Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

What will the day bring?

[Kazinski]

A rate cut.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like water torture. A drip at a time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Waste, fraud and abuse?
"A former Commodity Futures Trading Commission official who led the agency's union said he was working—and collecting his six-figure government salary—from Chicago. He was actually in Mexico City, where he worked less than half of the hours he should have, records obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show."
https://freebeacon.com/politics/federal-union-leader-collected-six-figure-us-government-salary-from-mexico-city-where-he-hardly-worked-records-show/

[Drewski]

If true, he should be prosecuted. The Free Beacon's track record is mixed, though, and the federal government is not very competent with criminal matters under Trump's close guidance, so there's a good chance he'll go free and we'll never know the truth.

[DDHarriman]

What? A Sarcastr0 did what? No. No. NO! That's impossible. There is no way a Gold Hearted Govie would do such a scurrilous thing!

NO NO NO!! Lies!

[Mr. Bumble]

Il Douche only works from home in Whitelandia VA.

[Drewski]

I looked into it, and found that "govie" is used by English-speakers people in India and Pakistan primarily. Which one are you from?

[Kazinski]

Anti-Hamas Gaza activists are claiming, with video documentation that the Gaza Health Ministry (Hamas) was hiding baby formula and milk in warehouses in order to manufacture shortages for propaganda purposes.

https://x.com/i/status/1998244937356231110

Nobody could really be that evil, could they?

"Never allow yourself to be a useful idiot in Hamas’s propaganda. You can have compassion for the real suffering of the Palestinian civilians of Gaza, and demand Israeli action to facilitate aid entry into the coastal enclave, while still holding Hamas accountable for its part in causing a hunger and starvation crisis in the first place."

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in news from the Eastern Front in the war against radical Islam:
"With the Lebanese government failing to disarm Hezbollah by the December 31 deadline, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) overnight struck several targets belonging to the Iran-backed terrorist group, including a terrorist training facility belonging to its so-called elite Radwan Forces.

“The Israeli military said on Tuesday that it struck infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah in several areas in southern Lebanon, including what it described as a training compound used by the armed group’s Radwan forces,” Reuters reported. “Military structures and a launch site belonging to Hezbollah were also hit in the attacks, the military added in a statement.”

The 2500-strong Radwan Force, trained and equipped by Iran’s Islamic Guard (IRGC), spearheads Hezbollah’s terrorist campaign on Israel’s border with Lebanon. In recent months, the Radwan operatives have been leading the charge in restoring the terrorist buildup on the Israeli border."
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/12/israel-hits-hezbollah-radwan-forces-terrorist-training-camp-other-targets-in-south-lebanon/

[santamonica811]

"With the Lebanese government failing to disarm Hezbollah by the December 31 deadline,...'

Am I crazy, or has a Dec 31 deadline--for anything--not yet arrived? (Or am I trapped in another time loop . . . cuz I hate when that happens to me.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Try reading the article.
"The Israeli airstrikes come days after Lebanon’s Foreign Minister, Youssef Rajji, admitted that his government was nowhere close to disarming Hezbollah by the month’s end, given Iran’s sway over the terrorist group. “Hezbollah won’t hand over its weapons without an Iranian decision,” the Lebanese minister said in an interview Saturday."

[santamonica811]

Then the wording should have been, 'With his govt admitting that it WILL not be close to disarming Hez by the month's end..." Or something like that.

Do you agree or disagree with me that the deadline has not yet arrived? (I'm confident that you and I agree that there's essentially no way that Hez will be disarmed by the end of the year.) My point, in my post, was that the deadline is in the future, but the writing said that the deadline had come and gone. And that's just flat-out wrong, yes?

When I write, "Trump and the Republican Congress utterly failed to pass meaningful health care reform by the end of his second term.", and I write this in 2025 . . . you're entitled to point out that (a) I can't properly write it in the past tense, since it's not yet Jan 2029, (b) Yes, it's incredibly unlikely, or even impossible, for Trump to enact a new healthcare/health insurance plan, BUT (c) It is--again!!!--flat-out wrong to put this future event into the past tense...regardless of how likely or unlikely it is to actually come to pass.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'll agree that the opening was poorly written but it does not negate the fact that the deadline won't be met as confirmed by the Lebanese.

[Michael P]

Disarmament doesn't happen overnight, and "failing" is in the present progressive tense: it's an ongoing action or atate, not a completed one.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, hamas are that evil. That is why they are human animals.

[loki13]

You know ... there is a long and glorious history of dehumanizing people in order to justify atrocities against them!

[Mr. Bumble]

No need to dehumanize them when they do it themselves by their actions.

[Magister]

Long history of Bumble-like blaming of victims for the dehumanization that justifies atrocities against them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"justify atrocities against them"

Hamas does not need justification to commit atrocities of their own.

Empathy for Hamas by you and loki is just plain strange.

[Joe_dallas]

Empathy for Hamas has been a badge of honor for leftists.

[Magister]

My comment is not to defend Hamas but to criticize dehumanizing people in general. Calling people "animals" is wrong for several reasons:
1. Offspring of animals are also animals, so it's OK to kill anyone related to the people you find evil enough to call animals.
2. Animals are not evil: the shark in Jaws, rabid foxes, disease carrying mosquitoes, viruses, etc are not evil, it's just in their nature to be dangerous. (Dogs who have been encouraged by humans to attack are not themselves evil, even if they can transmit the evil of the people who trained them; in some cases the attack is justified, in some cases not, but the dog doesn't make that judgement.) So calling evil people animals or otherwise dehumanizing them to some extent removes their responsibility for their evilness.

[Krayt]

You know ... there is a long and glorious history of dehumanizing people in order to justify atrocities against them!

Israel: You don't say.

[Joe_dallas]

loki13 6 hours ago
"You know ... there is a long and glorious history of dehumanizing people in order to justify atrocities against them!"

What atrocities are being committed against hamas?

[Bored Lawyer]

IMO, evil is a uniquely human trait. Because humans, unlike animals, have free will. Animals can be dangerous, cruel and irrational. But they are not evil.
Hamas is evil, and that is a human trait.

[Dr. Ed 2]

With an average IQ of 68, if that is accurate, I'm not sure they *are* human. I don't want to go down the slippery slope of eugenics, but when your average IQ is two standard deviations below the norm, there are serious questions to ask.

[Estragon]

“I don't want to go down the slippery slope of eugenics”

Should have stopped there.

“I'm not sure they *are* human”

It’s funny (not haha funny) you bring this up, because one of the regular commenters here has taken recently to referring to some people as “bugs” and “humanoid.” As I have stated before, sometimes these kinds of takes have predicative value for where MAGA is heading. I encourage the community to take note. We are on a scary path.

[David Nieporent]

“I'm not sure they *are* human”.

Brought to you from the "I'm not an antisemite yet, but if the Jews keep doing bad stuff I'll become one" guy.

When someone tells you he's a Nazi, believe him.

[bernard11]

When someone believes that a group of over 2M people has an average IQ of 68, the only serious question to be asked is just how stupid that person is.

[Life of Brian]

Well, I actually looked around a bit to see what I'm supposed to believe if I myself am sufficiently smart.

I found a ton of posts along the lines of yours, and like yours none of them accompanied their criticism with any notion of what the correct number might be or where I might look to find it.

From an admittedly quick 10-15 minute look, the few sources I see are the same ones everyone is crapping on. Two were in the 68 range. Another was about 90, but that still earned Somalia last place in their rankings (and the top country was South Korea with an average of 116, which looks like 10ish points above other estimates).

Do you know how to track down the smart-people sources we should be consulting, and what they say?

[bernard11]

Do you know how to track down the smart-people sources we should be consulting, and what they say?

You might start by reading this.

[Estragon]

“Human animals”

“[The justifications they gave were] such utter nonsense that it is demeaning even to take it seriously enough to argue against it. It is the intention itself that is significant. It is something new in the history of the world: an attempt to deny humans the solidarity of every species that enables it to survive; to turn human predatory instincts, that are normally directed against other animals, against members of their own species, and to make a whole nation into a pack of hunting hounds. Once the violence and the readiness to kill that lies beneath the surface of human nature has been awakened and turned against other humans, and even made into a duty, it is a simple matter to change the target.”

[Frank Drackman]

Was it from the "Baby Milk" Factory we bombed during the Gulf Wah?
Did Israel bomb the Palestinian Women's Breasts also? I was Breast fed, and turned out just fine.
OK, it got a little weird when I was a 8 or 9, hey, some of us get weaned later than others.
Mrs. Drackman tried it with our girls, but it's like starting a workout plan, after the first few workouts it gets boring. They turned out great, like me, I think there's something in Breast Milk that you just need a trace amount of.
My Sister, OTOH, got Formula, and she turned out all (redacted) up, went the Christian way, dropped out of College, became an Air Traffic Controller (you didn't need College back then), her kids messed up to. (not Air Traffic Controllers, you pretty much need to be a minority now)

Frank "Mom!!!! get over here, I'm thirsty!!"

[Kazinski]

The hoarding and concealment of baby formula and nutritional shakes for children was part of a coordinated propaganda campaign to paint Israel as intentionally committing genocide.

Most people of course were dupes, like say NBC:

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/middle-east/no-formula-no-food-mothers-babies-starve-together-gaza-rcna220758

And if I recall there were several fellow dupes here.

Anybody want to own up?

[Sarcastr0]

You started with 'Anti-Hamas Gaza activists are claiming' but with no external change are now 100% slam dunk truthing it.

I didn't see this one come across over here, but I have been known to tune out the slapfights Israel/Gaza engenders.

Though if you're going to start dinging people for getting fooled....maybe watch for the Comer-shaped beam in your own eye? Or the 'that mass shooter was working for Walz!' etc. etc.

[Kazinski]

Comer documented his allegations.

Then Joe pardoned the offenders before Trump took office.

Its also well documented the shooter was working for Walz, and though he claims Walz gave the kill order, as Boelter claims, that seems a little farferched.

[Magister]

You are fooled by claims made that were never backed up. Comer documented his allegations the way nutty pro se plaintiffs document those; they didn't pan out, often not much beyond his press conference, and not because of pardons. The Minnesota shooter claimed Walz was involved, and there is literally no evidence for this; maybe he'll get MAGA types funding him, maybe it's just his last attempt to support your political ideology.

[David Nieporent]

In no version of reality was the shooter working for Walz. Perhaps you're still confused about the No Kings thing? Government employees work for the government, not the executive.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, I'm not sure the guy should even be called a government employee at all; he was named to some government advisory board, which was — according to reports (and not surprising, since that's typical) — an unpaid volunteer position.

[Kazinski]

A volunteer can work for someone, including the person who appointed him to the board, Governor Tim Walz.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't say that a volunteer can't work for someone; I questioned whether a volunteer could be described as an employee.

But again: no. He was working for the government, not for Tim Walz.

[Magister]

Many of the board members were businesspeople put forward by business interests (some were put forward by unions, some by the legislature). Walz accepting him (when he had previously been appointed by Walz's predecessor) for a large advisory board with no real authority is not indicative of anything. Walz wanting someone to murder legislators of his own party (who voted opposite sides on a bill that Kazinski used to be certain was the motivation) when the legislature was so close to even is insane. This is like arguing with a flat earther, only this nutcase is stupider and is motivated solely by his political preferences.

[David Nieporent]

Many of the board members were businesspeople put forward by business interests (some were put forward by unions, some by the legislature).

Right; I pointed this out at the time this silly argument was first raised. Governors (or mayors or whatever) appoint random people to advisory boards all the time, without having any personal knowledge of those people. The vast majority of these boards do nothing, and so nobody cares who is on them. (AFAICT, some federal grant required the state to have this particular advisory board as a condition of the grant.) A legislator — of either party — or a political supporter calls up the governor's office and says, "Hey, I have a guy who'd like to be appointed." And the governor does; it's ordinary glad-handling and a harmless favor. (Well, harmless except when the person goes on to assassinate a legislator; then it becomes a liability.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble, what's your complaint? Do you think anyone here supports that conduct. We are all glad he was fired.

And why are you wasting time on a $200,000 federal budget fraud which is already as fixed as it probably ever will be?

Everyone gets that in your mind, you are striking rhetorical blows against political opponents. While cherishing a hope that by making your attack you will convince someone, somewhere, that your opponents support what they actually oppose as much as you do.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow, I now have a remora .
"We are all glad he was fired." Who are the "we" you speak of. You now speak for everyone?
Do you think that this one example is a one off?
"And why are you wasting time on a $200,000 federal budget fraud which is already as fixed as it probably ever will be?"
Address this to Sen. Charles Grassley.
By the way, there is no indication that any of the finds have been recovered.

[Mr. Bumble]

"funds"

[Michael P]

Speaking of "we", I like the idea of "we"-free writing: https://open.substack.com/pub/hollisrobbinsanecdotal/p/a-we-free-december :

“We” is what linguists call a deictic word. It has no meaning without context. It is a pointer. If I say “here,” it means nothing unless you can see where I am standing. If I say “we,” it means nothing unless you know who is standing next to me.

... And it is very easy to use "we" to avoid thinking about what the bounds of a statement are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Alexander-Neal's telework arrangement was thanks to Biden administration policies that let federal employees work from home because of the COVID-19 pandemic. President Donald Trump authorized federal employees to work from home in March 2020, but tried to roll back the policy at the end of his term. Biden maintained the telework policy throughout his term.

"Biden-Harris Administration officials worked with federal labor union allies not only to lock in high telework levels, but to undermine the ability of the incoming Trump Administration to unlock them, and to manage its own workforce," the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee alleged in a January 2025 report.

[santamonica811]

Agreed. Trump was the real fuck-up, for introducing the plan in the first place. Yes, Biden continued Trump's idiotic policy, but it never would have been around in the first place, but for Trump. Bad Trump. Bad, evil, Trump. Bad, evil, wasteful, Trump!

[Michael P]

Go on, keep pretending you were ever sane (conservative).

How many millions of Americans did you want to die from Covid?

[Mr. Bumble]

@santamonica811:
"Alexander-Neal's telework arrangement was thanks to Biden administration policies that let federal employees work from home because of the COVID-19 pandemic. President Donald Trump authorized federal employees to work from home in March 2020, but tried to roll back the policy at the end of his term. Biden maintained the telework policy throughout his term.

Republicans have alleged the Biden administration caved to pressure from federal employee unions to allow workers to work from home well after the pandemic ended.

"Biden-Harris Administration officials worked with federal labor union allies not only to lock in high telework levels, but to undermine the ability of the incoming Trump Administration to unlock them, and to manage its own workforce," the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee alleged in a January 2025 report."

[santamonica811]

Camel's nose under the tent. If Governor B liberalizes marijuana use in her state this year; I'm also going to blame Prior Governor A, who legalized it in the first place, in the prior administration 3-4 years ago.

[Mr. Bumble]

""Biden-Harris Administration officials worked with federal labor union allies not only to lock in high telework levels, but to undermine the ability of the incoming Trump Administration to unlock them, ..."

[Michael P]

There was a good argument for telework before the vaccines were widely available. After that, broad telework was an invitation to this kind of fraud.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trusting bureaucrats to work remotely was always dumb.

Look at Sarcasto, he posts here constantly during "working" hours.

[Sarcastr0]

Rest assured my workflow is as good as any old-style 'clock-in' 'clock-out' drone job.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you really don't have much to do and like it that way.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If Governor B liberalizes marijuana use..."

This analogy doesn't work because there's no reason to believe that the efficacy of a liberal marijuana use policy changes over time.

But you knew that.

[santamonica811]

A very fair point. (I used my example only because lots of people don't know the "camel's nose under the tent" expression, and my hypo--hopefully--made the meaning clear.) But, yes, it's not otherwise a great analogy. 🙂

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Agreed. Trump was the real fuck-up, for introducing the plan in the first place."

