in any way cause any hypothesis to "bite the dust."

[DDHarriman]

Don't you recall the Obamacare years and the Single Payer arguments? Health insurance cures everything. From crime rates, to reducing abortions to poverty to global warming even.

[Michael P]

You either didn't read or didn't understand the last sentence of the abstract. For convenience, I will reproduce it here:

In the full sample, our confidence intervals can rule out most quasi-experimental estimates of Medicaid’s crime-reducing impact.

[Malika la Maize]

Well, *one* study claims to rule out *most* of a *particular kind of study,* so that’s, that on that subject!

(For the record like DN I am also pretty skeptical that giving Medicaid to those studied would make much difference).

[David Nieporent]

You either didn't read or didn't understand the last sentence of the abstract. For convenience, I will reproduce it here:

You apparently did read, but did not understand, what that meant. That a particular experiment has statistically significant results does not mean that it is correct. Nor does it mean that it is generalizable.

I'd also add that if health insurance had an effect on crime — something that I reiterate I'm dubious about — I wouldn't expect that effect to show up so quickly. I'd expect the effects to be long term. (Not criticizing the researchers here; to paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go to war with the data you have, not the data you want.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't be totally shocked if prenatal care had an effect on crime; A lot of criminals exhibit impaired impulse control and planning, and may just be suffering from marginal brain damage due to a bad prenatal environment.

You're doubtless familiar with the lead crime hypothesis, that a large part of the drop in crime in the 20th century was due to ceasing to use lead in gasoline. Prenatal care could have a crime reducing effect in the same general way.

[Michael P]

I understand it just fine. Your argument is in the same vein as defending someone claiming that the moon is made of green cheese because we've only brought back rocks from some parts of the moon, and that doesn't prove that the rest isn't green cheese.

[Sarcastr0]

You're 100% wrong on how science works.

A new study result doesn't mean everything follows that now. A single study doesn't mean much except maybe here's a new neat place to look.

You want to hold out for longitudinal studies.

[Michael P]

You're posting 100% word salad again.

[David Nieporent]

No; your position is more like going to the moon and finding a barren surface and concluding that there is no extraterrestrial life in the universe. It doesn't matter how thoroughly and accurately one studies the moon; that doesn't provide information — let alone conclusive refutation! — about such universal life.

[Michael P]

That's a hella dumb argument. We know life exists on Earth. We don't know that Medicare reduces crime on Earth (or anywhere else).

[David Nieporent]

1) You mean Medicaid.

2) I didn't say anything about life on earth; I said extraterrestrial life.

3) Yes, that's the whole point: we. don't. know.. You treated it as if this study proved the opposite.

[hobie]

I have some experience in this area. Yeah, you are going to have a larger population of loons in the prison/justice systems. Well adjusted people are less likely to commit crimes. But the vast majority of crooks in the system are just poor or ignorant or both. Mostly just ignorant. Plus I don't think your study addresses that a lot of the cons feign mental illness to get the psyche meds. In prison, a psyche med can be a little bit of an escape.

As for substance abuse; Yeah, damn near all of them use. Nothing's going to change that save the abstinence forced by incarceration.

[David Nieporent]

the abstinence forced by incarceration

Dude, we can't keep drugs out of prisons.

[hobie]

BOP facilities are pretty tight. You'd be surprised how little drugs there are in there. But state and county? Awash.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

BOP facilities are pretty tight.

Hmm. Do you have details to back that up?

[Bwaaah]

Probably none that hobie feels comfortable sharing here. But that's not his trolling voice.

[ducksalad]

The presence of drugs in BOP institutions has contributed to numerous inmate deaths, both directly through overdoses and more indirectly as a contributing factor in suicides, as well as homicides. According to BOP documentation we examined, 70 of the 344 inmates in our scope died from overdoses of both contraband drugs (synthetic cannabinoids, methamphetamine, fentanyl, or heroin) and prescription drugs used improperly.

https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/24-041.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

Theproblem with mental health treatment is that it often is worse than the disease.

[David Nieporent]

I believe Dr. Ed has experience with mental health treatment.

[apedad]

Judge rules in favor of UF law student expelled for antisemitic social media posts

A federal judge ruled (on 11/24) in favor of Preston Damsky, a former UF law student who was expelled from the university after posting antisemitic statements on X.

Damsky’s attorney, Anthony Sabatini, said the ruling signaled the U.S. Constitution won.

“It’s a big win for free speech,” Sabatini said.

On March 21, Damsky posted on X to roughly 25 followers, “My position on Jews is simple: whatever Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev meant by his call to ‘abolish the White race by any means necessary’ is what I think must be done with Jews. Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.”

About a week after Damsky’s posted the statement, professor Lyrissa Lidsky, a Jewish member of the UF law faculty, replied and asked if Damsky would murder her and her family.

“Surely a genocide of all whites should be an even greater outrage than a genocide of all Jews, given the far greater number of whites,” Damsky wrote in response.

https://www.alligator.org/article/2025/11/judge-rules-in-favor-of-uf-law-student-expelled-over-antisemetic-posts

I think I just outed DDHarriman.

[hobie]

We seem to be focusing on purging liberal institutions of antisemites, but leave untouched the ranks of Turning Point and Young Republicans

[Michael P]

By "the ranks", do you mean people like Nick Fuentes who are affiliated with neither group, or the role-playing rage farmers of Africa and eastern Europe?

[hobie]

No. I'm referring to all the avowed Neo Nazis in Turning Point's ranks that the ADL dossier documented with receipts. As hot as you MAGA purportedly are about every instance of antisemitism, I'm surprised/not surprised you dismiss a major report by one of the world's leading organizations for combating antisemitism. But like I said numerous times before, they messed around where they shouldn't have...so it's infra-bus for them meddling kids

[Dr. Ed 2]

ADL is the modern Joe McCarthy.

[BrotherMovesOn]

And Dr. Ed is the modern Charlie McCarthy

[Kazinski]

You do see his point don't you, or at least his point that'd be defensible:

Whatever punishment or condemnation he deserves, Noel Ignatiev should be getting too.

And if Ignatiev isn't getting punished, then why should he?

And good god, "roughly 25 followers", not quite Nick Fuentes there.

[Sarcastr0]

Whattabout this whattaboutism, eh?

You don't need to deflect and defend every bigot you see, though I get why you have that reflex.

[Kazinski]

It isn't whataboutism, he clearly made the point in his first post:

“My position on Jews is simple: whatever Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev meant by his call to ‘abolish the White race by any means necessary’ is what I think must be done with Jews. Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.”

Was he trolling? I don't know, but but he was making a serious point, even if he is an anti-Semite.

And of course that may be why he won his case, I think his chances would have been a lot less certain than if he had merely said: "Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.” which of course does not make a serious point.

The court didn't just dismiss it as whataboutism, nor should it have

"Read in context, the post was equating Damsky's view that "Jews must be abolished" to the view of a Harvard professor. This context further undermines any suggestion that the post was a "serious expression" that Damsky would harm others."

EV already blogged about it here

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/11/24/court-orders-reinstatement-of-law-student-expelled-for-writing-whatever-harvard-professor-noel-ignatiev-meant-by-abolish-the-white-race-by-any-means-necessary-must-be-done-with-jews/

As is often the case he expressed his own view pretty tersely, but agreed with the Judge:

"An excerpt from today's long opinion by Chief Judge Allen Winsor (N.D. Fla.) in Damsky v. Summerlin, which I think is likely correct:"

Now you can condemn me for 'an appeal to authority', which of course both EV and the Judge are.

[Malika la Maize]

On President Donald Trump’s first full day in office this year, he pardoned Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who was convicted of creating the largest online black market for illegal drugs and other illicit goods of its time.

In the months since, he has granted clemency to others, including Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover and Baltimore drug kingpin Garnett Gilbert Smith. And last week, he pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been sentenced to 45 years in prison for running his country as a vast “narco-state” that helped to move at least 400 tons of cocaine into the United States.

