Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[grb]

Countdown!

https://logwork.com/countdown-ikrn

[Dr. Ed 2]

The FBI is rating/has raided the Fulton County/Atlanta elections office, under the auspices of a judicial warrant reportedly issued relative to 2020 election fraud.

QED, a judge has to have determined that that is probably caused to believe that’s such fraud exist, right?

QED, there has to be at least legitimate smoke there, right?

QED, so much for “election denying”…..

It’s 3° outside right now, so much for a “global warming“ as well….

[grb]

QED : Ed is grasping at straws!
QED : Trump's "stolen election" bullshit is hopeless nonsense going nowhere at a nothing pace.
QED : Only idiots think winter disproves climate change.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Initially, it was global cooling in the coming ice age, which was independent of preceded the fears of the nuclear winter. How we would all be wearing gas masks by 1980.

Then it was global warming, and Al Gore proclaiming that the planet “has a fever“. Miami was supposed to be underwater before the third of the century, and that was 26 years ago.

With both of those having failed, when I was supposed to believe in climate “change“ — they can’t make up their mind what it is so we’re just gonna say the climate is changing because of humanity.

Forget the fact that we have radically varying amount of energy coming from an ongoing hydrogen bomb 93,000,000 miles away, forget the fact the Earth wobbles on its orbit and does other funky things because of the gravitational fields from everything from asteroids to random stars, forget they’re very real possibility that we may be facing a magnetic polar inversion, we’re supposed to blindly accept that this is all being done by CO2.

Bullshite.

Make up your mind as to which lie you want us to believe in…

[Frank Drackman]

Danny Fahrenheit didn't invent his Thermometer until the 1720's so how do we even know what the temperature was before that? Anders Celsius didn't invent his system (which wasn't a thermometer, just a different way of describing temperature) until the 1740's.
And in all of the written records of the Battle of Gettysburg, not one mention of the actual Temperature, other than it was hot (July, who'd a thunk it??)
Took 80 years for Scientists to realize the Human Chromosome number was 46, not 48 (OK Queenie, make your "Extra Chromosomes" Crack)
Some guy in the 1880's said it was 48, people kept only finding 46, but just assumed they missed 2, until Joey "Yellow Peril" Tjio said enough of the Bullshit, lets go to the Wikipedia!!!!
Joe Hin Tjio (/ˈtʃiːoʊ/; 2 November 1919 – 27 November 2001), was an Indonesian-born American cytogeneticist. He was renowned as the first person to recognize that the normal number of human chromosomes is 23. He discovered this on 22 December 1955 at the Institute of Genetics of the University of Lund in Sweden, where he was a visiting scientist.
OK, Wikipedia's not exactly correct
it's 23 PAIRS of Chromosomes (Again Queenie, take your shot)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

As Ronnie the Great said;
Trust but verify.

[Krayt]

There are other indicators of temperature in tree rings, ice core composition, and so on. We can map these directly to proper, known temperature measurements, and then have reasonable assurance of accuracy projecting back at least hundreds of years.

The danger is, as always, hyperbolation by politicians seeking yet another argument for a command and control economy.

As I've pointed out, mandators have gotten their money out of the run up of EVs, and there's no money to be made anymore, the received wisdom talking head brigade no longer has acetylene torches lit under their asses anymore, so no daddy to dance in front of for gum and pop rocks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Divergence problem

Tree rings turn out to be an uncertain temperature proxy, this played a major part in that "hide the decline" scandal.

Ironically, though, while the precision of the old proxies is questionable, their accuracy is probably good, while modern measurements are heavily influenced by factors like the urban heat island phenomenon, so they may be precisely wrong.

Anyway, I'm pretty confident that, whatever the cause, things are generally warming, as you would hope given that we're in an interglacial period during an ice age, and a downward trend would be VERY concerning.

[Joe_dallas]

From AI - "Paleo reconstructions rely on proxies to infer past environments, with uncertainties categorized into inherent, irreducible aleatory uncertainty (e.g., natural climate noise, proxy signal-to-noise ratio) and reducible epistemic uncertainty (e.g., limited data, model calibration errors). Managing these ensures accurate interpretation of past climate variability. "

While the paleo reconstructions give a reasonable estimate of the general trends in long term temperature swings, The confidence levels are grossly overstated. They greatly underestimate the uncertainty in the proxies measurement of temps and they underestimate the uncertainty in the lack of data, especially in the southern hemisphere which is quite sparse in proxy data that reaches back 1,000 to 10,000 years ago.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There are other indicators of temperature in tree rings, ice core composition, and so on."

Yeah, but then you always have to find some trick to hide the decline.

[Life of Brian]

Or otherwise molest the data.

[Bwaaah]

I would never have put it that way, but that sure is how it feels.

I remember when data was a tool of science. Nowadays, tools get sciency with their alleged "data."

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sorry science challenged your priors.

I'm more sorry that you've decided that's a problem with science, not your priors.

[Riva]

After the climate change fraud (as well as the covid hysteria and the transgender insanity), I'm going to have to ask you for your definition of "science" because I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Life of Brian]

It was a hat-tip to Mark Steyn, who spent 12 years of his life and who knows how much dinero getting Michael "hide the decline" Mann to trial to effectively debate him in front of a jury. (Mann was ultimately awarded $6k in damages, and had to pay about half a mil in attorney's fees to some of the co-defendants, who had won an anti-SLAPP motion earlier on.)

[Joe_dallas]

Mann was a prolific liar through out the litigation with his testimony, interogatories, discovery, filings, pleadings, etc.

Why would anyone trust the quality of his "professional" work when he displays such an extreme level of dishonesty in his personal life?

[Life of Brian]

Mann was a prolific liar through out the litigation with his testimony, interogatories, discovery, filings, pleadings, etc.

Indeed. That's no small part of why the judge cut the jury's original $1M punitive damages verdict back to $5k.

[Riva]

His mistake was to confuse whatever they do in DC with a real court system.

[Sarcastr0]

Even assuming you're right - and academics do get ahead of their skiis and act like assholes about it just like anyone - that doesn't say much generally about science. Or even just climate science.

[Life of Brian]

and academics do get ahead of their skiis and act like assholes about it just like anyone

Some might say far more so, since regular folks have to actually argue the merits and not haughtily hide behind credentials and jargon.

[Sarcastr0]

Actually, experts have expertise. Regular folks don't.

It's on the experts to communicate well, and it's very much not on regular folks to read a paper and rederive its results from first principles.

One of the reasons I'm not weighing in on Steyn v. Mann is I've looked and don't feel I have the expertise to weigh their arguments.
That's something the right nowadays just refuses to do.