You think Trump should have made people go to work and expose themselves to a contagious disease during a pandemic? Wow.

[santamonica811]

No, of course not. I was making an oblique point that people here whining about Biden's actions in continuing Trump's policy, while totally ignoring Trump's role, is kind of silly, and so obviously partisan that it detracts from their credibility.

I was struck (at the time) by the response of medical experts, when asked, "What should we be doing, in response to Covid?" The experts said (I'm paraphrasing), "We will know, after-the-fact, that we did the right thing; if people later on accuse us of going to far to protect the American people." Meaning? That it is impossible to know how much or how little governmental restrictions to impose. When faced with a novel virus...one that can be lethal, we medical experts will NEVER be able to predict in advance exactly how draconian the restrictions should be. Therefore, we should err on the side of public health. The negative results of too much restrictions is outweighed by the number of lives saved and health outcomes improved. On the other hand, if we err on the side of people's liberty interests, we risk a nationwide/global pandemic that kills tens of millions in America, and countless lives across the globe. In doing a cost-benefit analysis, it's therefore better to do too much, rather than too little."

I had not thought of it in this way before, and it actually totally changed my opinion on the restrictions. Yes, if we were all blessed with the ability to predict the future, we would have had some adjustment in Covid policies. Sadly, only God has this ability. Trump tried at first to predict the future, totally minimized the risk, and as a result, he killed a million Americans. (Which no one, in 2025, still blames him for, for some inexplicable reason!!!)

[Mr. Bumble]

It's not like we didn't have any experience with influenza outbreaks going back to the 1918 Spanish Flu.
In none of those cases was there anything like the COVID-19 restrictions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, of course not. I was making an oblique point that people here whining about Biden's actions in continuing Trump's policy, while totally ignoring Trump's role, is kind of silly, and so obviously partisan that it detracts from their credibility."

You were making a point about people ignoring Trump's role by responding to my comment that quoted the portion of the article that mentioned Trump's role?

The criticism was that Biden continued the policy after it was required to prevent the spread of the pandemic and took steps to entrench the policy so that Trump wouldn't be able to rescind it.

[Kazinski]

One of the crazier stories in the NFL in a while, the Colts have signed 44 year old Philip Rivers, who retired after the 2020 season to their practice squad, and there is a pretty good chance Rivers will get the start against the Seahawks in Seattle on Sunday.

They may not have much of a choice they are almost completely out of QBs.

Rivers has been coaching football at a Catholic High School in Alabama.

Weather in Seattle on Sunday will be 50 degrees with rain likely before 4pm according to NWS.

I can't imagine a 44 year old who hasn't played in 5 years, playing against one of the best defenses in the league in the cold and rain.

At the end of his career Rivers was pretty immobile, in 2020 Rivers did "run" the ball 18 times totaling -8 yards, and the longest was 3 yards.

Over the last 2 games the Seahawks have given up 9 points and have 8 turnovers.

Seahawks are favored by 10.5 points.

[Commenter_XY]

Hope the Colts have a HUGE O-line for the RB to run behind, and for Rivers to throw short passes.

[Malika la Maize]

The Colts implosion has been sad to watch.

[Joe_dallas]

was colin k not available?

[Bob from Ohio]

Do not understand this. Plenty of young QBs with NFL experience on NFL practice squads.

Most are not nearly as good as Rivers used to be but are very likely to be better right now.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Russell Wilson, now the third QB on the Giants, is deemed basically useless, apparently.

[Kazinski]

That doesn't work, unless the Giants want to release him, pay him the rest of his salary (which isn't much). Trading deadline is over, players can't just quit and go to another team, or do a pretend retirement and say they want to play again.

It has to be someone that isn't on an active roster, but like Bob said their are options on practice squads they could claim.

In fact of it isn't Rivers starting, they have Brett Rypien who was a backup for Denver and the Rams for 5 or 6 years on their own practice squad, who could start if Rivers doesn't, and Riley Leonard's knee is too bad to play.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"unless the Giants want to release him, pay him the rest of his salary (which isn't much)"

Which they can do. Especially if it isn't much. They also didn't trade him earlier, though he had basically no value to the Giants then either. Suggests how little teams think of him.

[Michael P]

What's up with Somali frauds, even in states with names matching "M*n*"?

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/northeast/maine-whistleblower-gateway/

Taxpayers in Maine have been bilked out of millions of dollars from the state’s Medicaid program, according to a whistleblower who in an interview with NewsNation likened the case to a burgeoning scandal in Minnesota, where people in the Somali community are accused of defrauding taxpayers of $1 billion meant for social services.
[...]
The company’s founder and CEO is Abdullahi Ali, a Somali-American who, while at the time serving as executive director for Gateway, last year ran for president (effectively governor) of Jubaland, a state in Somalia’s south that borders Kenya. 

[Kazinski]

We make it too easy.

[Armchair]

One of the issues was that whenever anyone started to look, immediately calls of "Racism" were made.

And that encouraged people to stop looking.

[Malika la Maize]

That explains Rick Scott!

https://newrepublic.com/post/168843/rick-scott-oversaw-one-largest-medicaid-frauds-history-wants-to-be-senate-gop-leader

[Armchair]

Red Herring, different circumstances.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s not a red herring, it’s just a different focus than yours. You can find bad actors in any group. There’s a word for generalization about the entire group upon notice of the former.

[not guilty]

"Red Herring, different circumstances."

I agree that Rick Scott's perfidy does not justify anyone else's, but I remember the Columbia/HCA scandal with Rick Scott at the helm. The largest health care fraud case in American history. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_386.htm

The HCA Board of Directors in the wake of the scandal dropped Columbia from the name, ran Scott out of town on a rail, and summoned Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr. (one of the company founders and former Senator Bill Frist's older brother) out of retirement to right the ship.

[not guilty]

The Senate tenures of Bill Frist and Rick Scott did not overlap. If they had, I suspect it would have made for some tense Republican Caucus meetings.

[ThePublius]

It's because the politicians are in on the grift.

[Bwaaah]

It's not grift. It's respect for all peoples (except people on the political right), to a point of fault and beyond good reason. Like: love a Somali, stop a fraudster, avert your eyes when you might be seeing a Somali fraudster.

[Sarcastr0]

Can't imagine why people would think you're more MAGA than liberal, authoring this kind of cartoonish take.

[Bwaaah]

As usual, you don't actually disagree with me.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, saying your take was cartoonish is totally agreeing with you.

[Bwaaah]

No. I don't think that's true.

[ThePublius]

It's in Ohio, too. The Somalis are a cancer that has to be dealt with.

They are apparently culturally adept at defrauding the government.

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2025/12/09/the-somali-grift-isnt-just-for-minnesota-anymore-n3809699

[Malika la Maize]

I think your bigotry is a cancer that should be dealt with.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is it bigotry to disdain criminals?
(To be clear, I am not claiming all Somalis are criminals)

[David Nieporent]

(To be clear, I am not claiming all Somalis are criminals)

No, but ThePublius is.

[ThePublius]

I didn't say "all," but it's not a bad screen.

[Estragon]

This is vile.

[jb]

ThePublius claimed a couple of months ago that it's a good idea to avoid large gatherings of black people. A good example of someone who feels confident about letting their racism out in the open these days.

[not guilty]

It seems to me that overt displays of racism have become more common in recent years.

Donald Trump and his MAGA cult have been cagy about identifying what period of "greatness" that they wish for us to "return" America to, but I suspect that is sometime when Jim Crow was still in force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKzTaZLEKd4&list=RDFKzTaZLEKd4&start_radio=1

[Malika la Maize]

It’s bigotry to generalize a nationality with cancer. This shouldn’t be hard.

[hobie]

Did you want me to list again all the equally big medicare frauds perpetrated by white, currently-elected MAGA politicians?

[ThePublius]

Wow, you managed to whatabout and lace in MAGA hate. Nice job!

[hobie]

Thank you!

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure. Knock yourself out.

[Malika la Maize]

Heck, just look at Trump’s pardon list.

[hobie]

True, Trump has largely only pardoned big-time fraudsters. So, yeah, that's a bunch of fraud there, Publius.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie -- 1% of 100M is 1M, 50% of 2M is also 1M.

You concur that 50% is greater than 1% -- that a greater percentage of Somalis engaging in fraud doesn't preclude MAGA crooks?

[Sarcastr0]

Love to see our government and their media organs work to demonize an ethnic group.

To anyone who knows history, this is dangerous, and evil. Negative nationalism.

You can see which posters it attracts. They cannot help but reveal what they are.

[ThePublius]

Ethnic group? I said Somali - which is a nationality. They come from a country that is so entirely corrupt and populated by thugs that it has no functioning government. Their biggest industry in Somalia seems to be piracy[1], 'though remittances represent perhaps 20 to 30% of their GDP.

I didn't invoke racism in my comment, I mentioned culture. They have a culture of corruption that they've brought with them to the U.S.

[1] it's reported to be livestock, but piracy is never mentioned in 'official' financial reports.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't invoke racism in my comment, I mentioned culture.

Yep, racists say that all the time.

They have a culture of corruption that they've brought with them to the U.S.
A song of bigotry that's been used against just about every group to come here, from the Irish on down.
Do you see how it's collective guilt? How you're pre-judging based on what group people are in? That shit's racist, dude.

You put out these cliched excused for your racism that were old and busted before I was born. You're like a museum piece from the museum of hateful shit we long ago left behind but shouldn't forget.

[ThePublius]

So you're O.K. with importing Somali culture to the U.S.? Look at Dearborn, MI, Columbus, OH, Lewiston ME. They amount of fraud in those places hasn't even been calculated yet. It's at least $1B in MI, with some estimates putting it at $8B. It's a cultural thing.

[Sarcastr0]

When you're so racist you just say racist shit and think that's a great argument that no one can deny.

[David Nieporent]

Ethnic group? I said Somali - which is a nationality.

Nationality and ethnic group are the same thing.

[ThePublius]

Bullshit. That's so ridiculously wrong. I'm Irish (ethnicity) and American (nationality). And you?

from google, for example:
"No, ethnicity and nationality are not the same; ethnicity refers to shared culture, language, ancestry, or traditions (like being Cherokee or French), while nationality refers to legal citizenship or allegiance to a specific country (like being American or Canadian), though people can share a nationality but have different ethnicities, or vice versa. For example, someone can be American (nationality) but have Irish (ethnicity) heritage."

[David Nieporent]

"American" is not a nationality.

[Mr. Bumble]

?

[David Nieporent]

American is a citizenship. We are a propositional country, not an ethnic nation.

[ThePublius]

Shall I say 'United Statesian?' Would that make you happy?

Don't pretend you didn't know what I meant.

[ThePublius]

By the way, that's how google described it, not me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nationality: The country of a person’s citizenship or country in which the person is deemed a national.

[Mr. Bumble]

In case you missed it yesterday:
David Notsoimportants rules:
1. David is always right
2. If David is wrong see rule #1

[David Nieporent]

Anklebiter tries to bite ankles again.

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently I drew blood.
...or maybe not.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s bigoted to negatively generalize based on nationality.

[Kazinski]

Now do "whiteness".

[Sarcastr0]

Not a nationality.

Without context, it may not even be about skin color!

I'd say sociologists did a bad job with their naming conventions but ya gotta say whenever one of them uses that term they get the clicks.

[Kazinski]

Yeah its worse, its racism.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice knee jerk, but white is also not a race, unless you're going for the whole 'race is a social construct thing.'
In which case it's hard to find a lot of beef with the abolishing whiteness crowd.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"white is also not a race,"

The left continues in its mad dash to not be taken seriously.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Without context, it may not even be about skin color!"

Lol. I remember back in the day people used to claim that when they called someone a nigger, it wasn't a reference to their race.

I never realized that these guys got hired as college professors.

" but ya gotta say whenever one of them uses that term they get the clicks."

You mean leftist academics are writing bullshit clickbait instead of serious work? Why, you can knock me over with a feather!

[hobie]

So you don't like corruption, eh?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0, what are the origins of the word "Vandalism"?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeesh. You break a building or two fifteen hundred years ago...

I wonder if in 1500 years applying for a benefit you're not entitled to will be called somaliizing a government program.

[jb]

You'll notice these large scale Medicaid frauds (including the Rick Scott fraud highlighted by Malika below) almost all take place on the provider side of the programs, while almost all of the discussion about preventing fraud focuses on the consumer side of the programs. As a result, we get a system with a huge time tax for people who need help, but still a lot of fraud. That seems like basically the worst possible outcome.

As someone interested in having government function effectively, I definitely think there should be a strong focus on hardening important programs like this against fraud. Scapegoating individual communities probably isn't the right way to do this, but thinking about ways to provide better scrutiny to prevent fictitious providers and fraudulent billing probably is. Hopefully that would also allow us to give a bit more grace to the folks who actually need these programs while reducing overall fraud levels.

[Michael P]

The Grauniad reports that the UN claims that a few activities cause $5 billion/hour of environmental damages.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/09/food-fossil-fuel-production-5bn-environmental-damage-an-hour-un-geo-report-

$5B/hour * 8760 hour/year = $43.8 trillion/year.
Worldwide GDP is something like $117 trillion (https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD ).
Their math seems seriously off, which is not surprising for the UN.

[Brett Bellmore]

In order to motivate people to do as they want, they have to maintain the product of two factors high enough.

The first factor is how much people believe the predictions.

The second is how terrifying the predictions are.

Absolute certainty of something that's no big deal does not motivate people, likewise horrifying consequences that nobody believes does not motivate. In between, the less people believe, the worse the predictions must be to motivate action.

That's what you're seeing here: As people lose faith in the predictions, the predictions have to be made more extravagant to compensate.

[Michael P]

Rational people would recognize that as a self-defeating strategy, considering that inflated estimates result in reduced credibility.

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't have to keep the con going forever, you know. If they succeed in getting the level of control they're demanding, for even a short while, they can leverage it to make sure that what people believe stops mattering.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s self defeating in another way, if you make a problem seem too huge it discourages people from trying to do anything to mitigate it.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hey Brett found another conspiracy!

It's not facts, it's all lies from 'they!'

[hobie]

I think their math is, like, 1600% off.

[Drewski]

If you let your roof leak, you will do a lot of damage to your home that can be measured in dollars. This doesn't affect your paycheck. Similarly, GDP and environmental resource value are not measuring the same thing.

If you want to make a case that their numbers are wrong, you have to address those numbers, not some other unrelated numbers. This is pure six seven.

[Krayt]

It's a perfectly reasonable use of democracy to decide damage vs. tradeoff for progress, food. This is why all the lawsuit stuff is such profound BS. Skipping lawyers, of course, in their role as parasitic disease on society, wanting a funnel into their pocket for ostensible damage to all.

And there's the problem of getting here from there. Environmental damage (which has been lessening for decades) is the cost of rising up from dirt floor poverty over centuries. Any other path drags that out, and, looking at 2/3 the world, isn't even a guarantee no matter how long you wait.

These are the actual measurements which show a strong correlation between economic freedom and actually-measured well being of the average person.

To address the inane numbers in the original article, allowing the lawyer/politician/corruption class full reign to control the economy, as in the dogged economies of much of the world, would actually reach those astounding numbers, but in degraded lives of the world.

[jb]

I'm not defending the number--I have no idea if it is right or how they calculate it--but it doesn't seem crazy to calculate costs of something happening now against not only will happen to this year's GDP but (if it's a permanent change) against some sort of DCF calculation of all future years of the economy as well, in which case you have a much bigger denominator to work with.

Of course, this is the sort of math that places like Gartner do to project out the growth of companies or industry sectors with compound growth for a decade or so until they're absurdly large. Every once in a while, like with Nvidia, that sort of analysis turns out to be correct, but more often than not the curve bends pretty quickly. To tie it back to the climate change discussion, I do think a fair criticism of environmental catastrophism is that humans/the Earth are more adaptable than these models generally give credit for.