Overall, Trump — who campaigned against America’s worsening drug crisis and promised to crack down on the illegal flow of deadly drugs coming across the border — has pardoned or granted clemency to at least 10 people for drug-related crimes since the beginning of his second term, according to a Washington Post analysis. He also granted pardons or commutations to almost 90 others for drug-related crimes during the four years of his first term, the analysis showed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/12/07/trump-drugs-pardons-hernandez-venezuela/

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump is off to a slow start in trying to catch The Cauliflower, in terms of pardons. 😉

[Malika la Maize]

How do you square your support for summarily executing alleged drug traffickers with pardoning people who were convicted after a full trial of being involved in drug trafficking?

[Dr. Ed 2]

There were troubling issues with Silk Road.

[SRG2]

Translation" I am unable to defend Dear Leader's pardons so I am compelled to deflect".

Also, you're wrong.

[apedad]

Here's the link of Trump's pardons (for this term): https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-grants-president-donald-j-trump-2025-present

[hobie]

I've got a soft spot for Ross Ulbrecht. His involvement wasn't as monstrous as people think. I'm glad he was pardoned. I wonder if the gov has to return his - what is now most likely - billions in bitcoin? Because there could be a lot of quo in that bitcoin

[Krayt]

That's a good question. Logically, a pardon says soandso was, in spite of their crime, enough of a good fellow that it benefits the nation to do this. The crime still happened, the legal downsides are null now.

If he had literally robbed a house, does he get the honor of swinging by and retrieving what he stole?

[hobie]

What a pity...

"As part of his criminal sentence, which came after a jury found Ulbricht guilty of drug trafficking and money laundering, the judge also ordered him to forfeit nearly $184 million. To make good on the judgment, the U.S. Marshals Service arranged a series of auctions to sell off over 144,000 Bitcoins belonging to Ulbricht.

In a case of poor timing, the Marshals sold the Bitcoins in early 2014 at a time when the currency had recently fallen from over $1,000 to a modern-era low of near $300. Today, the 144,000 Bitcoins would be worth around $14 billion but, at the time, fetched a little over $48 million, which translates to around $334 each—or less than 0.5% of their present-day value."

https://fortune.com/crypto/2025/01/22/ross-ulbricht-pardon-bitcoin-fortune-forfeiture/

[hobie]

In the book Ready Player One, the protagonist travels the metaverse to a lonely planet far from everything. In a cave deep within the planet, he finds a lonely Pacman machine. He plays it and wins a single quarter.

I'll bet a super smart guy like Ulbrecht has a couple hundred 'quarters' in some secret cave somewhere

[gVOR08]

In some cases the pardon cancelled court ordered restitution, so "retrieve", no. Keep what he stole, yes.

[David Nieporent]

I wonder if the gov has to return his - what is now most likely - billions in bitcoin?

A pardon may wipe out future obligations in terms of fines and restitution, but it does not retroactively discharge those obligations. Anything the government already has, the government gets to keep.

[Malika la Maize]

California health officials on Friday warned against foraging for wild mushrooms after a poison found in certain varieties killed one person and caused liver damage to others.

The California Poison Control System identified 21 cases of poisoning, including the death of one adult, from a potent toxin known as amatoxin that is found in some mushrooms.

The illnesses were linked to the consumption of death cap mushrooms between mid-November and early December, the California Department of Public Health said in a news release.

The poisoning outbreak led to severe liver damage in children and adults, and at least one person may need a liver transplant, the department said. It did not specify how many sustained liver damage.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/06/us/california-wild-mushrooms-poison.html

[Brett Bellmore]

We occasionally eat wild mushrooms, but only extremely easy to identify varieties. I think we might try gardening them this coming year.

[Estragon]

Foraging for wild mushrooms is a fun and safe activity. Great for kids, who are naturally curious and low to the ground. In my area, there are several species that are unmistakable, and at my level of knowledge I would only consume those particular types. There are only a few known at this time that are deathly toxic, but destroying angels and death caps are among them. The statements from California officials are ridiculously overblown. One question I do have is the extent of AI involvement here.

[Estragon]

And just for funsies, this is fascinating and shows how little we still really know about mushrooms.

https://nhmu.utah.edu/articles/experts-explore-new-mushroom-which-causes-fairytale-hallucinations

[BrotherMovesOn]

They're just trying to steal Tweak's underpants.

[apedad]

'I will 86 on sight': Trump-supporting 'protector of white people' declares war on 'enemy combatants' who don't support president, police say

A Florida man has been arrested for spewing racist and terroristic threats at individuals online, claiming he was a "protector of white people" and a "violent felon" who viewed critics of President Donald Trump and reporters as "enemy combatants," police said.

"I will 86 on sight," Michael Maguire, 64, wrote on YouTube about CNN reporters, referring to eliminating and identifying them as "active shooters," according to a Volusia County arrest affidavit viewed by Law&Crime on Monday.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/i-will-86-on-sight-trump-supporting-protector-of-white-people-declares-war-on-enemy-combatants-who-dont-support-president-police-say/

Additionally, "Maguire's arrest documents outline how he allegedly wanted to take people's heads "off" to keep "as a trophy," while also threatening Jewish and Muslim citizens."

Why are people blaming Jews?!?

[Michael P]

But 86 just means to take something off a restaurant menu, right? It's totally innocent when applied to people, or so I was told. Repeatedly. By people who insisted they were just stating the unarguable truth.

[DDHarriman]

But that's (D)ifferent.

[hobie]

Yes, this particular Q-Shaman is using 86 incorrectly. He's using it MAGA-style.

It's kinda like MAGA's corruption of 'bless your heart' to mean - basically - 'fuck you'. Us normies still think of the phrase in its proper meaning

[OpinionsVary]

That might be an argument if that's *all* he said but even a quick skim through the article shows this guy started digging and just didn't stop. For example: "Any BBC reporter I run across in the United States will be treated as an enemy combatant…… you fill in the rest, but I'm out for blood you motherf—ers"

[not guilty]

What is Mr. McGuire's nom de guerre on this comment thread?

[hobie]

Floridaman?

[loki13]

"Why are people blaming Jews?!?"

I think anyone with half-a-brain knows.

Two basic points.

First, when you unleash the forces of hate, at some point the hate always comes for the Jews. ALWAYS. This is a lesson that is, unfortunately, as old as time. You'd think that people like XY and Bob would get this, but nope. It's always, "This time, it's different!" Sure, they might say that they are with you in hating Trans people, and Gay people, and Brown people, and Black people ... but eventually the masks fall off, and you see that the oldest and most vile form of hate is always there.

Second? Since when has a White, Christian, Nationalist, Nativist, Populist movement ... ever been a bad thing for the Chosen People? I know, shocking. Truly, I am shocked (SHOCKED!) that not only do we see a base filled with anti-Semitism, but actual Nazis in this administration.

You'd think that if someone literally spent his stump speech telling you the story of the scorpion and the frog, he couldn't be more obvious. And yet ....

[hobie]

Every Christian Nationalist movement in world history has always worked out splendidly for Jews. Always!

[DDHarriman]

How do Christians fare under Zionism?

[hobie]

Vatican News
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2025-04/holy-land-christians-rossing-center-jerusalem-jewish-relations.html

"There were 111 attacks or acts of violence recorded in 2024 against Christians, including but not limited to attacks against clergy. Most attacks targeted individuals, but 35 cases involved vandalism against churches, monasteries, and public religious signs.

In nearly all cases, the perpetrators identified were young, ultra-Orthodox Jews belonging to circles of religious-nationalist extremism.

The growing influence of religious-nationalist extremism in Israeli government policy has fostered an environment of constant threat for religious minorities, and particularly for Christians."

Basically reinforces what has been said elsewhere in this comment thread. Whenever you have a religious-nationalist movement, all religions outside the movement get hammered. Part of why the ADL said what it said.

[Nelson]

They do quite well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because this Christian nation has treated the Jews so badly that they fled -- oh, wait, there are more Jews in NYC than anywhere else in the world but Tel Aviv. Or something like that.

We have our shortcomings, but I don't think we have a history of treating Jews badly.

[David Nieporent]

I think anyone with half-a-brain knows.

Why the bicycle riders?