[Life of Brian]

Yup, gotta leave the scriptural interpretation to the high priests! We've come full circle.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "Actually, experts have expertise. Regular folks don't."

Actually, many regular folks have expertise in all kinds of areas. Or are you saying that if you have expertise in something, you're not a regular folk?

I'm sure you weren't talking about expertise in general, but particular types of expertise, like climate science, where you have a politically vested interest in controlling the discussion.

You don't have to put all experts into your little box. And you don't have to short change the expertise of regular folks.

[Bwaaah]

LoB nails it: "Yup, gotta leave the scriptural interpretation to the high priests! We've come full circle."

[Artifex]

Actually, experts have expertise. Regular folks don't.

Actually—no.
What experts really have is fast access to the best arguments and a deep reservoir of experience. That’s it. That’s the whole trick.

What makes Joe Drywall Expert an expert is not mysticism or credentialed holiness. It’s that he immediately knows what will work and what won’t. He can explain—clearly and quickly—why my half-assed attempts are going to fail, and reality will reliably confirm his explanation.

That doesn’t mean I can’t hang drywall. It means I face a steep learning curve, and that the time and frustration may not be worth it compared to simply paying someone who already knows the terrain. Expertise isn’t about exclusion; it’s about efficiency and results.

This has nothing to do with the priesthood that Sarcastro worships and everything to do with outcomes.

The real problem is that snake-oil salesmen have learned to hide behind the word “expertise.” Sarcastro is their archetype. These people lack both the wit and the intellectual discipline to understand an argument—much less make one—so they invoke “expertise” as a substitute for comprehension. It conveniently relieves them of the burden of actually knowing anything.

A useful rule of thumb in the sciences:
If someone explaining a topic is dancing around it—reframing, hedging, and steering the narrative like a Sarcastro—you are not talking to an expert. You are talking to a fraud.

Snow jobs by the incompetent are nothing new. What is new is how refined the technique has become in the modern age.

[Life of Brian]

Exceptionally well put.

[Sarcastr0]

The fact that there are people who understand stuff about the world that you do not does not mean said people are priests.

The fact that hoaxes exist doesn't mean expertise does not.

The rest if just you telling me stuff I said, but which I didn't say.

[Riva]

You're right Sarcastr0. They're seers or oracles. Or maybe climate grifters is better? or Algore? But definitely not "priests."

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
"Actually, experts have expertise. Regular folks don't."

Quite a few layman have considerable general knowledge and background knowledge on wide variety of subjects. More than sufficient knowledge to make a reasonable assessment of the validity and strength of scientific conclusions and the ability to recognize weak and/or agenda driven advocacy science.

[Bwaaah]

Artiflex: Beautifully stated. Joe Drywall Expert is a good example.

Sarc: "The fact that there are people who understand stuff about the world that you do not does not mean said people are priests."

No, they're not priests. They're regular folks who are experts. Why'd you switch that bullshit in? Answer: because you're whole theory of expertise is dogmatic bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

Why did I switch in calling them preists?

Bwaaah: "LoB nails it: "Yup, gotta leave the scriptural interpretation to the high priests! We've come full circle.""

you're whole theory of expertise is dogmatic bullshit.
I think expertise is a thing that exists. That's my theory.

You really really don't want to confront stuff outside your personal intuition, eh?

[SRG2]

Initially, it was global cooling in the coming ice age,

A frequently-repeated denialist lie. But then, truth doesn't feature prominently in Dr Ed's posts.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes frequently repeated - Though the denialists are the ones denying that it was a common theme pushed by climate scientists during the late 1970's.

[SRG2]

Though the denialists are the ones denying that it was a common theme pushed by climate scientists during the late 1970's.

Stop lying.

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

[Joe_dallas]

I am fully aware of the search for climate studies comparing and contrasting the number of studies forecasting global warming and the number of studies forecasting global cooling during the mid to late 1970's. Those studies have similar methodological problems that John Cook's 97% consensus of scientists and global warming have. Basically those studies claiming much greater number of studies showing global warming than cooling play similar games with the data.

[SRG2]

Where was anything remotely close to a consensus about global cooling?

97%,
Probably higher now - you know, as more evidence comes in.

BTW as I've noted before, the interest in Greenland implies the reality of climate change.

[Joe_dallas]

The global cooling mantra was quite prominent during the late 1970's, maybe not consensus, but still quite prominent. The attempts to erase the prominence of the global cooling belief doesnt speak well of the integrity of the climate science community.

[Life of Brian]

What? That bastion of truth that is Wikipedia, which is totally, absolutely not overrun by global warming activists, has written an article patiently explaining that something that absolutely happened back in the 70s really didn't happen after all?

Color me stunned.

[Martinned]

This is why it doesn't make sense to try to argue with trolls on the internet about climate change. The odds of finding someone who will actually argue in good faith are slim to none.

[SRG2]

Wikipedia provides links to primary sources.so you don't have to rely on the text. Here's another link:
The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus

something that absolutely happened back in the 70s really didn't happen after all?

Because you said it happened? Why don't you provide evidence for this general promotion of global cooling?

[Life of Brian]

OK, here you go.

[It actually directly takes on your linked paper and shows the extreme data winnowing and distorted classifications required to reach its certainly-not-preplanned conclusions. Compare Fig. 1 with Fig. 2.]

[SRG2]

Angus McFarlane, not peer-reviewed, and self-published - when he's not posting on Wattsupwiththat.

More debunking:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=4&t=88&&a=1

https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html

[Life of Brian]

Yes, I understand the Climate High Priests are the only ones qualified to interpret the sacred writings, and commoners such as myself should leave to their unquestionable and clearly superior judgment which subset of sacred writings to consult at all when generating those interpretations.

And if some upstart gets too uncomfortably close to revealing the game, simply tarring them as a "HERETIC" -- er, I mean, "DENIALIST" usually helps keep the rest of the crowd in check lest they be excommunicated themselves.

Which is why I've been quite comfortable for a good while now that the so-called consensus is grounded in religion, not science.

[Sarcastr0]

LoB just straight disengages when too many countervailing sources crop up.

Sounds about right.

[Life of Brian]

He said "not peer reviewed" and linked to angsty "debunkings" mainly peppered with words like "denialist" and not taking the paper's dataset head on at all.

My response was fully on-point.

[Bob from Ohio]

"self-published"

Because people like Sarcasto would never fund him and the scared herd would never publish him.