[Malika la Maize]

Democrat wins Miami mayoral election.

Trump needs to make more fun of the affordability hoax I guess.

[santamonica811]

Mal,
I don't quite understand Trump's response to Dems here.
I think Trump has been saying, (a) the affordability thing is a hoax--it is not a real thing, AND also saying, (b) "Democrats are to blame for this affordability crisis."

If you are arguing "B exists and is the fault of ____" then you are conceding that B is a real thing. It makes no logical sense to also argue that B is not real. (As opposed to what we often do in law, where we are allowed to argue alternative--and often completely contradictory--legal theories. "My client was not part of the bank robbery conspiracy. But if he was; he was not physically present on Oct 1, when the robbery actually occurred. But if he was present, he was not the one who fired the gun at the security guard [etc etc]." Or..."My client never told his priest that he was going to go back on his contract to do X. But if he did tell his priest this; it is a communication protected by privilege and cannot be introduced into evidence." )

[loki13]

That's because you're making an incorrect assumption- that Trump is motivated by logic, or a desire to solve problems.

He is not. He is simply looking for BS that is sticky; something that he (and his proxies in the administration and his fans on the internet) can spread as a message. The truth value of it is irrelevant. That it might contradict what he said yesterday, or will say tomorrow, is irrelevant (see, e.g., the administration's constantly shifting stories about the boat strikes, or anything else).

It just needs to be something he can flood the zone with and will take root.

That's how "Drain the swamp" happened (even though Trump is the swamp). He tried out the phrase, it took hold, and now he can use it (and his fans can) even while he is literally pumping in Grade-A swamp as fast as he can into DC with Middle Eastern money.

He's just going through the usual cycle of lines here- attack the press (you're lying about the numbers!!!). Attack the Democrats (it's a Democratic hoax!!!!). Attack reality (it's not happening!!!!). Attack the Democrats again (it's not my fault, it's the Biden administration!!!!).

It's just not working really well, because of a few things-
1. Most Americans don't care much or understand much about foreign policy, or good governance, or the rule of law. But they see the economy. They feel it. And they attribute (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) to the President.

2. Trump specifically ran on a promise to fix prices. After all, he invented the word "groceries," right?

3. Trump's signature thing (other than lying, I guess) is tariffs. And people (other than a few diehards here) understand exactly how tariffs work. Because they've watched them work when they get those new-fangled "groceries" every week.

He'll keep spinning new lines, because that's what he does. But this is one of those Epstein-like issues that will tend to prove sticky.

The good news is that the GOP has three more years to fix it. The bad news? They seem hellbent on giving Trump all the rope he needs to hang the economy.

[David Nieporent]

He is not. He is simply looking for BS that is sticky; something that he (and his proxies in the administration and his fans on the internet) can spread as a message. The truth value of it is irrelevant. That it might contradict what he said yesterday, or will say tomorrow, is irrelevant (see, e.g., the administration's constantly shifting stories about the boat strikes, or anything else).

Yes; as I posted many times when he was first running for president, he's a true Frankfurtian bullshitter¹: it's not that Trump lies; it's that his statements have no truth value of any sort. When the truth is "A," a liar will say "Not A" because he wants to convince you that he believes "Not A" so you'll believe it to be true. A bullshitter will say anything — "A," "not A," "purple monkey dishwasher" — even simultaneously, because his goal isn't to convince you of the truth of anything, but to eliminate all concept of truth; the only relevant goal is to convey an impression of the bullshitter himself at that moment.
​
​
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

[David Nieporent]

Normal people are not equipped to confront bullshit, so their brains try to fit it into the honest/liar framework. So, Trump can point at the Neo-Nazis right in front of him and claim that they're very fine people, and then claim he was not talking about them even though they're the only people in front of him, and normal people will resist the conclusion that none of his words mean anything at all.

[Malika la Maize]

He’s an idiot.

[Malika la Maize]

He grew up in a family of Palestinian refugees in Jordan. His one-room home, filled with eight siblings, their parents and cows, lacked electricity and running water. Early on, a schoolbook’s depiction of atomic building blocks caught his eye. When he was 15, his father, a butcher, sent him to study in the United States.

Now a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Omar Yaghi, 60, is being honored on Wednesday at a ceremony in Stockholm with a Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Dr. Yaghi’s story is not unusual. Of the six American winners of science Nobels this year, three were born outside the United States. In this century, the émigré fraction of U.S. Nobels in physics, chemistry and medicine now stands at 40 percent.

The nation’s long history of scientific feats, exemplified by Nobels, helped build a number of trillion-dollar companies in Silicon Valley as well as the world’s most dynamic economy and its wealth of social benefits, economists say.

Some experts warn that the policies of the Trump administration have put that bounty in jeopardy. By putting “America First,” they say, an era of U.S. prosperity could come to an end as the pipeline for legal immigrants, foreign students and visiting researchers dries up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/science/nobel-prize-immigrants-science.html

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at coal fly ash, the composition is pretty interesting. It's got all sorts of useful elements in it, sometimes in economically extractable quantities. It would make an excellent ore for thorium, for various rare earths. And since it's basically free so long as people are burning coal, it finds a lot of uses in products that conveniently immobilize it, like concrete.

It's also toxic as hell, would you like a ton dumped in your backyard next weekend?

My point is that some group of people can include exceptional individuals, and yet still on average be toxic as hell. If you've got some way of reliably identifying those exceptional individuals, and excluding the much larger toxic fraction, great.

If you don't? I guess you just have to forego the benefit to avoid the greater cost.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett all in on one of the good ones-ing.

He’ll never give up the hating.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you want to say, "We should admit Somalis who are destined to be Nobel prize winning scientists", I'd say great, do you have a way to identify them in advance?

If you want to say, "We should admit Somalis en mass on the off chance one or two of them might end up being Nobel prize winning scientists." I'm going to say that you're nuts.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one saying you know what people will be in advance. Except for you it's negative, and you ignore the counterexamples.

As I said, you'll never give up being a hater.

My thesis? Treat people like individuals, not a collective.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not. I'm playing the odds. That's what you do when you have past performance to look at, but no knowledge of the future.

You're playing against the odds, which tell us it is highly unlikely for Somali emigree to end up as a Nobel prize winner, and regrettably common for them to end up as a petty or not so petty criminal.

I'm all for treating people according to their individual merits as soon as you have data concerning their individual merits. If you don't have that data, what can you do but use the statistics?

[ducksalad]

If you don't have that data, what can you do but use the statistics?

Just for clarification, does your rule only apply to immigration, or do you also propose using group statistics when it's not possible individually identify good potential employees, lucrative customers, criminal suspects, etc?

Also, is there some reason you want to limit it to nationality? Aren't there some very stark group statistics rating sex to proclivity for violent crime?

[Brett Bellmore]

I propose using group statistics everywhere you're legally entitled to, and where individual data is unavailable. Individual data is so vastly superior to group statistics, though, that it almost always is worth obtaining it.

[Sarcastr0]

"Individual data is so vastly superior to group statistics"
But also:
"I propose using group statistics everywhere you're legally entitled to."

In addition to pulling 2 opposite ways, you're also muddy in your terminology. What do you even mean by data, and which group statistics? And how would you use them - are you doing a threshold cut, or are you trying to optimize?

You didn't reason your way into your position on immigration, so good luck reasoning your way to some kind of nuanced policy.

[David Nieporent]

"I propose using group statistics everywhere you're legally entitled to."

In addition to pulling 2 opposite ways,

You're being a bit unfair. It wasn't a model of great writing, but that's not what he said. You put a period, but there's a comma and his sentence continues: "and where individual data is unavailable."

He's inartfully saying that individual data is better than group data, but that group data is better than no data.

[Sarcastr0]

You're right, that 'and' does make things less starkly contradictory.

I do have an issue with saying group data is better than no data as a policy matter.
Settling like that discourages finding good individual data.

It's a problem I'm dealing with for metrics in my office.

[Magister]

As written with that comma, it suggests using group data in legal places and also using group data in illegal places if individual data are not available. That then suggests a preference for group data in legal places.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I do have an issue with saying group data is better than no data as a policy matter."

I think it differs between the private sector and the government sector, because in the private sector people approach each other as moral equals and, as a default, free individuals, entitled to do whatever is not forbidden, and the forbidding has to be very well justified. (Much better justified than it often is, IMO.)

As a general rule, your interactions with others in the private sector may involve the possibility of crimes, but not of constitutional rights violations. So, if you have statistical but not individualized data, you may rightfully let it guide your actions, in as much as you're entitled to act arbitrarily anyway so long as you act lawfully.

In the government sector things are rather different: People working in the government are tightly constrained agents of the public, obligated to respect a variety of rights. Including but not limited to the EPC and the due process clause. So in most contexts the government is largely obligated to treat people as individuals or as just "citizens", and ignore statistical generalizations.

But say we're talking about immigration. By definition we're dealing with people who do not possess relevant constitutional rights that would be violated by acting on statistical generalizations.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, no one but you is arguing 'well it's maybe not unconstitutional.'

Your bar for good policy and for morality is fucking looooow.

[not guilty]

"But say we're talking about immigration. By definition we're dealing with people who do not possess relevant constitutional rights that would be violated by acting on statistical generalizations."

Admission of aliens to the United States is not a constitutional right. Once within our borders, however, aliens (whether lawfully admitted or not) are entitled to the protection of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. (Including equal protection vis-a-vis the federal government by virtue of the Fifth Amendment Due Process guaranty.)

See, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976) (the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government).

[ducksalad]

I propose using group statistics everywhere you're legally entitled to

Fair enough answer for settled law. But laws get changed from time to time. People you appear to support control all three branches of government. Do you favor expanding legal entitlement to use group statistics, or contracting it, or leaving it about the same?

Brett Kavanaugh now says reasonable suspicion can be based on group statistics. Suppose he proposes extending that to probable cause for arrest. And then using it at the bail hearing. What do you think?

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said just above, I think things differ depending on whether you're talking about the private sector or the government sector.

The actors in the private sector start out entitled to do anything they damned well please, and then are limited in various ways by law, to the extent the government is legally entitled to so bind them. (Which, IMO, is a lot less than it actually does in practice!) So they're as free to use group statistics as they are to use a Magic 8 ball.

The actors in the government sector are tightly constrained agents of the public possessing powers, not rights. Unlike the private sector, where you start out by default being able to do as you please, and then are constrained, in the government sector you start out being able to do nothing, and are selectively empowered within explicit limits.

"Brett Kavanaugh now says reasonable suspicion can be based on group statistics. Suppose he proposes extending that to probable cause for arrest. And then using it at the bail hearing. What do you think?"

I think, unlike the situation in the private sector, government agents are, depending on context, either required to treat you as an individual, on your own merits, or just treat you as a citizen, entitled to be treated the same as everybody else.

[ducksalad]

For once it appears we actually agree. Private actors by default get to do what they want, and with maybe a few narrow exceptions the law should let them. The government should not discriminate except based on individual merit (or lack of merit).

So going back to the original question....is being Somalian a group characteristic or individual merit?

[ThePublius]

"My thesis? Treat people like individuals, not a collective."

But, see, that's the problem. The people responsible for, and facilitating the immigration aren't doing that. Janet Mills signed a no-bid contract with an NGO to facilitate the immigration of an additional 75,000 Somalis to Maine. Do you think they are going to vet every one of them, every "individual?" No, of course not!

When you import people en masse from a country with a pervasive culture of corruption, you are importing the corruption. I favor just shutting off Somali immigration.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think they are going to vet every one of them, every "individual?" No, of course not!

Yes, I think immigrants are vetted. All of them.

Witness the ignorance required to be a bigot in this day and age.

[Bob from Ohio]

"vetted. All of them. "

Yes, like Rahmanullah Lakanwal for instance.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, he was. Do you think vetting involves crystal balls?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yes, he was. "

Not very well.

[David Nieporent]

I reiterate: do you think vetting involves crystal balls? It only looks at the past; there's no money back guarantee that a person won't change in the future. Like, even Trump probably wasn't a rapist/murderer in his youth.

[Bob from Ohio]

Don't let them in, I can guarantee no Americans will be murdered by them here.

The only correct move with the Third World is not to let them in. Its impossible to vett them.

[David Nieporent]

The only correct move with the Third World is not to let them in. Its impossible to vett them.

And yet, they have lower crime rates than native Americans. (Not to be confused with Native Americans. With whose crime statistics I am unfamiliar.)

Your same "logic" would say that if one guy from Ohio commits a crime in Pennsylvania, that Pennsylvania should close its borders since if he didn't come to the state we could guarantee that no Pennsylvanian would be victimized by him.

[Life of Brian]

And yet, they have lower crime rates than native Americans.

Is this just referring to Alex Nowrasteh's endless data molestation party, or has someone else recently taken a shot at it?

[Estragon]

I love this concept of “vetting” as if there’s some sort of predictive mind reading device available but Biden. Didn’t. Even. Bother.

This dude was part of a hit squad that went around Kandahar killing Taliban (and even some Kandahar police— oops!) at the behest of the CIA for years. We were leaving the country and his former victims were taking power. That’s it. That’s the vetting.

[Estragon]

He was a paid assassin for the CIA starting at age 15. Granted asylum, he was dumped in the US, unable to work, and John Ratcliffe’s CIA ignored him when he asked for help. A more useful comparison for this guy is Nigel Max Edge. We are reaping the bitter harvest of our own deeds overseas.

[Bob from Ohio]

Joe Biden let him in.

Even the CIA failed at its "vetting". State and ICE are not going to do better.

We can't properly "vett" people from Afghanistan or most of the Third World.

[Estragon]

And John Ratcliffe abandoned him with no prospects, no ability to get a job, and decades of trauma from killing his countrymen on our behalf.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no ability to get a job"

Why didn't Biden give him a work permit?

Why aren't you whining about Bill Burns' CIA abandoning him? He was here for 4 years before Ratcliffe took over CIA.

[Estragon]

Why didn’t Trump?

This is not a partisan thing no matter how hard you try to blame your political enemies. This is us reaping what we have sown, using kids to do terrible things and then abandoning them when they need help. Like the Cape Fear guy. It doesn’t have anything to do with vetting, or Afghan culture or “Third World countries” (can you provide a list of unvettable countries btw?) or whatever else Steven Miller cooks up.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This is not a partisan thing"

Oh, why did you make it one then.

You brought up Radcliffe, and him alone, not me.

[Estragon]

You would have preferred I blame it all on Biden, like you, I take it?

You may deflect all you like. My point is amply made above.

[David Nieporent]

The people responsible for, and facilitating the immigration aren't doing that. Janet Mills signed a no-bid contract with an NGO to facilitate the immigration of an additional 75,000 Somalis to Maine. Do you think they are going to vet every one of them, every "individual?"

Um, Janet Mills is a governor, and thus is not involved in facilitating immigration or vetting immigrants. While Prof. Somin might have a different vision, under the longstanding application of law, only the federal government does that. Mills can only facilitate their residence in Maine after they've been vetted.

When you import people

I know you people pine for the days of slavery, but we stopped "importing" people long ago.

[ThePublius]

She certainly facilitated it, by giving them contracts.

By 'importing,' you know what I meant and you interpret such as to smear me. Get lost.

[grb]

ThePublius : "By 'importing,' you know what I meant...."

Sure. You mean the transactional shipment of a product. Which is (a) not the situation here, and (b) dovetails nicely with braindead MAGA (racist) "great replacement" bullshit.

Now, maybe you just got a little clunky with a word choice. Happens all the time. But given your clearly professed beliefs, you can understand how someone might see that choice as significant.

[David Nieporent]

She certainly facilitated it, by giving them contracts.

Your pronouns are unclear. She facilitated what by giving who contracts? She gave contracts to American organizations, not to immigrants. None of that facilitated immigration, since the organizations only serve the people already here.