[Bwaaah]

I don't get it, and I want to know. Treat me like the slow one and help me out here. How's that line work?

[David Nieporent]

Assuming your request is sincere: it's an old joke, often set in revolutionary Russia or Nazi Germany. An angry guy sees a Jew on the street and comes up to him to harangue him about all the problems in the country. He demands that the Jew admit guilt for inflation, shortages, crime, unemployment, etc. In response to his angry demand, the Jew says, "Yeah, the Jews and the bicycle riders are responsible for all those things."

The guy looks at him, confused, and says, "Huh? Why the bicycle riders?"
The Jewish guy's response: "Why the Jews?"

[Life of Brian]

Thanks for clearing that up. Not being privy to that inside joke myself, I thought you were excluding bicycle riders from those with half a brain.

[Bwaaah]

Notice how tentative David was about my sincerity? I thought I was an easier read than that. After burning you, and now seeing him here, I'm taking stock of how I seem to be seen as a facetious douchebag. (With a few people, I am. But not many.)

[Life of Brian]

I wouldn't overthink it. Dry wit is even harder to parse in writing than in person, and I think the other day I broke the tie with my own biases. This one seemed clearly sincere to me -- maybe the tone of the self-deprecation.

[Bob from Ohio]

bicycle riders have no brain

[Bwaaah]

I never could've guessed. (It could've been any classification.) I may never again think of references to bicycle riders the same way. Thanks.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why are people blaming Jews?!?"

Why are people blaming Muslims?!? Why are people blaming the BBC?!?

A person, not people btw. Nut picking, as Sarcasto would say if he policed his side, which he does not.

[Malika la Maize]

DDHarriman 13 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
How do Christians fare under Zionism?

Reply

[DDHarriman]

Oh em gee, your argument is so powerful that you don't even have to make it!! You can just point and EVERYONE will know what you're saying!!

Does your kind communicate some other channels than us humans? Like via some ESP-like hivemind?

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't brag about muting like the libs here but he's muted.

[loki13]

One quick update-

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26361991-oregonvtrumpca9amord120825/

This is the amended order from the 9th Circuit taking the Portland National Guard case en banc. Judge Bybee (yes, THAT Bybee) has written a long and detailed statement in support of en banc review that is ... interesting. I recommend reading it because it's definitely food for thought.

I'll have to think more about some of the legal propositions, but it certainly is an originalist approach to "We don't use the federal government for state law enforcement, and here's why."

[OpinionsVary]

Oh, yeah, I heard about that this morning. Bringing in the Domestic Violence Clause was interesting.

[DDHarriman]

They aren't using the Portland National Guard to conduct law enforcement.

They are using the Portland National Guard to protect federal facilities from ANTIFA/Democrat assault and federal employees from ANTIFA/Democrat violence.

[John F. Carr]

Once again, when I am put in charge of the judiciary I will ban overly long non-precedential writing including but not limited to statements regarding rehearing en banc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ban computers -- make judges write longhand. 🙂

[ThePublius]

That reminds me; Shelby Foote, one of the primary consultants on Ken Burns' Civil War documentary, wrote a 3,000 page history of the civil war, over a 20 year period, with a nib pen. He then transcribed it on a typewriter for his publisher. Talk about 'obsessed!'

[Bwaaah]

Andy Rooney clinged (clang? clung?) to his faithful typewriter until he was forced one day to use a word processor. And then, writing became easier and better for him.

[ReaderY]

Given that the Supreme Court appears poised to overrule Humphrey’s Executor, it probably won’t be long before the Court entertains a challenge to Article I tribunals administered by the Executive on grounds that a magistrate removal at pleasure by the President can never offer a fair hearing because he always has to look over his shoulder and fear being fired if he makes a displeasing decision.

What happens?

1. Can the Court hold that a magistrate removable at pleasure nonetheless provides a constitutionally adequate hearing?

2. If not, can Congress create Article I tribunals whose magistrates are appointed by the courts and administered by and answerable only to the judicial branch, even though the magistrates do not have life tenure and the tribunals use streamlined procedures without the full panaply of rules applicable to a revular court hearing?

3. If not, must every hearing the federal government conducts on anything, be conducted by an Article III judge? Can it nonetheless create specialized administrative Article III courts with streamlined rules?

[OpinionsVary]

On 2, my first thought was no but then I stopped and thought about it. The US already has United States magistrate judges, appointed to 8 year terms by the district judges. And those magistrate judges already do things like hold bale hearings etc. I don't see any reason you couldn't take that and expand it out.

So create a new set of inferior officer magistrate judges, have them appointed by, say, the Federal Circuit and have them do all the administrative law judge stuff. You'd need a degree of supervision by the Federal Circuit (that's what makes an inferior officer inferior), so maybe you'd end up with a more powerful Article III appeal than now, but I don't see why its impossible.

Maybe skip the Federal Circuit and create an entirely new Administrative Law circuit too?

[Michael P]

1. Yes, because the question is generally whether a particular hearing is fair, not whether there is a hypothetical potential for unfairness.

[DDHarriman]

>Executive on grounds that a magistrate removal at pleasure by the President can never offer a fair hearing because he always has to look over his shoulder and fear being fired if he makes a displeasing decision.

I like this reframing of "accountability". People rule and judge us should be accountable to us.

[ReaderY]

On Yrjmp’s proposed executive order preempting state rules on AI, one has to keep in mind the Ferengi Laws of Acquisition. If its author had called them “suggestions,” would anybody have bought the book?

Same here with this “order.” It’s a marketing ploy. Nothing more. Mr. Trump is very good at that sort of thing.

[David Nieporent]

It fools an awful lot of rubes.

[DDHarriman]

Now that we've had 10 years of Democrat Healthcare Utopia, Obamacare, was it worth it?

The billions in fraud, the skyrocketing premiums ... was it worth it? Was Obamacare good policy?

[Nelson]

On balance, yes. And that’s with constant attempts by Republicans to wreck the law because, like a toddler who kicks over their sibling’s toys because they are angry and incapable of envisioning consequences. And the fact that they keep failing to knock it down just makes them angrier and more erratic.

Whether Obamacare was based on good policies will be endlessly debated. That it was a well-written, robust law that has accomplished what it intended, enjoys widespread approval by Americans, and was superior to the existing system at the time has been the outcome.

If you think there’s a better system, by all means propose it. But whining because your political opponents did a great job writing legislation and crying that people like it is just pathetic.

[DDHarriman]

Here's another who only lives in The Narrative.

That it was a well-written, robust law that has accomplished what it intended, enjoys widespread approval by Americans, and was superior to the existing system at the time has been the outcome.

That's downright delusional.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/26/us-health-insurance-system-doctors

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/americans-challenges-with-health-care-costs/

https://www.facs.org/for-medical-professionals/news-publications/news-and-articles/bulletin/2025/february-2025-volume-110-issue-2/us-healthcare-system-is-in-crisis/

[DDHarriman]

And there are countless more describing the disaster Obamacare has made of our healthcare industry.

Apparently you don't pay for your own insurance, or you've never sought care in the US.

[Nelson]

“ Apparently you don't pay for your own insurance, or you've never sought care in the US.”

I’ve done both. As a healthy, twentysomething, self-insured person in the 90s, I was paying $1500 per month for insurance. That was because companies could push the savings to the large employer plans and screw over everyone who had to buy their own insurance. Obamacare eliminated that distinction, so now individual plans are sold like a nation-wide “group” plan. That’s where the vast majority of the saving have come from, since a twentysomething today would get a much better policy than I did for roughly a wuarter of the price.

I know a lot more than you, who are talking like someone who’s never been an entrepreneur or self-employed. Or, more likely, someone who’s never lived in America.

I have also sought care, both before and after Obamacare. There are far fewer difficulties today than when I was in my 20s, and back then I was just getting routine exams. It’s easier (and cheaper) today for me to get an MRI than it was for me to get one in the 90s. Granted, that could be due to the age of the technology then vs. now, but it’s still true.

[DDHarriman]

My favorite is this one:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2024/12/07/how-the-american-healthcare-system-is-failing-its-people/

That headline and DEI photo combined is like a self-licking ice cream cone.

