Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

R.I.P. Rob and Michele Reiner, who were found dead in their Los Angeles home. Authorities are investigating this as a homicide.

[bloocow2]

Yeah, this one was heartbreaking, especially considering how they died. There's so much quality in that filmography.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Imagine how things would have been different if Sharon Tate hadn't been murdered, with her being Roman Polanski's wife.

[David Nieporent]

Ok: I think the U.S. would have a permanent, full time colony on the moon by now.

[darkknight9]

Without him, no Princess Bride.

Godspeed.

[Krayt]

Goodnight, Shoe-Booty.

[Both Sides]

I remember that episode. Great stuff.

Also, "The Princess Bride," "Stand By Me," and "This is Spinal Tap" are all outstanding films.

[grb]

"The Princess Bride" is an absolute treasure.

[David Nieporent]

You can't handle the truth.
Men and women can't be friends.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'll have what she's having.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That was her biological mother.

[bernard11]

It was Reiner's mother.

[David Nieporent]

It was not. I mean, I'm not sure who the antecedent of "her" is supposed to be in Dr. Ed's comment, but it was Rob Reiner's mother, and Rob Reiner, I am pretty sure, identified as male.

(I guess it was Rob Reiner's sister's biological mother, but we have to strain pretty far to get that out of Dr. Ed's comment since nobody has mentioned Rob Reiner's sister.)

[Roger S]

Who would have a motive to kill them? Was it a robbery gone bad? I hope we learn more soon.

[bloocow2]

One report said it was his son, who suffered from mental illness. That isn't confirmed yet, though.

[not guilty]

Reiner was an outspoken liberal. I hope that this was not related to his political views.

[Commenter_XY]

Very sad their lives were extinguished on the first night of Hanukkah.

To their family: Min haShamayim tenuhamu

[Frank Drackman]

It wasn't.

[not guilty]

Frank, the only way you could know that is if you were the killer, which I assume that you were not. What basis of knowledge do you claim here?

[Frank Drackman]

That something like 0.1% of murders are over Political Views. They said the same shit when Cosby's kid was murdered, KKK, White Surpremercists, turned out to be a run of the mill "Robbery gone wrong". If it was you or me who got robbed/murdered the guy would have gone free years ago. Only reason Gavin New-Scum hasn't paroled him is, you know why.

Frank

[not guilty]

IOW, your information comes from Otto Yourazz.

[Frank Drackman]

You should know, you're Otto's all time biggest Customer!
Face it, "Not Guilty" you should call yourself "Not Funny Loser" at least then it'd be accurate, You can't win, you can't beat me, that's why I'm me and you're you, I'll always be a (Funny) Winner, and you'll always be a (Not Funny) Loser.

Frank

[not guilty]

A hit dog will holler. https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/a-hit-dog-will-holler/

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks for proving my point loser, and just to let you know, I'm on to the "Slipping a Micky" Trick.
Go ahead and send Julia Louis-Dreyfuss to try and slip me one anyway.

Frank

[Michael P]

It is still very soon after the murders, but most current accounts indicate their son Nick as the leading suspect. It seems unlikely that politics would have been his motive for killing them.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm confused, I thought their son was "Joey" and his wife was "Gloria".
Just trying to show what a good Actor he was, in fact eerily, MeTV runs AITF reruns Sunday nights, and last night was the "Very Special" 2-part episode where Meathead and a Female Impersonator get mugged (and the Impersonator murdered) Edith/Dingbat renounces her faith questioning why a Loving God would allow such injustice (Because there's not one, but I digress), and Mike gets her to reconsider, giving a very (no Homo) moving soliloquy.
Back before the Internets when we didn't know every Actors politics I wouldn't have been surprised if Meathead was a Conservative (or at least for low taxes), seeing that Carrol Oconnor was a lifetime Liberal (somewhere on Youtubes there's a video of Archie Bunker supporting McGovern for POTUS)

Frank

[not guilty]

The nature of God -- or at least that of Yahweh as described in the Hebrew Bible -- is problematic for many.

How is a deity who is said to have engineered the Great Flood and the Tenth Plague worthy of being worshipped?

The First Commandment presupposes the existence of multiple deities. Psalm 82:1 (RSV) states, "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment".

Given the stark contrast between the villainous, angry and jealous Yahweh, who commanded genocide and slavery, and the benevolent figure whom Jesus referred to as his Father, can we be sure that they are one and the same?

[Riva]

I am quite sure you are not a Christian Not Guilty. That in and of itself is not the real objectionable thing about your comments in these threads on the topic. The real vile thing about your comments is the effort to undermine the Faith, however childishly ignorant your efforts are.

[not guilty]

You have no clue, Riva. I am indeed a Christian believer, reared among fundamentalists. I understand that mindset, and I am glad that its adherents find comfort therefrom. But organized religion has done great harm as well as good, and I am neither blind nor naïve as to either category.

I was still a fundamentalist when I reached voting age and decided to affiliate with the Democratic Party during the mid-1970s. It was largely because of my religious upbringing that I realized that any political party that would nominate Richard Nixon five times is evil. Nothing that I have seen since has led me to reconsider my affiliation.

[Riva]

Spare me your bullshit Not Guilty. Christians do not reject the divinity of Christ. Nor do they endorse pantheism. You need help, both spiritual and mental.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I'm confused, I thought their son was "Joey" and his wife was "Gloria"."

Yeah, last I heard Gloria was living in a small town in Connecticut. I hope she's OK.

[not guilty]

Riva, when do you claim that I have ever rejected the divinity of the Christ?

And did the psalmist in chapter 82 get it wrong with "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment"?

[Riva]

The question is what Not Guilty has gotten wrong. To be a Christian is believe that Christ is the way and the truth and the life. Not a way. Again, I have no idea what you believe, but you are not Christian. And advancing Old Testament psalms out of context in childish attempts to cast aspersions on fundamental Christian principles belies any attempt to engage in an honest exchange.

[not guilty]

" To be a Christian is believe [sic] that Christ is the way and the truth and the life. Not a way. Again, I have no idea what you believe, but you are not Christian. And advancing Old Testament psalms out of context in childish attempts to cast aspersions on fundamental Christian principles belies any attempt to engage in an honest exchange."

Riva, you have no clue as to my religious beliefs. You would, however, do well to heed the words of Jesus the Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew Chapter 7 (RSV):

“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

"Christ" is not Jesus's name; it is his title, as in Jesus, the Christ. I have never denied Jesus's divinity. I do have my doubts as to whether the deity Jesus refers to as his father is Yahweh, the cruel and murderous villain of the Hebrew Bible (a/k/a the Old Testament). The Hebrew scriptures clearly refer to multiple deities, as I have pointed out.

[Riva]

You believe in multiple “gods”?

[Estragon]

“It seems unlikely that politics”

The President disagrees with you.

[Michael P]

Wrong. And you need psychiatric help.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You sure about that?

https://x.com/phil_lewis_/status/2000582227185266718?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

[Estragon]

“due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME,”

[LawTalkingGuy]

He’s practically implying that a supporter did it, which is, uh, something.

[Estragon]

Perhaps. You, on the other hand, may be beyond helping.

NYPost calls these comments “bizarre [and] rambling,” FWIW. A possibly useful comparison would be to Don’s comments about Paul Pelosi— to measure the progression of disinhibition.

https://nypost.com/2025/12/15/us-news/trump-suggests-murdered-rob-reiner-drove-people-crazy-with-trump-derangement-syndrome/

[grb]

Trump:

"A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood," Trump said in a post on Truth Social Monday morning. "Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS."

Which is ironic. My own personal position is you should never speak ill of the just-deceased as basic decency. Whatever issues you have with the person's life can just wait a few days (if they have to be said at all). But I've always recognized the severest test of this maximum will come with DJT's demise, he being the most loathsome person around above the level of serial killer or cannibal.

Yet even with him, I'll follow my stricture - despite Trump himself being too contemptable a nothing of a human being to show the same restraint.

[not guilty]

"My own personal position is you should never speak ill of the just-deceased as basic decency. Whatever issues you have with the person's life can just wait a few days (if they have to be said at all). But I've always recognized the severest test of this maximum will come with DJT's demise, he being the most loathsome person around above the level of serial killer or cannibal."

During the time that Ronald Reagan passed away, I was co-host of a radio call in talk show discussing legal topics. When the other hosts mentioned Reagan's demise, I knew I had to say something complimentary about him, so I pointed out that he pardoned Merle Haggard.

[grb]

not guilty : " ...so I pointed out that he pardoned Merle Haggard."

Hey - pardoning Merle Haggard can cover a fair amount of sins. Not as much as - say - pardoning Johnny Cash, but still a lot.

[bernard11]

I wasn't aware of the pardon of Haggard.

A good deed, to be sure.

[Michael P]

Is Otto Yourazz the name of the judge who slapped a $4M bail on Nick Reiner?

https://people.com/rob-reiner-son-nick-in-custody-death-parents-11868997

[not guilty]

Do you claim that that was known to Frank Drackman when he shot his mouth keyboard off early this morning?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It was apparently known it Ina Hizazz, who told it to her cousin Otto.

[Commenter_XY]

You were correct originally; it was a homicide. The son has been arrested. It is tragic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NG -- only the left kills for political views.

[not guilty]

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

[Swede425]

That was an awful thing to wake up to this morning.
Not a fan of his politics, but he had an amazing career in entertainment.
Rest in peace.

[Martinned]

What's wrong with this guy?

@realDonaldTrump

A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah so, you never have to take anyone who votes for Trump seriously when they insist that there should be consequences for other people not responding appropriately to a murder or other tragedy. Like you just don’t.

[Sarcastr0]

Like gravity, the vile things the right insists that lefties were saying and doing, comes to pass but mirrored and from the President.

I don't expect a lot of defenders. I do expect the right to ignore this.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael P decided not to ignore this, and blamed Rob Reiner and his 'groomer behavior.'

Every once in a while one of the shitposters shocks me with the depths they'll go to.

Most of the usual suspects are staying away from this.

[Michael P]

Your reading abilities are as awful as ever, Gaslight0.

Rob Reiner raised a weirdo leftist kid with mental illness. LawTalkingGuy argued that doing so was nothing more than politics. I merely pointed out that LTG's mindset explains the behavior we see from so many groomers.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“LawTalkingGuy argued that doing so was nothing more than politics.”

No I didn’t. Why are you lying?

“I merely pointed out that LTG's mindset explains the behavior we see from so many groomers.”

You are not a good person. Why are you like this?

[Michael P]

DDHarriman:

Reiner wasn't murdered because of his politics though. He was murdered because he's a weirdo liberal who raised weirdo liberal kids.

Your response:

Do you not see how you directly contradicted yourself between your first and second sentence?

I personally would not be as imprecise as DDHarriman, but I accurately described your response to him.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No you didn’t. You didn’t accurately describe my response. You made something up to get mad at. You’re a liar. And what’s more, I can prove that you are lying. Insofar as you have the reading capability to copy part of my response, you notably didn’t include this post where I illustrated my point exactly about the contradiction:

“Reiner wasn't murdered because of his politics though.”

“He was murdered because he's a weirdo [political descriptor] who raised weirdo [political descriptor] kids.”

Why didn’t you include that? Is it because it undercuts the fake point you made up? Did you really think I wouldn’t notice your dishonesty?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Reports are, by the way, that their daughter found them.

The horror of it all. You find your parents killed, stabbed, and your brother appears to be the one who did it.

When asked about his reaction to Charlie Kirk's death, Reiner noted, "Horror. Absolute horror," adding that violence is "not a solution to solving problems."

He also complimented his wife's eulogy:

What she said to me was beautiful," Reiner noted, calling her act of forgiveness "admirable" and “exactly right.” He added, “I’m Jewish, but believe in the teachings of Jesus, and I believe in forgiveness.”

https://www.wionews.com/photos/-i-m-jewish-but-believe-in-jesus-why-rob-reiner-praised-charlie-kirk-s-wife-just-before-his-own-death-1765799959602/1765799959606

[Moderation4ever]

So at what point do the grown-ups have to take grandpa to the rest home. We know what it took to get President Biden to have to admit he had to retire, what does it take for President Trump? Who will be the ones to tell him to step aside?

[Martinned]

Some people on social media mentioned the example of Portuguese dicator Salazar. As Wikipedia puts it:

[After he fell in the bath and had a cerebral hemorrhage] Salazar lived for a further 23 months. After he emerged from over one month of coma and unexpectedly recovered lucidity, his intimates did not tell him he had been removed from power, instead allowing him to "rule" in privacy until his death on 27 July 1970.

[Moderation4ever]

Is that happening now. Who is really calling the shots at the WH?

[Josh R]

If Trump isn't calling the shots, then our Europe policy would be far different. Rubio hates our policy. Vance has publicly supported it, but I suspect he hates it too. On the domestic front, only Lutnick loves tariffs. On the other hand, RFK has been driving public health policy, but that's because Trump doesn't care.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Someone wrote a national security statement with digs at Europe, and it wasn't Trump.

[Josh R]

Apparently, Michael Anton was the primary driver. He's to anti-Europe policies what Lutnick is to tariffs. I doubt his influence is due to Trump not calling the shots when the Secretary of State/National Security Advisor would likely call the shots if Trump is out of the loop.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Okay. Let's do a reboot of that SNL skit where Reagan is actually totally in charge of everything.

Trump doesn't have to be TOTALLY "out of the loop" to not be calling the shots in each specific case.

[Josh R]

Agreed. But, he is calling the shots on what the overarching policies are on the things he cares about: tariffs, immigration and disdain for weak (i.e., non-authoritarian) leaders.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Agreed. But, he is calling the shots on what the overarching policies are on the things he cares about: tariffs, immigration and disdain for weak (i.e., non-authoritarian) leaders."

That's reasonable enough on some broad basis, but "overarching policies" isn't much.

What does "tariffs" entail, for instance? He supports tariffs, particularly if a country doesn't play nice with him or isn't authoritarian enough?

That leaves a lot of details for someone to "really be calling the shots" about, down to deciding when they have to save face even with a country like Canada.

[Josh R]

If Lutnick were fired and Bessent were left in charge without any input from Trump, all of the Liberation Day tariffs would be done away with.

[Estragon]

I make no claims as to the present situation, I will only note here that this is exactly what happened with Fred Trump. They let him come into the office and sign pieces of paper after he had completely lost it.

“The President’s main priority is the ballroom” is actually something they publicly said.

[grb]

Estragon : “The President’s main priority is the ballroom” is actually something they publicly said."

A couple of days ago, Trump spoke at a Xmas event. His speech was pretty much as you'd expect given his brain has rotted down to worm-ridden mush. There has a long rambling account of some vicious & poisonous snake that came out of left field and left everybody confused. At one point Trump totally dropped his train of thought to address some woman in the crowd who (he said) looked like Ivanka.

Of course, “Things can happen” was his response to the Brown shooting before he segued to the firmer ground of the “truckloads” of evidence about to come out proving the 2020 election was stolen. It seems (per Trump) he would have won California if not for the whole "rigged" election business.

And - needless to say - the attending Cultists slapped their knees and roared with delight at this rambling stream of gibberish. They like having a halfwit president. It's so very non-elite to be governed by the brain-damaged.

But here's the point: The administration's go-to guy on domestic policy is a man named Vince Haley. He heads the White House Domestic Policy Council. According to Trump (same speech) his number-one priority is Trump's proposed "triumphal arch".

“I put Vince in charge of the triumphal arc,” Trump said, “We’re building an arc, like the Arc de Triumph,” he said, adding: “And it’s something that is so special. It will be like the one in Paris,” referring to the Arc de Triomphe, constructed between 1806 and 1836 at the western end of the Champs-Élysées.

“But to be honest with you,” Trump said, the new arch Haley will be in charge of constructing will be much better than the one Napoleon Bonaparte ordered up. “It blows it away. Blows it away in every way.”

Thus domestic policy........

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's ADHD -- that he was born with.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“So at what point do the grown-ups have to take grandpa to the rest home.”

Ten years ago?

[Kazinski]

Back around 1979 or 1980 I got to see Rob Reiner "directing" a film, on location in a run down theatre in Downtown LA.

I had driven down to Little Tokyo with my girlfriend and her sister who was visiting, when we were walking around there was a guy, who I vaguely recognized, looking for Japanese extra's for a film they were shooting at a nearby theater. I didn't qualify but my gf and her sister did, and they were in their late teens.

So we went to the theatre and they wanted the Japanese extras for a crowd scene where a heavy metal band was playing on stage, and they were filming everything with a handheld camera, with Rob Reiner there, who of course I recognized immediately. The guy I vaguely recognized was Bruno Kirby, he hadn't been in much at that time, I'm not sure where I had seen him before, maybe Godfather 2, where he had a minor role as Young Clemenza. It seemed somewhat disorganized and casual, I just sat in the back of the theatre and watched while the band played, It was actually at least some of the band members that ended up in the actual movie, I didn't recognize Harry Shearer at the time, but I did recognize Derek Smalls from the band when the movie came out,

Anyway it turned out they were filming a proof of concept that ended up being Spinal Tap, which didn't actually come out until 3 or 4 years later after my gf and I got married. Which explains why everything was so casual, because they weren't making the actual movie, just trying to come up with enough to get funding for their project.

I haven't seen this may be the short they were filming, its dated 1981s, and the full length This is Spinal Tap came out in the theaters in 1984.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439825/?ref_=nm_flmg_job_1_accord_1_cdt_t_28

[The Margrave of Azilia]

R. I. P.

[not guilty]

House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer reportedly has threatened to pursue contempt charges against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if they do not sit for depositions in Congress’ probe of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/12/12/congress/comer-threatens-the-clintons-00689936

The Clintons, through their attorney David Kendall, have objected to appearing in person and have offered to provide sworn statements to the committee instead. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/14/us/politics/20251210-dek-hogr.html

What is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigating here, such that personal appearances for depositions would be germane? What resolution(s), if any, authorized the investigation and defined its subject matter?