People like you would just mau mau anyone who dared attack the climate religion

[Joe_dallas]

SRG provides links to Skeptical Science - probably one of the most anti-science web sites on the planet. Citing SkS doesnt reflect a broad understanding of the science.

In somewhat a similar vein as citing Skeptical Science, someone citing LCOE in an argument about renewables, quickly shows himself to be a know-nothing.

[Joe_dallas]

SRG your link to the study is an example of hiding the consensus.

A brief scan to the list of studies has two marked as neutral which should be in the cooling column, one marked as warming that likely should be in the cooling or neutral column, and at least two that I saw that were omitted. McQuigg, Kukla, Kukla, Mitchell.

As mentioned, the study you cited has similar problems as the 97% concessus studies.

[SRG2]

The problem with the 97% consensus number is that it understates the true consensus. Do you know how few papers nowadays argue that the earth is round?

[Joe_dallas]

SRG - The problem with the 97% consensus agreement is the methodology games played with the consensus and the failure to recognize those flaws.

Its similar to the games played with the study you cited for the non- global cooling study you cited.

[Bob from Ohio]

Wikipedia? On a controversial subject?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh come on. People started worrying about global cooling like, almost 3 million years ago.

[gVOR08]

This is a disease. It kind of started when experts said second hand tobacco smoke was harmful. Funded by Phillip Morris the Heartland Institute went into business to make money claiming otherwise. Then when experts said burning carbon would cause global warming Heartland branched off into well paid climate denialism, which grew into a whole industry. People like Ed say the experts are only in it for that juicy grant money, ignoring the hundreds of millions fossil fuel companies have spend funding denial. Then when COVID hit, with inherent uncertainty as to how to proceed, and experts said to stay away from sports bars the habit of opposing experts became conservative canon. Who you gonna believe, Ed, people who’ve actually studied and analyzed, or paid skeptics and randos on X?

[loki13]

It's pretty simple. Follow the money.

Fossil fuel companies know about climate change, and have known, but it is in their economic interest to not have economic regulations regarding it. Therefore, they have spent significant sums on lobbying, "studies," and astroturfing to spread FUD and denialism for rubes like Ed to latch on to so they can keep generating money now, because who cares about the future- that's someone else's problem, amirite?

On the other hand, insurance companies are also aware of climate change, and are really really really paying attention to it, because it also affects their bottom lines.

It's almost like ... when actual money is involved for these companies, they act like climate change exists and behave according to their selfish monetary preferences. But when the rubes pontificate with no knowledge whatsoever, it's based on naked tribal loyalty with no basis in reality, knowledge, or expertise.

[Mr. Bumble]

So tell us about your life off the grid.

[Bob from Ohio]

He says he drives a "beater" car sometimes, he's a climate criminal.

[Joe_dallas]

Loki - you are playing the same game with your own tribe rubes and the naked tribe loyalty with the religious following of agw.

Far too much is unknown at this time, far too much is ignored, and far too much confidence in the belief. See my comment above on the aleatory and epistemic uncertainties which are seriously underestimated through out the climate science arena, especially in the paleo arena.

[SRG2]

What is the mechanism by which increasing CO2 levels from 270ppm to 400ppm will not cause climate change?

[Joe_dallas]

Far too much is unknown
For one - I have yet to see a coherent explanation as to why in the mid to late 1800's the earth shifted from a cooling trend to a warming trend with the co2 concentration went from 280ppm to 280ppm ( or maybe 281ppm). That shift from cooling to warming is comparable to the current warming trend - ie a reversal of the cooling trend.

[SRG2]

Far too much is unknown
Translation: "I know far too little".

https://wmo.int/resources/dashboards/global-mean-temperature-1850-2024

https://sealevel.info/co2.html

[Bob from Ohio]

Thinking we have reliable data from 1850 about world temperature is very funny.

[Joe_dallas]

SGR - Another denialist - wanting to ignore whats unknown.

Disregarding the unknown is a deep rooted problem in climate science. See my comment above on aleatory uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty.

[Joe_dallas]

SRG - Why provide a graph starting and the low point of temps. Its another game played by activists. You omitted the start of the LIA.

[SRG2]

wanting to ignore whats unknown

The attitude of denialists such as yourself is that if we don't know everything we don't know anything.

[Joe_dallas]

SRG2 15 minutes ago
"wanting to ignore whats unknown"

"The attitude of denialists such as yourself is that if we don't know everything we don't know anything."

SRG - Why not make an attempt to understand the failure in climate science community to address the epistemic errors. Your failure to even grasp the concept shows how shallow your understanding of climate science really is.

[David Nieporent]

SRG - Why not make an attempt to understand the failure in climate science community to address the epistemic errors. Your failure to even grasp the concept shows how shallow your understanding of climate science really is.

bookkeeper_joe is using big boy words he doesn't understand again.

[Kazinski]

What should the global mean temperature be?

Why would you think the global mean temperature in 1850 should be the benchmark?

Here is another Hockey Stick graph that took off between1850 and 1900.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy

Energy use and life expectancy are closely related, and its easy to see why. People and the environment thrive in a warmer more CO2 rich environment, and that is true both since 1850 and the geologic record.

Its hilarious that Michael Mann used tree ring data to craft his hockey stick graph, a scientist with a little more insight might make the connection from the fact trees grow faster in warmer weather that maybe warmer temperatures are a good thing, especially when the planet is still in an ice age and current temperatures are about in the lower 5th % of temperatures in the last 50 million years.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Dynamics-of-global-surface-temperature-during-the-Cenozoic-Era-reconstructed-from-18-O_fig6_309651389

[Bob from Ohio]

"It's pretty simple. Follow the money."

Yes. For instance:

https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-house-marthas-vineyard

Revealed choice. They don't think climate change is a threat,

[SRG2]

Greenland

[Kazinski]

Well lets look at the data for Greenland then.

"The Greenland Ice Sheet contains an estimated \(2.9\times 10^{18}\) tons (or roughly 2.9 million gigatons) of ice. In recent years, it has been losing an average of 250–280 gigatons of mass annually, contributing significantly to sea-level rise. Between 1972 and 2023, the sheet lost over 6,200 gigatons of total ice."

So lets do the math. 6200 gigatons is 0.2% of Greenlands ICE sheet, and that is over a 50 year period.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/ice-sheets

[SRG2]

Missing the point. If climate change were not happening, Greenland and much of the Arctic circle would be too cold and iced up for anyone to be concerned about Russians and Chinese.

I was just using Bob's "revealed choice" argument.

[Kazinski]

So how was Greenland colonized a thousand years ago then?