[Nelson]

“ That headline and DEI photo combined is like a self-licking ice cream cone.”

Obviously you only read the headline, since the article referenced Obamacare to point out the good things it has done:

“Since former president Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law in 2010, the number of uninsured individuals has decreased significantly. Individuals with health insurance are more likely to utilize preventative services that could lead to better health outcomes, research reveals.”.

In fact, it says “ First, it’s important to fight against the repealing of the ACA.”.

In your mind, this is an article that says how bad Obamacare is?

You scoring an own-goal like this is, to quote, “like a self-licking ice cream cone”.
ROFL

[Nelson]

You are falsely equating the American healthcare system (which is, in fact, quite bad in terms of both delivering healthcare in a cost-effective manner as well as outcomes) with Obamacare.

Obamacare didn’t alter the underlying system of healthcare in America. It merely created a framework that changed how it was paid for and what the minimum standards were.

Which parts of Obamacare do you think made the system by which healthcare is delivered in America worse?

And please be specific. Because I’m pretty certain you can’t give me anything that is specific to Obamacare, as opposed to a weakness on the way healthcare is delivered in America.

For example, your first article isn’t about Obamacare, it’s about health insurance companies penny-pinching and denying basic tests to maintain profits. That has nothing to do with Obamacare. Bit it has everything to do with health insurance being sold by for-profit companies who see their customers as revenue streams they want to maximize, not policy holders who they have an obligation to.

Your second article isn’t about the high cost of American healthcare. Like your first article, it points out that Americans spend more on healthcare than any other comparable country and have worse outcomes. That is also not about Obamacare.

Your final article is the most direct, most stark, and most condemning … of insurance companies. Quoting your article: “Sadly, it has evolved into a highly corporatized system controlled by a decreasing number of increasingly powerful conglomerates where profit is often the main metric of performance and success.”.

Literally every single one of your articles blames, in general, the healthcare system in America and, specifically, health insurance companies. None of them blame Obamacare.

Do you even read your own articles?

[Bob from Ohio]

"has accomplished what it intended"

Agreed, it wrecked the private insurance market to start the "medicaid for all" process.

People like it because they get subsidies that mask the true costs.. Now they feel entitled.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, don't work Brett's side of the street.

Your unsupported secret evil Democratic agendas just don't have the same verve.

[DDHarriman]

The Obamacare architect confessed as much.

Don't forget that. You know. People's words and the actions that have aligned with those words.

[Bob from Ohio]

Brett, Brett, Brett!

You are like a parrot.

All Democratic agendas are evil.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, Bob.

[Nelson]

“ All Democratic agendas are evil.”

No, that doesn’t sound insane at all. Really.

[Nelson]

“ Agreed, it wrecked the private insurance market to start the "medicaid for all" process.”

Like I said, we can debate the value of the policy behind Obamacare, but in terms of writing a resilient, powerful law that effectively delivers healthcare to Americans in a progressive manner, they knocked it out of the park.

Yes, you don’t like it. But that’s your partisanship talking, because you (and the GOP) have spent the last 15 years failing to come up with anything better. Not failing to pass it, but failing to even figure out a better plan. In a battle between better vs. nothing, better will always win.

Obamacare expanded coverage, which improved health outcomes (an area in which America trails every other developed county).

It did so using government spending, which is theoretically what you oppose (but I’ll bet a guy from Ohio supports the much-more-expensive agricultural subsidies and ethanol standards).

The private health insurance market hasn’t been “wrecked”. It is literally enjoying both record customers and record profits. Where I come from, that is benefitting, not wrecking, the private health insurance market.

Remember, private health insurance companies don’t have to participate in the Obamacare exchanges. It is entirely voluntary. But they do, so you do the math.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, remember all those people who confidently assured us, based on having read some guesses on Twitter, that ABC was losing millions of dollars on Jimmy Kimmel and the whole fake Charlie Kirk outrage was just their excuse to cut their losses with him? Remember when they took some speculation by Kimmel and claimed that even he had admitted he was going to be cancelled, that it had nothing to do with MAGA?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/business/jimmy-kimmel-contract-extension

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, a one year extension to save face and look for something to replace him.

[Estragon]

LOL. Lots of takes that really didn’t age great in those mid-September threads!

[Nelson]

What have they been doing for the past few years, if Kimmel was so awful? Twiddling their thumbs?

If they were planning on getting rid of Kimmel because he was losing them money, they would have already had a replacement in line, possibly even already holding a contract and waiting for a signiture.

[Estragon]

“Meanwhile, thanks to the self-important POS Kimmel a cast and crew are out of work.”

[shawn_dude]

Streisand effect.

[Drewski]

I notice that Trump is now 100% tilting his head on camera to try to cover up his drooping face. The man has had a stroke. He doesn't even remember some things he's allegedly done, such as some of his pardons.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your keen powers of observation a a credit to the medical profession.

[Bob from Ohio]

Another hypocritical response to the "Biden is sharper than his staff and has the energy of a 20 year old" BS the lib herd here parroted for 3 1/2 years.

[loki13]

...I think he's looked bad. I wouldn't doubt that might have had a small stroke that they've covered up. Mostly because this administration lies like a rug.

But ... he's also about to turn 80, has a terrible diet, and has a notoriously stupid view of exercise (IIRC he believes that there are a limited number of heartbeats and that's why you don't want to exercise and "use them up" but that also sounds too stupid for Trump and I'm too lazy to see if that was something I am misremembering).

He could just be really old and declining rapidly, as tends to happen to some. Not all- but IME when the decline starts (and it starts at different points for different people) it happens quickly and noticeably.

Look- the Biden at the end of his term was different than the one at the beginning. The Reagan of 1986 was different than 1983. And the Trump we see now is different than the one that was in office in his last term. Don't think that's debatable.

Getting back to your comment, though, I've seen a fair amount of footage of Trump (way too much...) and I can't say I've noticed a particular head tilt.

[John F. Carr]

Back in 2022 loads of commentators looked at videos of Putin and explained that he was on the verge of death. They hoped for the war to end quickly and Putin's death might have ended it. If you look hard enough you will find what you want to find.

[ducksalad]

there are a limited number of heartbeats and that's why you don't want to exercise and "use them up" but that also sounds too stupid

I dunno, loki. Is the number of heartbeats infinite or finite? Once you concede it's not infinite...

It's very much like a 1960s fuel pump. You don't drive the car enough, it gums up and fails. You drive the car a lot, eventually it wears out and fails.

The answer is of course you drive the car when you need to go someplace. If you're not driving it enough naturally you take it out just to keep it from gumming up. But not just relentlessly drive day after day for the sake of racking up a lot miles.

[John F. Carr]

There is a rule of thumb that mammals live for about a billion heartbeats. There is also some evidence that burning more energy shortens lifespan. But building up cardiovascular capacity may be useful even though it burns energy.

[loki13]

...it's like so many Trump preoccupations. Magnets. Tariffs.

The heartbeat thing.

He heard something at some point, didn't really understand it, and somehow it lodged in his brain harder than an RFKjr brain worm, and we are all a little worse for it.

[Estragon]

“(IIRC he believes that there are a limited number of heartbeats and that's why you don't want to exercise and "use them up" but that also sounds too stupid for Trump and I'm too lazy to see if that was something I am misremembering)”

I regret to inform you that you are not misremembering.

[Bored Lawyer]

he believes that there are a limited number of heartbeats and that's why you don't want to exercise and "use them up"

OTOH, if you exercise and get into shape, your average heart rate goes down. So that lowered rate more than makes up for it.

[David Nieporent]

But ... he's also about to turn 80, has a terrible diet, and has a notoriously stupid view of exercise (IIRC he believes that there are a limited number of heartbeats and that's why you don't want to exercise and "use them up" but that also sounds too stupid for Trump and I'm too lazy to see if that was something I am misremembering).

You are not in fact misremembering, although he doesn't specify "heartbeats." It's energy; he thinks that the human body is a battery with a fixed amount of charges, and if you use them up you die sooner.