SCOTUS long ago opined:

. . . we are sure that no person can be punished for contumacy as a witness before either House unless his testimony is required in a matter into which that House has jurisdiction to inquire, and we feel equally sure that neither of these bodies possesses the general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen.

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190 (1880).

The statute defining criminal contempt of Congress, 2 U.S.C. § 192, states:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

That a question being propounded to the witness is "pertinent to the question under inquiry" is an essential element of the offense. As SCOTUS opined in Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 208 (1957):

Applied to persons prosecuted under § 192, this raises a special problem in that the statute defines the crime as refusal to answer "any question pertinent to the question under inquiry." Part of the standard of criminality, therefore, is the pertinency of the questions propounded to the witness.

The power of Congress to conduct investigations, inherent in the legislative process, is broad, but it is not unlimited. "There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. . . . No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated are indefensible."Watkins, at 187. The Court there elaborated:

Abuses of the investigative process may imperceptibly lead to abridgment of protected freedoms. The mere summoning of a witness and compelling him to testify, against his will, about his beliefs, expressions or associations is a measure of governmental interference. And when those forced revelations concern matters that are unorthodox, unpopular, or even hateful to the general public, the reaction in the life of the witness may be disastrous. This effect is even more harsh when it is past beliefs, expressions or associations that are disclosed and judged by current standards, rather than those contemporary with the matters exposed. . . .

Id., at 197. Furthermore:

Kilbourn v. Thompson[, supra] teaches that such an investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose. That is beyond the powers conferred upon the Congress in the Constitution. United States v. Rumely[, 345 U.S. 41 (1953),] makes it plain that the mere semblance of legislative purpose would not justify an inquiry in the face of the Bill of Rights. The critical element is the existence of, and the weight to be ascribed to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an unwilling witness. We cannot simply assume, however, that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that overbalances any private rights affected.

Watkins, at 198.

Absent agreement with investigators or judicial relief from the subpoenas, President and Mrs. Clinton should be obliged to appear for depositions. Whether each question put to them is "pertinent to the question under inquiry," however, remains an open inquiry.

Because 2 U.S.C. § 192 is potentially punishable by confinement for more than six months, the offense is a "serious contempt" as to which trial by jury is available to an accused contemnor. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 512 (1974). What is the likelihood that a jury in the District of Columbia will find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for refusal to answer questions of dubious relevance to the committee inquiry?

[CountmontyC]

Now President Trump can waive any executive privilege that Bill Clinton asserts.

[Martinned]

Good. Also, what kind of executive privilege were you thinking anyone might assert?

[CountmontyC]

For starters he can waive Bill Clinton's executive privilege about testifying before Congress.

[David Nieporent]

Clinton, to the best of my knowledge, has not asserted any executive privilege that would need to be waived. And in any case executive privilege applies to information, not appearance; even if it applied Clinton would still have to show up. It would only permit him to refuse to answer specific questions.

[CountmontyC]

And President Trump could waive any executive privilege Bill Clinton asserts.

[John 4]

Just like magic!

[Brett Bellmore]

Just like "Bill's not the Executive anymore!", anyway.

[not guilty]

I don't know how executive privilege would arguably apply here. If any privilege does apply, it can be asserted by the deponent on a question by question basis.

My point above is that if a particular question is not "pertinent to the question under inquiry," a refusal to answer that question is simply not a crime under 2 U.S.C. § 192.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I guess the Horn Dog and the Hildebeast will just have to sit their fat asses down for a deposition, under oath. Or face prosecution for contempt of Congress (not that a DC jury would ever convict a Team D partisan).

[Frank Drackman]

William Juffuhson's Heart Disease has slimmed him down a good bit, while his VP Algore's neck has vanished like that Malaysian Airliner, sort of a Dorian Gray thing, the slimmer Slick Willie gets, the fatter Algore does, in fact when Algore ties his shoes he has to take the Massage Therapist he's screwing's word for it.

[Malika la Maize]

Supporters of Trump making fun of people for being fat is always amusing.

[Frank Drackman]

You have to admit AlGores Obesity isn't the usual "Middle Aged Spread" his neck chins have expanded exponentially.

[Malika la Maize]

Here he is a year ago. Looks less chubby than Trump to me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JdH3_MAYk1E

[Frank Drackman]

By Jove, I think you're correct, well done Sir, I mean Madam! I mean Sir.

Frank "Madam, are you sure you're not Adam?"

[Malika la Maize]

Take your glaucoma medicine Frankie.

[Zarniwoop]

Can’t see what you’re replying to, but assuming it’s about Bill Clinton: Bill has been eating a healthy, mostly-but-not-100% vegan diet since about 2010, on the basis of medical advice following heart issues. He’s significantly skinnier and healthier than when he was president.

I can’t visualize DJT doing that, but prove me wrong.

[Krayt]

Oh no, going after a political opponent because he's an opponent!

[Don Nico]

what are bill and hils afraid of?

[Moderation4ever]

You could ask the same of President Trump? Bill and Hillary Clinton have never expressed any concerns about the release of the Epstein files. If the Trump administration ever releases them we might have your answer.

[Moderation4ever]

Clearly Rep. Comer has been tasked with taking the heat off Trump, but it seem very unclear what information the Chairman is trying to obtain. This is especially true for Secretary Clinton who would appear no more knowledgeable about Jeffery Epstein than the average person that reads the paper. Both the Clintons have offered the same information, a sworn statement that was accepted from other individuals that were given subpoenas. We have seen before in the investigations of the Bidens that Rep. Comer is not really very good at conducting investigations. I expect no better from his Epstein investigation.

[not guilty]

Rep. Comer strikes me as being sharp as a marble, bright as a tack. Watching him try to match wits with Bill Clinton would be quite entertaining.

I surmise that is why the subpoenas were for depositions (which will likely be conducted by committee staff behind closed doors) rather for an open session of the House Investigations and Government Reform Committee.

[SRG2]

Comer is obviously deflecting.

[grb]

You know what? I'm good with that. Let Comer abandon all restraint and tradition to make the Clintons appear under the threat of criminal contempt. Given everything Comer touches turns to incompetent clownshow, the Clintons have nothing to fear.

Then when the Democrats take power in '28, we can repeat the process with Trump. All the yowling monkeys here (XY, take a bow!) will then have nothing to say. And if Trump answers any question at all, you can be sure he'll commit perjury. Hell, I doubt he could speak on the time of day without lying thru his teeth - his mental illness running that deep.

You'll argue that Roberts will find a way to give him immunity regardless, and I agree. But it would be some spectacle to watch, wouldn't it?

[Commenter_XY]

https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/2000254182897618993

"The shooting at Brown happened in Rachel Friedberg's classroom

She's a Teaching Professor of Economics and a Faculty Associate in the Program in Judaic Studies

She was a professor in Israel for four years

I wonder what the motive was?"

Many of us wonder the same thing.

[Frank Drackman]

Ask Congresswoman Mullah Ill-hand Omar (D, Mogadishu), she'll tell you "Somebody did something at a School"

[David Nieporent]

A classroom where she wasn't even present.

[Frank Drackman]

And Bin Laden wasn't in Manhattan, you know, arguments are so much more fun when you're arguing against someone cogent.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do college professors have classrooms?

[David Nieporent]

Um, yes? Where do you think they teach, in igloos?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Um, various classrooms, such that a particular teacher doesn't have a particular classroom?

[Mr. Hook]

A classroom shared with other professors that term. It's her classroom only during the time that her particular class meets there. And if she's teaching multiple courses, they'll likely each be in different classrooms.

[Malika la Maize]

Kenneth Santana-Rodriguez brought along his 9mm handgun on a pedicure date with a woman at “A Touch of Beauty” nail salon in Holyoke, Mass.

They were sitting side by side when the father of the woman’s child burst into the salon, demanding to know the nature of their relationship. Santana-Rodriguez told police the man raised his shirt to reveal a firearm and said, You know what’s about to happen.

Santana-Rodriguez pulled out his 9mm and shot twice. “It was him or me,” he told police. Yet he missed his intended target, Irvin Sanchez. One bullet instead struck the chest of an employee who had been working on the woman’s toenails, killing Trung “Michael” Tran, 33 years old. Prosecutors filed a charge of first-degree murder against Santana-Rodriguez.
In October, his lawyers won a victory in the state’s highest court.

“A defendant’s lawful self-defense against an assailant may excuse the killing of an unintended victim, such as an innocent bystander,” the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled, joining the list of states with similar protections under self-defense laws or other precedent-setting court decisions.

Amid a rise in self-defense homicides across the U.S., there also has been a toll on bystanders killed by stray gunfire. Often, prosecutors don’t file homicide charges in those cases. Many grieving families, angry that nobody is being held to account for the loss of their loved one, are left to try to seek a measure of justice in civil courts.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/homicides-bystanders-stand-your-ground-law-60829b8d

[Michael P]

Massachusetts has a felony murder rule. It requires proving malice, but I think showing gun and saying "You know what’s about to happen" satisfies that.

And sadly, lots of people forget the second half of rule #4: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

[Malika la Maize]

My thoughts exactly upon reading it. If it’s a justified use of lethal self defense then the defender’s mistaken killing is the fault of the person they were defending themselves against. But the article doesn’t seem to mention that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Assuming an ordinary level of care, on the part of the person defending themselves, of course.

[Malika la Maize]

The court decides that. Interestingly they note there’s a minority view among states that allows the defense even if the person acting in self defense acts recklessly, but they decline to adopt that instead going with the majority view that allows the defense except where there’s been wanton or reckless action.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should hope that's a minority view, and I'd normally be regarded as fanatically pro-2nd amendment.

[Malika la Maize]

You know, I’m not so sure. A case they cite is a man who was attacked by three people and maced at one point. He met the requirements of a lethal self defense defense but he shot a bystander as well. I’d say this was his attackers fault as the natural and probable result of trying to kill the guy who acted in self defense.

[Brett Bellmore]

This just goes into what constitutes a reasonable level of care given the circumstances.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court mostly abolished the felony murder rule several years ago. It remains only as an aggravating factor elevating second degree murder to first degree murder during the commission of a felony punishable by life in prison. Commonwealth v. Brown, 477 Mass. 805 (2017).

If X pulls a gun for no good reason and Y kills Z by mistake in an attempt at self-defense, both X and Y might be guilty of manslaughter. It's up to the jury to decide.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Many grieving families, angry that nobody is being held to account for the loss of their loved one, are left to try to seek a measure of justice in civil courts."

I can think of another way to achieve it.

[Malika la Maize]

Btw-here is the opinion in the case referred to (which is not linked to in the article, an all too common practice in my experience):

https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2025/sjc-13753.html

It has a good discussion of transferred intent self defense.

[Frank Drackman]

Gun Control means hitting your target.

[Sarcastr0]

no amount of auramaxxing can hide the new reality. Just six years ago, 69 percent of respondents to a Cato Institute poll agreed that billionaires “earned their wealth by creating value for others.” An only slightly smaller majority agreed with the statement “we are all better off when people get rich.” Today, one poll after another shows that Americans want the rich to be taxed at higher, even much higher rates. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have attracted an increasingly large national following with an anti-billionaire message that previously would have sounded extremist. And New York City, the richest metropolis in the nation, just elected a democratic socialist who thinks billionaires shouldn’t exist at all.
...
The favor of billionaires is already in some cases proving to be more of a liability than a blessing. In Seattle last month, a democratic socialist was elected mayor over a Democratic incumbent backed by wealthy interests. For the billionaires, Virginia Heffernan wrote, the problem is self-evident: “It’s their billions. Lately, once the money of the private-jet set enters a campaign, the stink of the oligarchy sticks to the campaign and the candidate can be attacked as a corporate tool.” Alex Bores, a candidate for Congress in New York City next year, even thanked Mr. Andreessen’s super PAC for targeting him; its scorn will most likely help him, and his efforts to regulate A.I., to stand out in a crowded field.

sauce

MAGA populism may include an embrace of some rich people as 'one of the good ones' but it's anti-elite is as hostile to billionaires as any leftist.
Just some of the aristocracy fans on here haven't gotten the memo.

[Michael P]

That time series from Gallup showing 51% opposed to higher taxes on the rich in 1998 sure proves that narrative, huh?

The left has had a long campaign of demonizing the most productive people in society, and the crosstabs show it.

In July [2022]'s update, 79% of Democrats support the idea of heavy taxes on the rich; 24% of Republicans agree.

The claims of equivalence are just more Gaslight0 fiction.

[SRG2]

The left has had a long campaign of demonizing the most productive people in society, and the crosstabs show it.

Indeed they do, but so too has the GOP. You're falling for the classic right-wing propaganda position that billionaires are ipso facto wealth creators. True of some, not true of all, and meanwhile, some of the most productive people in society are scientists and technologists, who the GOP often enough demonises.

[Michael P]

Yawn. Vacuous partisan attacks. You could just move to Europe, where they exalt the scientists and bureaucrats and have anti-wealth policies. The biggest related drawbacks are that "prosperity" will look like Mississippi's GDP-per-capita, you'll get bullied by a failed petrostate, the families that keep wealth across generations will be the ones that were rich a millennium ago, and you'll have to import all your new technologies from countries that are better than you at recognizing ipso facto wealth creators.

[Sarcastr0]

What is it with this new strain of American nationalism as anti-Europe hate?

I hear they had a couple of world wars that did a number on their infrastructure, people, and resources.
And some of them have an inefficient land-based wealth distribution left over from feudal laws.
Not to mention differences in natural resources and size and industrialization style and timeline...

I'm not saying Europe's growth policies are optimal, but you can't really make an equal-to-equal comparison.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, I thought “defending the West” was a thing with them.

I know some people on the left that think Europe does everything better, but more on the right who think (and are just as silly for thinking so) that they do everything worse.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, I thought “defending the West” was a thing with them.

They just mean "white people," not the actually existing West.

[Michael P]

Recognizing failures isn't hate, you goof.

And besides the factors you mentioned, plus starting both World Wars, the Holocaust, all the empires, relying on the US to provide defense and act as the world's policeman, and suppressing speech even more than wealth, has Europe really done so much to be criticized over?!

[Sarcastr0]

Did...did you just blame Europe for World War 2? And for allowing the US to take the lead in NATO, just like we insisted?

Sure, not hate. Just know-nothingism.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Did...did you just blame Europe for World War 2? " ??????? Where did it start and by whom?

[Malika la Maize]

I think the idea is that “Europe” is many states with very varying degrees of culpability for WW2.

[David Nieporent]

Where did it start and by whom?

Well, if we're not being Eurocentric, it started in Manchuria in 1931. But even if we are, it started in Poland, by Germany and the USSR invading that country.

[Malika la Maize]

Totally non-responsive, SRG2 didn’t mention Europe in that comment, he just offered that many on the right demonize some of the most productive people in society too.

It’s like you really couldn't come up with a counter-point without making up a dumb-ass line that Michael P didn't say (but don’t worry, Bwaaaari won’t call you out on it, he’s too busy huntin’ leftists to apply any standards consistently).

[Michael P]

SRG2 didn't mention Europe, but appealed to Europe-style policies ... unless you thought he was appealing to Soviet- or China-style policies instead.

He didn't offer anything of substance except that the GOP (fairly!) criticizes bureaucratic elites. That's not the same as criticizing the productive sector, he just conflated them.

[Malika la Maize]

“SRG2 didn't mention Europe, but appealed to Europe-style policies”

You’re fantasizing. All he did was say scientists and technologists create wealth and are often demonized by many on the right here in the US.

[Michael P]

I think the most we can say is that people answering poll questions are either economically and fiscally ignorant, or not thinking about actual feasible mechanics: https://news.gallup.com/poll/659003/perceptions-fair-income-taxes-hold-near-record-low.aspx

It's easy to argue, like leftist politicians do, for wealth taxes and ruinous income taxes. Those arguments never deal with the fact that a one-time wealth seizure will not even pay down the debt, or even balance the budget for long, and totally ignore that it will also involve destroying countless businesses and putting millions of Americans out of work.

https://fortune.com/2025/12/08/how-many-billionaires-does-america-world-have-ubs/

[Malika la Maize]

What we need are more ruinous taxes on imports!

[Mr. Bumble]

A feature, not a bug?

[jb]

It's easy to argue, like leftist politicians do, for wealth taxes and ruinous income taxes. Those arguments never deal with the fact that a one-time wealth seizure will not even pay down the debt, or even balance the budget for long

Does this theory extend to spending cuts as well? We're not going to bother to cut any individual piece of spending if it's insufficient to not only balance the budget, but to pay down the debt?

[Michael P]

Category errors (plural).

[jb]

So that's a no, I guess.

[CountmontyC]

Cuts can continue annually, wealth taxes are basically one time. Cutting defense by $100 billion and keeping that same cut would save $1 trillion over ten years whereas if you tried to impose a wealth tax every year for ten years you would get decreasing returns each year and destroy the economy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What the wealthy have done is fail to learn from history..

They are only safe when a much larger middle class has its relatively irrelevant riches protected and hence has an interest in seeing the protection of property. We've become a society that doesn't do the latter, and the wealthy will be reaping the costs of that.

My little petty property was stolen by the government -- so I have no problem bankrupting billionaires. The system didn't protect me, why should it protect them?

[Krayt]

Balanced budget amendment before more taxes. Each generation should pay as it goes for the goodies it demands for itself.

They won't do it, because that's not part of the business model. Easy spending, buy votes (see "goodies" above), get elected to serve, your spouse becomes a Gregory House level investment savant.

To quote "dear old dad" in Contact, "It's the way it's been done for billions of years."

[Michael P]

The US also has one of the world's most progressive income taxes. We need less progressivity, not more, although the illiquid nature of most modern capital gains makes it really hard to tax those without destroying wealth.