In case you need a reminder it was warm.enough for the Danes to want to colonize it, became almost completely uninhabitable as the medieval warming period faded, now its warming back up to where it was 1000 years ago.

800,000 years ago it had forests.

What is the mechanism for all that climate change before 1850?

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "QED, so much for “election denying”

Question for you Ed: Why on earth would you believe Trump's "stolen election" bullshit when Trump himself has never come up with a coherent or consistent "theory" on how the steal took place?

Of course he's always creating a lot of noise on how the election was fraudulent, but only as you'd expect from a lifelong criminal conman. Every audience gets a different huckster pitch. Each time Trump speaks on the subject, it's a hustler's improvision of the moment. One minute it's Venezuela and vote machines. The next minute it's fraudulent ballots. Since it's nothing but a con, Trump never bothers to produce one theory beyond a single day's span. It's like that Georgia call, where he just kept throwing stuff against the wall - discredited accusation followed by ludicrous conspiracy followed by half-ass nonsense - the assumption being Raffensperger only wanted an empty excuse to change voter tallies, not that he needed a persuasive case.

All disagreements aside, that's not the way you would have approached things if you, Ed, honestly thought you were cheated of an election. You would have nailed down the ways and means as you saw it, making damn sure your theory was established, laid-out and there for everyone to see.

But Trump's only a sleazy scam artist. I expect it's a point of pride with him that every audience gets a new improvised pitch. Think of a classical violinist improvising on his fiddle. That's Trump, only with lying....

[OpinionsVary]

According to his latest Truth Social post, it was coordinated by China, who arranged for money sent to Iran to actually go to Italy (via the Dubai embassy), where the Italians used military satellites and CIA developed tools to hack voting machines and flip votes.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115976083051639204

I wish I could say this was a joke but he really did just repost this.

[grb]

That's today's version. Yesterday's was something else and tomorrow's will be completely different. Trump has a conman's belief the rubes react best to variety & never notice the spiel changes daily.

Damn if I know how anyone can pretend to take that seriously.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A federal judge found probable cause to believe this.

[Krayt]

As I said 5 years ago, everyone deserves their day in court. 5 years ago, a judge said, "Ok, I'll bite. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and only the truth?"

"We do!"

"Ok, what happened? Tell the election fraud evidence. Remember, you go to jail if you lie. What happened?"

"Ummmm...not much. Can I go now?"

There's a reason these election fraud claims are in the form of 9/11 inside job claims, Nessie sightings, UFO sightings, and the like. Grasp at any straw for FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

So...here's another court date. Let's see if there's anything there, and if it's of significance. The track record is not so good, but once again, into the breach!

[David Nieporent]

No. All we know is that a federal judge found probable cause to believe that some crime was committed of which the ballots could be evidence.

[loki13]

The conspiracy is never wrong; it's just the facts and the actors need to change.

[bernard11]

You left out Merrill Lynch, which was somehow in the mix.

[Kazinski]

Ed, you would be surprised what judges would sign without knowing or caring what it was or why it was needed.

You probably won't believe this but I heard the chief judge in DC signed of to subpoena months of the phone records of the Speaker of the House (2rd in line for the Presidency), and at least a dozen other members of Congress, and gag orders for the carriers too, without asking any questions. And didn't blink when told that the reason the gag order was needed for the Speaker of the House was because he was a flight risk.

So no, I don't think issuing the warrant provides any factual information, it was probably just justified based on the fact the count wasn't properly certified, so there were some laws broken there, but no proof of any fraud.

[not guilty]

QED, a judge has to have determined that that is probably caused [sic] to believe that’s such fraud exist, right?

QED, there has to be at least legitimate smoke there, right?

The issuance of a warrant for the premises means that a judge -- in this case most likely a United States Magistrate -- has found probable cause to believe that evidence related to a crime will presently be found on the subject premises. It does not indicate whether such evidence will be inculpatory, exculpatory or neutral -- although law enforcement would of course be more inclined to look for inculpatory evidence.

I do wonder what crime(s) occurring at such time as can still be timely prosecuted -- that is, occurring during the past five years -- are under investigation.

[LexAquilia]

I will tell you what I think, no trolling.
Tulsi Gabbard was there. That suggests it's about national security. Tulsi has recently said they've uncovered a plot to overthrow the US Government.

I think they are on the trail of a bigger, wider, plot involving the 2020 election.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think you’re right — and I’m reminded of the Nixon Kennedy debates where Nixon knew the Soviets didn’t have as many ICBMs as Kennedy was saying they did but couldn’t say that because of national security.

Trump may have known about the national security stuff but unable to talk about it, and our half understood it back in 2020

[Zarniwoop]

And when he mixes up Greenland and Iceland, that’s actually sooper-sekrit 22-dimensional chess, not Alzheimer’s.

See, I can rationalize bat sheet crazy stuff just like Grampa Ed!

[Dr. Ed 2]

He’s probably dyslexic.
Ok????

[Mr. Bumble]

He fell for the Viking naming trick.

[David Nieporent]

If it was about national security, nobody would let Tulsi Gabbard within a 1,500 mile radius.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She is a commissioned officer who has served on our country honorably for decades. Unless you are a commissioned officer, STFU.

[John F. Carr]

A magistrate who signs a warrant generally accepts the factual allegations in the supporting affidavit. The magistrate is supposed to review the legal conclusions following from the facts to see if a crime has been alleged. That's what happened in the Minnesota church invasion case, in the context of an arrest warrant instead of a search warrant. The magistrate said the facts with the warrant application did not give reason to believe that everybody entering the church had committed a crime. Sometimes magistrates don't put a lot of thought into the warrant and just sign it. Most of the time the FBI has a good case.

[Bwaaah]

I think when god was handing out reasonableness, you got back in line for seconds. It's especially helpful that you often avoid taking positions on disputed points, but include the surrounding foundational points that are not [typically] in dispute.

In a forum such as this where people rarely miss an opportunity for disagreement, often even injecting manufactured differences, your voice is a reminder that a real concept of "reasonable" exists, and that most of us can still recognize the sound of it when we hear it. There's a tremendous amount of common ground around us that is quite intentionally left outside this forum. Its existence, and recognition of it, is essential to our progress as humans.

BIG THANKS, Carr.

[LexAquilia]

Yes, he's an excellent contributor.

[Zarniwoop]

Here's the actual warrant:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26513986-1-28-26-fulton-warrant/#document/p1

I'm not seeing a lot of demonstration in there. But "OMG the FBI got a warrant!!1!" does seem to effectively lather up the rubes (like, obvs, Grampa Ed).