[DDHarriman]

Some facts:
1.) Jews are overrepresented in the billionaire class
2.) Applying 'disparate impact' theory would suggest our economic system is skewed towards Jews
3.) The Left loves 'disparate impact', it's been a driver for many policy goals unattainable to politicians
4.) The Left hates the billionaire class.

Is it consistent to love the Jew, while hating the Billionaire when the billionaire making system is racist in favor of the Jew?

Why does the Left say things like "Eradicate Whiteness" with comfort, but can't bring themselves to say "Eradicate Jewness"?

[Malika la Maize]

Where’s Bob from Ohio?

[Bob from Ohio]

In Ohio

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Interesting choice to argue the SCOTUS case yesterday:

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

He "tried making the 'conservative case' against firing Slaughter and other officials."

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ex-alito-kavanaugh-clerk-defends-limits-on-trumps-firing-power

A long shot, especially when he is stuck defending opinions (e.g., Seila Law), the Chief Justice flags as announcing that Humphrey’s Executor is a "dry husk" of itself.

Anyway, someone in the past remarked on the verbiage used by Chief Justice Taft to argue Myers v. U.S. was required by original understanding.

The dissents disagreed, providing their own analysis, and later Justice George Sutherland, one of the four horsemen, for a unanimous Court,* dismissed chunks of the opinion as overreaching. Many appeals to original understanding are comparable. At best tedious, at worst signficantly open to debate.

==

* Justice McReynolds joined the judgment while citing his separate opinion in Myers. McReynolds was a Wilson appointee. Wilson is known for his scholarship regarding Congress.

[EllaWilson]

Agarwal was savagely unprepared for his argument.

[DDHarriman]

How is Ukraine bombing Gambia flagged vessels not a murderous war crime, but the US bombing narco-terrorists without flags is murderous?

Where is the cherished and sacred due process for the Gambian sailors that Zelenskyy had murdered?

[Malika la Maize]

Noted white supremacist worried about Gambians. Not disingenuous at all.

What say ye XY, Mikie Q, Life of Bri Bri, etc.?

Rebuke, or no enemies to the right?

[DDHarriman]

Rebuke for what? What offense did I comment by making my argument?

Just existing as a White, Christian Heterosexual (natural), Heritage American 1776 Patriot?

I know that typically triggers a blood lust in many Jews and Democrats, but it still isn't an offense just existing... for now

[hobie]

a) Ukraine is at war.
b) Targeting the engines, so far there has been ZERO casualties of any kind. Z.E.R.O.

[DDHarriman]

As told and recounted by the braggart murderers.

[loki13]

First rule of holes, stop digging (Comey edition).

So one of the reasons that the Department of Injustice's campaign against Comey has been so bizarre is because it shows how amazingly counterproductive it has been. Moreover, it explains why (assuming there is still a functioning judiciary) it's generally a terrible idea to take bad cases to court and to lie to keep them alive.

...the longer you do it, the worse it gets. Because the lies get found out, then require new lies, that get found out, and you end up in an endless regress of defending the past stupid decision by making fresh new mistakes.

In other words, the only reason you keep the prosecution alive is because Old Man Burns is demanding it and you don't want to get fired, but to keep it alive, you have to keep digging your hole deeper.

Latest issue- so a judge TRO'd the administration from using the Richman evidence- you know, the stuff they took years ago and has so many issues (privilege, timeliness, failure to sort for relevance, failure to get warrant, etc.).

The government responded by asking the judge to lift the TRO because that would interfere with the ... investigation of Comey. But in the filing, they had to admit that Richman was no longer an FBI employee by February 2017.*

*This is the best-case scenario. Arguably, he stopped being an FBI employee in June 2016.

Why does this matter? Because almost all the evidence they use, and all the predicate facts in the indictment, rely on the assertion that Richman was an FBI employee ... after February 2017.

See what I mean about holes and digging?

[hobie]

The administration is trying to be more clever than it is capable of. They should stick to the old playbook: Smear Comey as an antisemitic terrorist tranny and slap him with a mortgage fraud case

[David Nieporent]

Latest issue- so a judge TRO'd the administration from using the Richman evidence- you know, the stuff they took years ago and has so many issues (privilege, timeliness, failure to sort for relevance, failure to get warrant, etc.).

I'm still not convinced Comey has standing to raise any of those issues other than privilege, though.

That notwithstanding, it kind of reminds me of Trump v. Anderson; I was 100% convinced that Trump would prevail because there were so many possible arguments on his side, so many off-ramps SCOTUS could take. Here Comey has about 6 different ways he can prevail:

1. Halligan not validly in office.
2. Indictment void because whole grand jury never voted on it.
3. Statute of limitations.
4. Misuse of privileged evidence.
5. Vindictive prosecution
6. No true bill by the next grand jury.
7. I'm sure I've forgotten some, but last and definitely not least: he's not actually guilty of anything.

I sure wouldn't be shocked if there's some sort of additional egregious DOJ misconduct somewhere along the way a la Daniel Ellsberg.

[hobie]

And its crickets from the lawfare crowd here.

[loki13]

"I'm still not convinced Comey has standing to raise any of those issues other than privilege, though."

I apologize if I wasn't more clear; this is in Richman's separate suit, and Richman definitely has standing.

I agree that there are questions about Comey's standing re: some of the issues (although I'd argue that in addition to privilege, there appears be to be some case law about the need for a fresh warrant, although I could be mistaken on that), but this is collateral litigation separate from the Comey case (which AFAIK is still dismissed, no appeal, no new indictment).

[David Nieporent]

I apologize if I wasn't more clear; this is in Richman's separate suit, and Richman definitely has standing.

Yeah; I wasn't confused about what you were saying. I was just riffing off the Richman stuff to discuss the thing we probably most will be focusing on, which is the Comey prosecution.

[John F. Carr]

A federal magistrate judge refused to order the release of Tina Peters while her appeal is decided. Peters is a former clerk of Mesa County, Colorado who was sentenced to about nine years in state prison for allowing unauthorized access to voting machines after the 2020 election. Her present claim is that the state court judge denied her release on bond pending appeal because she believed the 2020 election was stolen. The federal judge ruled that Younger absention was required because there is an ongoing state court proceeding in which she raised the same legal objection. The appeals court has not yet decided her case. Once her state appeals are exhausted she can return to federal court.

Peters v. Feyen, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69629270/peters-v-feyen/

Peters seems to be a celebrity in MAGA circles. Her supporters have been trying other routes to get her out of state prison. A request to transfer her to federal custody was denied. A recent editorial argues that Trump can pardon her because we have been wrong all these centuries about the scope of the president's pardon power.

My impression is she got a very harsh sentence from a hostile judge. That happens sometimes. It's not ordinarily grounds for a successful appeal.

[ducksalad]

Here's the start of the letter her attorney sent to Trump:

Dear Mr. President:

I know you are aware that Tina Peters is a 70-year-old gold star mother, and that her trial was a travesty, where she was not permitted to raise her defenses. I could go on as to her character, but I prefer to take this opportunity to explain why Tina Peters is a critical, and necessary witness to the most serious crime perpetrated against the United States in history. They stole our whole country for 4 years.

Dominion, and its employees, operated an illegal operation on our soil which was supported and controlled by foreign actors. The Colorado Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, aided and abetted Dominion and foreign countries in targeting Mesa County Clerk, Tina Peters.

And later in the letter:

The reason many pundits opine that you only have power to grant pardons for federal offenses is that we all understand the "United States" to be the federal government of our country. We have one country, and it is called the "United States".
....
Moreover, it does not make sense that they intended to give the individual states the power to circumvent the President's power to pardon. The matter of Tina Peters is a perfect example of how the power of the President is being circumvented.
...
This could not be what the founders intended. The President has the power to grant pardons in any of the states of the United States.

https://coloradonewsline.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Sup.-Cover-Letter-for-Application-for-Pardon-for-Tina-Peters.pdf

[David Nieporent]

An actual attorney — very very loosely speaking — wrote that. It was — nobody will be surprised to learn — one of Trump's personal lawyers, Peter Ticktin. (He went to high school 60 years ago with Trump, which obviously is how most successful people pick their lawyers when they're not raiding the beauty pageant stage.)