[Sarcastr0]

So you really feel rich people have it rough in America because of our tax system?

[Michael P]

You might mistake what I wrote for that if you are an abject moron or a typical leftist (but I repeat myself).

There's a big difference between somebody paying too many taxes and that causing them to "have it rough".

[Sarcastr0]

This just seems like knee jerk 'taxes bad' but on behalf of the really rich.

I'm aware the math doesn't work out to balance the budget on the backs of the wealthy.

But this kind of reflexive defense by the same people that attack the perfidious elites...it doesn't hang together.

[Michael P]

It "seems" that way to you because you are an abject moron.

[Brett Bellmore]

Suppose you broke into Bill Gates' house, and stole all his silverware. I don't suppose he'd "have it rough", but you'd still have wronged him.

This is what they dismissively call "bourgeois morality". Even the wealthy can be cheated, if you're charging them for more than they're taking.

[Sarcastr0]

'Taxation is theft' is undefeated as a signal that someone is huffing their own farts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you'd expect somebody whose paycheck is financed by taxes to take that position.

We're not even discussing taxation here. We're discussing whether Dillinger's "Because that's where the money is!" is enough excuse to tax the wealthy more than other people even though they're not costing the government disproportionately more in expenses.

If I walk into McDonalds, and Donald Trump walks into a McDonalds, and we both order a Big Mac, I damned well expect us to pay the same for it, not for Trump to be charged $20K for his Big Mac just because he's a billionaire.

[David Nieporent]

Willie Sutton, not John Dillinger.

[Brett Bellmore]

You got me there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

To be fair, it's a safe bet that John Dillinger robbed banks for the same reason.

[David Nieporent]

Touché.

[Bwaaah]

Hey Sarc...please take a moment to write a brief (one sentence) but reasonable (by your measure) reason someone might oppose increasing taxes on wealthy people, just to show that you familiarized yourself with the issue before choosing your position.

That should be easy for you to do.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure this is required to show someone is familiar with a position, but I did to go law school and can steelman when I want to:

1. Given tax dodges, it won't matter.
2. It's politically nonviable; why bother to spend political capital tilting at windmills.
3. The rich do better than anyone else at raising the GDP.
4. Policy, including tax policy, should not be beased based on populist unhappiness. That's why our administrative state is insulated from the political branches.

Zip zop.

Arguments I don't consider reasonable -
-trickle down job creation
-it's not fair
-the rich are too persecuted
-all taxes are bad

[Bwaaah]

Fail.

[Brett Bellmore]

Abject fail. He just flatly rejects the notion that anybody might think ripping off the wealthy just because they ARE wealthy is immoral, that in a just world people get what they pay for, and pay for what they get.

[Bwaaah]

I was looking for something like:

Increasing taxes on the wealthy might drive capital flight, or increase tax avoidance, or erode capitol formation so as to effectively reduce revenue, especially in the longer term, rather than increase it.

Call me crazy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"ripping off the wealthy just because they ARE wealthy is immoral"

Its the kulak idea. Sarc is just a marxist at heart it seems.

[bernard11]

Bwaaah,

Increasing taxes on the wealthy might drive capital flight, or increase tax avoidance, or erode capitol formation so as to effectively reduce revenue, especially in the longer term, rather than increase it.

OK, but the rich pay taxes now, so presumably some of those effects are being felt even under current rates. So isn't the issue, at what level of taxation are those effects greater than the benefits of the tax.

Isn't avoiding the financial catastrophe Brett goes on about a good idea?

I'm all in favor of looking at both costs and benefits, but here it seems you are ignoring benefits to claim that an increase would be undesirable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That's why our administrative state is insulated from the political branches."

Bureaucrat likes administrative state. Shocking.

[TwelveInchPianist]

One might even say that the administrative state is deeply insulated.

[Bob from Ohio]

"administrative state is deeply insulated"

Yes.

Every bureaucrat is a policy failure.

[Bwaaah]

That's why our administrative state is insulated from the political branches...to impose the politically nonviable

"Hear me well, and know that your elected representatives have handed us the reins."

Jeez. That doesn't sound good. How might I go about smacking down that attitude? My elected representatives don't seem up to it.

Maybe all I need is just one like-minded asshole?

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaah, you rewrote what I said and then got mad at the attitude you made up.

Don’t be a weirdo.

[Sarcastr0]

So your request was actually 'read my mind and write something Bwaah would like.'

Yeah, no.

I answered what you asked, and you thought I couldn't. Take the L.

[Bwaaah]

Nope. I was asking you to articulate an opposing position...a simple legitimate argument as if to acknowledge there's a legitimate debate. Of course, you don't have to do that.

But you assure me you know how to do that.

You're so weak. You so fail.

[Sarcastr0]

I articulated 4 opposing positions.

[Bwaaah]

So you really couldn't come up with a counter-point without making up a dumb-ass line that Michael P didn't say?

[Michael P]

In other news, it's a day ending in "y".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So you really feel rich people have it rough in America because of our tax system?"

Huh? You could, for example, create a cap on earnings at a million dollars, which might result in heart surgeons not being permitted to operate for money after working half a year.

That might be a little rough on rich people, but it would be very rough on patients. Rich people are rich for a reason.

[Sarcastr0]

Rich people are rich for a reason.

Rich people are rich for lots of reasons. Most of them for reasons other than that they are heart surgeons.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Now who can argue with that?

[Bwaaah]

When he's right, he's right.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt—Absent Hamilton's critique of national finance, American's would have lacked means to solve the economic dilemmas served up by the Articles of Confederation. Any notion of national power based on pay-as-you-go taxation is a mirage. More so to the extent that wealth becomes unequally distributed upward.

Southern oligarchs proved during the Civil War that they would not lift a finger even in behalf of their own interests, insisting at all times that taxation burdens fall on others, not on them. Their vision of the state was Lockean—perfect liberty for those who counted themselves the objects of the state's existence, subordination or slavery for all the rest. The Oligarchs well understood that absent mudsills their vision of liberty would prove unsupportable.

You do not understand where your argument leads.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Their vision of the state was Lockean—perfect liberty for those who counted themselves the objects of the state's existence, subordination or slavery for all the rest."

Have you ever read Locke? If so, was it before you suffered a major stroke?

[Krayt]

You can borrow, it just isn't an idiotically easy simple majority. You have a war, or an economic disaster like a depression or covid for that matter, clearing that bar should be easy.

As times get better and better, government, like any organization, should be getting slimmer and more efficient. It is less needed! That isn't part of the business model.

Handing out more and more goodies buys votes, though. It's ok for the population to decide to reign in their own excesses. They've done so in many states.

How much to borrow is tied to GDP formulas, and is completely severed from any analysis of need. It is every penny they can get away with, to lavish and see family fortunes skyrocket with the newly-won power.

[ThePublius]

How about using quotation marks and providing a link to the eNY Times article you excerpted here?

[Commenter_XY]

The wealthy already pay a higher share of total taxes, relative to their share of the population. Hundreds of years ago, the 'billionaires' of that time were not mobile, like they are today. We don't want to kill the geese who lay golden eggs. It is not 'bad' when a billionaire and middle class investors benefit from the same movement in an index fund.

Philanthropy in the US is roughly 500B annually. How much more should it be?

[Sarcastr0]

This is also a silly take.

Those super rich are all about to leave, so we'd better not make them sad!

This about to leave state has been going on for at least 2 decades.

And, is always all talk

[Brett Bellmore]

This is always the left's take on it: "They've got more money than we do, so we can take it away!"

I sometimes think that leftists skipped past that step in early childhood development where you internalize the idea of other people's stuff.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, you're an aristoctrat, You think the rich got there by being better. And you think they 'won the genetic lottery' because they live longer.

It's weird as hell, and you're embracing the shallowest libertarian cliche this side of 'technically it's ephebophilia' does not do much to dispel the notion that you want to be ruled like a subject, but capitalistically.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being "better" isn't enough to make you wealthy, but it's opposite is enough to guarantee poverty, so, perforce, wealth ends up strongly correlated with being "better". Even if that brute fact of reality offends you. It probably offends you that good looking people are, on average, smarter than ugly people, too. Heddy Lamar probably offended the heck out of you.

I think your problem is that you're confusing "virtue" in the sense of useful characteristics, and "virtue" as a moral thing, so you can't accept that success is a result of virtue in the former sense. You want life to be nothing but a lottery.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You think the rich got there by being better."

In a free-market system, the rich got there by creating and earning more stuff. Do you have evidence that that's not how the rich get there?

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/11/30/new-billionaires-inherited-more-than-they-earned-last-year-ubs-report-says/

This ignores a lot more inheritance shenigans as well.
It takes money to make money. Starting with a cool mil or more free and clear sure does help.

Unless you're going with genetic superiority, our class mobility since 1980 is evidence that merit isn't really what wealth measures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States

To be clear, I think that's fine for the most part. Life contains plenty of luck, including who your parents are.
But 1) you can't ignore luck as a factor
2) that doesn't mean tax policy needs to protect the wealthy like fragile children
3) at some point, the cycle of wealth begetting wealth gets ridiculous.

I do believe that every billionaire is a policy failure. We shouldn't have a system that allows that kind of positive feedback loop.

That ignores how they distort our political and economic systems by merely existing. And usually to enrich themselves all the more.

I reject the idea that billionaires just many many times better than everyone else in any inherent way. And I'm amazed at those who disagree.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This ignores a lot more inheritance shenigans as well."

Sigh. OK, some of the rich got there by having someone else create and earn stuff and die and leave it to them.

But the point stands. In a free society, the rich get rich by creating wealth and value for others. What difference does it make whether they do so because they're better, lucky, genetically superior, or whatever?

[Sarcastr0]

How does the point stand? Inheritance is an exception that blows a huge hole in your thesis.

Are financial derivatives and hedge funds creating value for others?

Enron is another example of how weird valuation gets - it was a darling for a decade by just making shit up. No value added, but plenty of people sure got paid!

And the class mobility point remains strong - whatever wealth measures, it's not inherent merit.

One can be a capitalist without worshiping the market like some primitive tribe before Kirk blows up their computer god.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" Inheritance is an exception that blows a huge hole in your thesis."

How so? If I build a chair it's my chair, why shouldn't my kid be able to sit in it when I die?

"Are financial derivatives and hedge funds creating value for others?"

Yes. They help people manage risk, provide informational signals about various things, etc. But the beauty of the free market is that individuals don't have to understand every transaction, the fact that people engage in voluntary transactions is enough to infer that they create value.

"And the class mobility point remains strong - whatever wealth measures, it's not inherent merit." No it measures how much stuff people created. Please try to keep up.

Say I have a tomato, and my neighbor has a tomato. A while later, I have 30 tomatoes, and my neighbor has a turd full of tomato seeds. That doesn't mean that I'm more meritorious than my neighbor, it means that I put my tomato to different use than my neighbor. And in a free society, it means I shouldn't have to worry about bureaucrats sniffing around wondering why I have so many tomatoes.

"One can be a capitalist without worshiping the market like some primitive tribe..."

One can understand that the market is better at producing information than some bureaucrat's vibes without worshiping the market. I know you'd rather that we worship bureaucrats, but tough.

[David Nieporent]

How so? If I build a chair it's my chair, why shouldn't my kid be able to sit in it when I die?

Your kid should be able to. But your kid should be bitchslapped when he or she pretends that he earned said chair based on merit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. He gets the chair because I made it and gave it to him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Like they say, rich kids are born on third base, and think they hit a triple. Which is wrong. But they are born on third base because somebody hit a triple.

[Sarcastr0]

Our discussion was about inherent value, not about whether inheritance is a moral right.

You're trying to argue that our society is some kind of level playing field where the rich win because they're doing more good stuff.

No new goalposts.

The value you put on vague stuff like 'They help people manage risk, provide informational signals about various things, etc.' seems...unsupported.

Say I have a tomato, and my neighbor has a tomato. A while later, I have 30 tomatoes, and my neighbor has a turd full of tomato seeds. That doesn't mean that I'm more meritorious than my neighbor, it means that I put my tomato to different use than my neighbor.
I'm not sure how you're defining merit, but you just told a morality tale and then claimed it wasn't.

Markets are good at plenty of stuff. That doesn't mean the rich are Chosen by dint of their not-to-be-questioned informational superiority.
-------
You need to nail down your thesis.
Is it about what's good policy?
What's moral policy?

Are you saying the wealthy have more value to society than others?
That they're rich because of their extraordinary inherent talents? Their ability to resist temptation to defer gratification?

You know the rich are good and that taxes are bad, but your arguments seem a bit protean beyond that level.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Our discussion was about inherent value, not about whether inheritance is a moral right."

Your original opening:
"Just six years ago, 69 percent of respondents to a Cato Institute poll agreed that billionaires 'earned their wealth by creating value for others.'"
My related thesis is that rich people are entitled to their wealth because they created it, or created wealth for others that they exchanged for their wealth. You made the dumb claim that inheritance smashes that thesis, but it doesn't, it just shows that someone else created the value and gave it to them, which doesn't change the analysis.

So if I build a chair, I get a chair. That's not an indication that I have merit, and that's not me winning because I did good stuff, it's just me making a chair.

And if I build a chair and exchange it for the tomatoes my neighbor grew, that's not about merit either, it's just about us both benefiting by creating value for each other.

And in a free market economy, if someone ends up with a lot of wealth, it's an indication that they made a lot of stuff. Or, as you point out, someone else made it and gave it to them.

And if your vibes tell you that it's unfair or that they really didn't make a lot of stuff, the problem is with your vibes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Are you saying the wealthy have more value to society than others?
That they're rich because of their extraordinary inherent talents? Their ability to resist temptation to defer gratification?"

No, I'm saying that they make more stuff. Please try to keep up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your desire to turn economics into an inverted morality play is on special display today, I see.

"Are you saying the wealthy have more value to society than others?"

Look, in the private sector, there are basically only two ways to get money, and become wealthy:

1. Create value for others.
2. Be freely given money by somebody who did #1.

In the private sector, all wealth ultimately has its roots in creating value for others, so, yeah, as a general matter, the wealthy DO have more value to society than others. As empirically demonstrated by other people giving them money out of their own free will, rather than because they'll be shot if they refuse.

"That they're rich because of their extraordinary inherent talents?"

Sometimes, yes. Why's Tom Cruise rich? Got nothing to do with talent?

"Their ability to resist temptation to defer gratification?"

Trivially, yeah, because people without that don't remain rich long.

"You know the rich are good and that taxes are bad, but your arguments seem a bit protean beyond that level."

EVERYBODY knows that taxes are bad, Sarcastr0, except for the people whose paycheck depends on them.

And, yeah, generally the rich are "good", in a functional sense, because the way to become rich is doing good for others. In the private sector, anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying that [the rich] make more stuff.
I'm here to tell you they do not make more stuff.

What does that even mean? The rich often don't make stuff at all!
-----------
Brett, it's cute you think the only way to make wealth is creating value for other people. It's like you were born yesterday! I provided examples above of well paid people not creating value commensurate to their pay.

But then you need to have a truly ignorant worlview to think Lochnerism would end well for anyone but the rich.

And "EVERYBODY knows that taxes are bad" is 1) wrong, and 2) saying my motive is bad faith. Again.

It always comes down to how disagreeing with you is evil.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I'm here to tell you they do not make more stuff."
Says who, your vibes?

"What does that even mean? The rich often don't make stuff at all!"
Then why do people give them money?

"The value you put on vague stuff like 'They help people manage risk, provide informational signals about various things, etc.' seems...unsupported."

You asked if derivatives create value. Ask a vague question, get a vague answer. And I'm not your econ prof. The value that financial derivatives create is well known, you can look it up. Farms sell crop futures contracts to mitigate the risk of crop failure, for example. If you're investing overseas or buying in one market and selling in another you can mitigate currency risk with currency futures. Etc.

[Bwaaah]

Follow the money of the rich...or of anybody else. Excepting for particularly egregious [criminal] behavior, you can trace it back to value creation...to a payer who voluntarily coughed up capital in the belief that the benefit was worth the cost.

Wealth is what is created, and becomes property, as a result of value creation.

You, Sarc, want to get caught up in morality and who does and doesn't deserve wealth. But that doesn't negate the fact that it is rooted in value creation...wealth exists only because somebody got, in exchange for it, something they deemed of value.

(And that is in distinct contrast to government, which is not necessarily built atop that value creation mechanism because it doesn't begin with the payer's preference or consent.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"I do believe that every billionaire is a policy failure."

What a facile statement.

Most billionaires get there by founding a company that provides a useful good or service. Some more take over small/medium companies and grow them by providing a useful good or service. Their wealth is mostly in said companies.

No Amazon in your world. Nor Wal-Mart.

Tesla is the only successful e-car in the US. Does not exist in your world.

Other examples abound.

Yes, some inherit but money dissipates pretty quickly. Many Rockefellers are still rich but no longer billionaires,

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What a facile statement."

Yup. It shows that left-wing politics is motivated by jealousy and not desire to help others.

It's why they sang, "tax the rich, feed the poor 'Til there are no rich no more" instead of "'Til there are no poor no more."

[Brett Bellmore]

The Vanderbilts are a great example of that. Corneleus built a fortune of $100M by 1877, about $3.1B in today's dollars, by innovating in shipping and railroads. His son, William, doubled that by improving on his father's work.

The next generation basically tread water, spending as much as they took in.

The latest generation aren't poor, mostly, but they're not fabulously wealthy, either, and run granddad's home as a theme park.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"The latest generation aren't poor, mostly, but they're not fabulously wealthy, either, and run granddad's home as a theme park."

There are a lot of Vanderbilt descendants somewhat famous for things other than running the family theme park although I don't know that any is a billionaire . Among them:
Anderson Cooper
Timothy Olyphant
John Hammond, deceased (record producer largely responsible for Dylan and numerous others)
John Hammond, Jr. blues musician of some renown

[Sarcastr0]

Love to have useful services. Not sure that means you get to make more in a second than the GDP of a small country.