[David Nieporent]

I'm not criticizing you for posting this, but it's not overly helpful. What we really need to see — which we can't — is the warrant application. That would tell us the purported factual basis for a search. This just says what evidence they're looking for and the statutes that might have been violated.

Not sure how any of this isn't time barred, though.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In an unusual twist, the prosecutor listed on the warrant is not from Georgia, but the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Thomas Albus. It is unclear what would connect prosecutors in Missouri to Mr. Trump’s longstanding complaints about how the 2020 election in Georgia was conducted. [NYT]

An early "hmm, let's see" at Election Law blog:

I’ve been wrestling with how there could be probable cause that any of the evidence to be seized shows a prosecutable crime. That evidence providing probable cause would all be contained in the affidavit accompanying the application for the warrant, and I haven’t seen a copy of that anywhere yet. But by process of elimination: [discussion]

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=154013

Given what is involved (election office, more fantasies from Trump about the 2020 election, potential implications for November, his past and ongoing attempts at election interference, etc.), all of this is concerning and warrants attention.

[not guilty]

You are quite correct, David, that the supporting affidavit would give much more information than the warrant standing alone.

As for the time bar, 52 U.S.C. § 20701 states:

Every officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary election of which candidates for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Resident Commissioner from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are voted for, all records and papers which come into his possession relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election, except that, when required by law, such records and papers may be delivered to another officer of election and except that, if a State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico designates a custodian to retain and preserve these records and papers at a specified place, then such records and papers may be deposited with such custodian, and the duty to retain and preserve any record or paper so deposited shall devolve upon such custodian. Any officer of election or custodian who willfully fails to comply with this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Hypothetically, an officer of election who failed to keep the required records during the time between January of 2021 and September of 2022 could be timely prosecuted. I wonder, though, what would evince probable cause that evidence that the records were missing then would now located at The Office of the Clerk of Court.

I suppose that is not impossible, but I think it would be tricky. If the records were missing during that window of time, how likely is it that there is present evidence of that past absence?

As for 52 U.S.C. § 20511, that statute deals with knowing and willful intimidation, threats, or coercion, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, as to any person, or with election fraud or attempts to defraud. As regards the 2020 election, such a prosecution there is in all likelihood time barred.

[David Nieporent]

You mean, like, if there were documents that were required to be preserved until September 2022, but elections officials threw them out in June 2021, that the 5-year clock would start running then and thus wouldn't run out until June 2026? I could see that, I guess. But as you said, looking at the ballots that the clerk does currently have wouldn't tell you when other documents were tossed, and not finding documents also wouldn't tell you when they were tossed. You'd want to look at, e.g., emails from that time period ("To: Clerk. Date: June 10, 2021. Re: Ballots. Please shred them ASAP."), not the ballots that currently exist.

[Kazinski]

I have reached to point where I can't stand any more to watch the day by day disintegration of the country, and the wilful and intentional desecration of its cultural patrimony by its supposed stewards.

I really feel hopeless about changing anything, I did my best by voting for Trump, but he too is sitting by powerless and is making no real effort to change things, and reverse the decline.

So I have decided to self deport, I have a one way ticket overseas, and no plans about when or whether to come back.

This may seem like an overreaction but I will not stay in a country that chooses to let Bad Bunny ruin OUR, not his, not Roger Goodell's Super Bowl halftime show.

I am not going to disclose where I am going, other than I will be 100% sure the Superbowl will not be televised, and I would get blank stare if I tried to describe football to them anyway. It wouldn't surprise me to find out Mike Tomlin was already there, or someplace similar.

[grb]

Kazinski : "....country that chooses to let Bad Bunny ... (whiny drivel)"

I've not made mention of it, but one of the most grotesque comments ever made came from Stephen Miller during the holidays. That mentally-ill basket-case loon said this:

"Watched the Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra Family Christmas with my kids. Imagine watching that and thinking America needed infinity migrants from the third world."

You need a whole ward of psychiatrists with trim little beards to untangle that! Exactly how did Dean and Frank freeze American cultural accomplishment back in the mid-1960s? In what way do immigrants interfere with white people's appreciation of a sodden crooner and/or Ol' Blue Eyes? Does Miller exist on the same planet as normal humans?

Probably not. The most recent thing from that whack-job joke was his insistence only William Shatner could save the latest iteration of Star Trek from being "woke". As if Kirk's TV series wasn't the most "woke" show ever seen during American prime time! Apparently Miller's brain sickness precludes him from seeing that.

I return back to you, Kazinski, by noting you're as hysterical a whining snowflake clown as the great Stephen Miller! Seems you're up to making the same comic spectacle of yourself as that ass. There was a recent NYT article on Groypers that insisted they pass around images typical of a mid-century detergent ad, with its 50s or 60s dads, and its 50s or 60s moms with their beehive hairdos. Per the article, these blithering halfwits then mutter (with theatrical high-tragedy), "look what's been stolen from us..."

I gotta admit I was skeptical. No one could possibly be that worthlessly pointlessly needlessly dumb. But reading your plaintive whine above, Kazinski, I now admit it's possible indeed.

[MarkJawz]

Miller is right. America was a happy, stable place when 90% of the population was white. There was no reason, culturally or financially, to open America's doors to tens of millions of illiterate third world peasants.

[grb]

1. They say the term "retard" is offensive & should rarely be used.

2. Does anyone want to tell this retard America was never 90% white?

[hobie]

I mean...duh!...redskins!

[grb]

Take South Carolina as an example: By the beginning of the 1700s, its population was already majority black. At the middle of the century, that number had grown to 66%. There was never a time anywhere close to the fantasies in MarkJawz's mind (assuming he has one).

[Frank Drackman]

The 1820 United States census was the fourth census conducted in the United States. It was conducted on August 7, 1820. The 1820 census included six new states: Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama and Maine. There has been a district wide loss of 1820 census records for Arkansas Territory, Missouri Territory, and New Jersey.

The total population was determined to be 9,638,453, of which 1,538,022 were slaves. The center of population was about 120 miles (193 km) west-northwest of Washington in Hardy County, Virginia (now in West Virginia).

That would make 1820 Amurica 84% "White"
I'm not counting the Injuns, they weren't Citizens, and it weakens my argument.

Frank

[hobie]

I don't think any non-white was counted as a citizen then.

[Kazinski]

You would think wrong, there were hundreds of thousands of black citizens before 1860.