She might have facilitated immigrants' move to Maine after they had already immigrated, but that has literally nothing to do with vetting immigrants.

By 'importing,' you know what I meant and you interpret such as to smear me. Get lost.

I do know what you mean; the question is whether you do.

[ThePublius]

A highly politicized committee in Sweden gives awards to a select few people; this is not statistically significant, especially with regard to immigrants to the U.S.

I lost all respect for the Nobel prize when it was given to Obama for being black.

[Malika la Maize]

The Peace Prize and the science ones are chosen by different groups.

[ThePublius]

Yes, I know that.

[Malika la Maize]

Your comment suggests you didn’t. It’s several committees and the one that gives the Nobel is not the one that gives the science ones.

[ThePublius]

Yes, I just said I know that. But that doesn't mean there's no communication and shared values among them.

[Malika la Maize]

Do you have any evidence there is?

[ThePublius]

Look, just drop it. WTF. You are becoming (have been) an irritating troll.

My primary point was that a very few people selected as Nobel recipients does not statistical significance make. The Obama comment was parenthetical.

[Malika la Maize]

It was dumb.

It’s significant in that field. I’m kind of proud to be an American and would like to see us dominate Nobel prizes. I get YMMV

[ThePublius]

"Us" dominate Nobel prizes via foreigners (immigrants)? Makes little sense. It's like saying the U.S. dominates the NHL, yet it's majority Canadian players.[1]

[1] actually, 41% or so Canadians, 29% Americans, the balance Europeans. No Somalis.

[Malika la Maize]

Immigrants that become citizens are us.

[David Nieporent]

"Us" dominate Nobel prizes via foreigners (immigrants)? Makes little sense.

Immigrants aren't foreigners.

It's like saying the U.S. dominates the NHL, yet it's majority Canadian players.[1]

It would be like that if the Canadian players had immigrated.

[ThePublius]

"Immigrants aren't foreigners."

It was apropos an argument for immigration. Sure, once they get here, and attain citizenship, they are not foreigners, legally, But they have to get here first, no?

[David Nieporent]

It was not given to Obama for being black; it was given to Obama for not being George Bush.

[Krayt]

It was a deliberate slap in the face to him. Whether deserved or not, I felt it unseemly at the time for the new president of the US to participate in such obvious theater.

[David Nieporent]

To his credit, even Obama seemed embarrassed by the whole thing. Probably should've declined it — "I am flattered and honored, but I do not feel that my brief tenure as president merits such an award, and I respectfully decline" — but I suppose that that, too, could be seen as a humblebrag.

[ducksalad]

The committee learned their lesson. They didn't given Biden a prize for not being Trump.

[Michael P]

I might be inclined to pay attention to a source that knows what "émigré" means, or in the alternative, doesn't randomly change topic in the middle of a sentence.

I thought the flailing New York Times had layers and layers of fact-checkers and editors.

[Malika la Maize]

Flailing? Dude, Dear Leader says FAILING. Better watch the wrongthink before you get the MTG treatment!

[David Nieporent]

I liked to think I knew what "émigré" meant — and to confirm that I did, I looked it up, which did confirm that — and I don't understand what you're claiming that they got wrong.

[Michael P]

They were taking about how many US Nobel Prizes have been won by immigrants, not emigrants.

In "the émigré fraction of U.S. Nobels in physics, chemistry and medicine now stands at 40 percent", they should have written immigrant rather than émigré. Nobel Prizes for US émigrés would be awarded to Americans who now live in other countries, which is the opposite immigration situation than they were taking about.

Unless they really meant that a lot of Americans have taken their expertise overseas to win Nobels.

[David Nieporent]

Unless they really meant that a lot of Americans have taken their expertise overseas to win Nobels.

Or they were speaking from the perspective of other countries rather than from the perspective of the U.S.

[Michael P]

Then the flailing New York Slimes shouldn't have called them "U.S. Nobels", but Nobels of whatever countries these folks emigrated from.

You're being obtuse. Again. For no good reason. As always.

[Bunny495]

"Dr. Yaghi’s story is not unusual"

Hard to take this seriously. There are literally millions of immigrants and a tiny number of them win Nobel Prizes. I would bet dollars to donuts at least an order of magnitude more are criminals. How many times have we seen a comment about painting groups with too broad a brush. Bottom line Dr. Yaghi is the exception, not the rule.

[Malika la Maize]

I think it’s meant that it’s common for immigrant Americans to win Nobels.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think those who win Nobels are outliers and hence statistically irrelevant -- if we stopped shortchanging our White kids, we'd be awash in White winners.

[grb]

To be fair, people who win Nobels are remarkably prevalent among Nobel prizewinners.

[Michael P]

That's ... not actually very common, Mr Poor Generalizer. What they meant is that it's common for a US Nobel Prize winner to be an immigrant.

In statistical terms, it's "probability of being an immigrant given that one is a Nobel Prize winner in the US", not "probability of being a Nobel Prize winner given that one is an immigrant in the US". The latter is a pretty tiny number, but apparently larger than "probability of being a Nobel Prize winner given that one is a native born American".

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Of the six American winners of science Nobels this year, three were born outside the United States."

Only because we don't develop our own talent.

If we were to get serious about the education of working class WHITE children, we'd have winners born here.

[Bob from Ohio]

"American winners"

Per wikipedia:
Citizenship Palestinian Jordanian
Saudi American

[Sarcastr0]

What point are you trying to make here?

[Bob from Ohio]

Why call him an American winner?

Jordanian winner living in US also fits.

[Sarcastr0]

It does not fit. American citizens are Americans.

Especially when they came here when they were 15 and are currently teaching in California.

What the fuck.

[Bob from Ohio]

He should renounced the other citizenships.

[Sarcastr0]

Or else he's not an American?

Nah, I think you've got the problem, not him.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dual citizenship is like having multiple wives.

Who gets your loyalty?

[Sarcastr0]

That's a weird analogy.

This isn't marriage.

You're weird.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He belongs to the streets.

[Bob from Ohio]

"an era of U.S. prosperity could come to an end"

That column and your comment is founded on the liberal/left proposition that immigrants are better than native born, that we need them to be a thriving state.

[Malika la Maize]

When video of an argument between a white worker at a Cinnabon store and two Black customers began to circulate online last week, it seemed to fall into a troubling but familiar genre.

The employee at the northern Wisconsin shop can be heard calling the customers a racial slur. She makes an obscene gesture. “I am racist,” the worker declares. Cinnabon soon fired the worker, saying her actions and statements were “completely unacceptable.”

But what happened next veered from the way many viral moments of outrage play out online: While many on social media condemned the worker’s words, others leaped to her defense. And for at least the second time in recent months, donors offered money to someone caught being racist. By Tuesday, a campaign for the fired employee, who was not named by Cinnabon, had raised more than $130,000.

That crowdfunding page is hosted on GiveSendGo, a website that says it aims to “share the Hope of Jesus through crowdfunding to everyone who comes to our platform.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/us/cinnabon-fired-worker-video-racial-slur.html

[Mr. Bumble]

...as opposed to GoFundMe which allows for donations to murderers?

[Malika la Maize]

I didn’t have Bumble whatabouting crowd source sites on my bingo card today!

[Mr. Bumble]

...but I did have you claiming "whatabouting".

[Armchair]

What's your point Malika?

Is it that crowdfunding sites shouldn't allow crowdfunding for accused racists? Or all "bad people"?

[Malika la Maize]

Accused?

From the article:

She makes an obscene gesture. “I am racist,” the worker declares.

[Michael P]

You need to do the work when it comes to interrogating your own racism. That young woman already did.

https://store.dailywire.com/products/am-i-racist-the-game?variant=42273804517436

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie Q is not bothered when the Daily Stormers come to his American Renaissance conferences.

[Michael P]

Malicia tells us that every accusation is a confession. This is easier to believe about accusations that are disconnected from anything the accused writes (which are the majority of Malicia's accusations).

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not the one word associating the GOP with racism and support for it, that’s you.

[Armchair]

Missing the point there....avoiding the question...

[Moderation4ever]

Obviously the point is not the sites raising money for racist, murderers, or other bad people, but rather the degree of support that these sites get. What does it say about our country that you can raise money to support people who do bad things?

[loki13]

They are so against virtue signalling, that they demand vice signalling?

[Malika la Maize]

No enemies to the right.

[Estragon]

It is interesting to contemplate the intersection between the professional online trolling right and these gofundraisers. The voltage guy was here flogging donations to that lady in Minnesota who was cursing at black kids in the park whenever that was… last summer?

[Michael P]

What does it say about our country that you can raise money to support people who do bad things?

It says we're a diverse country that isn't totalitarian.

To the present topic, "the only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination": to be anti-racist, one must be racist, just in the right direction. Even baristas in huge coffee chains have internalized the lesson. Fortunately, it's much easier to achieve the goal now that essentially everything is racist. Someone fires or refuses to serve you because of skin color? Racism. Someone crosses the street because you keep glaring at them? Racism. Someone doesn't know how to pronounce "La-a" on your coffee cup? Racism.

[Armchair]

"What does it say about our country that you can raise money to support people who do bad things?"

That we're a free democracy, with a diverse range of ideas? That we protect that diversity, even if it's something we disagree with?

I mean, what's the alternative. Someone else deciding "what bad things are?"

Justin Trudeau did that. A bunch of truckers in Canada decided to protest his COVID policies. What did Trudeau do? First pressured one crowdfunding organization to stop processing the donations. Then got the courts to freeze the donations coming from a second organization. Then started freezing all the payment service contractors, the bank accounts of the protestors, and more.

https://www.cato.org/blog/emergencies-act-after-two-years

Perhaps you'll say "They deserved it". But think about it. The original rationale for this was to “ensure the funds are not being used to promote extremism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism and other forms of hate." And then " “evidence from law enforcement that the previously peaceful demonstration has become an occupation, with police reports of violence and other unlawful activity.”"

Antisemitism and other forms of hate? Anti-government activities?
What if Trump suddenly decided those anti-ICE protests had anti-Semitism as part of them? With police reports of violence and other unlawful activity? Perhaps those people involved in the ICE protests should suddenly wake up and have their bank accounts frozen.

Or we can live in a free country, like where we do. Where even things that people disagree with can be funded.

[David Nieporent]

I think the point is that it says something bad that a crowdfunding site can successfully raise money for racists for being racist. Why would anyone donate money to this person?

[Mr. Bumble]

...or a murderer being a murderer?

[CountmontyC]

Karmelo Anthony's family raised over $500,000 after he stabbed to death another teen. I would say that is much worse than using a racist epithet.

[Armchair]

People donate to other people for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps they felt she was unjustly fired, and decided to support her.

[David Nieporent]

There are probably hundreds of thousands of people unjustly fired. Why pick this one, fired for (to put it charitably) being an asshole, rather than someone who (e.g) lost her job because her car broke down and it made her late for work?

[Sarcastr0]

DMN, Moderation4ever, Estragon, Malika la Maize: "Boy a lot of people are donating to support open racism."

Armchair: "Maybe this is good, somehow."

A bunch of people paid money to prevent an open racist from having consequences. It's not a big leap to think those people are racist. And from there to note there's a decent number of racists with money to throw around.

Why would you feel obligated jump in to defend this?

[hobie]

Yes, I posted earlier this year how a MAGA lady called a little autistic six year old black boy a ni**er on a playground. Video of it got her pinched. Then she whined about it on the same Christian crowd funder and got $800,000.

Need you hayseeds anymore proof that MAGA and American Evengelical Christians are the biggest hate group in America?

[Estragon]

Posted in response above before I read this. Did you notice how the voltage guy was here repeatedly flogging donations to that lady when it happened?

[hobie]

The Voltage Guy?

[Michael P]

A story about a reaction rather than the original incident. I am reminded of the maxim "When Republicans screw up, that's the story. When Democrats screw up, the Republican reaction is the story."

[Malika la Maize]

I didn’t see any mention of party, interesting you went there.

[Michael P]

"Malicia fails at generalization" and "Malicia misunderstands how quotation marks work". That's a bingo.

[Malika la Maize]

Hilarious to see Mikie Q follow that quote with a generalization charge! The point remains that he word associates racism and support for racism with his party of choice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm waiting for the campaign to boycott Cinnabon.

We aren't that far from racism being considered a GOOD thing and people being PROUD to be called "racists."

It's happened before -- it happened in the 1850s with the "Know Nothing" movement, and in the 1920s with the second incarnation of the Klan.

Read something like The Turner Diaries and realize that someone actually wrote it. And then reflect on what is now a THIRD generation of White males being bleeped and soon it will reach a critical mass.

Gen X White Males -- those who graduated from high school after 1980 -- have realized that they will never be given a chance (unless Daddy gave it to them), the Millennials are approaching mid-life realizing this, and Gen Z is currently learning the pleasures of life in the back of the bus.

This is what caused the American Revolution...

Americans do not like castes, Americans are not willing to accept that other people are considered "better" than they are, or get "special" privileges -- heterosexual White males have been kept down for 50 years now via the waving of the bloody shirt, but you have to be in your 90s to have any adult memory of the 1950s and those people aren't with us anymore.

You have to be over the age of 50 -- likely 55 -- to have any living memory of the Soviet Union. The teenagers who were involved in the Nuclear Freeze movement are now in their 60s. There are less than a dozen Pearl Harbor veterans left, none healthy enough to go there anymore. Time has passed, and with it the living memories of people who actually lived what is now history.

So this bullbleep is going to end -- and soon. And hard.

[David Nieporent]

Gen X White Males -- those who graduated from high school after 1980 -- have realized that they will never be given a chance (unless Daddy gave it to them),

Just because you are a loser doesn't mean all of us are. Your life failures are not because you're a white male who has been discriminated against. It's because you're stupid, dishonest, and a terrible person.

[ducksalad]

Gen X White Males -- those who graduated from high school after 1980 -- have realized that they will never be given a chance (unless Daddy gave it to them), the Millennials are approaching mid-life realizing this, and Gen Z is currently learning the pleasures of life in the back of the bus.

JD Vance, VP, grad. 2003
Pete Hegseth, SecDef, grad. 1999
Marco Rubio, SoS, grad. 1989
Scott Turner, HUD, grad. 1990 Oops, doesn't match criteria
Scott Duffy, DoT, grad. 1990
Lee Zeldin, EPA, grad. 1998
Russell Vought, OMB, grad. 1996+/-
John Ratcliffe, CIA, grad. 1983+/-
Jamieson Greer, USTR, grad. 1998

Never given a chance, never rode in the front of the bus, but fought their way to the top over all the privileged people. Truly they are heroes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"$130,000"

In a country of 330 million. You all can stop your pearl clutching.

[Malika la Maize]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr's lined face contorted into a gnarled grimace as he hauled his shaking body up towards the metal bar for one last pull-up.

That was one of the strangest moments in a generally pretty strange press conference, held at taxpayer expense at Washington D.C.'s Reagan International Airport by the Trump administration on Monday.

In the space of 36 minutes that no one watching will ever get back, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy offered no new solutions to the ongoing air traffic controller shortage, no plan to reduce the high cost of airport food, and no update on a Biden-era proposal to ban airlines from charging families extra fees just to sit together.

But he did announce $1 billion in new grant money for airports with ideas on how to make air travel healthier and more pleasant, before ushering in a parade of friendly influencers and entrepreneurs to talk about their personal hobbyhorses.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/rfk-jr-sean-duffy-maha-airports-b2880829.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, at least they weren't wearing Jack LaLanne style jumpsuits and dance shoes.

[Malika la Maize]

Hey, I think RFK Jr is a goof, but I don’t hate the idea of having a fit HHS secretary.

[loki13]

Calling RFK jr a goof ... isn't really the right approach, IMO.

Goofs are generally harmless. He's not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More of a goof than Butt Plug? Or the underwear-stealing tranny?