Ticktin, a Florida lawyer, co-represented Trump in that frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton that got Trump and Habba sanctioned a million dollars.

He's obviously qualified to handle these cases, as evidenced by his firm's website's description of his areas of practice: "Divorce & Family Law, Mortgage Foreclosure Defense, Personal Injury, Estates, Wills & Trusts, Business Litigation, Entertainment Law, Employment Law."

[loki13]

...in fairness, with the way the Supreme Court is just making stuff up now, it's not like someone saying, "Hey, why not just let the President pardon people convicted of state crimes. Maybe let them pardon civil findings, too..." is so far out of the realm of Calvinball jurisprudence that I can imagine THIS Supreme Court saying, "Eh, why not. Unitary pardon theory, FTW!"

By the way, I'm not joking. I mean, I'm joking about the legal theory. I'm not joking that I think that this Supreme Court isn't beyond making stuff up in any area.

[OpinionsVary]

Let me take a shot at the Calvinball. They'll say the pardon wasn't legally issued but the person the pardon was issued to still gets the benefit because mumble mumble government document mumble mumble promissory estoppel mumble mumble presumption of regularity mumble mumble. Therefore, while Trump can't pardon state crimes, he can do it anyway.

[loki13]

I would just go with "L'etat, c'est Trump!"

In the alternative, the Supreme Court could gin up some nonsense about how, oh, let's see, while traditionally we have always respected the notion of dual sovereignty, especially when the Democratic Party has control of the Federal Government, the supremacy clause means that, I dunno, federal pardons are supreme, and there is no standing to challenge the federal pardon- and besides, state interference with a federal pardon would totes interfere with the King's ability to think about his job and post on social media.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well if Federal courts can reverse state convictions on the basis of the 14th Amd, you can make a credible argument that the 14th also incorporates the Presidential Pardon power.

Wonder what Frankfurter would have said.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Wonder what Frankfurter would have said."

No ketchup? Nor catsup either.

[not guilty]

No federal court other than SCOTUS can reverse a state criminal conviction. Lower federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 can determine (in a civil suit) whether a person is held in state custody in violation of federal law. If so, the typical remedy is to order the state to release the prisoner unless he is retried during a specified amount of time.

[hobie]

Radical Left tried to steal 2020 election:

Colorado - MAGA Elbert County Clerk Dallas Schroeder breaks into voting database

MAGA Mesa Clerk Tina Peters breaks into voting database

Pennsylvania - Pennsylvania's Department of State said MAGA Fulton County officials allowed a third party to access their "election database, results files, and Windows system logs, "and to take “complete hard drive images" of the county's computers and “complete images of two USB thumb drives"

Ohio - MAGA Lake County Commissioner John Hamercheck, took screenshots of election data which then were displayed in August during a cyber-symposium organized by My Pillow founder Mike Lindell.

Michigan - The Michigan Secretary of State's office said at least one unidentified third party gained inappropriate access to tabulation machines and data drives used by election officials in Richfield Township, a rural (MAGA) area of Roscommon County.

In southern Michigan, a pro-Trump clerk who has expressed support for the QAnon conspiracy theory on social media defied state orders to perform maintenance on a voting machine on the unfounded belief that doing so could erase proof of alleged fraud.

In another Michigan case, a Republican activist impersonated an official from a made-up government agency in a plot to seize voting equipment.

North Carolina - Local MAGA Republican Party leader threatened to get a top Surrey County election official fired or have her pay cut if she didn’t give him unauthorized access to voting equipment.

Georgia Coffee County MAGA Republican lets computer guys into election headquarters who then access and steal voting equipment and election results databases

[hobie]

Gawd, and do we even have to mention Arizona and the Cyber Ninjas?

[grb]

hobie : "Gawd, and do we even have to mention Arizona and the Cyber Ninjas"

Sigh. I guess we do. Of course the Cyber Ninjas quietly folded up their tents after that grift. You can read the announcement via the link below - which includes a link to some GoFundMe-style account (in case the rubes & chumps have spare change left).

Maybe you get a free MAGA cap with every donation. It would be kinda fitting if you did.

http://www.cyberninjas.com/index.html

[Brett Bellmore]

This all kind of underscores the extent to which these election machines and systems rely on "security through obscurity". That's why they freak out the moment anybody unauthorized gets a look at anything; The actual systems are incredibly insecure, and just rely on potential attackers not knowing the internal details.

The problem is that the machines are so widely spread that it's basically inevitable that the relevant details will leak; What they're actually securing through obscurity is public knowledge of how bad the security is.

[hobie]

I note that these machines appear to be working fine and securely when MAGA win elections

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Hobie, the MAGA win was too large to steal.

[Estragon]

Oh FFS here we go again. Smart thermostats!

[hobie]

It's like pulling teeth, isn't it?

[Nelson]

Sure, limiting access to the infrastructure of our entire democracy is a conspiracy. I am torn as to whether you actually believe the Occam’s-Razor-defying massive (and leakproof) conspiracies you regularly trot out or if you’re just screwing with us.

[John 4]

“That's why they freak out the moment anybody unauthorized gets a look at anything”

[clown emoji] Brett, can you think of any other reason?

[loki13]

Anyway, was wondering if anyone else has some ideas about what the heck is going on with the flurry of filing in the (Tennessee) Abrego case. Because ... it's getting weird with all the sealed filings.

Here's the docket-
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70475970/united-states-v-abrego-garcia/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

There was going to be an evidentiary hearing on December 8 & 9. That was cancelled, and at the same time there is a sealed order from the judge (DE 241).

DE 245 appears (from other filings) to be a SEALED Motion by the DOJ to reconsider the judge's sealed order.

I think DE 247 is Abrego's response. But DE 253 might also be relevant.

And DE 254 indicates that there will be a sealed, ex parte hearing tomorrow on the DOJ's motion to reconsider.

What does all of this mean? This is the case where the Judge strongly indicated that he was likely to dismiss based on vindicative or selective prosecution, and the DOJ had ... evidentiary (and truthfulness) issues, as they did in the other Abrego action.

But this is some odd stuff, IME. Any ideas?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could there be a national security issue -- alleged or real?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Jared Kushner is back playing a significant role in the Trump Administration. His father is the Ambassador to the French Republic and the Principality of Monaco.

(Former Vice President Mike Pence's brother served in the House 2019-25, providing an insider perspective during the impeachment process.)

I wonder how things would go if such close family members had similar roles during recent Democratic Administrations.

[Estragon]

I’m sure many are aware but Charles Kushner is awful. Fun fact: I used to work in the demonic manhattan office building the Kushners bought and then had to get bailed out of.

[grb]

Ah.... 666 Fifth Avenue! There was a point where it looked like that Jared blunder would wreck the entire company. It's notable that while Kushner was the de facto head of Trump's first transition team - with all the power to grease appointments and set early policy - he was also flouncing around the world begging everyone to be the white knight that saved him from his 666 disaster.

Whether it was a firm in China tightly linked to the ruling Beijing elite, or Saudi officials, or a Qatar emir who was once their foreign minister, no foreign entanglement was out of bounds with Kushner desperate to save his company from ruin. Of course back then they tried keep that sort of thing hushed. These days the Trump crime family is openly corrupt, showing their contempt for any & all ethical standards.

Two More Fun Facts : 666 Fifth Avenue has been renamed 660, so no more satanic evocations via building address.

And the late Zaha Hadid once proposed reskinning the facade in her own biomorphic style. Kushner would have reduced the skyscraper to its steel frame and added forty stories. The structure, to be completed by 2025, would have contained a vertical mall on its lowest nine floors, topped by an 11-story hotel and 464,000 square feet of high-end condominiums. Several adjacent structures would have been demolished and replaced with a park. It all went nowhere, but renderings linked below:

https://www.dezeen.com/2017/03/23/zaha-hadid-architects-666-fifth-avenue-skyscraper-compared-glass-dildo-architecture-offices/

[apedad]

Looks like there's a US Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs office at that address too.