And LOL at citing Tesla, one of the least free market innovations out there.
I'm all for that hustle, but that market was created by subsidies.

I guess Musk doesn't exist in your world either! We'll both have to be okay with the second most successful e-car.

Yes, some inherit but money dissipates pretty quickly
Vibes, I see. Check into the class mobility data I linked.

[Bob from Ohio]

"market was created by subsidies"

Then why have rivals flopped? Ford and GM have had massive losses.

You just don't like Musk for political reasons.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Not sure that means you get to make more in a second than the GDP of a small country."

Not "getting to" implies somebody who's entitled to say you don't, despite all those people willing to give you their money. But, if they can't give you their money, is it really theirs to begin with?

[Sarcastr0]

Not "getting to" implies somebody who's entitled to say you don't

Yes, that's right. Billionaires are not John Galt. Every one of them from the robber barons on up exist in a world where regulations and subsidies built them into what they are today.

We don't live in libertopia, and we never will.

I'm no fan of feudalism, but you seem to be.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So what? We're all subject to the same regulations and entitled to the same subsidies. If I built a successful EV company, my products would have been subsidized. But I didn't.

[Bwaaah]

As I see it...

Sarc believes markets are too unregulated, private property rights too expansive, and government should take more private sector capital and restrain more people's economic activities.

He believes in greater "equity," as in more people having more similar levels of wealth. He believe there is a great opportunity to improve equity by having the government take from wealthier people and apportioning that wealth to less wealth people.

"Every billionaire is a policy failure. We shouldn't have a system that allows that kind of positive feedback loop.

Translation...policy should prevent people from doing too much of what others want...or wait for it...THE SPOILS SHOULD GO TO THE GOVERNMENT.

Please do correct me, Sarc, by telling me what you *do* want. You've already described enough of what you don't want, which is a lot of the most successful traditions of the U.S.

[Absaroka]

"Every one of them from the robber barons on up exist in a world where regulations and subsidies built them into what they are today."

Can you give a general outline of how you or I subsidized Bezos with our tax money, or what regulations enabled him to build Amazon in preference to us?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Today, one poll after another shows that Americans want the rich to be taxed at higher, even much higher rates. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have attracted an increasingly large national following with an anti-billionaire message that previously would have sounded extremist."

Trump (for all his faults) and others have shown an interest in purging the communist propaganda from the public schools and Universities so that we can teach kids basic economics instead of indoctrinating them with Marxist BS, which probably can't be done without a big shakeup But many others have decided they want to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

[Malika la Maize]

Not capitalizing Communist Propaganda but Universities?

Drinking 12?

[David Nieporent]

Trump (for all his faults) and others have shown an interest in purging the communist propaganda from the public schools and Universities so that we can teach kids basic economics

Um, if that happened then nobody would vote for Donald "trade deficits mean we're losing money and other countries are cheating us" Trump, so I don't think he has any interest in teaching kids actual economics.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? His economics are still better than AoC, Bernie, or Price Control Kamala.

[David Nieporent]

Huh is definitely right. The rest, less so. Trump's closer to Elizabeth Warren on economic regulation than he is to an actual economist. Although at least Warren doesn't demand personal bribes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So what? Warren is also unlikely to purge the undesirables out of the education system either.

[TwelveInchPianist]

*public education system

[Bob from Ohio]

"anti-billionaire message"

Sanders used to have an anti-millionaire message as well.

Then he became one. now its just anti-billionaire.

[Bob from Ohio]

The "no quote mark" infestation is spreading.

[Frank Drackman]

6:12am, 12 minutes into the program and Morning Schmoe Scarborough Fair is already calling for "Sensible Gun Laws"
and from brief review of the Bondi Beach Video, looks like one of the Terrorists was using a Bolt Action Rifle, the other a Shotgun, looks like that "Assault Rifle Ban" is working really well.

Frank

[not guilty]

Even though I am a liberal Democrat, I am skeptical about government imposing gun control measures. The individual right of self-defense is a fundamental constitutional right, which should not be infringed by the government. Neither should the government mollycoddle the firearms industry, such as by protecting it against the vicissitudes of the market and hindering accountability through the tort system.

That having been said, the gun culture in this country is toxic and shameful. As I have said before repeatedly, not everyone is blessed with the combination of brains and testicular fortitude it takes to walk around unarmed.

Societal attitudes toward popguns needs to change. It can happen. For example, smoking tobacco products was once glamorized, but now smokers are (rightly) ostracized for their filthy and unhealthy habit. Overt displays of racism were once tolerated, but are no longer acceptable in polite society.

A firearms fetishist whose manhood and sense of well being depends on an inanimate object should be pitied and scorned, not celebrated. Call them out as the sniveling, cowardly weenies that they are!

[Malika la Maize]

Since online genealogy services began operating, millions of people have sent them saliva samples in hopes of learning about their family roots and discovering far-flung relatives.

These services also appeal to law enforcement authorities, who have used them to solve cold case murders and to investigate crimes like the 2022 killing of four University of Idaho students. Crime-scene DNA submitted to genealogy sites has helped investigators identify suspects and human remains by first identifying relatives.

The use of public records and family-tree building is crucial to this technique, and its main tool has been the genealogy site Ancestry, which has vast amounts of individual DNA profiles and public records.

More than 1,400 cases have been solved with the help of so-called genetic genealogy investigations, most of them with help from Ancestry. But a recent step taken by the site is now deterring many police agencies from employing this crime-solving technique.

In August, Ancestry revised the terms and conditions on its site to make it clear that its services were off-limits “for law enforcement purposes” without a legal order or warrant, which can be hard to get, because of privacy concerns. This followed the addition last year to the terms and conditions that the services could not be used for “judicial proceedings.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/nyregion/ancestry-dna-police.html

[Brett Bellmore]

So, the police weren't paying enough?

[Malika la Maize]

I’ve read elsewhere that these companies are hurting because there were privacy concerns voiced at their inception and then police use of them exacerbated those concerns.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be honest, I've never used any of these companies exactly because I doubt their data security and privacy.

[Martinned]

Imagine how nice it would be to live in a country with a constitutional right to privacy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does that work against the government?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Imagine how nice it would be to live in a country with a constitutional right to privacy."
How would you know?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...a country with a constitutional right to privacy."

A constitutional right to shut people up? How does that square with the right to free speech?

[Krayt]

I'm a bit bothered police can get into it seemingly without a warrant. Does the government get the honor of leaping atop someone else's invention and sucking it dry because of some asinine legal argument?

It seems like the famed "too cozy" relationship. That it's involuntary on the part of the company makes it even worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

This whole "third party" doctrine is total bullshit.

[David Nieporent]

So much for originalism, I guess.

[jb]

Isn't the third party doctrine a relatively recent judicial invention?

[Michael P]

Yes. It first appeared in United States v. Miller (1976) -- the doctrine is less than 50 years old.

[David Nieporent]

No. It was expressly articulated as such in Miller and Smith, but the notion that the government did not need a warrant to obtain information that had been voluntarily disclosed to third parties dates back to the beginning. Indeed, Miller characterized that as "the general rule" that was "firmly established."

The primary argument raised by the defendant in Miller was that these records were protected by the 4A because the government required the bank to maintain those records, and thus they were an exception to that "general rule." SCOTUS held that they were not.

[not guilty]

"Yes. It first appeared in United States v. Miller (1976) -- the doctrine is less than 50 years old."

Uh, no. The United States Supreme Court in 267 U.S. 576 (1925), affirmed the ruling of the District Court in United States v. First National Bank of Mobile, 295 F. 142 (S.D. Ala. 1924), which included the following:

Said bank refuses to testify and produce the books, and contends that it is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution from doing so. As I understand the Fourth Amendment, it protects the parties to criminal prosecution against unreasonable searches and seizures of their papers, and I do not understand this to authorize a third party, who has books and papers which may be relevant to the inquiry, to refuse to produce such books and papers because of this amendment. This is not a question of a search and seizure of a party's books and papers, but of whether a witness who has information as to a party's dealings may be required to testify to those facts, and produce book entries as to such entries in connection with and supporting such testimony.

295 F. at 143.

SCOTUS in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 444 (1976), expressly relied on that Fourth Amendment precedent:

U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)
United States v. Miller
No. 74-1179
Argued January 12, 1976
Decided April 21, 1976
425 U.S. 435
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent, who had been charged with various federal offenses, made a pretrial motion to suppress microfilms of checks, deposit slips, and other records relating to his accounts at two banks, which maintained the records pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (Act). He contended that the subpoenas duces tecum pursuant to which the material had been produced by the banks were defective, and that the records had thus been illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Following denial of his motion, respondent was tried and convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed, having concluded that the subpoenaed documents fell within a constitutionally protected zone of privacy.
Held: Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the District Court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Pp. 425 U. S. 440-446.
(a) The subpoenaed materials were business records of the banks, not respondent's private papers. Pp. 425 U. S. 440-441.
(b) There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities. The Act's recordkeeping requirements do not alter . these considerations so as to create a protectable Fourth Amendment interest of a bank depositor in the bank's records of his account. Pp. 441-443.
(c) Issuance of a subpoena to a third party does not violate a defendant's rights, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued. California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21, 416 U. S. 53. Pp. 425 U. S. 444-445.
Page 425 U. S. 436
(d) Access to bank records under the Act is to be controlled by "existing legal process." That does not mean that greater judicial scrutiny, equivalent to that required for a search warrant, is necessary when a subpoena is used to obtain a depositor's bank records. Pp. 425 U. S. 445-446.
500 F.2d 751, reversed and remanded.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., post, p. 425 U. S. 447, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 425 U. S. 455, filed dissenting opinions.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent was convicted of possessing an unregistered still, carrying on the business of a distiller without giving bond and with intent to defraud the Government of whiskey tax, possessing 175 gallons of whiskey upon which no taxes had been paid, and conspiring to defraud the United States of tax revenues. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5179, 5205, 5601 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. § 371. Prior to trial, respondent moved to suppress copies of checks and other bank records obtained by means of allegedly defective subpoenas duces tecum served upon two banks at which he had accounts. The records had been maintained by the banks in compliance with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1114, 12 U.S.C. § 1829b(d).
Page 425 U. S. 437
The District Court overruled respondent's motion to suppress, and the evidence was admitted. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed on the ground that a depositor's Fourth Amendment rights are violated when bank records maintained pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act are obtained by means of a defective subpoena. It held that any evidence so obtained must be suppressed. Since we find that respondent had no protectable Fourth Amendment interest in the subpoenaed documents, we reverse the decision below.
I
On December 18, 1972, in response to an informant's tip, a deputy sheriff from Houston County, Ga. stopped a van-type truck occupied by two of respondent's alleged coconspirators. The truck contained distillery apparatus and raw material. On January 9, 1973, a fire broke out in a Kathleen, Ga., warehouse rented to respondent. During the blaze, firemen and sheriff department officials discovered a 7,500-gallon-capacity distillery, 175 gallons of non-tax-paid whiskey, and related paraphernalia.
Two weeks later, agents from the Treasury Department's Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau presented grand jury subpoenas issued in blank by the clerk of the District Court, and completed by the United States Attorney's office, to the presidents of the Citizens & Southern National Bank of Warner Robins and the Bank of Byron, where respondent maintained accounts. The subpoenas required the two presidents to appear on January 24, 1973, and to produce
"all records of accounts, i.e., savings, checking, loan or otherwise, in the name of Mr. Mitch Miller [respondent], 3859 Mathis Street, Macon, Ga. and/or Mitch Miller Associates, 100 Executive
Page 425 U. S. 438
Terrace, Warner Robins, Ga. from October 1, 1972, through the present date [January 22, 1973, in the case of the Bank of Byron, and January 23, 1973, in the case of the Citizens & Southern National Bank of Warner Robins]."
The banks did not advise respondent that the subpoenas had been served, but ordered their employees to make the records available and to provide copies of any documents the agents desired. At the Bank of Byron, an agent was shown microfilm records of the relevant account and provided with copies of one deposit slip and one or two checks. At the Citizens & Southern National Bank, microfilm records also were shown to the agent, and he was given copies of the records of respondent's account during the applicable period. These included all checks, deposit slips, two financial statements, and three monthly statements. The bank presidents were then told that it would not be necessary to appear in person before the grand jury.
The grand jury met on February 12, 1973, 19 days after the return date on the subpoenas. Respondent and four others were indicted. The overt acts alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy included three financial transactions -- the rental by respondent of the van-type truck, the purchase by respondent of radio equipment, and the purchase by respondent of a quantity of sheet metal and metal pipe. The record does not indicate whether any of the bank records were, in fact, presented to the grand jury. They were used in the investigation and provided "one or two" investigatory leads. Copies of the checks also were introduced at trial to establish the overt acts described above.
In his motion to suppress, denied by the District Court, respondent contended that the bank documents were illegally seized. It was urged that the subpoenas were
Page 425 U. S. 439
defective because they were issued by the United States Attorney, rather than a court, no return was made to a court, and the subpoenas were returnable on a date when the grand jury was not in session. The Court of Appeals reversed. 500 F.2d 751 (1974). Citing the prohibition in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 622 (1886), against "compulsory production of a man's private papers to establish a criminal charge against him," the court held that the Government had improperly circumvented Boyd's protections of respondent's Fourth Amendment right against "unreasonable searches and seizures" by
"first requiring a third party bank to copy all of its depositors' personal checks and then, with an improper invocation of legal process, calling upon the bank to allow inspection and reproduction of those copies."
500 F.2d at 757. The court acknowledged that the recordkeeping requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act had been held to be constitutional on their face in California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21 (1974), but noted that access to the records was to be controlled by "existing legal process." See id. at 416 U. S. 52. The subpoenas issued here were found not to constitute adequate "legal process." The fact that the bank officers cooperated voluntarily was found to be irrelevant, for "he whose rights are threatened by the improper disclosure here was a bank depositor, not a bank official." 500 F.2d at 758.
The Government contends that the Court of Appeals erred in three respects: (i) in finding that respondent had the Fourth Amendment interest necessary to entitle him to challenge the validity of the subpoenas duces tecum through his motion to suppress; (ii) in holding that the subpoenas were defective; and (iii) in determining that suppression of the evidence obtained was the appropriate remedy if a constitutional violation did the place.
Page 425 U. S. 440
We find that there was no intrusion into any area in which respondent had a protected Fourth Amendment interest, and that the District Court therefore correctly denied respondent's motion to suppress. Because we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals on that ground alone, we do not reach the Government's latter two contentions.
II
In Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 385 U. S. 301-302 (1966), the Court said that "no interest legitimately protected by the Fourth Amendment" is implicated by governmental investigative activities unless there is an intrusion into a zone of privacy, into "the security a man relies upon when he places himself or his property within a constitutionally protected area." The Court of Appeals, as noted above, assumed that respondent had the necessary Fourth Amendment interest, pointing to the language in Boyd v. United States, supra at 116 U. S. 622, which describes that Amendment's protection against the "compulsory production of a man's private papers." [Footnote 1] We think that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the subpoenaed documents to fall within a protected zone of privacy.
On their face, the documents subpoenaed here are not respondent's "private papers." Unlike the claimant in Boyd, respondent can assert neither ownership nor possession. Instead, these are the business records of the banks. As we said in California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, supra at 416 U. S. 48-49,
"[b]anks are . . . not . . . neutrals in transactions involving negotiable instruments, but parties to the instruments with a substantial stake in their continued availability and acceptance."
The records of respondent's
Page 425 U. S. 441
accounts, like "all of the records [which are required to be kept pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act,] pertain to transactions to which the bank was itself a party." Id. at 416 U. S. 52.
Respondent argues, however, that the Bank Secrecy Act introduces a factor that makes the subpoena in this case the functional equivalent of a search and seizure of the depositor's "private papers." We have held, in California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, supra at 416 U. S. 54, that the mere maintenance of records pursuant to the requirements of the Act "invade [s] no Fourth Amendment right of any depositor." But respondent contends that the combination of the recordkeeping requirements of the Act and the issuance of a subpoena [Footnote 2] to obtain those records permits the Government to circumvent the requirements of the Fourth Amendment by allowing it to obtain a depositor's private records without complying with the legal requirements that would be applicable had it proceeded against him directly. [Footnote 3] Therefore, we must address the question whether the compulsion embodied in the Bank Secrecy Act as exercised in this case creates a Fourth Amendment interest in the depositor where none existed before. This question was expressly reserved
Page 425 U. S. 442
in California Bankers Assn., supra at 416 U. S. 53-54, and n. 24.
Respondent urges that he has a Fourth Amendment interest in the records kept by the banks because they are merely copies of personal records that were made available to the banks for a limited purpose and in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy. He relies on this Court's statement in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 389 U. S. 353 (1967), quoting Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 387 U. S. 304 (1967), that "we have . . . departed from the narrow view" that "property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize,'" and that a "search and seizure" become unreasonable when the Government's activities violate "the privacy upon which [a person] justifiably relie[s]." But in Katz, the Court also stressed that "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public . . . is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." 389 U.S. at 389 U. S. 351. We must examine the nature of the particular documents sought to be protected in order to determine whether there is a legitimate "expectation of privacy" concerning their contents. Cf. Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322, 409 U. S. 335 (1973).
Even if we direct our attention to the original checks and deposit slips, rather than to the microfilm copies actually viewed and obtained by means of the subpoena, we perceive no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in their contents. The checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions. All of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The lack of any legitimate expectation of privacy concerning the information kept in bank records was assumed by Congress in enacting the Bank Secrecy Act, the expressed purpose of which is to require records
Page 425 U. S. 443
to be maintained because they "have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations and proceedings." 12 U.S.C. § 1829b(a)(1). Cf. Couch v. United States, supra at 409 U. S. 335.
The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745, 401 U. S. 751-752 (1971). This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed. Id. at 401 U. S. 752; Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. at 385 U. S. 302; Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963). [Footnote 4]
This analysis is not changed by the mandate of the Bank Secrecy Act that records of depositors' transactions be maintained by banks. In California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. at 416 U. S. 52-53, we rejected the contention that banks, when keeping records of their depositors' transactions pursuant to the Act, are acting solely as agents of the Government. But, even if the banks could be said to have been acting solely as Government agents in transcribing the necessary information and complying without protest [Footnote 5] with the requirements of the subpoenas, there would be no intrusion upon the depositors' Fourth Amendment rights. See Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323 (1966); Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206 (1966).
Page 425 U. S. 444
III
Since no Fourth Amendment interests of the depositor are implicated here, this case is governed by the general rule that the issuance of a subpoena to a third party to obtain the records of that party does not violate the rights of a defendant, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued. [Citations omitted.] Under these principles, it was firmly settled, before the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act, that an Internal Revenue Service summons directed to a third-party bank does not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a depositor under investigation. See First National Bank of Mobile v. United States, 267 U.S. 576 (1925), aff'g 295 F. 142 (SD Ala. 1924).