[Dr. Ed 2]

solutions to the ongoing air traffic controller shortage,

Ummm, he HAS. You now only have to have "Have one year of progressively responsible work experience, or a Bachelor's degree, or a combination of post-secondary education and work experience that totals one year." -- you no longer have to have a relevant college degree.
https://www.faa.gov/air-traffic-controller-qualification

no plan to reduce the high cost of airport food,

Simple solution: DON'T BUY IT.
Eat before you leave, or after you arrive.
Absent a medical issue, it takes three days before not eating starts to cause health concerns...

and no update on a Biden-era proposal to ban airlines from charging families extra fees just to sit together.

Well don't fly. Or don't sit together. Or pay more.
I don't see this as a major emergency.

[Jmaie]

I’ll bite, why would it be the federal government‘s responsibility to control the price of food at airports?

[Armchair]

True or False

Without Nationalism there can't effectively be Patriotism.

[hobie]

Patriotism is generally defined as an affectionate and civic-minded love for one's country, including its values and beliefs, along with a desire to help it improve. A patriot can tolerate criticism of their country and wants to correct its shortcomings.

Nationalism is typically defined as a loyalty and devotion to a nation (often tied to a shared ethnicity, culture, or heritage) that exalts it above all others, placing primary emphasis on its interests, sometimes at the expense of other nations. A nationalist is often proud of their country no matter what it does and may be intolerant of criticism.

[Moderation4ever]

Well put.

[Bwaaah]

I like your definitions there, hobie.

[Armchair]

Interesting definitions there....where did you get them?

Funny thing, I try searching the text...and it keeps coming up "no hits found".

Did you just make them up yourself?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think he's got it wrong?

[Bwaaah]

Interesting question. The composition is better than typical hobie. But when he tries, he reveals a pretty good ability to speak for himself. Still, that's a surprising stretch there.

He pretty regularly uses AI to paste stuff in here. When I've noticed that he does that, he prefaces with a disclosure. (But I don't know what I didn't notice.)

It's unusually agreeable hobie to me, in unusually polished form. And he'll do anything if it fucks with the "hayseeds," but this doesn't look like that. Maybe he'll weigh in.

[Moderation4ever]

False

[Malika la Maize]

Asking for a friend, no doubt!

[Michael P]

As a consequence of strict definitions, false. As a consequence of human nature, any time you have a reasonably large group of patriots (unless you specifically screen on this metric), some will at least arguably fall cross the line into "nationalist" -- and it's true in that sense.

It's pretty telling who ignores human nature when answering this question.

[Armchair]

Well, what's a patriot though?

"the quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country."

How does one support one's country without identifying with that country?

[Bwaaah]

Speaking as an ethnic Jew with almost no religious foundation or beliefs, it's easy for me to conceive of people who easily "identify" with an identity despite great differences with others who identify with the same identity.

Identification seems to manifest as a self-fulfilling feeling of coherence that tends to effectively gloss over real differences.

Know what I mean, "brother"?

[David Nieporent]

True or False

Without Nationalism there can't effectively be Patriotism.

False.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. Good morning, David.

[OpinionsVary]

If the SCOTUS adopts a universal removal power for the POTUS for all officers wielding executive power, would that require the ability to remove, say, the D.C. mayor or any other territory executive heads? After all they too are creations of Congress and wield executive power.

[Mr. Bumble]

Aren't they elected?

[OpinionsVary]

Yes but that's sort of the core of my question. If everyone wielding federally derived executive power must be removable by the president, why would an election matter? Or are you advocating for some kind of 'election' exception for presidential removal power?

[Mr. Bumble]

Apples and oranges.

[Michael P]

The President doesn't have the power to remove the (elected) VP -- or to name one -- but I think that goes more to constitutional provisions than to elected status.

Local governments are not part of the federal government, even if they are created by federal action. The President cannot fire a DC bus driver, much less the DC mayor.

[David Nieporent]

You're making assertions, not explaining them. Why can't he fire a DC bus driver, if he can fire (e.g.) a file clerk at the Department of Education? You say that local governments aren't part of the federal government, but why aren't they? An act of Congress created each of them. Sure, Congress created Home Rule, but Congress also created the MSPB. Could Congress enact a law that provided for elections for FTC commissioners, and protect them from Trump's malice that way?

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "You're making assertions, not explaining them."

False.

[Michael P]

The DC government has its own judicial branch and a city council. Puerto Rico (to pick a territory as an example) has both legislative and judicial branches. It's much simpler to explain those as independent, non-sovereign governments subsidiary to the US than as parts of the executive branch of the US federal government -- unless you think that federal executives can be entitled to perform fully judicial and/or legislative functions. There are some pretty severe separation-of-power problems with that theory.

[Kazinski]

"Could Congress enact a law that provided for elections for FTC commissioners, and protect them from Trump's malice that way?"

Not without a constitutional amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

They could hold the elections in DC...

[OpinionsVary]

I guess the question is then - can Congress create more things that a local and not part of the federal government? For example, could Congress convert each federal court distinct into a semi-local government and have the people of that district elect the U.S. attorney for it?

[Michael P]

If Congress wanted those to have jurisdiction limited to their respective courthouses, maybe?

Congress couldn't carve out groups of states or parts of states as separate local governments because that would violate state sovereignty over their territories.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You are right -- the DC Mayor has authority delegated by Congress via the DC Self Governance Act and hence the POTUS theoretically could remove the Mayor.

He wouldn't be able to appoint a replacement, there would have to be an election and she theoretically could run for office and be elected to a new tenure in office (I'm not quite sure of what word to use) and theoretically the POTUS could again remove, with a third election returning her, ad nauseam.

But you overlook three things.

First, it is also theoretically possible that people are happy to see her go -- memory is that it wasn't Marion Barry smoking crack as much as not getting the streets plowed that upset DC residents, and never underestimate the potential incompetence of an elected official.

Say the mayor's incompetence led to a school boiler blowing up and a hundred children being dead -- people are going to want her gone and no one is going to care who did it.

Second, and reality is that this is closely related, how much political capital is a POTUS going to expend removing an elected official? That wouldn't be an issue in the above example, but it gets more complex as you get into less clear situations.

Remember that Trump could have used the Insurrection Act and didn't -- and just because a POTUS could remove the mayor doesn't mean that he/she/it would do so.

Third, and most important, remember what Gerry Ford said about grounds for Impeachment -- it is whatever a House majority says it is.

Impeachment is a check on Presidential excesses -- again, just because a POTUS could remove a DC Mayor doesn't mean that a POTUS would want to do so.

I really don't think that a President would do something like remove an elected DC Mayor without significant support in Congress.

[A Japanese Student]

Appointments Clause has been held not to apply to territorial officers: FOMBPR v. Aurelius Investments, LLC, 590 U.S. ___ (2020). I expect similar holding for removal.

[A Japanese Student]

A more interesting (and perhaps important) question is whether the President has removal power over Art. I judges, including CFC.

[Brett Bellmore]

I find the very existence of non-Art.3 judges problematic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because they exist, or because they are called "judges"?

[not guilty]

"I find the very existence of non-Art.3 judges problematic."

Including United States Magistrates and Bankruptcy Court judges, whose proceedings reviewable de novo by Article III District Judges? Why is that problematic?

[SRG2]

Only if the president is Trump

[ThePublius]

Some claim (I'm looking at you, Martinned) that there's no censorship in Europe.

Note this: A Swiss man is going to jail for saying that skeletons can only be male or female.

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/statement-from-emanuel-brunisholz

This is government insanity. I was surprised to learn that it was in Switzerland, which I always thought of as being neutral on all things.

I guess the only consolation is that it publicizes this outrage, and that I imagine that Swiss prisons aren't so bad.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what%27s+prison+like+in+switzerland&pws=0&gl=us&gws_rd=cr#fpstate=ive&gws_rd=cr&vld=cid:c7de2e57,vid:BGqSIM033i8,st:25

[hobie]

Dear AI, are there any examples of censorship employed by the Trump administration?

"Removal of Government Data and Information: Federal agencies removed information from public websites related to climate change, environmental regulations, public health guidance (including information from the CDC during the COVID-19 pandemic), and LGBTQ+ healthcare. Lawsuits were filed to restore some of this data.

"Banned Words" Lists: Government agencies circulated lists of words and phrases that staff were reportedly prohibited from using in official documents and communications, including "diversity," "integrity," "transgender," "climate change," and "vulnerable".

Pressure on Media and Journalists: The administration restricted press access to White House events, denied press credentials to certain news organizations like The Associated Press, and used lawsuits and threats of regulatory action (via the FCC) against media outlets (e.g., ABC, CBS, NPR) over unfavorable coverage or commentary.

Censoring Historical and Cultural Information:
Exhibits on public lands that addressed Indigenous peoples, women's movements, and racism were removed.

Executive orders were issued that sought to influence K-12 curricula by excising teaching about historical discrimination.

The name of Denali was ordered changed back to Mount McKinley, erasing the Native American name, though this was opposed locally.

Targeting of Academics and Researchers: The administration threatened to withhold federal funding from universities to coerce compliance with specific policies and targeted international students involved in pro-Palestine protests for potential deportation or visa denial.

Visa Restrictions: The State Department issued a memo instructing staff to deny visas to H-1B applicants who had worked on fact-checking, content moderation, or other activities the administration classified as "censorship" of American speech.

(Of course none of that touches things like the removal of mentions of slavery at the Smithsonian and all US Military museums; the prohibition of teaching racial theory and slavery in public schools; and the Pentagon barring all journalists unless they promise to 'ask the right questions'.)

[ThePublius]

Whatabout.

[hobie]

Bro, it was total whatabout. That's my quota of one whatabout for the day.

[Sarcastr0]

Meets your strawman of no censorship in Europe quite well.

A fallacy for a fallacy.

[ThePublius]

I didn't establish a strawman, I was accurately describing what some on here have asserted. So, no fallacy.

As for the rest, is this Swiss guy's punishment the enforcement of censorship?

[Sarcastr0]

Find the comment that says there is "no censorship in Europe" and means that literally.

[Dr. Ed 2]

hobie, DID ANYONE GO TO JAIL????

There is a big difference between a government deciding what speech it will pay for and/or permit on property it owns and throwing citizens in jail for THEIR speech on THEIR property...

[hobie]

Dear AI, has anyone in the US been arrested for speech in 2025?

Mahmoud Khalil (Columbia Student): Arrested in March 2025, Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, was targeted by the Trump administration, which revoked his green card and sought his deportation, claiming his protests amounted to antisemitism and support for terrorism, sparking major free speech debates.

Mario Guevara (Journalist/Activist): Arrested in June 2025 while reporting on protests; while initially charged locally, he was detained by ICE, who argued his reporting on law enforcement was a danger, despite being a US citizen.

Rümeysa Öztürk (Tufts University): A Fulbright scholar arrested by ICE for co-authoring an op-ed critical of Israel and the Gaza war; her visa was revoked, leading to detention, though a judge later allowed her to resume studies.

Momodou Taal (Cornell University): A Ph.D. student whose visa was revoked; he sued the government, arguing free speech protections.

Leqaa Kordia (Columbia University): Arrested for alleged pro-Hamas protest involvement after her student visa was terminated for attendance issues.

Alireza Doroudi (University of Alabama): Arrested and detained, with his visa revoked under national security concerns, though his lawyer states he wasn't involved in protests.

[apedad]

'They want me to die here': Tina Peters floats pardon loophole to Trump for state election conspiracy case, lawyer says she's been attacked by prisoners as her release is rejected

Tina Peters, the first election official found guilty of a felony in connection with 2020 election conspiracy theories, believes critics and judges who have handled her case want her to waste away in "the hole" of solitary confinement, saying Tuesday that "They want me to die here," according to Peters' lawyer.

"The question of whether a president can pardon for state offenses has never been raised in any court," (Peters' lawyer Peter)Ticktin wrote. "The issue which needs to be answered whether our founders understood or intended when they wrote that the President had the Power to Pardon offenses against the United States, if it meant the states or only the federal government."

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/they-want-me-to-die-here-tina-peters-floats-pardon-loophole-to-trump-for-state-election-conspiracy-case-lawyer-says-shes-been-attacked-by-prisoners-as-her-release-is-rejected/

OK all you states-are-sovereigns people . . . you good with Peters/Peter position? (I'm not.)

[loki13]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall ... have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

...that's the answer right there. In the text.

See also Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925). It happens to discuss the addition of the phrase "against the United States" during the Constitutional Convention and that it was specifically inserted to make sure that there was no doubt that it could not apply to state court criminal proceedings.

The idea that the question of whether a President can pardon state offenses has never been thought about ... is pure bunkum, befitting the type of lying rhetoric that is purely for the masses who don't bother thinking very much about what they hear when they hear something they want to be true.

This is the dumbest timeline. I can't wait for the next MAGA brainstorm. "What if the Presidential term was ... 40 years, not 4? I'm pretty sure that is in the Constitution I want to be true!"

[David Nieporent]

I posted about this yesterday. Ticktin is a mortgage foreclosure defense lawyer who went to high school with Donald Trump and thus got to represent him in stuff. (He's also ethically challenged, which is par for the course wrt Trump.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

loti13 -- There's what the Constitution meant in 1791, and then what it means in 2025...

This was not true in 1791 but *today*, a Federal court has jurisdiction over an 8th Amendment claim. There probably are a bleepload of technicalities, but in general, this is true. Right?

And in 1791, the 8th Amendment was only intended to apply to Offences against the United States. Right?

Yet in 2025, state offenses are considered Offences against the United States in that they are regulated by the 8th Amendment (and 4th, 5th, etc). Right?

Well it's kinda like being half pregnant -- if state offenses are considered Offences against the United States under the US Constitution, then the Presidential Pardon power -- under the same document -- ought to apply as well.

Exactly why not? And because it didn't mean this in 1791 doesn't count....

[David Nieporent]

This was not true in 1791 but *today*, a Federal court has jurisdiction over an 8th Amendment claim. There probably are a bleepload of technicalities, but in general, this is true. Right?

No, it was true in 1791 that a Federal court had jurisdiction over an 8th amendment claim.

Yet in 2025, state offenses are considered Offences against the United States in that they are regulated by the 8th Amendment (and 4th, 5th, etc). Right?

Wrong in every respect.

[hobie]

"loti13 -- There's what the Constitution meant in 1791, and then what it means in 2025..."

Be careful, Ed. Originalism has gotten you all sorts of crazy rulings. Don't abandon it now.

[Bored Lawyer]

The president lacks the power to pardon for state offenses. Period.

However, to the extent that state incarceration violates some federal Constitutional right, the courts have authority to require the prisons to improve things. Usually such cases lose, but not always.

Whether she would have such a claim, I don't know.

[apedad]

Guess we'll find out.

"Justice Department Opens Investigation into Conditions of Colorado Prisons and Youth Facilities"

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-opens-investigation-conditions-colorado-prisons-and-youth-facilities

(from their letter to CO)

"During these investigations, the Department will determine whether Colorado engages in a pattern or practice of violating the constitutional rights of prisoners held at DOC facilities by failing to provide adequate medical care and safe and sanitary physical conditions of confinement, and whether Colorado violates the rights of detainees by failing to protect youth in DYS facilities
from use of excessive force and failing to provide adequate nutrition to detainees. The Department will also consider whether Colorado violates prisoners' and detainees' right to free exercise of
religion by housing biological males in units designated for females.

We have not reached any conclusions about the subject matter of the investigation. During the investigation, we will consider all relevant information, including the efforts Colorado has taken to ensure compliance with the Constitution. We encourage the State to cooperate with our investigation and assure you that we will seek to minimize any potential disruption our investigation may have on DOC and DYS operations."

[ducksalad]

The president lacks the power to pardon for state offenses. Period.