Just one example.was Jim Beckwourth, a leading citizen and businessman in Plumas.County, Ca.in the 1850s.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was Taney's lie in Dred Scot. In reality there were a lot of non-white citizens in the North. And a non-trivial number of white slaves in the South, some of them owned by free blacks!

The whole thing was a lot more complex than a lot of people are comfortable with acknowledging. Often being a "black" slave or a "white" one was more a nominal designation than a reality, since the one drop rule meant that some people were recorded as "black" who were white to look at them, and maybe didn't even have that drop.

[Sarcastr0]

In practice, such citizenship was revokable at any time. There's plenty of stories of that.

So that's not really citizenship.

Taney was right - "no rights which the white man was bound to respect" emphasis on the bound.

See also legal immigrants and asylum seekers and arbitrary revocations of their status today.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's very important to the modern left that Taney have been right, because part of their internal justification for grossly violating the Constitution is that the Constitution is evil and deserves no respect.

[Sarcastr0]

So you won't engage with my historical argument. Instead you'll just go with 'libs bad' and ad hominem.

How tedious; we already have a lot of posters like that we don't need another one.

[Bob from Ohio]

"There's plenty of stories of that. "

Ok, how about a couple.

[Mr. Bumble]

See this for 1940 and watch the change since then.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/US_Race_by_Hispanic_origin_demographics_from_1940_to_2020.gif/220px-US_Race_by_Hispanic_origin_demographics_from_1940_to_2020.gif

[MarkJawz]

Yes. It was all a result of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which dispensed with decades of prioritizing cultural stability with putting everyone in the world on equal footing.

It's absurd that a Somali Muslim has an equal chance of immigrating to the United States as a British Protestant.

[MarkJawz]

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1961/dec/pc-s1-10.html

You're an idiot.

[ThePublius]

Well, according to the 1950 census it was then 89.3% white. So, close enough. Now who's the retard?

[Mr. Bumble]

Like David Notsoimportant being gr[u]b means never having to admit you're wrong.

[Magister]

I am curious if Hispanic whites are OK historically just to increase the white percentage from 87.5% in 1950 but now need to be deported. Black population percentage was below 10% only from 1920 to 1940; coincidentally that's the end of the worst period of post Civil War racism, which might be just the sort of thing MarkJawz is nostalgic for.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States some of it may be that there was less incentive to pass as white after the civil rights era. "Two or more races" jumped from 2.4% to 2.9% to 10.2% in the last three censuses; how many are people who previously passed as white embracing their full ancestry?

[Frank Drackman]

Well there were those Barges to tote and Bales to lift.

[not guilty]

"Miller is right. America was a happy, stable place when 90% of the population was white. There was no reason, culturally or financially, to open America's doors to tens of millions of illiterate third world peasants."

I am on the fence as to whether "MarkJawz" is or is not a parody account intended to lampoon bigots and MAGAts. (Sorry if I am being redundant there,)

If not, I wonder what Native American tribe the commenter is descended from.

[MarkJawz]

Stupid argument. American Indians, not native Americans, were conquered. Might equals right.

If the mestizos form Latin America actually conquered us, they'd be entitled to it. But we're handing it over to them for free, because of white guilt.

[not guilty]

The indigenous peoples of North America were called "Indians" because Christopher Columbus in the 15th century mistakenly believed that he had reached the Indian subcontinent of Asia. They did not come to be called Americans until later.

But my point is that there were aboriginal inhabitants here before white Europeans stole the land that they occupied.

That is one reason that white folks kvetching now about living among nonwhites grinds my gears.

[MarkJawz]

Yes, I know the origin of the term. But the term Native American implies that they were Americans. No, they were indigenous to the land that is now America. It's not the same thing.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 5 hours ago
"But my point is that there were aboriginal inhabitants here before white Europeans stole the land that they occupied."

A common theme among leftists - ignore the long history of various tribes across north america stealing the land of other tribes over the several centuries.

[SRG2]

America was a happy, stable place when 90% of the population was white.

And when was that?

[Mr. Bumble]

It's been pointed out upthread.

[MarkJawz]

1945-1970 or so.

[SRG2]

"Happy and stable" to the majority of whites, perhaps.

[Sarcastr0]

Not even then - every white nationalist state has been terrified of their status being usurped. From the slaveholding US to South Africa to a lot of MAGA rhetoric today about the dusk hordes taking over.

[ducksalad]

Happy and Stable 1945-1970

Red Scare with major institutions supposedly infiltrated by communists. If true, not happy. If fake, not happy.

Anti-Draft protests/riots that make the ICE protests look puny, with a higher death toll in a single protest than all the Minnesota action put together.

Vietnam War with well-known public figures openly sympathizing with the enemy.

Heavy protests and rioting across the South, activists not just killed in scuffles but just plain murdered. Fire hoses and dogs used on crowds.

President had to send national guard in against the will of local authorities.

President assassinated.

Economic emergency supposedly so bad the government seizes economy with comprehensive wage and price controls, businesses not even allowed to give employees raises. Next president declares energy crisis is so bad he regulates the temperature at which private buildings can run their AC, people sit in blocks-long lines for gasoline.

And finally, MarkJawz's parents and grandparents were whining that their culture was evaporating and the good old days were before WWII.

[Sarcastr0]

We've been happy and stable since the 1970s as well, until a bunch of nihilistic resentment-mongers took power.

I think it's telling how often MAGA accuses liberals of living in 'whitelandia' i.e. not living near minorities.

Kind of a race traitor whiff there - 'you can't actually know what it's like to live near these people you pretend to respect. If you did, you'd know the truth.'
And then out come the IQ canards.

[ducksalad]

Of course to have a "valid" race-traitor accusation he'd need to correctly guess our races.

[Bwaaah]

Full disclosure: I'm predominately Littledick. There was some Bigmouth on my mother's side, which has necessarily played an outsized [compensating] role.

[ducksalad]

Lot of intermarriage between those two tribes. Reversing the practices of conventional pow-wows, the custom was for the Bigmouth women to grab the men from the other tribe and haul them off.

[Bwaaah]

I'm now rethinking how I thought I met my wife.

[Life of Brian]

Kind of a race traitor whiff there - 'you can't actually know what it's like to live near these people you pretend to respect. If you did, you'd know the truth.'

Nah. Just a good old-fashioned externality. Sorry to disappoint.

[Sarcastr0]

The point is the whitelandia accusation is a canard.

The people conservatives have decided are insular communities are not. To plenty of folks in Minneapolis, these Somalis are just neighbors. See also Haitians.

Calling minorities an externality is kind of a terrible thing to say, really.

[Life of Brian]

Of course, I wasn't calling minorities an "externality" any more than you were calling them a "race traitor whiff."