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe a bit excessive? Could have just used a link.

[not guilty]

Sorry for the lengthy comment. I attempted to edit after I noticed the full SCOTUS opinion in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), had been inadvertently copied, but I ran out of time. I had intended for the comment to read as follows:

"Yes. It first appeared in United States v. Miller (1976) -- the doctrine is less than 50 years old."

Uh, no. The United States Supreme Court in 267 U.S. 576 (1925), affirmed the ruling of the District Court in United States v. First National Bank of Mobile, 295 F. 142 (S.D. Ala. 1924), which included the following:

Said bank refuses to testify and produce the books, and contends that it is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution from doing so. As I understand the Fourth Amendment, it protects the parties to criminal prosecution against unreasonable searches and seizures of their papers, and I do not understand this to authorize a third party, who has books and papers which may be relevant to the inquiry, to refuse to produce such books and papers because of this amendment. This is not a question of a search and seizure of a party's books and papers, but of whether a witness who has information as to a party's dealings may be required to testify to those facts, and produce book entries as to such entries in connection with and supporting such testimony.

295 F. at 143.

SCOTUS in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 444 (1976), expressly relied on that Fourth Amendment precedent:

Since no Fourth Amendment interests of the depositor are implicated here, this case is governed by the general rule that the issuance of a subpoena to a third party to obtain the records of that party does not violate the rights of a defendant, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued. [Citations omitted.] Under these principles, it was firmly settled, before the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act, that an Internal Revenue Service summons directed to a third-party bank does not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a depositor under investigation. See First National Bank of Mobile v. United States, 267 U.S. 576 (1925), aff'g 295 F. 142 (SD Ala. 1924).

[jb]

The analysis in United States v. First National Bank of Mobile still doesn't seem very originalist, just the judge saying he thinks that's the rule.

Alito does make an originalist case for subpoenas being sufficient to obtain third party records in his dissent to Carpenter, and my Westlaw/Lexis-free search doesn't find an obvious retort, so I guess there's that.

I do think Brett's right, though, and third party doctrine is bullshit. If originalism is the only defense, it's a good example of the limitations of trying to apply 18th century thinking to the reality of the technologies of the 21st century.

[David Nieporent]

I do think Brett's right, though, and third party doctrine is bullshit. If originalism is the only defense, it's a good example of the limitations of trying to apply 18th century thinking to the reality of the technologies of the 21st century.

While Carpenter might illustrate a scenario in which such technologies justify a change in the rule, the third party doctrine itself has nothing to do with "technologies" per se. As the cases above indicate, early applications of it involved banks and pieces of paper, not "technology."

[jb]

While Carpenter might illustrate a scenario in which such technologies justify a change in the rule, the third party doctrine itself has nothing to do with "technologies" per se. As the cases above indicate, early applications of it involved banks and pieces of paper, not "technology."

But that's my whole point. Attempting to apply a doctrine that was created in the context of a small set of business documents to the modern world in which you're constantly leaving a digital footprint every time you engage in any sort of commerce, look for information, or move locations seems foolhardy.

[Sarcastr0]

Originalism is all *about* recent judicial invention.
It is explicitly about radical departures from precedent and finding new doctrines, via divining Founders' intent.

[Ridgeway]

I suspect the real reason they are hurting is that there is a limited market for their service, and almost by definition no repeat business. So when the technology first became available, there was a slew of people lining up. But once those people got their results, all the low-hanging fruit was gone. I am sure privacy concerns did not help, but only at the margins.

[Malika la Maize]

Trump’s picture is going to be on his immigration “Trump Gold Cards,” National Park passes, on both sides of a dollar coin…What’s the defense of this kind of “crass egotism” (as a lawsuit challenging the second use above calls it)? MAGAns don’t like it being called a cult or Trump being mocked as a king-wannabe, but support this kind of thing?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not justifying any of this but as to the National Park passes my understanding was it was to include George Washington as well to mark the 250th anniversary of the USA.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s correct (but, as an aside, that seems odd for that, iirc the first National Park came into being under Grant or TR).

[windycityattorney]

I think a deeper question may be asked why MLK and Juneteenth specifically are being targeted to be no longer 'free days' for national park admission. What sparked this idea? Why these two dates and not others? If they have a problem with free days; why not simply remove them all? Seems suspicious.

I am sure Trump will make his own birthday a free day; a national holiday, and we will hear of an announcement that he is putting his own face on Mt Rushmore before too long. Along with the rest of the bullshit ego moves that waste taxpayer money.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I think it's stupid. And I thought you had to be dead to appear on American coinage and currency? I mean, the kind that actually circulates, the Mint DOES have a series of commemorative "coins" that includes living Presidents.

Looking it up, I see that there is such a law, but it only applies to paper currency, not coins. I'd support amending it to cover coins, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

This is in the same vane as naming government offices or facilities for living persons (Nancy Pelosi federal office building in SF?).

[Malika la Maize]

You could have spelled that vain and it would have worked as well!

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Miss Crabtree.
Would you apply that to all politicians or only to Trump?

[Malika la Maize]

I thought my joke asserted that it would apply to all (it’s the same “vain” for Pelosi to have a building named after her).

[Mr. Bumble]

Fair enough.
Given that we seldom agree on much, I wasn't sure.

[Frank Drackman]

I think you're thinking of Miss Krabappel, who I find incredibly hot (is it wrong to think a Cartoon's hot?)

[Mr. Bumble]

No, Miss Crabtree from the Little Rascals who was a real person and was pretty hot.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Marlowe#/media/File:Misscrabtree_schoolsout.JPEG
June Marlowe (born Gisela Valaria Goetten,
A nice German girl.

[Malika la Maize]

I’ve been slowly making my way through the entire Simpsons for a few years now and was surprised to see Ms Krabappel became Mrs. Flanders (in a second sense as well).

[David Nieporent]

I don't think anything should be named after a sitting politician (probably not any living politician, just to be safe, but definitely not a sitting one).

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee, there seems to be comity in the air this morning.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or he could have spelled it "vein", and gotten it right. 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

English is such a bitch.
I knew it didn't seem right.

[Frank Drackman]

It is! take "Wound" and "Wound" so which one is bleeding and which one refers to what you used to do to a wristwatch?? (and I still do several times a week with our Grandfather clocks)
And to make things even more confusing, the bad bleeding one is the one with the soft soothing name (it even rhymes with "Soothe") while the one that merely refers to a "Wound" Clock rhymes with "Ow!"
or Wind, and Wind, one refers to air currents, while the other refers to what you used to do to a wristwatch,
German's so much easier, they put those little dots over the vowels to tell you how to say it,

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

If you want to realize how irrational English is help a kid with their English (“language arts”) homework.

[Frank Drackman]

Or History, took me a few years to realize it wasn't the "Futile System" (honest mistake Feudalism was pretty "Futile")
and for the longest time I thought people were saying "So Real" when they said "Surreal" (OK, I either missed the day we learned "Surreal" or wasn't paying attention, probably the latter)
But next time some Idiot says something was "Surreal" (it almost never is) see how similar it sounds to "So Real"
"Oh Man, the Total Solar Eclipse was "Surreal"/So Real"
now Total Solar Eclipses actually are (Surreal)

Frank "Mike Hunt!?!?! is there a Mike Hunt in the House?, Has anyone seen Mike Hunt!?!?!"

[Mr. Bumble]

Bart Simpson lives.
Poor dumb Moe.

[Brett Bellmore]

Admittedly, in spoken English "vane" and "vain" sound exactly the same, and "vein" differs only slightly. It helps to realize that, of the three, only a "vein" is the sort of thing you can be "in".

Best description I've seen is, "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."

[David Nieporent]

and "vein" differs only slightly

Not in this neck of the woods.

only a "vein" is the sort of thing you can be "in".

As a physical place, sure, but the Lord's name can be taken "in vain."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I grew up in the Midwest, and "vein" and "vain" definitely sound different to me, "vein" has more of an "eh" to it, while "vain" or "vane" have a harder "a". But it is a pretty subtle difference.

[David Nieporent]

I've tried repeating it to myself over and over until the words cease to have meaning and are just sounds, and they still sound identical from my perspective.

Maybe someone not Midwestern like you and not mid Atlantic like me can be the tiebreaker.

[loki13]

vane-
/vān/

vein-
/vān/

vein-
/vān/

.....they're homophones.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Maybe someone not Midwestern like you and not mid Atlantic like me can be the tiebreaker."

I doubt that. I'm from the midwest (Wisconsin) and nobody I knew growing up pronounced the words differently. Perhaps, if there are actually people in the English speaking world who pronounce the words differently (other than Brett), it has something to do with local immigrant populations.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I've tried repeating it to myself over and over until the words cease to have meaning and are just sounds, and they still sound identical from my perspective."

Amusingly, there was a very old SF short story premised on that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it could just be me; My knowledge of how they're spelled bleeding over into how I hear them.

[Zarniwoop]

I grew up in the northeast (CT, MA), and have lived for years-to-decades in GA, IA, and now WI. In no location did I ever notice any difference between vane, vain, and vein.

[Ridgeway]

"I suppose it could just be me; My knowledge of how they're spelled bleeding over into how I hear them."

I have never heard any difference in any of the three choices (vane, vein, vain).

People also tell me that "bear" and "bare" are pronounced differently, but other than Davy Crockett/Fess Parker, I have always found them identical.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think this meaning is spelt "vein"....

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump has a truly gargantuan ego is the explanation; The Donald is just being The Donald. I can't justify it either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe put his image on a new penny with the motto Make The Penny Great Again.

[Josh R]

Spot on XY. While we should not care much about his picture being on a coin or park pass, his ego has poisoned substantive policy decisions. Parties that give him gifts get favorable treatment (e.g., Qatar). Those that don't get screwed (e.g., South Africa). It's high time for conservatives to condemn this shit.

[Malika la Maize]

“While we should not care much about his picture being on a coin or park pass”

Disagree. When there’s no good reason for such aggrandizement it’s a big deal for officials in a republic to do it.

[SRG2]

The defence is that Dear Leader wants it, and that suffices.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/my-son-is-a-hero-family-of-man-who-tackled-sydney-gunman-says-it-was-matter-of-conscience/

This man, Ahmed al Ahmed, performed an incredible selfless act of courage and saved many lives. He is a naturalized Australian citizen (from Syria). I hope that there are more men like him in America.

[Frank Drackman]

Been in an Uber lately?

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, kudos to him.

[hobie]

A gofundme for the hero has been going like gangbusters.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/zbcjn-support-the-hero-who-disarmed-a-bondi-attacker

Much more heartening than watching racists become millionaires on the Christian gofundme for calling black people ni**ers

[SRG2]

If there are any potential heroes like that in the US, they're not getting naturalised ATM.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The latest from the Keystone Cops in Rhode Island:
https://nypost.com/2025/12/14/us-news/person-of-interest-in-brown-university-shooting-released/

This is now the second "wrong" person they have arrested, and wouldn't the same cell phone tracking technology that found him in the hotel also prove that the cell phone had been there 12 hours earlier?

What ever happened to building a case BEFORE you arrest someone at 3 AM, maybe even, perish the thought, stake out the place and wait until you have more evidence a few hours later....

[Malika la Maize]

This is why I think they want to be tight lipped about the investigations, that poor kid from Wisconsin!

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, Kyle Rittenhouse really got screwed.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re a hundred sensational stories behind.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Perhaps not.
Perhaps the right person will ask why he was enrolled in Brown for Fall -2025 but no longer a student.

[Michael P]

https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2026/preliminary/1269, from the abstract for "A Danger to Self and Others: Health and Criminal Consequences of Involuntary Hospitalization":

For individuals whom some physicians would hospitalize but others would not, we find [involuntary] hospitalization nearly doubles deaths by suicide/overdose and nearly doubles being charged with a violent crime in the three months following evaluation.

It's an interesting result, although the population qualifier in the first clause may be significant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" nearly doubles being charged with a violent crime in the three months following evaluation."

This might actually be motivation for doing something about this.

[Malika la Maize]

I can certainly see where an involuntary commitment could tip someone over the edge more, not less. It’s a tough issue imho.

[Frank Drackman]

You seemed to have done OK.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not the kind of psychologist that has to decide if nutcases like you should be committed, Frankie.

[Bwaaah]

Are you some other kind of psychologist?

[Malika la Maize]

Yes.

[Bwaaah]

wow

[Dr. Ed 2]

Time for the hammer and ash stake.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe change your handle to Lucy Van Pelt?

[Malika la Maize]

Good way to say you don’t understand the field without actually saying it.

[Bwaaah]

He wasn't talking about the field. He was talking about you.

[Malika la Maize]

You also don’t know what you’re talking about, phony.

[Bwaaah]

Is this some kind of a specialized practice?
Are you a pet psychologist?
Maybe a specialty in building atop foundations of resentment?
Shouldn't you show some inclination for empathy, even perhaps toward those with whom you differ? A little?
I hope your professional life is very different from your recreational life here; you should probably avoid spillover.
Are you sure you're not Fran Drackman fucking with my head?

A psychologist. I did not guess that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"kind of psychologist"

Queenie is a psychologist! Explains a lot.

[Commenter_XY]

Is there a 'typical' case where shrinks disagree on involuntary commitment? = For individuals whom some physicians would hospitalize but others would not

[Michael P]

To paraphrase Dostoyevsky, each involuntarily hospitalized person is unwell in their own way -- but these are from the population of marginal cases. The study suggests that we (the mental health system, at least around Pittsburgh) tend to involuntarily hospitalize people who should get other interventions, or perhaps no intervention.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At one point, UMass Amherst was doing three incarcerations a day from the dorm population of then about 11K.

[Malika la Maize]

Gangsters from MS-13, a Trump-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, intimidated Hondurans not to vote for the left-leaning presidential candidate, 10 eyewitness sources told The Intercept, in most cases urging them to instead cast their ballots in last Sunday’s election for the right-wing National Party candidate — the same candidate endorsed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Ten residents from four working-class neighborhoods controlled by MS-13, including volunteer election workers and local journalists, told The Intercept they saw firsthand gang members giving residents an ultimatum to vote for the Trump-endorsed conservative candidate or face consequences. Six other sources with knowledge of the intimidation — including government officials, human rights investigators, and people with direct personal contact with gangs — corroborated their testimony. Gang members drove voters to the polls in MS-13-controlled mototaxi businesses, three sources said, and threatened to kill street-level activists for the left-leaning Liberty and Refoundation, or LIBRE, party if they were seen bringing supporters to the polls. Two witnesses told The Intercept they saw members of MS-13 checking people’s ballots inside polling sites, as did a caller to the national emergency help line…

The MS-13 interference took place as the U.S. president, who has obsessed over the gang since his first term, extended an interventionist hand over the elections. On November 28, Trump threatened to cut off aid to Honduras if voters didn’t elect Asfura while simultaneously announcing a pardon for Asfura’s ally and fellow party member Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras convicted in the U.S. on drug trafficking and weapons charges last year.

https://theintercept.com/2025/12/09/asfura-honduras-election-trump-ms-13/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The+Intercept+Newsletter&fbclid=IwY2xjawOoE55leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEe8ab3f3A_Sx0LA3wjM63RGYW0yvDhzQWVgNB5aie9ziORPhv7mopymCMJN4w_aem_H8fQt2EqeFyTJ8nJmnGDpQ

[Michael P]

They must have learned from Obama.

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

[Malika la Maize]

Pretty sad whataboutism.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Intercept, eh.

[Malika la Maize]

Not the best source, I’ll admit.

[Estragon]

It’s no thedailyaus.world, for sure

[Malika la Maize]

We treat every robotaxi error as a verdict on the entire technology, while the daily carnage of human driving fades into the background. That is backward. We are grading machines against perfection and grading ourselves on a curve.

Consider that seat belts and airbags did not eliminate car crashes; they made survival more likely. Robotaxis deserve to be judged against the same standard — not a fantasy of zero risk but a defensible comparison with humans.

The emerging industry data makes a strong case on behalf of robotaxis. Across roughly 96 million rider-only miles, Waymo reports that its vehicles caused 91 percent fewer serious‑injury‑or‑worse crashes versus human benchmarks in similar conditions, 92 percent fewer crashes involving pedestrian injuries, and about 79 percent fewer air-bag-deployment crashes.

Those are not just numbers; they are a scorecard of lives not shattered. And they are a strong argument for expanding the use of these vehicles nationwide.

We should not hold autonomous vehicles to a zero-risk standard that human drivers fail every day. What we should do is demand transparency and continuous improvement. We should build on the crash reporting framework introduced in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 2021 Standing General Order and pass the AV Safety Data Act to require standardized federal reporting of miles driven, collisions and unplanned stops so the public can directly compare robotaxis with human drivers, apples to apples.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/12/10/robotaxis-waymo-safety-data/

[Brett Bellmore]

Rationally, I think you're right. I don't expect, except normatively, that people will be rational about this.