[David Nieporent]

I’m sure many are aware but Charles Kushner is awful

Who among us hasn't hired a prostitute to try to set up and blackmail our brother-in-law in order to try to prevent him from being a witness against us, recording the tryst and sending the video to our own sisters?

[loki13]

Ah, the good ol' days, when a Kushner when only screw over his family, and not the whole country.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Edwin Diaz heading to Dodgers on $69 million contract"

Ah. A day that will live in infamy.

[Ridgeway]

Looks like Stearns screwed the pooch on that one. I can kinda get behind not giving LT deals to pitchers, but 4 years would not have been that long in my book, especially for a closer rather than a starter.

[apedad]

Pistol-packing granny busted on a Royal Caribbean trip with 12-year-old adopted son ends up in Bahamas prison 'not fit for humanity'

An elderly Oklahoma grandma is being held in a hellhole Bahamas prison condemned as 'not fit for humanity' after she accidentally took a gun on board a cruise ship.

Lawyers for Mary Robinson, 69, say she simply forgot the .380 pistol was in her purse when she boarded the Liberty of the Seas.

It went unnoticed by security in Fort Lauderdale but was detected in Nassau when Robinson got back on board the ship after taking her adopted 12-year-old son sightseeing.

A Bahamian judge gave her the option of a $8,000 fine but when the weeping retiree couldn't pay on the spot she was sentenced last Thursday to a default two-year jail term.

Robinson's family from Sand Springs, Oklahoma, have launched a GoFundMe appeal to raise cash for her release from the notorious Fox Hill Correctional Centre.

But for now, the silver-haired widow who has a 'touch of dementia' will remain behind bars in the rat and maggot-infested lockup which has featured on hit Netflix show Inside the World's Toughest Prisons.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15364541/oklahoma-grandma-carnival-cruise-pistol-bahamas-prison.html

Weapon users must always be accountable for their weapons and follow all local laws.

[ThePublius]

Do you think she has a case to sue Carnival for not detecting it when she boarded?

[John F. Carr]

I don't see how the cruise line has a duty to her to detect her own gun.

For good customer relations Carnival ought to warn passengers about important laws.

[ThePublius]

"I don't see how the cruise line has a duty to her to detect her own gun."

That never stopped anyone from suing anyone. 🙂

[Nelson]

Suing someone else for her own careless and negligent behavior. Jesus, conservatives aren’t even bothering together pretend the support personal accountability any more, are they?

[ThePublius]

Can you please rephrase that, preferably in English?

[Nelson]

Sorry, I realize English is your second language and you probably didn’t graduate high school. It’s not hard to figure out what auto-mistake replaced if you grew up in America.

[Bwaaah]

I count over 70 countries where offensive speech, such as so-called blasphemy, is punishable by death, labor or imprisonment.

All people must be accountable for all local laws everywhere, regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, so wherever you go, you might want to STFU.

[David Nieporent]

All people must be accountable for all local laws everywhere

…except Donald Trump.

[Bwaaah]

God looked down at DJT and said, "Who put you all the way up there?"

DJT looked at him and said, "Excuse me, God. I'm up here." And then he turned to his minions and said, "Get a load of that guy."

[John F. Carr]

I posted earlier this year in open threads about similar cases in Massachusetts. People who probably never imagined Massachusetts' gun laws drove from New Hampshire with the usual guns in their trucks and are facing a mandatory minimum 18 months for carrying without a Massachusetts license.

The Bahamas is sovereign. It can execute every tenth tourist if it chooses.

Under American law it would not be proper to put somebody in prison for inability to pay a fine. But the Bahamas is sovereign. It can harvest your organs if you don't have a dollar on you.

[ThePublius]

"People who probably never imagined Massachusetts' gun laws drove from New Hampshire with the usual guns in their trucks and are facing a mandatory minimum 18 months for carrying without a Massachusetts license."

Is that an actual case? I'd like to know more. AFAIK, FOPA protects many folks transiting states. "Carrying" is something different; 'though I contend the 2nd Amendment should be enough.

[John F. Carr]

Here is some press coverage: https://commonwealthbeacon.org/courts/sjc-gives-a-second-amendment-win-to-mass-lawmakers-looking-to-license-non-residents/

The guns were not stored in the manner prescribed by federal law for transit through a gun-hostile state.

[ThePublius]

Thanks.

I have read stories of Rhode Island State Troopers letting Mass residents slide if they had Mass LTC's. But I wouldn't bet on it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bahamas is sovereign"

Teddy Roosevelt would just send a warship. She'd be released.

We have a lot of ships right now near there. Nice day trip.

[Life of Brian]

A Bahamian judge gave her the option of a $8,000 fine but when the weeping retiree couldn't pay on the spot she was sentenced last Thursday to a default two-year jail term.

And there's Bahamian shakedown culture in a nutshell. Bet you they sized that fine as something the typical tourist could scrape up, and they're just occasionally wrong.

Or are they? Apparently the $12k GoFundMe campaign fully funded the first day or so, so she should be out soon if she isn't already....

[Nelson]

See, that’s funny. Not only does Go Fund Me take a massive cut, people like this are never going to stop the gravy train.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not only does Go Fund Me take a massive cut, they tend, when they learn the fund raiser is related to firearms and not in a hostile way, shut it down.

[John F. Carr]

Gun laws of the Bahamas are in Chapter 213 of the country's laws. It is legal to have a revolver on a foreign flagged cruise ship but it must not be brought on shore. Chapter 213 section 6. If granny's weapon is called a "380" instead of a ".38" it is probably a semiautomatic pistol.

There is a presumption that the owner of a vessel is aware of the presence of illegal guns on board. Chapter 213 section 8A(1). There is a reason Carnival would want to screen passengers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...the silver-haired widow who has a 'touch of dementia'..."

Folks with dementia probably shouldn't be carrying guns. This is one of those situations where family members probably should intervene.

[hobie]

Leavitt to Newsmax today: "“Another huge win for our farmers. Following his successful meeting with President Xi Jinping in South Korea, President Trump convinced President Xi to continue purchasing, or begin purchasing again, American soybeans, which is something China wasn’t doing under the last administration because they had no respect for President Biden or for the country at the time.”

“But now they know President Trump is not messing around. He’s going to stand up for American farmers and American families. And so those purchases have begun from China, and American soybeans are being exported from the United States as we speak because of President Trump. He promised the farmers he would be there for them. He is delivering on that promise,” she added."

Not sure if this graph supports that:
https://x.com/ericadyork/status/1998397186111848897?s=20

[loki13]

If Leavitt is saying it, it's a lie. It would be shameful, if this administration was capable of shame.

Let's see!

"Another huge win for our farmers."
Nope. Trump has been terrible for farmers.

"President Trump convinced President Xi to continue purchasing"
Nope. Not continue- because China stopped.

"or begin purchasing again"
Wut? That's almost truth-like! Yes, if China starts purchasing again, then that would actually be a change. But completely different than the prior lie.

" which is something China wasn’t doing under the last administration because they had no respect for President Biden or for the country at the time."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA NO. There have been two times that China has used their soybean leverage (weird phrase) against us- both times during the Trump administration. The reflexive "this is Biden's fault" is particularly nonsensical here.

"But now they know President Trump is not messing around."
LOL No. You mean that we got pwned again when TACO Trump entered a trade war (like he did last time) that he had to make concessions in? After hurting the US and extracting "concessions" that won't ever happen? That's the definition of messing around, and China knows it.

Let's recap-
1. Trump enters into a trade war with no clearly defined objectives.
2. Trump does significant damage to the economy in general and to soybean farmers in particular.
3. How bad in terms of the soybeans? Well, let's think about this in terms of ASSUMING the Chinese follow through on their promises!

If we take all the soybeans we exported before China stopped the importation, and add all the soybeans China has agreed to import in the last two months, the total to China would be a 33% drop from the last year of the Biden administration, and represent the lowest amount, by far, in over a decade (with the exception of Trump's last trade war in 2018).

Next, if China follows through on their non-binding promises in the future, the amount of Soybeans bought would still be a significant decline from the 10 year average; IF they follow through. We all know how that has worked.