If he tries it, we'll get to see who changes their mind about this.

the courts have authority to require the prisons to improve things

He can appoint judges, they can give the orders he wants, and then he is in charge of interpreting and enforcing the court orders. Maybe he could order that Tina Peters be given a special zero-security 3500-sq ft cell that coincides with her home address, but with housekeeping and meals provided by state prison staff.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wasn't even going that far -- he (Bondi) could appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her complaints and quietly mention to the Governor that all of this would end, immediately, if she wasn't in custody anymore.

You don't even have to pardon her -- all you have to do is commute her sentence and all of this will go away...

Governor, your call...

I know what I would do -- and I'd do it even if honestly believed that each and every one of her complaints was totally unfounded because you never know what a intrepid special prosecutor will find. You gotta have someone with a drug problem, or a gambling problem, or fudging hours, or something -- no matter how tight a ship you run, there inevitably will be SOMETHING to find if you look hard enough.

Any competent administrator knows that...

[SRG2]

Not only is being the subject of violence in prison a foreseeable consequence of ending up there, sundry state and Fed admins have pretty much tolerated it as part of the claimed deterrent.

If Peters didn't want to subject herself to prison violence, she shouldn't have broken the law.

In addition to the Constitution, the history and tradition of the US is that the president has no such power.

[Estragon]

“subject of violence in prison a foreseeable consequence of ending up there”

Indeed, it is often viewed as a feature, not a bug, by denizens here.

[John F. Carr]

"They want me to die here"

Welcome to the American justice system. This time a white collar criminal got caught in the machine.

[Zarniwoop]

Interesting morning read: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5755424

Abstract
Many Americans are worrying about whether they will soon be living in a post-democracy autocracy. But in the meantime, they may already be living in a crypto-fueled kleptocracy. Less than one year into his second presidential term, Donald Trump has reportedly taken his wealth to new heights by embracing, both as a businessman and a politician, the crypto industry. Trump's family businesses are involved in minting Trump-themed meme coins, creating America-themed stablecoins, and mining for crypto assets—so successfully that most of Trump's wealth is likely now from crypto, not real estate. All the while, the Trump Administration is rolling back crypto regulations, abandoning ongoing crypto prosecutions, and pardoning crypto criminals.

But this Essay is not about Trump. Crypto creates new channels for public corruption that operate on autopilot, generating wealth without transactions, contracts, or promises for the law to easily pin down, prevent, or punish. Future politicians looking to convert public trust into private fortune need only follow this new playbook: adoption is cheap, monitoring is hard, and payouts can be tremendous. President Trump's second term makes vivid the potential for abuse, but the dangers won't end there. If the United States fails to adapt, we risk entrenching a twenty-first century kleptocracy where the boundary between political power and personal enrichment is no longer blurred—it is erased.

[Michael P]

"Many Americans" belong in mental institutions.

And the lady doth protest too much, with an opening half all about Trump followed by a sentence claiming "But this Essay is not about Trump."

[Bwaaah]

That abstract has all the hallmarks of contemporary academic scholarship.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing says liberal like badly supported contempt for academia!

[1. Don't judge scholarship by it's abstract
2. Some essays are scholarship. Not all essays are scholarship.]

[Bwaaah]

That abstract reeks of common conjecture. Maybe that type of scholarship informs your position. But for me, its already such trodden ground that it's lost in the already vibrant competition of opinions and pundits, much of which can also be said to be "scholarly."

I lean toward more sciency stuff. That kind of soft scholarship above, unoriginal, dime-a-dozen opinions, is the kind of stuff that undermines confidence in the authoritativeness, the objectivity, the creativity of academia. I mean, we're all experts in some respects, but rarely original enough or salient enough in our thinking to add substantively to significant debates.

That stuff...gimme a break. Assuming the abstract is competently written, as I do, there's nothing there that I haven't already considered at length. That's a quick "I'll pass" on that one from me.

You're free to feed on as much of that type of scholarship as you like. Looks like a dubious initiative to me.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just because an academic wrote something does not make it scholarship.

You are defending a political screed as scholarship.

[Sarcastr0]

Try again, Bob: "Some essays are scholarship. Not all essays are scholarship."

That is me agreeing that this isn't scholarship.

[hobie]

"Texas has launched a partnership with Turning Point USA to create chapters of the right-wing organization on every high school campus in the state. "

“Let me be clear: Any school that stands in the way of a Club America program in their school should be reported immediately to the Texas Education Agency,” the governor said, referring to the name of the high school clubs."

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/12/08/texas-turning-point-usa-greg-abbott-high-schools/

[Michael P]

What is it with you people and quotation marks? Why can't you get something as simple as quoting right?

[hobie]

Looks like the state picking televangelist winners and losers at the point of a government shotgun

[DDHarriman]

Sounds awesome!

[Sarcastr0]

This seems petty but also indefensible.

Partisan propaganda: now mandated in Texas public schools.

Kind of puts the lie to the complaints about indoctrination.

[A Japanese Student]

Government speech or viewpoint-discriminatory entitlement?

[Bwaaah]

Maybe both?

[CountmontyC]

After reading the article it sounds more like the governor is saying that blocking the club will not be tolerated not that the club will be required.

[hobie]

Basically...don't say anything against it.

Censorship

[Bwaaah]

Basically, not.

[hobie]

Last week, Pam Bondi issued a memo instructing the FBI to identify and list "extremists" in the U.S. for investigation and prosecution:

"These domestic terrorists use violence or the threat of violence to advance political and social agendas, including opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality; and an elevation of violence to achieve policy outcomes, such as political assassinations."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fbi-bondi-memo-extremists/

[Mr. Bumble]

Who are these people?
"The leftist mind in a nutshell. A white immigrant billionaire who makes rocket ships and electric cars is a “parasite” but an unemployed black Somali immigrant who scams the welfare system is an integral contributor to American culture who we must welcome and praise at all times."
https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1998564797194121230?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1998564797194121230%7Ctwgr%5E34d3b1d7a221dd12ee97b91de94d994fc4f524da%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F761470%2F

[Michael P]

London Mayor Sadiq Khan launched a campaign to promote "A City for All Londoners"* as part of the Greater London Association's efforts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sadiq-khan-white-family-official-website-b2396431.html

* White families not included.

[hobie]

Kinda like he's trying to erase London's white heritage.

[ThePublius]

Contrary to 'conventional wisdom:'

Mount Sinai Study Supports Evidence That Prenatal Acetaminophen Use May Be Linked to Increased Risk of Autism and ADHD

I attended a training seminar on autism conducted by renowned professionals in the field this week, and the PhD presenter made a parenthetical point by saying 'and, no, Tylenol doesn't cause autism.' But I think the jury is still out on that.

Diagnoses have skyrocketed in recent years. She rationalized it by saying that the definitions have changed, and more people are being diagnosed at younger ages.

(Note that the Somali fraudsters in Dearborn have an extraordinarily high rate of autistic kids, because - of course - you get more financial aid for this.
Why Is Autism Exploding? Welfare Fraud Is One Reason
.)

[ThePublius]

"In Minnesota, the number of autism providers soared 700%, and payments to them increased 3,000% between 2018 and 2023. According to a federal indictment, Asha Farhan Hassan set up the ABA therapy provider Smart Therapy, which employed young relatives with no formal education beyond a high school education as “behavioral technicians.”

Ms. Hassan and her business partners allegedly recruited parents by paying them monthly kickbacks of up to $1,500 a child. She worked with a licensed therapist “to get the recruited child qualified for autism services. There was no child that Smart Therapy was not able to get qualified for autism services,” according to the indictment.

She allegedly billed Medicaid for therapy that wasn’t provided and paid the kickbacks to parents out of the proceeds. “Often, parents threatened to leave Smart Therapy and take their children to other autism centers if they did not get paid higher kickbacks,” the indictment alleges. “Several larger families left Smart Therapy after being offered larger kickbacks by other autism centers.” Ms. Hassan’s lawyer has said that she will plead guilty."

ibid.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Human Rights Day is observed annually around the world on 10 December. It commemorates the anniversary of one of the world's most groundbreaking global pledges: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This landmark document enshrines the inalienable rights that everyone is entitled to as a human being - regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 and sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.

https://www.un.org/en/observances/human-rights-day

Eleanor Roosevelt was chosen by President Truman as part of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. She eventually helped craft the Declaration of Human Rights. It was a combination of positive and negative rights and a promise for the future.

The promise continues, though many wish to go another way.

(Including the current presidential administration, which feels it failed if it does not commit some sort of significant human rights violation each day.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In a discussion (one of the NYT "roundtable" pieces) regarding Trump v. Slaughter between Steve Vladeck and William Baude (with Kate Shaw moderating), Baude noted:

It’s amazing how many of our problems today could be solved by a Congress that was willing and able to legislate in response to national problems.

Josh Chafetz (professor of law and politics) on Bluesky, in part, noted:

First, when Congress has legislated in response to national problems, the Roberts Court has repeatedly either struck it down or interpreted it into a nullity. Congress gave us the Voting Rights Act and its reauthorizations; the Court gave us Shelby County, Brnovich, etc.

Congress gave us independent agencies; the Court is about to give us Kelly and has already given us PCAOB, Seila Law, etc. Congress gave us broad delegations of certain powers; the Court gave us the major questions doctrine.

The "willing and able" includes being able in the face of SCOTUS decisions, including, I might add, Trump v. U.S..

Each branch of government has its issues, but "won't Congress just act?" is a tad much.

https://archive.ph/9GnmM

[Sarcastr0]

Well put by Chafetz!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Chafetz’s book Congress’s Constitution is really great. Really made me appreciate Congress as an institution in the abstract. It’s really nice to see a law professor who isn’t so focused on the courts or executive.

And it’s a nice contrast to Vladeck and Baude (whose work I generally like) because their position is: the Court is doing X when it should be doing Y for all these legal reasons. While Chafetz’s position is more that courts suck generally and Congress should be more forceful in pushing back on them using their broad powers.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Vladeck wants Congress to reform the courts.

He argues Congress has the power to regulate the courts in various respects that will affect how they operate.

So, he isn't just court-focused in that sense.

[Bob from Ohio]

Vladeck wants Congress to make the courts liberal friendly.

Fixed your sentence. You are welcome

[Bob from Ohio]

"Steve Vladeck and William Baude"

No conservative available?

[grb]

This point was interesting:

Shaw : ".... But Justice Kagan raised an important practical question about this, noting that Congress has given a lot of power to agencies like the F.T.C., and it has done so with the understanding that the agencies would be headed by these bipartisan groups the president couldn’t just fire at will. As she pointed out, if you take away half of that bargain, you end up with huge unchecked power in the hands of the president. What did you make of that concern? Perhaps counterintuitively, would it be more restrained to blow up the agency entirely?"

[John F. Carr]

If there is no automatic succession, the president blows up the agency by reducing it below a quorum. If the President needs the agency running he has to be cautious removing its leadership. If he wants it dead, say the Election Commission is going after the President's party too much, he can kill it.

[Sarcastr0]

If the President needs the agency running

...have you met this President?
Have you heard the know-nothings around here talk about burning it all down?

You do not lay out a sustainable method by which to govern a republic.

[John F. Carr]

There are two ways the lack of independence can cause agencies to malfunction (from the point of view of a supporter of the administrative state).

One is by refusing to make regulations that lack political support. Say the bureaucrats want a $1 maximum overdraft fee. An independent CFPB could decree such a limit. Now the rule requires political backing, either the President or a majority in Congress. I don't think this is a problem. (I do approve of limiting overdraft fees. The lack of ability for an unaccountable bureaucrat to set a limit is not a problem for me.)

The other is by refusing to enforce laws that already exist. A private cause of action can reduce the enforcement deficit. See the National Environmental Policy Act. I don't like the way environmental impact statements have evolved. They are a precedent. Private causes of action don't work in the cases where nobody has standing to sue.

[Kazinski]

I made that point yesterday, all though I hadn't gotten to that part of the transcript yesterday.

But I thought the CFPB was probably the agency to try that on first because it was only 8 years old, not 100.

But then again maybe agencies should only live as long as people do.

[Estragon]

Another passage from the autobiography I have been reading. The author is describing spring 1933:

“Though it was not really relevant to current events, my father’s immense experience of the period from 1870 to 1933 was deployed to calm me down and sober me up. He treated my heated emotions with gentle irony. I must admit that calm skepticism has always had a stronger influence upon me than emotionally proclaimed conviction. It took me quite a while to realize my youthful excitability was right and my father’s wealth of experience was wrong; that there are things that cannot be dealt with by calm skepticism. I lacked the confidence to draw active conclusions from my feelings.

Perhaps, after all, I was exaggerating events. Perhaps it was best to hold steady and let things pass over me. The only place where I felt confident and sure of myself was at the courts, where I was protected by the paragraphs of the Civil Code and legal procedure. Though, for the moment the activities of the courts seemed to lack meaning, nothing had changed there. Maybe they would turn out to be durable and strong.

In this way, unsure of myself, temporizing, I performed my routine daily duties. At home, I gave way to fruitless and ridiculous outbursts at the dinner table. Excluded from events and passive like millions of others, I let events come at me.

And they did.”

The VC is a great example of the dinner table.

[SRG2]

This is funny - Rubio wants to remove Calibri and go back to Times New Roman. #priorities

Apparently Calibri was "woke".
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rubio-stages-font-coup-times-new-roman-ousts-calibri-2025-12-09/

This is pretty simple. Use Times New Roman - or other formal serif font - for printed communication, and Calibri - or other suitable sanserif font for online communications. Why? Because research shows that sanserif fonts are easier to read on a screen while serif fonts are easier to read on paper.

FWIW as I speak RP, I have joked that my accent is Times New Roman.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I hate both these decisions. Use a Helvetica for where sans-serif is appropriate and either Georgia or a Century (like SCOTUS) font for serif. Maybe Palatino.

Or they could be true greats like the Fifth Circuit and use Equity.

[SRG2]

How about Century for serif and Century Gothic for sanserif?

[Sarcastr0]

I had a boss that tried to make everyone go to Courier New.

That directive lasted a bit over a week.

[LawTalkingGuy]

People who use courier fonts:

Hipsters/aspiring screenwriters pretending they are using a typewriter;

Lawyers who haven’t updated their motions bank in 25 years;

The First Circuit.

[SRG2]

Hollywood still requires Courier...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Butterick on Times New Roman:

https://practicaltypography.com/a-brief-history-of-times-new-roman.html

[Bored Lawyer]

You cannot always tell how the person will read it. Legal briefs nowadays are filed online, and many judges just read them that way. Some do ask for paper courtesy copies, although that is a dwindling number, in my experience.

[ducksalad]

This is a legal blog and I have a general question for the actual lawyers here. It's not at all an original question, but it's relevant to stuff that got posted here yesterday and today. And it is not really about Trump or MAGA, please read to the end.

There is a licensing regime for lawyers. The rest of us laymen are forbidden from doing a large set of things, like represent someone else in court, or serve as a judge, on the basis that we don't know enough law.

Yesterday and today we've seen excerpts here of the letter attorney Peter Ticktin sent to the president, claiming among other outrageous things that the president can pardon state crimes. Well, you might say, he's an outlier and it'll catch up with him. Except that it hasn't. But never mind him. Even at the top level - say state vs federal attorneys general, or Supreme Court justices - we see lawyers claiming precisely opposite things about the most fundamental points in our law, including stuff written in the 1790s.

It appears to the layman that there is nothing at all, zero common facts about the law, that you lawyers agree upon. On any legal issue whatsoever a lawyer could take either side.

The question: what justification can you offer for the privileges your profession enjoys? Can you offer a single good reason why someone like Peter Tinktin has privileges and authority denied to intelligent law-abiding laymen? Does his license or yours indicate possession of any knowledge, standards, or skills with positive social value?

[Kazinski]

Peter Tinktin could get sanctioned if he made such a frivolous argument in a court, or even in paid representation to a client.

But he is free just like you to write a letter saying any bullshit he can think of as a private citizen.