The problem with self-driving cars is that they're likely to make different mistakes than humans would, which makes it hard for humans to accept them.

[Malika la Maize]

Loss of control is very tough, even if it improves safety.

[Commenter_XY]

It offers the chance for the elderly who do not or cannot drive to more meaningfully interact with society. That matters, a lot. Maintaining their contact and roots with a community helps engagement, and life outlook.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can Biden's 'vette be retrofitted to become self driving?

[SRG2]

Very good.

[David Nieporent]

Loss of control is very tough, even if it improves safety.

Yes; look at the irrational fears over airline safety vs. driving; the former is much safer, but because people have no control over it, they are more worried about it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Robo taxis are just a plot to eliminate jobs for illegal aliens.

[Commenter_XY]

How does Waymo AD performance data compare to Tesla AD (Autonomous Driving) performance data?

Could a state mandate the use of AD driving (Robo-taxi or AD only) on certain toll roads, as a general proposition? Can they actually do that?

[jb]

How does Waymo AD performance data compare to Tesla AD (Autonomous Driving) performance data?

Tesla's FSD is still mostly fiction, but here's a discussion on Reddit about the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1p1ils4/robotaxis_accident_rate_is_15x_waymo/

tl;dr: there's not much data yet for Tesla, but to the extent it exists they have many more accidents than Waymo.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes -- if 120 year precedents are upheld -- because driving is considered a "privilege" which the state grants, and not a right.

Which the state licenses.

And which the state can unlicense.

[Bwaaah]

I suspect that insurance companies will eventually offer varied rates in auto insurance: a higher rate if you drive the car, and a lower rate if the car drives itself.

[Brett Bellmore]

The question is whether that happens before or after states start making driver's licenses (even) harder to get.

[MoreCurious]

The next time Trump tells the truth about something, or doesn't brag about how great he is, or doesn't find new ways to enrich himself, or shows the slightest bit of empathy toward those who are less fortunate than he is is the day that I'll ride in a robotaxi.

[ThePublius]

It took less than a day for a Democrat to blame Trump for the Brown University shooting:

"Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said the Brown University shooting was a result of President Donald Trump’s “dizzying campaign to increase violence in this country.”"

I wasn't even aware of this dizzying campaign!

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/12/14/chris-murphy-blames-brown-shooting-on-trump-campaign-to-increase-violence-in-this-country/

It will be interesting to learn who did it, and why, if we ever do.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cameras, cameras everywhere and no one has a clue (well unless you're a Jan. 6 granny).

[Commenter_XY]

It seems very implausible to me that Brown University (tuition 100K annually), would fail to have extensive video surveillance of the entire campus, especially high traffic volume public areas like hallways leading to classrooms.

Washington DC is a noxious cesspool.

[ThePublius]

I've read that there are over 800 cameras on campus.

[Frank Drackman]

any recorded?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Real question, Frank: "How many are working?"

[jb]

You guys live in a weird, paranoid world. They do have video surveillance footage of the shooter. Unfortunately "person dressed in black with their face covered" isn't as helpful as you might hope.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The perp shouting "Allahu Akbar" of course means nothing.

[David Nieporent]

It might mean something if there were any evidence it happened. What actually happened is that people in the classroom said that the guy yelled something, but that they couldn't make out what it was, and online right wing nutjobs said, "Of course we all know what he really yelled, and They™ are Suppressing The Truth.™"

[Malika la Maize]

Watching the video it’s in the context of him saying the Trump administration can offer nothing in response to a shooting like this because it has weakened what he thinks (not me) are effective tools to deal with something like that:

“If you look at states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, California that have stronger laws, we have gun violence rates, murder rates, mass shooting rates that are two to 3 to 4 times lower than states that have loose gun laws. And many of the weapons that are used in our states for gun crimes come to our states from those states that have an ability for criminals and people with serious mental illness to buy weapons. So what we know is that stronger laws do work. Since we passed that bill in 2022, the first bill in 30 years that strengthens the nation’s gun laws, gun violence rates and mass shooting rates have come down in this country. But this is not shocking because over the last year, President Trump has been engaged in a dizzying campaign to increase violence in this country. He is restoring gun rights to felons and people who have lost their ability to buy guns. He eliminated the White House office of gun violence protection, and he has stopped funding mental health grants and community anti-gun violence grants that Republicans and Democrats supported in that 2022 bill. So he has been engaged in a pretty deliberate campaign to try to make violence more likely in this country. I think you’re unfortunately going to see the results of that on the streets of America.”

Having said that, the language “been engaged in a dizzying campaign to increase violence in this country” is pretty bad when what seemed to be his point (what would fit with what else he said) would have been easily said like this: “the current administration has undercut tools to stop gun violence like this” while being far less inflammatory.

[ThePublius]

Isn't it a bit contradictory of him to say Rhode Island has these gun laws to stop violence when commenting on a shooting in Rhode Island?

[Malika la Maize]

Sure, as I said he thinks that, I don’t.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've remarked on this before: If you look in a detailed way at crime rates, including murder, the more you zoom in the more variation you see. Two states might have crime rates that differ by a few percent, in the same state two counties might be within 50% of each other, one city be several times worse than its suburbs, but by the time you get down to the street level you're looking at, often, several orders of magnitude difference in crime rates.

It's a standard principle of statistical analysis that, when there are confounding variables present that you need to control for, the more subtle the effect you're trying to measure, the better you have to control for the confounding variables.

Given several orders of magnitude differences in crime rates from neighborhood to neighborhood, the mind boggles at how precisely you'd have to know exactly what was causing those neighborhood variations, in order to say anything intelligible at all about state to state variations.

It's like trying to run the Cavendish experiment to measure the gravitational constant, only you're doing it in the middle of a magnitude 7 earthquake.

What you do know about those ultra-hazardous neighborhoods, is that mind bogglingly lower crime rates are perfectly consistent with the same set of laws. So, why would you focus on the laws, rather than obsessing about what makes those neighborhoods different?

And that's even without addressing the fact that we're discussing an explicit, enumerated constitutional right...

[Stephen Lathrop]

It's a standard principle of statistical analysis that, when there are confounding variables present that you need to control for, the more subtle the effect you're trying to measure, the better you have to control for the confounding variables.

Want a way to avoid bother about that, "standard principle?" Remember that correlation is not proof of causation. Indeed, even perfect correlations with values of 1 or 0 are subject to disproof as evidence of causation. For instance, no correlated subsequent can be taken as causative with regard to any correlated antecedent.

Want gun violence proof of causation you can rely on, and prove logically? Gun access shows a provable causative influence on gun violence. Sometimes, people with gun access commit gun violence. People without gun access never do. And the gun access always precedes the gun violence, never the other way around. That is what proof of causation looks like.

Of course that is not all you need to know to decide questions of wise legal policies regarding gun access and use. But it is better evidence by far than any claim made on the basis of correlations, whether with known confounding variables or otherwise.

Also, note that gun access is likely causative only with regard to gun violence, not with regard to other kinds of violence. Arguments about other kinds of violence as comparators are thus irrelevancies in discussions about gun violence. Other causes of violence may exist, and if so are properly considered in other discussions. Without a show of causative influence with regard to gun violence, other agencies of violence are useless to consider except in contexts different than gun violence. The fact that humans may be violent in various ways, and for various reasons, is not relevant to consideration of the causes of gun violence.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fact is, I don't care about "gun violence" any more than I care about "baseball bat violence". I care about violence violence.

Are people dead of gunshot wounds any deader than people dead of knifings?

The common factor between "gun" deaths and "knife" deaths, of course, is that they almost uniformly involve somebody meaning to kill somebody, (Sometimes themselves...) and absent that human intent, would not happen.

So, why, if you actually cared about violence as such, would you focus on means rather than intent? Are you imagining achieving a world where people are walking around with homicidal intent, only extremely frustrated because they lack any tools with which they could kill somebody?

I'd rather work towards a world where people are free, but don't particularly WANT to kill each other, frankly.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Actually, your commentary shows you care about gun violence only to the extent that you worry it might get public attention.

Your other crap about other violent modalities? QED.

[Brett Bellmore]

See? You're not interested in attacking "violence" unless you can leverage it to attack gun ownership. No sign of any interest at all in why people want to kill other people, and whether or not it would be possible to reduce homicidal intent, rather than take away particular means that are mostly means to accomplish perfectly legal ends.

You're like somebody who demands to ban pens in the name of keeping people from passing bad checks, and who doesn't care how often people use pens for perfectly innocent purposes. Because it's the pens you hate, not the bad checks.

[Sarcastr0]

You made a switch from violence to deaths.

That's kind of the big distinction of guns vs. knives, so I don't think you can just blithely make that switch.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think it's a particularly big distinction. In fact, you're just trying to avoid the point: Under the same laws rates of crime vary by several orders of magnitude from place to place, meaning variations in crime are not primarily driven by those laws.

Why, knowing this, would you try to change those laws? Rather than try to do something about why some neighborhoods have hundreds of times more violent people in them than other neighborhoods?

Because the crime is an excuse to change the laws, not a reason to change them.

If there's one thing I've learned about gun controllers, in decades of arguing with them, it's that they ARE "gun" controllers. Not violence controllers, not death controllers, not injury controllers. Just "gun" controllers. They'll crawl over broken glass to get a law that won't do anything about crime or death, they'll be utterly uninterested in figuring out how to reduce crime or death without attacking guns.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh FFS. I'm with you that the stats are too noisy to find much useful re: gun violence and gun laws.

That does not mean variations in crime are decoupled from gun control laws, it means you cannot tell.

That does not establish all gun laws are in bad faith.

If there's one thing I've learned about gun controllers, in decades of arguing with them
Nothing. You've shown time and again your imagined telepathy is where you learn stuff, not real life.

Hence your second conspiracy of the day. This one very broad - it includes leaders at all levels of government, for decades and decades.

It's on its face impossible.
But you got some weird relational-cognitive thing going on.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That does not mean variations in crime are decoupled from gun control laws, it means you cannot tell."

That's right, you can't even tell if your gun laws are making things worse, not better.

But the bigger point isn't that you can't tell. It's that you know that, even if gun laws worked, you'd be fishing for minnows and passing up whales, because you know that there are factors hundreds of times more influential than gun laws.

And, what kind of person, knowing that, obsesses on the gun laws, instead of trying to figure out what those factors might be?

[Sarcastr0]

Policy is made every day without a rock-solid statistical footing.

That doesn't mean it's ineffective, or made in bad faith.

Even when I or you disagree with it.

[not guilty]

The fact is, I don't care about "gun violence" any more than I care about "baseball bat violence". I care about violence violence.

Are people dead of gunshot wounds any deader than people dead of knifings?

The common factor between "gun" deaths and "knife" deaths, of course, is that they almost uniformly involve somebody meaning to kill somebody, (Sometimes themselves...) and absent that human intent, would not happen.

Brett, an assailant wielding a knife or baseball bat needs to get up close and personal in order to inflict injury on his victim. A cowardly weenie wielding a popgun can fatally shoot from considerably further away.

Gunshots are much more likely to be fatal than injuries from knives or clubs. While it is sometimes necessary, there is nothing admirable or noble about shooting another human being to death.

Guns don't kill people, but gunshot wounds damn sure do.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Gunshots are much more likely to be fatal than injuries from knives or clubs."
Tell Rob Reiner and his wife.

[Malika la Maize]

Pointing to an anecdote in response to a trend claim.

[Malika la Maize]

Some means are more efficient than others?

I mean, come on Brett, if you felt threatened and someone offered you a gun or knife for protection don’t tell me you’d take the knife. Guns are far more efficient weapons.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, they are. But that doesn't matter unless you've already decided to use that weapon. A gun in the hand of somebody who doesn't mean me ill is less of a threat to me than a pointy stick in the hands of somebody who does mean me ill.

Intent is where it's at, if you really want to do something about violence, not just use it as an excuse to do something else.

[Sarcastr0]

Once the intent is there, I'd rather a gun than a knife.

Again, you can't stop at intent and pretend all weapons are the same.

[Malika la Maize]

You really think bad guys with intent with a dirty bomb and a knife should be treated the same?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You have been assuming hostile intent as an irreducible constant. Then you turn it around to say nobody else gets to do likewise. Your advocacy on guns remains incoherent. That is what is constant about it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Gun access shows a provable causative influence on gun violence."

We can also show the opposite. There are cases where access to guns prevents violence. This is why we arm cops, for example.

Which effect is bigger?

[Malika la Maize]

Do countries with armed police forces have less gun violence?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. See Lathrop's comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Malika really ought to adjust for number and level of trauma centers in claiming that gun laws reduce GSW deaths.

[Malika la Maize]

I didn’t claim that (note to Pubes, see even if one uses quotation marks misinterpretation results).

[DDHarriman]

Not doing what the Democrats what causes them to violence you. So since Trump isn't doing what Democrats want he's on a dizzying campaign to increase violence.

you see?

[Estragon]

Maybe it was Edward Crabtree

[Bob from Ohio]

I googled "Blondi hero" last morning, got this article from an Australian paper's web site with "on record" quotes. People use single sources here all the time, including you.

[Estragon]

Sorry, I don’t buy it. You are not that credulous.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whatever. I explained it once, buy it or not, up to you.

[hobie]

It's a toss-up. Like you said, this is Brown so it would stand to reason a lib coed would more likely being hanging around there getting angrier over time.

Of course, with political violence almost an exclusive right thing, and all the hostility poured out against elite universities, and their students and teachers...well, could go the other way. We shall see.

[Frank Drackman]

I know this because I've seen every Gomer Pyle episode multiple times but Meathead appeared in one as a "Hippie" the one where Gomer is tasked to paint a military vehicle with camo paint, and runs into Hippy Meathead, a Hippy Chick, and another Hippy Dude "Gordie" (how they managed to get onto Camp Henderson isn't explained)
After a gratuitous version of "Blowin in the Wind" (Gomer sings of course) the Hippies move the vehicle (it was parked over some Daisies) and paint it in a "Far Out Groovy" Hippy Design,
Which actually helps when the Colonel shows up, thinks it's ingenious to hide a Military Vehicle as a Hippy Van (Possible War Crime??) and thinks Meathead et al are Marines in disguise (not a War Crime but subjects them to Execution as Spies or Saboteurs)
Always wanted to see an episode where Sergeant Carter sends Pyle to Vietnam after one of his screw ups.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

I liked Gomer a lot. And then I saw Jim Nabors sing on one of those hokey TV variety shows (the Glenn Campbell show? Sonny and Cher? The Jim Nabors Show?) and thought, "WTF?"

Gomer didn't sound like that. It was like the cantor who couldn't get a job in opera so he turned to a synagogue to make Saturday services even l-o-n-g-e-r and b-o-r-i-n-g-e-r and w-i-e-r-d-e-r.

[ThePublius]

Jim Nabors occasionally sang in Gomer Pyle episodes, like this one:

Gomer Pyle, USMC - The Impossible Dream

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. That freaked me out. It was like somebody doing a voice over on top of Gomer. No offense to anybody, but for me, there was no Jim Nabors. There was just Gomer Pyle. And that was no voice of Gomer Pyle!

[Brett Bellmore]

Which is funny, when the truth is there was no Gomer Pyle, just Jim Nabors, who sometimes did the voice of Gomer Pyle.

[Bwaaah]

I know. It makes me think maybe there are a lot of actors who I don't really know? Maybe? (lol)

[Poxigah146]

Do you climb obstacles like old people fuck?

[Malika la Maize]

A neat thing about Gomer Pyle (which I probably saw every episode of). It aired during the Vietnam War and was set in the South during the Civil Rights movement and was able to pretty much perfectly eliding the turmoil over both. The epitome of “shut up and dribble!”

[Bwaaah]

No "shut up." Just "dribble."

[Malika la Maize]

No, shut up and dribble.

[not guilty]

Gomer Pyle was from North Carolina, but the setting of the show was Camp Henderson in California.

[Frank Drackman]

Thank You

[DDHarriman]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/12/15/why-obamas-people-want-you-to-call-his-library-a-center-instead-n2667786

Since Obama has taken all those government records out from under control of the NARA shouldn't he be Mar-a-Lago'd and charged like Trump was? Who gave him permission to declassify all those records?

[David Nieporent]

Voltage!

Obama has not taken any records out from under the control of NARA. That talking point was refuted years ago, and is literally exactly the opposite point from the link!

[Moderation4ever]

These cases aren't even in same universe. President Obama working with NARA to create a facility to house the American citizen's papers from his administration is one thing. Steeling the American citizen's papers and hiding then in a bathroom is quite different. Do you understand the difference?

[Dr. Ed 2]

When I look at the wave of anti-JudeoChristian violence we have seen in the past few days, maybe Israel should have nuked Gaza.

Ruthless violence is the one thing that the savages understand.

Trump is right, we are at a tipping point -- and probably knows that the Brown Univ shooting was radical Islam and a terrorist already out of the area.

Much as it would have been easier to defeat Hitler in 1933 than 1943, I think it is time to fight the war we are going to have to fight eventually.

[Poxigah146]

Agree, and that's also true for the cartels and even inner city black gang banging violence.

[John F. Carr]

If you nuke Gaza you piss off a billion other Muslims, some of whom have access to weapons and are willing to die getting revenge.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ed, again, I assume, and his obsession with nuking Gaza?

[hobie]

Yep.

[hobie]

Let's rework your sentence to be by the more correctly situated people who can make such a claim:

[Aborigine]
When I look at the wave of JudeoChristian violence we have seen in the past few centuries, maybe Country [that's the closest name Aboriginals have for the continent] should have nuked England.

[Native American]
When I look at the wave of JudeoChristian violence we have seen in the past few centuries, maybe America should have nuked England.

[Palestinian]
When I look at the wave of JudeoChristian violence we have seen in the past few centuries, maybe Palestine should have nuked Israel.