And how do we know that this isn't that great? Well, the markets did bid up the price of soybean futures to their highest level this year, which sounds good! But that level is below the break-even point for US producers.

Also, this massively benefitted Brazil and Argentina's soybean producers. Of course, we know that the one thing Trump loves more than America is Argentina, so I guess it makes sense?

Final analysis- the administration relies on the fact that people are morons, and don't bother understanding basic facts. Further, they know that many people just don't care if they are lied to repeatedly. What you choose to do about that is really up to you.

[hobie]

I almost miss Kelly-Anne 'Alternative Facts' Conway. At least she sort of acknowledged she was just making things up. But this Karoline 'Baghdad Bob' Leavitt person...jeebus

[Nelson]

“ which is something China wasn’t doing under the last administration because they had no respect for President Biden or for the country at the time.”

It’s heartbreaking to see that even the thinnest veneer of plausible has been abandoned by this administration.

Those sales never stopped under Biden. They stopped in April, as a direct response (as was publicly discussed by both the farmers and the Chinese government at the time) to tariffs. The purchasing stopped because of Trump’s tariffs and only resumed after Trump was getting hammered by farmers and went crawling to China to beg for their business. Half a year of lost sales for American farmers due to tariffs. Not Biden, Trump. Not because of “no respect”, because of tariffs.

Do you think that anyone actually believes this fantasy that they’re selling?

[hobie]

"Do you think that anyone actually believes this fantasy that they’re selling?"

[scrolls up and down comment section]
..yes

[LawTalkingGuy]

So DOJ is going to (supposedly) investigate Colorado prison conditions due to Tina Peters. To the extent this actually results in finding and reforming unconstitutional prison conditions in Colorado, this is good.

Of course this won’t go anywhere ultimately.
I’m reminded that Republicans in Congress never bothered to work on DC jail reforms despite complaining about how Jan 6th suspects were treated. Their concern for pre-trial detainees evaporated in late January of this year for some unknown reason.

They actually have no commitment to systemic reform. If Peters specifically is released or treated better that’s the end of that investigation. Trumpists believe that people they like have a substantive due process right to not be subject to the same criminal justice system everyone else is.

[hobie]

Peters was definitely part of the coup. But the blanket pardon only covers 'events' surrounding the Capitol. She'll need an old fashioned pardon.

[LawTalkingGuy]

She needs to get a Colorado governor to pardon or commute her sentence. Or a federal habeas court to release her.

If her case gets conservative judges to reinvigorate federal habeas or 8th amendment proportionality review that’ll be good too. But that won’t either.

[John F. Carr]

Imagine you're making her pitch to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the aid of a time machine, if necessary, the Eighth Amendment has already been argued in state court. Can you sketch an outline of a general rule that would make her sentence excessive and not put every criminal appeals court in the sentencing business?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Only one I can think of is some weird categorical rule regarding the proportionality to this specific type of crime. That would be exceedingly hard to justify in a way that doesn’t impact other crimes. But maybe it’ll be a textual analysis:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive Fines imposed, nor cRuEl and unusual punishmEnT INflcit[A]d.”

[David Nieporent]

Only one I can think of is some weird categorical rule regarding the proportionality to this specific type of crime.

Right: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted, if the prosecution was based on Democrat Lawfare Against Political Opponents To Steal A Presidential Election.

[DDHarriman]

$1B award against Alex Jones
$500M award against Trump

looks like you ooopsied and forgot history.

[hobie]

They both harmed a lot of people to enrich themselves. Tort's a bitch. Jury of peers assigned the fines. In Jones' case, they went above what was being asked because he is so vile

[LawTalkingGuy]

Aside from the fact that the 8th Amendment doesn’t apply to civil judgments, it’s worth noting that
Alex Jones refused to cooperate with discovery, ended up defaulting, and then showed up at the damages phase to make an ass out of himself.

[DDHarriman]

Most of those Republicans in Congress were secretly thrilled with the illegitimate Biden Regime's oppression of the MAGA Patriots.

The permanent Republicans love Big Government & Forever War just as much as the Democrats do.

[ThePublius]

I'm addicted to this:

https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration

Julian Baumgartner, heir to his father's fine art restoration business in Chicago. He's a great presenter, showman, and, of course, great art restorer. He's been doing this on youtube for 9 or 10 years, and has been an art restorer for nearly 30 years.

I find it very entertaining. It inspired me to take up (try at) painting again. I'm also going to start searching for oil paintings in the thrifts and antique malls, etc. Two paintings I saw a year or two come to mind, a pair of portraits, presumably a man and wife. I went back and one was sold - tragic, in my opinion. I wish I had bought both, 'though it would have been over $500. Might have been a good investment, though. I also saw a large portrait of a relative of Calvin Coolidge in an antique shop. I think they wanted $1,500, or something like that. Also might be a good investment. (BTW, Coolidge was Lieutenant Governor, then Governor of Massachusetts, before becoming Vice President to Warren Harding, ascending to the presidency with Harding's death in office.)

[John F. Carr]

I commented recently on voters' varying appetites for funding of construction projects. Here's a big one. Lexington, Massachusetts voters just approved a $660 million high school. It will cost about $20,000 per capita. The town will finance $540 million with a 30 year loan.

Lexington is rich.

[ThePublius]

That's insane. But, yes, I personally know one billionaire living in Lexington, and I'm sure there are more. But I feel bad for any 'ordinary' middle class folks living there. There's no way any town needs a $660 million high school, except for the egos of the school board and educators.

[Armchair]

Well, to be fair...it's a massive high school. Enrollment is over 2300 students with more than 200 full time faculty. It's technically at least 4 separate buildings.

[BrotherMovesOn]

All the more affluent towns are doing this. They consider it a benefit they are willing to pay for while enjoying returns in perpetuity.
I think someone (Armchair ?) said LHS has 2 laureates. Even more is even better. SCHOOLS!
Property values soar. People living in Lexington are not virtue signaling, they are rational.
The sad thing is people living in towns whose population is not as affluent tend to vote down these bonds. It's too much. But that just means your property values don't appreciate, and the people who would be bidding for your property are going to be the same voters who will vote down fixing the high school in the future.
I'm not sure how much the Massachusetts School Building Authority can even out the discrepancy. Sometimes regional districts fare better because a couple towns are relatively affluent but those aren't town schools.
For some comps: Newton built a new high school (they have two) for 200MM in 2010 and they are much more affluent than Lexington.
Watertown (also within miles), a far less affluent town, is bringing a new high school online in months, at a 220MM tag. It's a net-zero building.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You live in New Bedford. Why do you begrudge Lexington voters approving a bond that has nothing to do with you?
Things are worth what ThePublius thinks they are.
What a busy-body you are. Get a life.

[ThePublius]

I should get a life? How about you stop trolling me?

[Sarcastr0]

Why do you begrudge Lexington voters approving a bond that has nothing to do with you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yet the MSBA is paying what -- $120M -- to a "rich" town?!?

That's state money from the sales tax.

[Armchair]

Indeed, it is rich, with per capita incomes in excess of $100,000 a year. And two Nobel Laureates from its high school.

[ThePublius]

"And two Nobel Laureates from its high school."

Yes, before they had a $660 million high school.

[BrotherMovesOn]

They're simply reloading.

[DDHarriman]

Now that we can see who KJB is, is anyone on the Left proud of her legal acumen? Do any of y'all believe she's some sort of elite academic?

Her words to my Not-A-Lawyer ears make her sound like a partisan ideologue and not a careful, intelligent, adjudicator.

She writes and comments like many of the posturing clowns around here. Resting on no legal principles, only vibes, emotions, and policy preferences.

[hobie]

She's independent. Last session she voted several times with the insurrectionists and not the other two libs.

[David Nieporent]

Now that we can see who KJB

Are you dyslexic in addition to being a racist, antisemitic SOB?

[DDHarriman]

I don't give a shit about that moron's pronouns.

Notably missing is your support for her legal genius... lmao

Your silence is deafening.

[David Nieporent]

She is a Harvard/HLS graduate. You… are a shitposter.