Have you ever thought about just not saying anything when you have no actual response to what was actually said?

[Sarcastr0]

What's the externality?

See also Bob below. You're not the only MAGA in the universe.

[Life of Brian]

The effect of unbridled third-world immigration policies on areas outside those selected by the Ilya Somins of the world that are too expensive for most third-world immigrants to actually live.

To the extent it needs spelling out, when folks refer to "Whitelandia" in this context they're not talking about the Appalachian mountains or Iowa cornfields.

[Bob from Ohio]

"'you can't actually know what it's like to live near these people you pretend to respect. If you did, you'd know the truth.'"

That is not at all what it means.

It means that a liberal is a closet racist, does not want to live around non-whites.

[MarkJawz]

I probably shouldn't have included the second half of the 60s after Vietnam started, but in any case, some of what you cited were good things, in terms of keeping people in line.

[MarkJawz]

My parents and grandparents were leftist Jews that I went no contact with decades ago. Try again.

[Kazinski]

I don't know why I don't have as much right to spew out a load of whiny drivel as Rosie O'Donnel or Ellen Degeneris, or Robert Di Nero do.

And I am also confident that no one cares every bit as much about my reasons for self deporting as they don't care about other whiny drivelers reasons for self deporting.

[Armchair]

But where you going to self-deport to? America isn't perfect. But it's better than just about everywhere else.

[hobie]

This is our chance to 'Where's Waldo' with Kazinski. Except we have to figure out what country he's gonna be in. His post indicates that even one Latino can ruin the Super Bowl, so that rules out the Western Hemisphere. Africa's a nonstarter. Europe is all censorship and is completely taken over by Muslims; Scandinavia socialist.

Plus with MAGA's sudden tolerance for child sex trafficking - and with Q-anon being flush with it - I'm gonna guess Laos/Vietnam/Thailand.

[Kazinski]

Nope.

[ducksalad]

Pretty hard to find a place where some American culture hasn't leaked in and people aren't even aware that football exists.

Outlying islands in Melanesia, but need to stay out of the towns.
PNG but you'd need to get to the second or third valley back from the coast.
Parts of Andaman islands.
Areas of Amazon basin reserved for non-contacted tribes.
Rural parts of North Korea (maybe).

[loki13]

As always, it just shows what an idiot Miller is. A racist, fascist, idiot.

Because you know who would have punched him in the nose for his comment? Ol' Blue Eyes.

Sinatra was the son of two immigrants. That's right, both of his parents were born in Italy and emigrated from Italy to America. His mother was well-known for her work helping other immigrants in court proceedings. In fact, his mother was not just a well-known activist, she was the type of person that ICE would murder today- helping immigrants, running an illegal abortion center, and engaging in civil disobedience (chaining herself ILLEGALLY to city hall) to support a woman's right to vote.

Oh, and the King of Cool, Dino? Yeah, his dad was an immigrant.

In other words, we wouldn't have the show, because we wouldn't have had either performer, without immigration. Not to mention ICE would have murdered Sinatra's mother.

Miller can eat a bag of dicks for dragging the Rat Pack into this. He doesn't get to appropriate any level of cool, ever.

[Life of Brian]

Sinatra was the son of two immigrants. That's right, both of his parents were born in Italy and emigrated from Italy to America.

Italy was third-world at the time?

I learn so much from you, boss! Don't ever stop being awesome.

[not guilty]

According to Wikipedia, Frank Sinatra's parents moved to the United States from Italy in 1895 and 1903. Dean Martin (born Dino Paul Crocetti) was born on June 7, 1917 to an Italian immigrant father and a first generation Italian-American mother.

Since the term "third world" did not develop until the Cold War following World War II, there were then no third world nations anywhere. But Italians at that time were subject to racist, ethnic hatemongering and were widely considered to be nonwhite.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/12/opinion/columbus-day-italian-american-racism.html

[Life of Brian]

Since the term "third world" did not develop until the Cold War following World War II, there were then no third world nations anywhere

Same to you, friend. Never. Stop. Being. Awesome.

Because until a given term is coined, the meaning represented by that term didn't exist either, amirite?

[not guilty]

"Because until a given term is coined, the meaning represented by that term didn't exist either, amirite?"

The meaning represented by "third world" is not being aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact, doofus. Since neither alliance existed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were then no third world countries.

Time travel is not now, and never has been, a thing.

[Life of Brian]

The meaning represented by "third world" is not being aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact, doofus.

All sorts of folks today who don't know when to stop digging. Must be something in the water.

Miller, of course, was not using the term in the 1950s; he was using it today. Regardless of its original meaning, today it's simply shorthand for an underdeveloped country. See, e.g., your intellectual-curiosity-satisfaction machine otherwise known as a "search engine."

[Bob from Ohio]

"simply shorthand for an underdeveloped country"

Polite term for "shithole countries"

[Bob from Ohio]

"widely considered to be nonwhite"

Repeating a falsehood multiple times does not make it true.

Italians could marry, vote and run for office everywhere. Nonwhites could not in many places.

Northern European girl brings home an Italian boy, some crying and yelling perhaps. Northern European girl brings home a black guy, likely actual violence.

"ethnic hatemongering"

Sure, just like my Polack grandparents.

[bernard11]

Italy was third-world at the time?

I think it depends on what part of Italy you are talking about. Parts were poor, mostly agricultural, societies. Others, primarily in the north, were industrializing and growing.

[MarkJawz]

She was helping other WHITE immigrants. Not brown ones.

It's extremely disrespectful to what Europeans have accomplished over the last 600 years to equate brown with white.

[Commenter_XY]

I really feel hopeless...

Kaz, even a diminished America is vastly superior to the rest of the world. There is no place like here. Give more thought to this.

[Kazinski]

Its a big world out there XY, and I like it, even if its different.

[hobie]

Trump says we're a great country again, Kaz.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, it is a big world out there, I agree. Much of which is missing what we take for granted daily in America. If you go through with it (reconsider, it is not too late), let us know you got to your destination safely.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, on average the rest of the world sucks, but there are plenty of places out there that are quite nice if you have resources to live above average, and don't poke your nose into local politics.

Kaz, try visiting El Nido in Palawan, Philippines. It's cheap to stay there, the beaches are incredible, as is the scenery above and below water. (I went there for scuba with my son.) That's actually the view from the dive resort we stayed at.

The girls are cute, too, if you're single.