However I agree that a lot of licensing restrictions are just a cartel restricting competition, like needing a license in Florida to be an interior decorator.

[ducksalad]

My understanding is that Tinktin represents Tina Peters. The letter he sent is on the letterhead of his law firm.

Regardless of whether he billed for that particular letter, people pay to send letters on such letterhead, and only people with a license are allowed to send a letter.

[David Nieporent]

There is a licensing regime for lawyers. The rest of us laymen are forbidden from doing a large set of things, like represent someone else in court, or serve as a judge, on the basis that we don't know enough law.

For the record, to be a federal judge you need to be nominated/appointed and receive 51 votes in the Senate. You don't need to be a lawyer, or even sentient. Some states do require that judges be lawyers.

[ducksalad]

Yes I know that. I think you understand what I'm really asking. It isn't whether judges are legally required versus practically required to be lawyers.

[loki13]

Ducksalad,

I will try to answer your question in good faith and to the best of my ability. However, this is just my opinion.

Let me start by saying the licensing not only provides special benefits (in economics terms, it's a barrier to entry), it also imposes a lot of special obligations. Not just the CLEs (although, ugh). But as an officer of the court, you have additional duties and responsibilities, you can be held to a higher standard, and you can be disciplined.

That's not nothing. Personally, I wish that there was even more "stick," as I think that other than certain bars and certain "easy" issues (felony convictions, trust accounts) we don't do enough to deter unprofessional behavior.

Next, I will not argue that all lawyers are good at what they do. Far from it. Some are ... I have stories. Also? HALLIGAN!!! (Sorry, couldn't resist). I also won't say that every single pro se person is the absolute worst nutter Natural Citizen/Prisoner.

...but. The thing is ... most lawyers, even most of the bad ones ... they know so much stuff that other people don't. Basic stuff- the procedural stuff. The ways that the various parts of the law "fit together." The reason that some cases are more "important" than other cases. True story- I was in a multiparty litigation and one person was pro se and couldn't understand why he got spanked doing his own research, but it was because he was citing all Conley v. Gibson cases in a Twiqbal world.

The thing is ... the vast majority of "law-like practice" isn't on the edges or extremes. It's dealing with legal issues and fact patterns that are pretty well known and understood. And most lawyers are well-trained in this, while a pro se litigant often won't understand why their fourth amended complaint just got dismissed with prejudice.

But to circle back to your question- there is a long debate about what to do with "frivolous" or "meritless" cases. Because ... well, the law does change. Most people will bring up the NAACP's litigation strategy- when they embarked on it, their endgoal (and the progress along the way) would have been considered frivolous litigation. It wasn't- it was an attempt in good-faith to argue for a modification or reversal of existing law.

That's the tension; how do you weed out the frivolous and meritless BS while leaving room for the good-faith arguments that the law should change? It's not easy. Personally, I happen to think that there has been increasing ... turbulence in "the rule of law," and "regular process," that I've seen, and it makes me queasy. I think that judicial minimalism and restraint has always been the foundational lodestar of good jurisprudence. But that's me.

[SRG2]

There's also the point that lawyers sometimes have to find arguments on behalf of their clients where no good legal argument exists, so they have to balance client demands with trying to avoid a totally meritless argument.

[ducksalad]

Loki, thanks for the well-considered answer. And just to be clear, in real life I'd use a lawyer if I got sued or arrested. But...

Ask two licensed physicians whether aspirin is an effective treatment for warts, I expect to get reasonably consistent answers.

Ask two licensed electrical engineers whether it's safe to put 40 Amps through an 18 gauge wire, I expect to get reasonably consistent answers.

Ask Loki and Tinktin whether I should apply to the President to pardon a state level conviction, I expect....whoops, no, not the same answer.

Ask Loki and Sauer and Bored Lawyer whether " subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the law or having genetically inherited loyalty to a sovereign or how your parents raised you, I expect.....whoops, no, not the same answer, in fact three different answers.

Ask Loki and Halligan whether the DoJ can simultaneously submit a no bill and an indictment for the same offense, I expect....whoops, not the same answer.

You, Bored Lawer, Sauer, Halligan and Tinktin all have law licenses. It seems to me those last three questions are things an everyday ordinary person needing help with their DWI or passport application should be able to expect lawyers, as a class, to answer consistently.

[David Nieporent]

Ask two licensed physicians whether aspirin is an effective treatment for warts, I expect to get reasonably consistent answers.

[...]

Ask Loki and Tinktin whether I should apply to the President to pardon a state level conviction, I expect....whoops, no, not the same answer.

This is a bad example. You can find people to say stupid shit for motivated reasons in any profession. This is like finding a doctor who will say that chelation cures autism.

[ducksalad]

I haven't studied the chelation-autism thing. I know people that did chelation for cancer and they had to go to Mexico because no doctor here would do it.

I can tell you that my licensing board has fined or suspended plenty of licensed engineers for giving incorrect technical information. Of course it usually starts with a client complaining, and maybe that is the difference. The lawyers are giving their clients what they asked for.

So OK, you have a point. If Tina Peters complained that Tinktin billed her to send that letter, would he be likely to suffer consequences?

If so, I concede the license has some use with respect to lawyers selling their advice to the public.

(PS My libertarian opinion is that people should be able to seek wacky treatments outside licensed medicine, or ask someone to build them an impossible free energy machine outside of license engineering, or ask someone to help them make a stupid legal argument outside of licensed law. But you have a license it should mean the state is certifying you don't do wacky and hopeless and stupid. In fact that should be all a license does in a free society.)

[loki13]

"You, Bored Lawer, Sauer, Halligan and Tinktin all have law licenses. It seems to me those last three questions are things an everyday ordinary person needing help with their DWI or passport application should be able to expect lawyers, as a class, to answer consistently."

Eh, I disagree.

To explain things, it helps to have a little background.

Let's start with the basics. You might have seen people joke about "Brettlaw." A nicer was to put it is this-

There is a difference between what the law is, and what people think the law should be. Descriptive (trying to describe the state of the law as it is) opposed to normative (my opinion about what the law should be). Descriptive is usually (somewhat) easy, but fairly boring. Normative is where people get their blood all angered.

Next, there is the difference between "settled law" (black-letter law) and unsettled law. Some issues are relatively easy, some aren't.

Next, there are jurisdictional issues; different states have different laws and caselaw (easy examples- community property state / marital property, or employment at will (with limited or many exceptions) or ... Montana). And states can be different than federal. And in the federal system, it's possible that the rule is different in different parts of the country (known as a "circuit split," or "Y'all take that 9th Circuit caselaw and don't dare cite it in E. D. Tex. unless you wanna be shot").

Next, different attorneys are better or worse at different areas. Talk to one attorney about McDonnell Douglas, and they'll say burden-shifting. Talk another, and they'll say ... um, airplanes?

Next, attorneys advocate for positions. And the ones that argue against black letter law or either very very bad (because they don't know any better) or ... very very good (because that's why they are paid the big bucks- as my favorite law school professor used to say, "Cravath doesn't hire you to regurgitate hornbook law."). A while back, I had to take an appeal of a case that an attorney eff'd up and missed a jurisdictional deadline (that means he killed the case dead). But despite the fact that I knew that the case should be dead, I was able to craft an argument that convinced the appellate court to remand and the case to proceed.

Of course, since that time I regularly use that jurisdictional deadline to kill other people's cases dead. Because judicial estoppel is about parties, not attorneys ... and this attorney likes to party. Suck it!

[ducksalad]

Loki (and DN and SRG), thanks for taking my rants and giving me serious responses. I appreciate it.

You probably guess that it was mostly about getting some frustration off my chest rather than actually suggesting your profession be abolished. Mostly.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“It seems to me those last three questions are things an everyday ordinary person needing help with their DWI or passport application should be able to expect lawyers, as a class, to answer consistently.”

They don’t actually need this at all. What they need is a lawyer to tell them their range of options on how to handle the DUI charge based on their knowledge of DUI law, the facts of the specific case, and their experience, if any, with a particular court or prosecutor or police officer.

There are some things in law that would be answered consistently by lawyers: what is a contract? What are the elements of negligence? Etc. But out of all the millions who can do that, only a few of them are going to be good for a specific DUI that someone has.

So even if lawyers could answer your three questions consistently, it wouldn’t really matter at all to their value to you when you’re facing a specific legal issue.

[Bwaaah]

IANAL

Lawyering is a categorically different function from doctoring, or engineering, or other rigorous licensing categories. The very nature of able adversarial advocacy, and arguments rendered therefor, is to serve the interests of parties in unique times and contexts. The lawyer's job is to zealously conjure tactical positions, subject to ethical constraints, in a manner that most advances his party's interests.

For doctors and engineers, facts are used as a basis for advancing helpful agreements. But for a lawyer to be performant, facts and history are selectively prospected for the purpose of advancing helpful differences, i.e. ones that don't offend the bar but otherwise benefit their party.

It's helpful in significant measure (e.g. re: efficiency, reliance interests, reduced misunderstandings, etc.) for legal processes in general, and courtrooms in particular, to be operated in accordance with established procedures and laws. Despite the necessary differences between opposing parties, there's still a tremendous amount of cooperative engagement between skilled [licensed] lawyers that's based upon significantly shared understandings of procedures and laws (and history).

Able lawyering brings the advantages of shared understandings, and at the same time, helpful differences, optimally in the most effective proportions of each. But demand that they agree? No. The practice demands more than that.

(And reminder: words are words, complex word arrangements are complex, and language, except in engineering realms, tends to be non-deterministic.)

[Armchair]

Because Duck,

It's not really about the "law". It's about the procedure and forms. Ask a lawyer, and they can argue either side of a the law...or a third side entirely.

But they'll write it up according to the same forms, submission procedures, boxes to check, dots to dot, and crosses to cross. That they'll all agree on.

[Bwaaah]

I said that, but in a lot more words.

🙂

[ducksalad]

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT’S TRUMP GOLD CARD IS HERE TODAY! A direct path to Citizenship for all qualified and vetted people. SO EXCITING! Our Great American Companies can finally keep their invaluable Talent. Live Site opens in 30 minutes!
trumpcard.gov

[grb]

"An official website of the United States government"

https://trumpcard.gov/

[ThePublius]

Random observations:

Good, 'professional quality' oil paints are expensive! I mean, like a 37ml (1 1/4 oz.) tubes can run from $12 to $30 depending on color. I was shocked. There are less expensive lines, but I thought life is too short to mess with cheap paint.

Chinese products have really come way up in quality. 25 years ago or so I bought an Italian made easel. Today it goes for $165, if you can find it. I bought a much more fully featured Chinese 'studio easel' for $95. Despite the fact that it was like assembling Ikea furniture, it is really superb. Very high quality boxwood, good fasteners, etc. It rolls around easily, has locking casters, too. Can handle a huge canvas (not a life-size canvas like Stuart's portrait of Washington). Very happy. (Vendor is Vevor.)

Oil paints take a long time to dry; I mean, like years. That can be good, as you can reverse things and try again. Acrylics can dry very fast - I mean, like as you're applying them!

I'm trying paint by numbers. I know, sounds silly, but it's fun and time consuming, in a good way. Some vendors, like Number Artist, are very good, and economical, in my opinion. It's like jigsaw puzzles, only different. I bought a 'buy two, get on free' deal, but unframed. So, I had to get some stretchers to mount them. I did so by buying inexpensive, stretched, primed canvases and removing the canvas. It was cheaper than buying stretchers!

Good brushes are expensive. I'm not so sure it's worth it. The cheap ones seem to work well.

Painting is hard. I give a lot of credit to painters, especially portrait painters, like Gilbert Stuart.

[grb]

1. At least the prices are consistent per category. Back in the day (and I mean the Renaissance), some particular colors were vastly more expensive than others because of their source material. For instance, Ultramarine blue was made from ground lapis lazuli stone (imported from Afghanistan), and often cost more than gold. Thus it was typically used for divine figures like the Virgin Mary as a sign of status. Other costly hues included rich reds from cochineal or Brazilwood.

2. Of course there's also Tyrian purple from antiquity, which was used to dye cloth. It was made from sea snails and would take twelve thousand of the little beasties to color one garment. That's why you might lose your head if a Roman emperor caught you flashing purple threads. That shade was reserved for your betters.

3. I'm a collector of Japanese woodblock prints from the late Edo and Meiji Era. Of financial necessity, I have frequently bought cheaper prints (and of dubious printing dates) that often have horrid and garish shades of blue, red, and green - vs woodblocks from the heart of the Shogun period which have delicate and beautiful pastel shades. The change came because the Japanese began importing European inks and became gaga over their truly hideous colors. There's even a minor genre of print called "aizuri-e" (Japanese: 藍摺絵 "blue printed picture") that are printed entirely in blue and became popular after Prussian Blue inks first appeared. (I don't have one of those).

4. Yep, acrylics dry fast. But it could be worse. If you were a Renaissance artist painting - say - the Sistine Chapel, you would lay down a patch of wet plaster (intonaco) equal to one day's work (giornate). In that period (usually about 6-1/2hrs) you'd have one shot to get things right before the plaster dried. Otherwise, you'd be back at it next day, chiseling the failed work off ceiling or wall. That restriction is oils became so popular.

5. Dare I suggest credit to painters like Masaccio, Botticelli, Rembrandt, Cezanne, Picasso & Braque?

[ThePublius]

Great reply, very interesting! Thanks.

I was privileged to have a private tour of the Sistine Chapel, with a small group of colleagues and some customers. Wow, it was great. It was after it had been cleaned, but they left one small part uncleaned so visitors could appreciate the difference. It was stunning.

[Ridgeway]

One other nitpick -- oil paints don't dry, they cure

[Bob from Ohio]

US seizes oil tanker off Venezuela bound for Cuba

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/10/us-seizes-venezuelan-oil-tanker-00685289

[hobie]

Just like the Somalis do!

[grb]

It's totally bizarre. TACO Trump isn't going to invade Venezuela and Maduro knows it. That isn't a one-hundred percent certainty because we're dealing with a (U.S.) leader suffering severe cognitive decay (and he barely had half a brain before the rot set in). Plus one embarrassing disclosure from the Epstein files might send the troops on their way.

But it's still improbable. Instead we'll have an endless series of petty bully bullshit so Trump can prove his (personal anatomy) is bigger than the Venezuelan leader's. It's so humiliating to have such a clownish buffoon as president.

I was in Italy a few months back and even the Italians were smirking and rolling their eyes. When Italians (of all people) are doing that, you know your country is an international laughingstock.

[hobie]

Gawd, in my little village in Portugal, because the Portuguese are so gentle, they wouldn't dare say anything to me (the token American). But since 2016, they all look(ed) at me in disbelief. They literally cannot believe how stupid I am. Me telling them how I vote wouldn't make a difference. No one wants anything to do with America anymore.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe it's just you.

[grb]

No, Bumble. You may pretend Trump isn't a addled halfwit clown. All your rightie friends may devote every waking hours to maintaining that pretense. But the rest of the world has no incentive to ignore the plain & obvious. They see the once-great United States led by a banana republic-grade buffoon.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then why bare you here?
Go homeif it's so great.

[Mr. Bumble]

Boy that was sloppy.

[grb]

Yeah. A bit. Sometimes when I get excitable the grammar goes straight to hell.

Also: I'm as home as I'll ever be. Born, bred, and raised.... Though I was just looking at the Bondi list on "domestic terrorism" and now worry about my standing as an American citizen. After all, the goons are coming for ya if you:

1. Voice opposition to the current immigration policy.
2. Are "Anti-Christian"
3. Are "Anti-Capitalist"
4. Are "hostile" to "traditional views on family, religion, and morality"
5. Support "radical gender ideology".

Along with a bunch other thought crimes. Hell, you'll probably get tackled by masked thugs and thrown into the back of a van if you support the Calibri font. Remember, Rubio just said that typeface is "woke".