[Malika la Maize]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned Sunday's deadly shooting at a Jewish holiday celebration in Sydney and said he had warned his Australian counterpart that the country's support for Palestinian statehood would fuel antisemitism.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/israels-netanyahu-accuses-australian-pm-fuelling-antisemitism-2025-12-14/

[Commenter_XY]

The truth hurts.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s another politician standing on corpses to push his position. Gross.

[Bob from Ohio]

Today in when all you have is a hammer news.

The Associated Press@AP
BREAKING: Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese proposed tougher national gun laws after a mass shooting on Sydney's Bondi Beach left at least 15 people dead.

Immigration controls, nah.

[Martinned]

You realise that you only heard about this shooting because mass shooting events are vanishingly rare in Australia? If it was 15 people shot in the US it might be a local news story at best.

Nevertheless, it has emerged that the shooters used legal fire arms. So it makes sense to change the law to try to stop violent criminals like this from trying to get their hands at rifles, because the current laws clearly didn't do the job.

Here is some analysis of the last time Austrlia had a mass shooting event, and the subsequent changes in the law:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2704353/

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/03/13/gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-in-australia.html

[Brett Bellmore]

"If it was 15 people shot in the US it might be a local news story at best."

On the contrary, some years ago a gun controller proposed that it would be helpful if the media played up 'mass' shootings, and despite the inevitable copycat crimes that generated, that's what they've done ever since. It's basically unimaginable that if 15 people were shot in a given instance in the US, it wouldn't get nation-wide coverage.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It's basically unimaginable that if 15 people were shot in a given instance in the US, it wouldn't get nation-wide coverage.

Your view is that it ought to be imaginable that publication of such an occurrence be suppressed?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think local stories should be covered, locally. I do think the media should take the copycat effect more seriously.

One proposal I've seen is that they would stop prominently reporting the names of mass murderers, and instead just refer to them as "that asshole".

[Sarcastr0]

some years ago a gun controller proposed that it would be helpful if the media played up 'mass' shootings, and despite the inevitable copycat crimes that generated, that's what they've done ever since.

Another Brett Bellmore conspiracy!

[John F. Carr]

From my point of view the shooting at Brown received a comparable amount of coverage. When a person drives into a crowd and hits a lot of people, that story goes nationwide. Ordinary gang wars don't get a lot of attention. The media wants an unusual story, sympathetic victims, or an incident that fits a narrative.

[David Nieporent]

You realise that you only heard about this shooting because mass shooting events are vanishingly rare in Australia? If it was 15 people shot in the US it might be a local news story at best.

No. Mass shootings in the U.S. still always make national news. Now, I suspect it would disappear from said national news much more quickly in the U.S. than it will in Australia, but it would absolutely get national coverage.

[Bob from Ohio]

"because the current laws clearly didn't do the job"

No gun control law, or combination of laws, can possibly completely "do the job".

Current Islamist weapon of choice is driving a vehicle into a crowd. Should we pass car control laws?

[Malika la Maize]

A more charitable reading is do the job refers to gun killings, not all killings. I think it’s silly to equate the two, there are at least some instances where “I’m going to get a gun and kill X” =\= “I’m going to get a car and kill X.”

[ThePublius]

That's exactly the point: killing is killing, and a gun, a car a knife, etc., are just instrumentalities. It's a people problem, not a gun problem.

[Malika la Maize]

The instruments are not equal, *that’s the point of gun rights.* If someone told you “hey, you don’t need a gun you could just have a car or knife” you’d *rightly* object that these things are not interchangeable.

[Bob from Ohio]

For self defense, no. For mass murder, they are.

[Malika la Maize]

Not even that. Imagine the Texas bell tower mass shooting decades ago with a car.

[Bob from Ohio]

Imagine an explosive filed car running into a crowd at a Texas football game.

Most dead from a US terrorist attack. Boxcutters. Airplanes.

Second most dead from a US terrorist attack. IED made from fertilizer and gasoline.

Most dead from a US school attack. Truck bomb.

[ThePublius]

I never said they were equal, that's a straw man you set up.

[Bob from Ohio]

"do the job refers to gun killings"

Did I say differently?

But even if you do the impossible and get rid of ALL gun killings, it won't stop terrorist attacks. Cars are commonly used now. Knives, bows and clubs exist. IEDs can be built from fertilizer and petrol. Plus they can acquire illegal guns, by smuggling or theft from the government.

[Malika la Maize]

The argument is it would stop some (the gun ones), ya goof, and they’re not interchangeable,

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If it was 15 people shot in the US it might be a local news story at best."

Like the Brown shooting?

[John F. Carr]

Reports say the British government will ask Apple and Google to prevent phones from taking naked pictures unless the owner is proved to be an adult. Even viewing such photos may be prohibited.

It is technically feasible to block picture taking based on subject matter. Recent versions of iOS already offer "sensitive" image blocking on an opt-in basis. I think the target audience is women who don't like getting dick pics. (A few years ago a woman built an app to screen them out. I guess she's been put out of business.)

Earlier, there was pressure on Apple to put a list of forbidden files into each phone.
"Siri, show me the poster for the Austin 'no Kings' protest."
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

[Stephen Lathrop]

John F. Carr — About thirty years ago I was startled when an early edition of Adobe Photoshop refused to process an image of my son, peeking out of a mock-up of a $100 dollar bill as if he were Ben Franklin. Humorously, that photo prop had been provided at public expense, in a room adjacent to the display of the Liberty Bill in Philadelphia. I was impressed that technology to derive meaning from a pile of pixels had advanced that far.

That piqued my interest, to see how extensive that kind of surveillance was becoming. One result, I found out that if you bought certain colors of green ink from a printing supply vendor, clerks were supposed to write down your name and report it to the Secret Service.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one cynical enough to wonder about some leftist group having large numbers of people purchase that ink just to screw with the USSS?

[Bwaaah]

I don't believe Photoshop, 30 years ago, "refused to process an image" based on a content recognition capability. I suspect there was some other reason for the failure.

[John F. Carr]

Photoshop has refused to work with money for a long time. I don't recall if it was exactly 30 years ago.

[Bwaaah]

And so it did. It looks like their "Counterfeit Deterrence System" was first included in Photoshop CS in 2003.

That's news, and interesting to me.

I stand corrected, and give SL a "PLAUSIBLE" rating on that (allowing for approximation of time).

[Stephen Lathrop]

I do. Because the Philadelphia trip in question occurred when my now-38-year-old son was 8 years old. Whatever means were used to recognize currency remains mysterious to me. The recognition began with a scan of a printed film positive. The scan was imported into Photoshop, probably nearly the original edition, or possibly even a prototype. I had access to some Adobe prototype software near that time.

[Bwaaah]

It looks like Counterfeit Deterrence System was independently developed by the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group. It seems to have been released around 2004.

[Martinned]

Gee, I wonder why people keep saying that the AfD is a neo-Nazi party.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/15/member-far-right-afd-party-charged-nazi-salute-reichstag-germany

This sounds like exactly the sort of party that the US Regime should, in the interests of US national security, support in its efforts to take over Germany.

[ThePublius]

1. He denies the allegation;
2. Wouldn't it be nice to have freedom of speech in Germany?
3. The 'regime' is not trying to take over Germany. Where did you get that silly idea?

[jb]

On #3, you're pretty obviously parsing the post you're responding to incorrectly. Martin is saying that AfD is trying to take over Germany, and that Trump is supporting AfD (i.e., the "its" in the last sentence applies to "the sort of party" not "the regime").

[ThePublius]

Ah, yes, I suppose you are right. Thank you.

[Martinned]

2. Wouldn't it be nice to have freedom of speech in Germany?

Once upon a time we would have all agreed that Germany has had enough experience with Nazi's that they shouldn't have any more, much like an alcoholic shouldn't have any more liquor. But I guess US Trumpists think there's no such thing as too many Nazi's...

[ThePublius]

1. It's Nazis (plural), not Nazi's (singular possesive);
2. My comment has nothing to do with 'Trumpists,' as you assert. There is no Nazism in supporting Trump or his policies. To assert so is patently false. What Nazi would have a son in law who's Jewish and a daughter who converted to Judaism? [1]
3. It's about free speech. You can't be arrested, no less that get 3 years in jail(!) for giving what someone might interpret as a Nazi salute in the U.S. You can in Germany. Note:

"The Skokie Nazi March history revolves around a planned 1977 neo-Nazi demonstration in Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago suburb with a large Jewish population, including many Holocaust survivors, leading to a major First Amendment battle over free speech, ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court, though the Nazis ended up marching in Chicago instead, and the event sparked global debates on hate speech vs. free expression, highlighting the U.S. commitment to civil liberties even for hateful ideologies."

[1] you are an ass for invoking so-called 'Trumpist' Nazism.

[Malika la Maize]

What Nazi would have a son in law who's Jewish and a daughter who converted to Judaism?

This is a pretty poor argument. Among other things I can think of historical examples of American settlers who did awful things to Native Americans while being married to one.

[ThePublius]

I'm saying the accusations of Nazism are unfounded.

[Malika la Maize]

I guess if you want to be letter of the law instead of spirit.

[ThePublius]

I don't get that. Care to elaborate?

[Malika la Maize]

Nazism might not be about targeting a specific group.

[ThePublius]

O.K., never mind, I'm still not getting your point.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's like you totally missed the point of Animal Farm.

[Stephen Lathrop]

As so often happens after public mass shooting incidents, focus of public attention has settled swiftly on questions of motive. And that kind of attention, as typically, seeks to assign motives, or deny motives, by rummaging for discoverable correlations to abiding controversies. Advocates accustomed to take sides in a controversy become all-too-evidently tailors of opinions cut to suit their own prior opinions.

As a matter of historical reckoning, acknowledge that violence in furtherance of political disputes is commonplace. That is not the same as supposition that public shooting violence is routinely traceable to public affairs. The former is undeniable. The latter ought to be controversial.

I suggest a bias against any such connection of public shootings to larger controversies. It is probably wise personal policy. It is also wise more generally. It can serve as a bulwark against political opportunists inclined to exploit violence however they can.

Consider also another possibility, one balefully in accord with what the evidence of prior mass shootings seems to demonstrate: that any search for motive will be frustrated in deranged cases where intent to do the shooting was its own motive.

[ReaderY]

The Trump Administration banned sign language interpreters from White House press conferences and briefings. A lawsuit claming this represented a failure to accommodate under the ADA.

Trump’s lawyers, who style themselves by the moniker “U.S. Department of Justice,” responded with a remarkable claim - the President has a right to control his image, and, and any association with handicapped people would harm his image.

The plaintiffs should ask to amend their complaint, add an intentional discrimination element, ask for punitive damages, add Mr. Trump personally as a party, and claim he acted ultra vires, and he is personally liable.

The situation here is no different from a white southern restaurant owner who claims the presence of black people would harm the restaurant’s image and has the chutzpah to insist on an exemption from the Civil Rights Act on that basis. This is intentional discrimination at its core.

In intentionally discriminating against deaf people because of his personal bigotry towards them, I think the plaintifffs here should argue that Mr. Trump is not acting on behalf of the United States at all, and that he and not the US taxpayers should pay the punitive damages. They may lose. But the situation here is so egregious, so disgusting, that I don’t think it’s a frivolous argument. And it’s something that needs to be said.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-lawsuit-sign-language-interpreter-b2883702.html

[Brett Bellmore]

Interesting. When I track down the actual legal arguments being made, they're actually quite different:

1. That these plaintiffs had advanced the same arguments in 2020, and settled, "releasing “all claims” that were “asserted” or “could have been asserted in the [prior] Complaint.”"
2. That the White house already provides closed captioning and transcripts, which means that the deaf are already taken care of.
2. That they don't have standing anyway.

The nearest I can see to what you're claiming, is not that it would be bad for his image to be seen next to a sign language interpreter, (How exactly would that be bad.) but instead that requiring him to share the stage with another person and have the camera primarily focus on them, not him, would be excessively burdensome given that closed captioning and transcripts already have to issue covered.

[David Nieporent]

1. Unless the president is confessing that the stuff he says isn't important, that's a pretty bad defense. Transcripts are not real time, and closed captioning of live events is pretty inaccurate.

2. Trump's filing doesn't say anything about "having the camera focus primarily on them"; you're just desperately trying to come up with something to defend Trump as you always do. Also, the president has no control over what the press chooses to focus its cameras on, and the press does not in fact do that at press conferences w/ sign language interpreters.

[ThePublius]

"Transcripts are not real time"

There is, indeed, real time transcription.

"Live transcription converts spoken audio into text in real-time, crucial for accessibility, meetings, and content creation, available via dedicated apps like Google Live Transcribe (Android) and services like Otter.ai and Microsoft Teams, using AI for accuracy, speaker identification, and even language translation, capturing conversations from lectures to virtual calls instantly."

"closed captioning of live events is pretty inaccurate."

Are they any less accurate than signing representations of what is said?

It's as accurate as the live transcriptions.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I have no way to judge the accuracy of ASL interpreters, so I can't answer that. But I do have a way to judge live closed captioning (which is the same as real time transcription), and it's not very good. Terrible on proper nouns, of course, but not very good in general. Computers are bad at understanding context, so they routinely guess the wrong word.

Of course, a professionally prepared transcript from a recording is nearly perfect, but takes time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree, the ASL interpreter might be more than marginally more accurate than even high end computer transcription. I find that quite believable.

But the fact remains that it's a high cost accommodation for a small fraction of the audience, requiring the President to share a large fraction of the screen space. While closed captioning might not be quite as accurate, and transcripts not quite so fast, they're serving a substantially larger audience.

Basically they're demanding that cost effectiveness not play any role in deciding HOW the administration accommodates the deaf.

[David Nieporent]

1) Again, it does not in fact require the president to share a large fraction of the screen space. Here's a counterexample: https://share.google/V5De1FjWu9ALLnFC3

2) Even if it did, what is the "cost" of that? None of any sort. (I guess other than the interpreter's salary.) We're discussing a politician conveying information to the country, not a commercial venture.

[ThePublius]

With excellent live transcription and captioning, signers are unnecessary. They will go the way of the buggy whip.

[Moderation4ever]

The thing is we have not yet reached the point of live transcriptions. They are incomplete and in some cases just pretty bad.

[ThePublius]

My experience has been very positive.

[Brett Bellmore]

My experience has been that they're terrible, unless you know enough about what's being discussed to work out what was said behind the mistakes. But I expect them to keep improving.

[Malika la Maize]

I’ve seen them on many a treadmill. They’re terrible.

[Ska]

Watch any sports broadcast with captioning of the commentators. The idea is horrifying in itself, and the captioning is frankly awful as you've stated.

[Sarcastr0]

Vice signaling.

At some point accommodating the handicapped became lib-coded to MAGA. Given their median age, seems a short-sighted move.

But for MAGA consequences are nothing compared to the drive to performatively own the libs, even if the libs are more imaginary than real.

The excuse-makers got their work cut out for them on this one!

[DDHarriman]

Another dumb Sarcastr0 Hot-Take again.

M'uh vibes!

[Bob from Ohio]

"banned sign language interpreters from White House press conferences and briefings"

Doing the deaf a favor.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Steve Bannon told the New Republic that Stephen Miller’s worldview is influenced by Oswald Spengler. If true that’s not great.

https://newrepublic.com/article/204191/stephen-miller-maga-terror-state-dark-plot

[Martinned]

What do you mean "if true"? Of course that's true. The only question is by what route.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t consider Bannon a reliable source. He definitely reads Spengler, so I’m just not sure how much he’s simply projecting his own interests
onto Miller.

[Estragon]

Someone in the White House is writing the tweets talking about “non-compatibl[ity] with Western Civilization.”

[LawTalkingGuy]

Eh that’s not necessarily Spengler. A lot of illiterate rubes say stuff like that. It could simply be parroting Huntington if there is an intellectual basis. Miller probably did read in undergrad. Although usually Huntington is assigned in the expectation that students see through the bullshit.

[grb]

Spengler influenced Thomas Mann early in the latter's political wanderings - though that influence abated after Mann's "Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man" was written (and later disavowed).

Yet the philosopher's impact persisted in the novels. For instance, in the tetralogy, Joseph and His Brothers, Mann contrasts the drive and vigor of Joseph's faith with exhausted decadence & decay of Egypt's ancient society. This point is double-emphasized by Mann having Pharoah during Joseph's time being Akhenaton, a conceit for which there's little likelihood. Even with the two both having a monotheistic belief, one is shown to have inner life and force, while the other is an effete weightless construct.

(All of which is the long way of announcing the fourth and final novel of the Joseph quartet is available on audiobook Thursday. It's the worst book of the four, but it's nice to have them all out).

[Estragon]

Yeesh, I looked into this guy a bit this morning. Really puts a patina on all the comments about Somali culture around here the other day.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It’s very common to see people say “just read the subtitles/captions” when there are calls for sign language interpreters.

But is it really that simple? Is that enough? Spoiler alert: no. But it’s not complicated to understand why it’s not enough either. There are reasons why:

1) subtitles/captions are not enough in certain scenarios, and

2) sign language interpreters can relay the message better for many people who communicates in sign language only.

https://hearmeoutcc.com/subtitles-captions-not-enough/

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a cost/benefit analysis. Clearly ASL interpreters are better than subtitles or transcripts for that tiny fraction of the audience who are deaf AND understand ASL. And less than useless for the vast majority of the audience.

By contrast, transcripts are useful to everybody, and subtitles at worst don't detract much for people who aren't hearing impaired, and frequently find use by people who are merely hearing impaired like me, but not deaf enough to justify learning ASL.

So, are the deaf who know ASL legally entitle to the absolute best possible accommodation, or just an adequate one that's also useful to others, or at least isn't a bother to them?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Bill of Rights Day.

On December 15, 1791, after years of debate and deliberation, our forebearers ratified the Bill of Rights. In doing so, they forever enshrined the fundamental rights and liberties we hold sacred as Americans and set in motion the greatest self-governance experiment in the history of the world.

- President Joe Biden

I use this 2023 statement since, checking, I don't see one on the current White House website. It does assure us that he is protecting the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech.

In his own way.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://theonion.com/third-amendment-rights-group-celebrates-another-success-1819569379/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Their win streak might be in doubt these days.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If any President is going to create a Third Amendment issue...it's this one.

[Brett Bellmore]

We've had third amendment issues for years, the problem has been getting the courts to care.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Been quartering soldiers in peacetime without consent, have we? And, there have been attempts to litigate this?

[Sarcastr0]

BrettLaw take incoming.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s either going to be a real life event that’s much better described as a potential seizure or taking that’s he’s mislabeling quartering for some reason…or the most batshit conspiracy on earth.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Whatever you’re thinking of, to the extent it’s really happening, is almost certainly not quartering and is instead some kind of 4th, 5th, or 14th amendment violation.

[Malika la Maize]

Trump Truth Social Post:

A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before.

My comment: WTF is wrong with you people who support this guy?

[Malika la Maize]

https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/2000586103972065315

Related?

[DDHarriman]

Reiner wasn't murdered because of his politics though. He was murdered because he's a weirdo liberal who raised weirdo liberal kids.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you not see how you directly contradicted yourself between your first and second sentence?

[Michael P]

"Raising mentally unbalanced weirdo leftist kids counts as politics" explains a lot of the groomer behavior we see.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh. So you’re just going to be the nastiest shithead possible about this thing, huh?

[Michael P]

Your rage and bile are greatly misdirected. I am not one of those people here who are saying that person X says that Rob Reiner was killed by his mentally troubled son, but person X really means that Rob Reiner was killed for his politics. Those people are the ones acting more like "the nastiest shithead possible about this thing".

[LawTalkingGuy]

No you’re just a mendacious twat.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Reiner wasn't murdered because of his politics though.”

“He was murdered because he's a weirdo [political descriptor] who raised weirdo [political descriptor] kids.”

[Sarcastr0]

How fucked in the head to you have to be to post something like this?

Log off. Touch grass.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Watch the Princess Bride.

[Sarcastr0]

That'd be my pick.

Though second place for me would be All in the Family. Fearless performances there.

Sorry Spinal Tap. Quotable as all get-out, but the level is set so high you're third.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s not exactly groundbreaking, but I also really enjoyed him as Jess’s dad on New Girl. Really played well off the rest of the cast (and Jamie Lee Curtis who played his ex-wife). Some of the best scenes have him:

“Stuff!? What stuff!? Name one stuff!”
“….Documents”

“He looks like the only white waiter in a Chinese Restaurant”

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Some people can't handle the truth.

[LawTalkingGuy]

A Few Good Men is a great movie to watch the night before a hearing to psych yourself up.

[David Nieporent]

Every time I go to trial, I lean over to my adversary before we start and say, "Last chance: I'll flip you for it."

(So far, none have looked at me like I'm crazy. About that.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"psych yourself up"

To lose?

The marine grunts got convicted.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Only of conduct unbecoming. They were acquitted murder and conspiracy and released with time served on the other charge.

That’s a big win.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A Few Good Men is a great movie to watch the night before a hearing to psych yourself up."

Your honor, I str-- I object!

[Michael P]

Yes, Matty often acts just as deranged as Rob Reiner was. That's the relation that you meant, right?

[hobie]

Piers Morgan: “When you first heard about the murder of Charlie Kirk, what was your immediate gut reaction to it?”

Rob Reiner: “Absolute horror. And I unfortunately saw the video of it, and it's beyond belief what happened to him, and that should never happen to anybody. I don't care what your beliefs are. That's not acceptable. That's not a solution to solving problems.”

A liberal Jew is more Christlike than all MAGA put together. SMH.

“And I felt like what his wife said at the service at the memorial they had was exactly right. And totally, I believe, you know, I'm Jewish, but I believe in the teachings of Jesus, and I believe in doing to others, and I believe in forgiveness. And what she said, to me, was beautiful. And absolutely, you know, she forgave his assassin. And I think that that is admirable.”

[hobie]

Is that the derangement you're referring to Michael P?

I've noticed that when it comes to pleasant, kind behavior like Biden or Buttigieg display, it seems to give you hayseeds paroxysms of rage. And the kinder they get, the ragier you become. I see it all the time. I think of it being like a negative mirror held up, and you see from it how comparatively wicked and depraved you hayseeds really have become. Like you're mad at them for being how you wish you were yourself but cannot be.

Like with Kamala: however good or crappy a politician she may be, she always radiated joy. The smiling and laughing. It just infuriated you lot. Sad.

[Michael P]

https://x.com/TrumpsHurricane/status/2000674427801948668 for some good examples.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think the acronym savvy call this "EAIAC."

(Every accusation is a confession)

[John 4]

His name was Rob Reiner! -Drank Fuckman

[hobie]

Je suis Robbie!

[ThePublius]

Too many Diet Cokes, I guess.

[hobie]

Aw shucks. Just asking questions. Just a harmless little fuzzball.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Apparently Michele Singer took the photograph of Trump used on the Art of the Deal.

[hobie]

Hayseeds take particular note. Remember how bent out of shape you got, and how you howled for accountability, when anyone denigrated dead, racist Saint Charlie Kirk. Mine and others savaging of Kirk in death would be directly responsible for any future political violence.

[ThePublius]

Brian Walshe found guilty of murder 1 in Massachusetts. Weird case. He admitted to dismembering his wife and disposing of the body, but asserted that she had died suddenly and he panicked.

"He made a series of incriminating internet searches on Jan. 1, 2023, they said, which included "how long for someone to be missing to inherit," "best way to dispose of a body" and "best way to dispose of body parts after a murder.""

https://www.foxnews.com/us/brian-walshe-trial-verdict-reached-husband-charged-murdering-wife

No witnesses were called for the defense.

I wonder if an appeal might be made on the basis of incompetent representation?

[David Nieporent]

Based on the facts as you report them, I think he'd have a difficult time establishing the prejudice element of Strickland.

[hobie]

Interesting history of the Jews and Palestinians.

They are heavily genetically similar to one another. Both arose from the Canaanite tribe in the Levant about the 5th century BC. Then Jews went on to become Jews and the Palestinians did whatever the hell they did.

When I visited the Alhambra in Spain I read about the Moor's conquest of Iberia. The Moors protected the Jews from the Christians and allowed them to live as they pleased for two centuries.

The Ottoman Empire from 12th-19th also protected the Jews from slaughter by European Christians. Jews were allowed complete freedom to commerce, land and to govern themselves by their own laws.

And then there's Ahmed el Ahmed.

Seems to me the Arabs have been protecting Jews for over 1000 years. Treating them completely as equals. Seems to me, historically, only the MAGA of the world's religions has been massacring and exploiting Jews. And they are doing it to this very day.

Arabs having a beef with Jews only seems to be a recent, 20th century occurrence. [rubbing chin] What could possibly have caused that?

[DDHarriman]

Are you trying to bait me on purpose??

> Then Jews went on to become Jews

Yes and No. They went on to become Jews in the modern sense, that's for dang sure, but in the historical, anthropological sense they are not descendants of Israelites or ancient Hebrews from the Bible.

In classic Jew fashion, they appropriated another, better, culture and are trying to pass themselves off as something they aren't. Even their modern "Hebrew" is a new invention. They stole the term as part of their Stolen Valor.

[hobie]

Another interesting fact. Christians and Muslims share a common thing. Both their messiahs were conveniently, scapegoatedly killed by Jews. Muhammed being supposedly poisoned by some Jewish woman. One religion took this info and went on to persecute Jews for the next two millennia. The other? Meh...bygones be bygones.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you homie for your report from another universe.

[John 4]

Yes, yes, we get it. You want to promote trailer park culture.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Person of interest in Brown shooting released from custody as manhunt continues" NBC

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/brown-university-shooting-live-updates-rcna249097

[grb]

Poor guy. I don't think the authorities ever released his name, but name, picture, and biographical summary all got out. I can blithely assume our nation's short attention span will soon have his fifteen minutes of fame quickly forgotten.

I doubt he finds that equally comforting.....

[loki13]

I have to admit, I haven't really felt like commenting today. Between Bondi, Brown, and Reiner, it wasn't a great weekend, was it?

Just going to make two comments- it's ... disheartening that on the legal threads discussing cases, we see the same people making the same racist and derogatory comments. Have to admit, that open and nasty misogyny ... that seems a lot more common now.

Also? I keep thinking that our President no longer had the ability to shock me. I mean ... he does five things a day (and ten on Tuesdays) that would have shocked me in his first administration, so I thought I was inured to it. I didn't think that the same guy who was dodged the draft and then went after John McCain as a loser could possibly surprise me by sinking to some offensive depth.

...and yet, I was genuinely shocked and appalled by Trump's post about Rob Reiner. Rob Reiner was not just someone who gave a lot to the culture of this country for decades ... he was a sincere and kind person.

He deserved better. We all do.

[David Nieporent]

I have to admit, I haven't really felt like commenting today. Between Bondi, Brown, and Reiner, it wasn't a great weekend, was it?

I read "Bondi" and my first thought was, "What did she do now?" Yeah, I figured it out a second later.

Btw, it wasn't until this weekend that I learned that Australia pronounces it differently than the AG does.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Bondi" made me think of ...

No, that's Bindi Irwin.

[loki13]

This week, I think I'm going to re-visit my favorite three movies he did.

This is Spinal Tap. Of course.
Prince Bride. Of course.
A Few Good Men. I haven't watched it in ages; looking forward to the re-watch.

Maybe The Sure Thing as well. Just because that's the one people tend to leave out. That run he had from '84-'92 was something.

[hobie]

The Sure Thing was hilarious. Cusack was just hitting his stride

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I liked The Princess Bride myself. /ha

The American President (which helped inspire The West Wing & Martin Sheen got a promotion to president) is also very good.

[David Nieporent]

I really liked The American President (and The West Wing), but I consider that more a Sorkin film than a Reiner one.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The political stuff has a West Wing flavor, but father/daughter stuff, some of the comedy & romance isn't what I associate with Sorkin.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“A Few Good Men. I haven't watched it in ages; looking forward to the re-watch.”

Save it for when you have an important hearing/deposition as a psych-up film.

[David Nieporent]

I loved the Sure Thing, but I didn't think anyone else really remembered it.

Daphne Zuniga: I have a credit card.
John Cusack: No, this is an entirely different kind of lock.
DZ: No, you don't seem to understand. I have a credit card!
JC: You have a credit card?
DZ: I have a credit card!
JC: You have a credit card.
DZ: Oh. My dad told me specifically I can only use it in case of an emergency.
JC: Well, maybe one will come up.

[hobie]

My favorite part was when DZ accepted the ride from the creep. And then Cusack jumped in

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Never did try that beer thing ...

Daphne Zuniga was also in Spaceballs, directed by Mel Brooks, a close friend of the Reiner family. She is also in the upcoming sequel.

[Bob from Ohio]

Daphne Zuniga. So cute.

She was great in Gross Anatomy, an underrated and forgotten film.

[Kazinski]

Can't defend Trump's post at all, its petty, tone deaf, and mean.

But as Trump said, at Charlie Kirk's funeral on stage, on live TV, after listening to Erica Kirk say "I forgive him, I forgive that man". Trump said 'Not me, I don't forgive my enemies, I wish them the worst" or something quite close to that. It is who he is.

But to put that in context, imagine what you would be reading on X, Facebook, and right here in these comments, if Trump died suddenly. It wouldn't be any better, and I'm not sure some of it wouldn't be coming from Rob Reiner if he was still alive.

That unfortunately is part of our national culture now, and while Trump isn't making it better, and often making it worse, he didn't create it.

I remember a lot of reactions at least as bad when Dick Cheney had a heart attack and got his artificial heart more than 15 years ago, well before Trump started dominating the national conversation, and yes, making it worse.

[Josh R]

There will always be trolls and haters on all sides. Thanks to social media, they get a lot more visibility. What make this different however, is the President of the United States is a troll and hater.

[Kazinski]

Well do we really want, or deserve, a President that's better than we are?

No, to both questions, from all the evidence.

[John 4]

“We”? You’re the morons who voted for him.

[Sarcastr0]

"Can't defend Trump's post at all, its petty, tone deaf, and mean."

"But as Trump said"

"But to put that in context, imagine"

"he didn't create it."

"Dick Cheney"
-----------
I dunno man, this looks a lot like you defending Trump.

The context being imaginary Rob Reiner is my favorite.

[Kazinski]

Look I think Rob Reiner was a good guy, and as I related above I actually got to spend a couple of hours watching him film a short on location more than 40 years ago. It was fun, relaxed, and creative, and probably Spinal Taps first live performance, way before they shot the movie.

But Reiner was also one of the people, like most of us here, that see everything as political all the time.

Which is why both of us are discussing it right now, trying to score points. Its not just Trump its all of us too.

[Sarcastr0]

"But Reiner"

You can't stop doing it!

"Which is why both of us are discussing it right now, trying to score points."
I am, but also I don't see everything as political all the time. This here is entertainment. Like my wife and sudoku.
Doesn't mean I take it unseriously, but it does mean I can manage to not post if the alternative is feeling obligated to deflect from this beyond the pale shit.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We saw what happened when Charlie Kirk was murdered.

Rob Reiner didn't just "die." He and his wife were killed. By their son. Dick Cheney didn't die. He wasn't killed by Liz Cheney. Not quite the same. And I don't recall comments quite that unhinged even then. Especially not from top political officials.

When Kirk was killed, lots of people who really didn't like his beliefs, including (as noted on this thread) Rob Reiner, were horrified. In fact, he praised something Kirk's wife said in her eulogy. It wasn't all just "political" to him.

A few "whatabouts" don't change that.

When the news came out that someone tried to kill Trump, that was also the general sentiment -- people who strongly despised what he stood for were appalled about the whole thing.

The key thing here is that -- push comes to shove -- the statement is not too shocking given the source.

The guy who dehumanized groups of people said something petty and distasteful about Rob Reiner and his wife after they were killed & it doesn't shock too much.

Trump supporters, however, want to handwave it all as if it is just a somewhat distasteful thing he said. And then he will do or say something comparably bad, and it will again be treated as mildly unpleasant. And again. And again.

[Kazinski]

If it makes you feel better I promise not to vote for him again.

But we didn't vote for him so he could give the eulogy at Reiner's funeral.

We voted for him because of his combativeness, because he fights, but unfortunately he seldom knows when its appropriate, and when to change his tone or just shut up.

[David Nieporent]

Dick Cheney didn't die.

Zombie Dick Cheney!!!!!!!

[LawTalkingGuy]

TBF I believe this is referring to the Dick Cheney from 15 years ago. Who as far as we know, didn’t die then.

[David Nieporent]

I prefer my version.

[windycityattorney]

Kazinski:

How is this Trump comment not exhibit #1 to his full blown pathological narcissism? To take what seems like an interpersonal tragedy (looks like the son is being held for the double murder) and make it about him??

This is beyond 'inflated ego.' This is pathology. What a terrible human being...nobody in his circle will do anything but inflate his ego as he has fired everybody as incompetent traitors who had the nerve to stand up to him. The man needs professional help and he will never get it because nobody he will listen to is brave enough to tell him he is a psychopath.

[John 4]

"nobody in his circle will do anything but inflate his ego as he has fired everybody as incompetent traitors who had the nerve to stand up to him"

His cultists in these very comments can't even muster the courage.

[Kazinski]

That's not true.

Reports are that his handlers are imposing serious consequences on Trump for his post.

https://x.com/BurtMaclin_FBI/status/2000712322147336703?s=20

[TwelveInchPianist]

Our President, true to form, comes up with some appropriate words to mark the occasion:

A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a...very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele...May Rob and Michele rest in peace!

[Josh R]

You left out the "yada, yada, yada."

[Brett Bellmore]

You can always count on Balkinization to deliver seriously tone deaf leftism.

Judicial Review and Democratic Renewal

They're going to secure democracy by,

1. Replacing private power with government power.
2. Shifting the Court from enforcing the Constitution to enforcing international norms.
3. Subjecting rights enforcement by the judiciary to legislative over-ride.
4. Abolishing incorporation doctrine.

My reaction to all this is, "Man, you really DO want a civil war, don't you?"

[David Nieporent]

My reaction to this is, "Brett still unable to distinguish between people he disagrees with and just treats them all as an amorphous 'they.'"

[LawTalkingGuy]

“My reaction to all this is, ‘Man, you really DO want a civil war, don't you?’”

This says way more about you than you anything.

[John 4]

Man, those leftists sure are violent!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sometimes cops are truly out to help the public. It's touching when a cop hears that someone is going to do something, and does everything he can to help him.

[John 4]

https://abovethelaw.com/2025/12/pentagon-unveils-new-genai-platform-it-immediately-starts-flagging-pete-hegseths-war-crimes/

[Zarniwoop]

Trump is staying classy:

Despite the pushback, Trump dug in when asked about the post in the Oval Office.

“I wasn’t a fan of his at all. He was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned,” Trump told reporters, before saying Reiner was a part of “the Russia Hoax.”

“I think he hurt himself career-wise. He became a deranged person. Trump derangement syndrome. So I was not a fan of Rob Reiner at all in any way shape or form. I thought he was very bad for our country,” the president said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5650369-trump-rob-reiner-remark-shock/

[John 4]

JFC. But as Kazinski has noted, the cultists didn't vote for him because he's a sane human being with human emotions; they voted for him because he'll hurt the people they hate.

[Poxigah146]

Or, because we think the Democrat Party is an evil group of people who seek to destroy Western civilization, through the mass immigration of third worlders, the celebration and normalization of sexual perversion, and so much more.