If self-dignity & integrity reassert itself, Bumble, you're welcome to join us normal people in describing this as lunacy. Unlike RFK Jr, I don't claim expertise in every kind of treatment and therapy. But I gotta believe some time outside the Cult would do ya good.

[David Nieporent]

For the dumbasses: THIS is what piracy looks like.

Smuggling: not piracy.
Seizing other people's ships/cargo: piracy.

[Armchair]

You think this is piracy?

[David Nieporent]

Theft of ships and cargo is literally what piracy is.

[ThePublius]

Veal. The other, other white meat. Mmmmmm....

Eat it now before it's outlawed. And have pâté de foie gras as an appetizer. And after dinner, cheese from unpasteurized milk. Be a food rebel.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not a vegan or anti-meat but veal is something I just can't do.
Years ago (and I do mean YEARS) I had to make some deliveries to a slaughter house and the sight of those calves and their cries while they awaited their fate just stuck with me.
I substitute pork for veal in most dishes.
Make my own cutlets from pork loin and no one has been able to tell the difference.

[SRG2]

Paté de foie gras? Why not actual foie gras?

And veal is too bland and mild. Give me leg of lamb, goose, etc.

[ducksalad]

64 and have never tasted goose in my entire life. Saw a frozen one at the HEB, and it seems my wife and I will be on our own this holiday, so I'm thinking to have a traditional Christmas goose when no innocent bystanders could get hurt.

Any advice? Is it more like roasting a chicken, or more like a turkey? Is it seldom served because it's rare and expensive, or because it tastes bad?

[Mr. Bumble]

Rare?
No Canada geese where you live? Call hobie and maybe one of his Haitian homies can get you one with cooking instructions.

[ducksalad]

There's a lake at the city park, about a hundred geese on it but I doubt any of them have been to Canada. Never seen one get off the ground, and most look too fat to waddle out of the park even if the gate's left open. They actually look liked they'd have some decent amount of meat on them.

[grb]

Sounds perfect for those Haitians tired of eating pet dog and cat!

[Mr. Bumble]

"... but I doubt any of them have been to Canada."
Descendants of illegal Canadian alien geese.

[grb]

OK: I'm now picturing a bunch of half-trained & oafish masked ICE goons chasing around a flock of squawking fowl. Makes as much sense as anything in the loony-tunes clown-show that's Donald Trump's America.

[Mr. Bumble]

To make your picture complete visualize the "goons" slipping and sliding all over the place on the goose shit covered ground wherever you find these interlopers.

[David Nieporent]

Needs more Benny Hill music.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's seldom served because they're not fast growing, and the feed conversion ratio is bad, so they're inherently expensive. (If you're not free ranging them, anyway; I get mine from a farmer friend who does that.)

It's VERY fatty. There are all sorts of ways of dealing with that, such as pricking it all over and steaming it before a final roast to crisp the skin. Be sure to save the rendered fat, it is superb for cooking. If that's what you really want, this recipe should work.

My personal preference is to not cook it whole, but instead to cook the legs as confit, grill the breasts as though they were steak, and use the rest for soup.

If it's just the two of you I'd suggest doing that, you'll get multiple meals with each part of the goose cooked ideally. It's really hard to get the whole bird cooked right at the same time, and medium rare goose breast is rather like a good steak.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "It's VERY fatty"

Sounds like duck. Every once in a while I do a duck, but it seldom comes off. The bird turns out dry if you even look at it crossways.

[Brett Bellmore]

Geese are like ducks, only more so. Heavy layer of fat, all dark meat, but the meat itself is pretty lean.

That's why you don't want to roast a duck whole. There's hardly any way to get the whole thing properly cooked at the same time, but they're easy to do right in pieces.

Seriously, try grilling the breasts medium rare, as though they were steaks. And duck confit is wonderfully tender.

[SRG2]

I've never had a problem with duck turning out too dry when I've cooked the whole ducl.

[hobie]

Brett is correct. Gotta cook duck and goose breast like a steak: mid-rare. Otherwise you might as well be cooking chicken thighs. But if you just want something to chew on...then cook well.

[ducksalad]

Thanks for the advice. Might try that considering that I usually can't get all parts of a turkey right at the same time. My wife's upbringing is such that even a tiny hint of pink puts her off, but then if it's like steak I guess we could cook the two halves of the breast differently.

[Brett Bellmore]

Be sure to leave the skin on the breasts. I'd recommend curing the breasts as though for confit even if you're grilling them, it's the best way to season them.

This is the recipe we use, for chicken, duck, turkey, or goose leg quarters. It works for all of them, you just need to scale according to the weight, and give them longer in the fridge if they're larger.

It's a great recipe for slow cookers! And be sure to save the fat afterwards, we use it for all sorts of cooking, including several passes of confit. Usually have one or two mason jars of confit fat in the fridge at any given time.

[SRG2]

It's neither like roasting a chicken nor a turkey.

The day before you intend to cook it, bring a large pot of water to the boil, turn off the gas and put the goose in, making sure it's fully covered. Let the water cool down, take out the goose and pat dry. Then put it somewhere cool overnight - top shelf of a fridge is doable, but then take it out earlier than otherwise.

Before roasting, prick the skin all over, and then place in a rack on the roasting pan. For the first hour, cook at a low temp to let the fat run out, then turn up to a medium heat and start basting. I alternate with basting with the fat - to crisp the skin - and a honey soy mix, but it's up to you. You can stuff it if you like. I've sometimes used a stuffing of wild rice and chestnuts. The usual rule is 15 to 20 minutes a pound.

The fat that comes off should be used when you roast the potatoes you are required to have with it. (Only barbarians will have mashed potatoes with a roast goose.) Some people recommend roasting it breast down, but TBH I've not bothered and it turns out fine. There's usually enough fat above the breast to keep the goose moist.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious. What does the boiling water bath contribute?

[Brett Bellmore]

Helps assure the skin crisps up.

[SRG2]

And helps the fat melt faster

[ducksalad]

Thanks. The complexity is starting to scare me, you and Brett are obviously pretty serious about this stuff.

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course there is always the turkey fryer.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"The complexity is starting to scare me, you and Brett are obviously pretty serious about this stuff."

Seriously! I found Brett's 4 leg duck confit recipe very interesting and probably at the high-end of my skill level, certainly my experience. But what really bad could happen?
Life is short.

[ducksalad]

But what really bad could happen?

Every marriage is unique.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Après le confit de canard le déluge.

[Bwaaah]

Nice!

[Bunny495]

Agree with the advice that a goose is two different animals glued together. Cooking the breast and legs require different approaches that others have detailed. Growing up with relatives who were ranchers and farmers I always enjoyed when they served goose but it was never cooked whole.

[hobie]

A Notice by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on 12/10/2025 to the Federal Register:

Mandatory requirements for all tourists (Jewish, Muslim, tranny or otherwise) to visit Disney World or otherwise:

3. Mandatory Social Media:

In order to comply with the January 2025 Executive Order 14161 (Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats), CBP is adding social media as a mandatory data element for an ESTA [Electronic System for Travel Authorization] application. The data element will require ESTA applicants to provide their social media from the last 5 years.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/10/2025-22461/agency-information-collection-activities-revision-arrival-and-departure-record-form-i-94-and

[hobie]

In unrelated news from July 2025, Forbes:

"U.S. Tourism Will Lose Up To $29 Billion As Visitors Plummet Amid Trump Policies"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/07/03/us-tourism-lose-29-billion-trump-policies/

[grb]

Your article may have mentioned it (paywalled to me), but starting 01Jan, foreign visitors to U.S. National Parks face massively higher fees: A new $100 per-person surcharge at 11 popular parks on top of entry fees.

Of course that's just Trump doing his typical braindead shtick. The imbecile first decided to get revenge on the rest of the world by imposing new taxes on American consumers with his tariffs. Now he's showing who's boss by gutting our tourist industry.

I might ask how rightwingers support such dumbassery, but the answer is obvious. They think it's a hilariously entertaining lark to watch Trump sabotage this country day-by-day, tourist industry included.

[ducksalad]

Haven't been through a national park entry booth in maybe 10 years. Last time I entered one it was unmanned self-service, drop an envelope in a box and put the stub on the dashboard.

Are they now doing full airport where you have to show ID and answer questions? If not, how do they know who is foreign?

Not interested in going if it's going to be TSA-ish papers-please crap.

[Bunny495]

"A new $100 per-person surcharge at 11 popular parks on top of entry fees."

The key phrase is popular parks. Not sure how often (or if) you have been to some of these parks but as an example Yellowstone sometimes closes it's gates when the number of tourists reaches a certain limit. From my experience the national park at Dry Tortugas is the hardest one to get into. The fast boat that travels from Key West every day (weather permitting) sells out all it's seats six months in advance. As soon at the online ticketing opens up all the tickets are sold out in hours at best and it is not unheard of them being sold out in minutes. On the other had other parks you simply drive into and payment is on the honor system with a drop box. As Econ 101 teaches it is supply and demand.

[Estragon]

This approaches a sensible comment but the $100 for foreigners is ridiculously destructive on the tourism front. Rural communities in Wyoming hardest hit— which is on brand for Trump and co. Permit lotto or other less nakedly anti-tourist policies strike me as more reasonable. North America has naturally unique features that should be shared with all from across the globe. We were the land of the free last time I checked.

[grb]

Bunny495 : "From my experience the national park at Dry Tortugas is the hardest one to get into. The fast boat that travels from Key West every day (weather permitting)..."

Here's a fun fact on the personal front: The Ex and myself were married at Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas, doing the deed on the rampart at that little stub-lighthouse. We had a small wedding party and everyone save my sister did the 69mi on the boat. She went by seaplane and saved herself from some rollicking waves. Yes, I got seasick on my wedding day, but the effects were gone by the time I got into the tux (aside from bride and groom, dress was casual in the extreme).

I'm pretty certain we were legally married, but our Key West preacher was casual in the extreme too. After the service, he stretched out on the beach, consumed some libations, and got horribly sunburned after falling asleep. I brought my mask & fins because the snorkeling is supposedly stellar. But by the time the photos were done, it was time to reboard. Ultimately, weddings are for the photographer

[LawTalkingGuy]

At first glance I figured that FIFA and IOC would pressure/bribe Trump to stop this. But then I realized that he’s 1. probably checked out 2. the evil dorks behind this can’t be pressured by sportsball people 3. given the corrupt nature of those organizations and the authoritarian nature of many participating regimes…they might not actually care if their wealthy travelers are monitored by US intelligence for anti-US beliefs.

[grb]

I'm guessing they thought the cute little trophy would do the trick. It was made of gold after all.

[John F. Carr]

Defendant: The arresting officer gave warnings to 69.9% of white drivers but only 64.2% of black drivers. End this racist prosecution!
Prosecutor: The arresting officer found you passed out behind the wheel of a running car obstructing traffic in the parking lot of a tire store.
Verdict: Selective enforcement claim rejected, guilty of OUI.

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 24-P-825 in the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-lewis-ac-a24p825/download

Footnote 10 is misleading. Massachusetts' drunk driving law applies on parking lots of businesses open to the public. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant drove on a public way to get there.

[grb]

Trump today, while discussing the latest rate cut:

"We have a dead head Fed hair"

See, when you have dementia or some other kind of accelerating cognitive decay, random neurons fire off in your brain. This results in stray unconnected words strung together without meaning. It's why Trump can't talk any length of time without wandering off into bizarre non sequiturs or patchwork gibberish. It's why foreign leaders often sit by Trump's side staring at their shoes in embarrassment as the U.S. President rambles on about the dangers of windmills, the special history of the word "groceries", or a railroad to Hawaii. What's left of Trump's brain has gone off the rails and any hope of reasoned thought is gone. They have to just wait it out, hoping some kind of rationality reemerges.

So why aren't Trump supporters upset about this humiliating spectacle? Why aren't they concerned about his obvious mental illness? Their cult demigod can barely put two sentences together without wandering off into incoherent babble. Don't they care?

They don't. It's entertainment to them. Presidents from the hated "elite" speak in whole thoughts and make rational points. They think it's great fun theirs doesn't.

[Sarcastr0]

ICE Has A Plan To Arrest Undocumented Migrants Voluntarily Leaving U.S.: Memo
“Operation Irish Goodbye,” as it’s being called, could be aimed at boosting numbers for Trump’s much-hyped deportation campaign.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ice-plan-undocumented-immigrants-border_n_69371e0ce4b0020dff816622?njp

[ducksalad]

I always suspected that those Kristi Noem ads offering free tickets if you download the self-deport Home App were just to gather names and locations for the round-ups.

[Brett Bellmore]

From your own link:

"Travelers who have no immigration or criminal records and who don’t pose a public-safety risk would be considered “voluntary returns” to their home countries. Others would be processed according to their current immigration cases, the document states, suggesting they would be detained and face formal deportation proceedings."

This isn't about goosing numbers, it's about documenting illegal presence, so that they can be subsequently barred from legal entry. And for the latter group, subjected to criminal charges if they're ever caught in the country again.

In fact, the article mentions this.

By the way, Trump is not actually falling short of Biden on deportations. Rather, Biden, like Obama before him, reclassified turnbacks at the border as "deportations" to goose HIS numbers. Trump has very few turnbacks at the border, because he's actually got it secured, so it's all real deportations.

[Sarcastr0]

lol ok Brett. Great use of resources.

You don’t really care about even deportations anymore. Welcome to the MAGA personality cult. Good luck getting your political identity back.

[Brett Bellmore]

I realize that you think any resources spent on enforcing a law you personally dislike are wasted, but you can go pound sand.

[loki13]

No, Sarcrasto accurately diagnosed your problem.

It's the same thing, always. You somehow (the "Big Brain") concoct theories that are "just so" (the term is ipse dixit) that explain what you want to be true, while also concocting outlandish theories to explain away what you don't want to hear.

The thing in front of you? Can't be true.

The numbers from the past? Must be false.

For those of who lived through it, we remember that Obama deported a lot of people- and the numbers back it up. It was controversial at the time. How many? Well, I'd give you the numbers or tell you to look it up, but you don't believe numbers or stats, or even your lying eyes. I mean, we all remember your whole saga with Obama's birth-

He wasn't born here.
Then ... well, he wasn't born here, or at least the documents can't prove it because Brett didn't actually see him being born.
Then ... well, maybe he might have been born here, but it was an elaborate Democratic operation to make the GOP look stupid.

[grb]

Trump in Pennsylvania on "Affordability" :

"You can give up certain products. You could give up pencils. Because under the China policy, every child can get thirty-seven pencils. They only need one or two. They don't need that many. You always need steel. You don't need thirty-seven dolls for your daughter. Two or three is nice. So we're doing things right."

Three Points :

1. With messaging that sharp, I can't wait 'til the midterms.
2. Heard about China's One-Child policy, never their Thirty-Seven-Pencil one.
3. "For your kid, not his", says the link below. Ya gotta see the pic.

https://x.com/MattGertz/status/1998564907709804576/photo/1

[Michael P]

The kind of hero America needs: https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/1998781179793637707

It's very sad that he got stabbed in the chest over it.

[grb]

There are few things certain in life, but here's one: Until the racists get a new playtoy, I'm sure to hear about every single crime committed by any immigrant anywhere in the United States. I'm betting it's much like the old days with Der Stürmer: There was probably a time every Good German was convinced every single crime was by a Jew, they were highlighted and emphasized so.

That said, yes, Kenyon Dobie is a hero. Godspeed on his recovery.

[Michael P]

It's always telling to find out who thinks "illegal immigrant" is a race.

[Magister]

Jews in 1930s Germany were not a race, but were viewed through a racist lens by Nazis. It's unlikely that Donald Trump was referring to white illegal immigrants when he talked about vermin poisoning our blood. And the Supreme Court now allows stops based on apparent race or ethnicity, which was important enough to the administration to appeal the lower court decision that barred that.