[grb]

Any good wrecks? I'm partial to diving shipwrecks myself. Of course one of the premier spots for that is Truk Lagoon, where a sizable portion of the Japanese fleet was sunk.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've only got the basic certification, so wreck diving was out. I believe there was one, though, as well as cave diving. I gather the place to go for wrecks is Coron bay, though; A whole Japanese fleet got sank there.

[MarkJawz]

What is the issue with local politics?

[Brett Bellmore]

Locals can get pretty hostile if foreigners try to get involved in their politics, and as a foreigner you're there on sufferance, so you do NOT need to be making enemies.

[ducksalad]

Maybe things have changed in 40 years but my experience in the next island over (Panay) was that one needed to know the proper way to offer a bribe. Tricky for a foreigner.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't believe things have changed that much, though as a tourist I didn't have to do any bribery to get by for a couple weeks. Not like I was trying to buy a house or start a business.

But per my wife's discussions with the inlaws, yeah, you still have to pay bribes to get a lot of stuff done.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, brother in law is having trouble graduating from police academy because he won't grease the right palms. Police academy!

[ducksalad]

Sorry to hear it.

BTW, way back then (mid 70s) the attitude on Panay was that Palawan was a wild, basically uninhabitable place suited only for penal colonies. They made it sound like you'd have malaria, cholera, and dengue all at once in the first week. No one had ever been there.

Apparently it's got nice resorts now?

[Armchair]

"But there are plenty of places out there that are quite nice if you have resources to live above average,"

But that's really the kicker. You're not really making a living there. You're bringing in external resources and living off those. Yes, if you bring in your bank account that you earned in the US and resides in the US and use it to feed your lifestyle on a Tropical Island...that works...until the money runs out. And then, why you try to make a living there you realize...uh oh... Time to go back to the US to make some money.

There are plenty of places that you can turn nice, with enough external resources. Almost anywhere. But those are external resources. But if you want to actually make a living...and not just bring in stuff from outside...the US really can't be beat.

[Sarcastr0]

Standard of living and quality of life indexes disagree.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country

BUT
1. life is more than making a living.
2. And *a* life is more than just living.

If you've got a notion, you've got more of a chance to change the world here. Still. For now.
And the *promise* of America remains a humbling and exceptional thing.
The UK is cool and all, but 1066 just doesn't have the hopefulness Frederick Douglass on the Civil War, or the Civil Rights era does.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are a lot of jobs you can do remotely now, which means that, yeah, you actually can make a living there, if you have one of them. And if you get paid less as a result, you're also enjoying a reduced cost of living.

The Philippines are a popular destination for remote work and retirement, since almost everybody speaks English, cost of living is low, and the people are friendly as long as you stay clear of Southern Mindanao. (A lot of Islamic terrorists there.)

[Frank Drackman]

That all might be true but that's not why the people who I know who retired there retired there.

[hobie]

[checks watch]

"Aww geeze, America's falling apart again. Must be Thursday in MAGA land."

[not guilty]

"So I have decided to self deport, I have a one way ticket overseas, and no plans about when or whether to come back."

As the late Lewis Grizzard said of Yankees who move to the South and kvetch about how much better things were where they came from -- Delta is ready when you are!

[Frank Drackman]

There's a Lewis Grizzard Museum in Moreland GA (40 minute Uber from Atlanta-Zimbabwe-International Airport)
Never been there, every time I drive through it's closed.
Moreland that is, it was a really happening place back before the War.
Not World War 2, or even 1, that other big one, when you Yankees tried to tell us how to treat Black Peoples.
I liked Lewis, even though he was one of THEM (UGA fan), he was cursed with Congenital Valvular Heart Disease and died in 1994 after his 4th Valve repair.
Lewis didn't have the most "Woke" views on Feminists, Homos, or umm, you know, he'd be cancelled in a New Delhi Minute now a days (See what I did there? instead of "New York Minute" I changed it to New Delhi, you know, because of all the Immigration)

Frank

[ThePublius]

If I self deported, as Kaz puts it (why not just 'move?') I would go to either Italy or Ireland, with a preference for the former. I have my Irish citizenship and therefore an EU passport, so no prob traveling or even working there ('though I'm retired and can't imagine working again).

Some small towns in Italy had programs where if you agreed to fix them up, they'd sell you a house for €1. I like Italy, and in my retirement I'd focus on language, of course, and food and art, especially oil painting.

But, Kaz, how can you move so quickly? Don't you have 'stuff,' like a house, and one full of possessions, a car, etc.? How would you divest yourself of all of this so quickly? I know that in my case, with all of my hobbies and possessions, it would take at least a year.

[MarkJawz]

I'd go to Poland or Romania.

[Brett Bellmore]

Moving for the girls, not the weather, I take it?

[MarkJawz]

Nah, I'm married. They're the only white Christian nations left that want to remain that way.

[Sarcastr0]

let Bad Bunny ruin OUR, not his, not Roger Goodell's Super Bowl halftime show

cultural patrimony

Wow, I didn't peg you for one of those people.
Don't hit the door hit your ass on the way out.

[hobie]

One glitch in the MAGA raison d' etre - The Brownie Removal Machine - and the hillbillies jump ship. Ironically, probably, just to live with another set of brownies.

[jb]

I think Kaz is trying to do a little satire? But we truly live in the Poe's Law Era so it's basically impossible to tell at this point.

[loki13]

I find all of this (the Bad Bunny stuff) so confusing.

Bad Bunny is the single most popular artist in America, and, I believe, the world ... right now. Do these people truly not know that? Is this their Pauline Kael* moment?

So I assume it's just vice signalling.

*I use the term because it's in the popular lexicon for when you mistake your limited personal view for what the rest of the country thinks. "I don't know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him." But it's not true- it's a paraphrase from a speech she made where she's joking about limited perspectives.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bad Bunny is the single most popular artist in America"

Taylor Swift erasure

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2026/01/14/taylor-swift-dominates-2025s-bestselling-albums-list-by-a-huge-margin/

[jb]

Depends on what metrics you're using, obviously, but people don't buy a lot of albums any more.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/spotify-wrapped-2025-bad-bunny-dethroned-taylor-swift-streamed-artist-rcna247144

They're both super popular, in any case. I actually am not much of a Bad Bunny fan, but think the MAGA reaction has been pretty hilarious.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Bad Bunny had a nice Colbert Questionnaire last night.

[grb]

Sigh. Yesterday's thread ended with endless back & forth over the attack on Omar. By then her assailant was identified as a lifelong rightwing crank and Trump supporter. But some of this forum's righties still kept insisting it was all a secret scheme by the congresswoman. They just love lying so much.

So we open today with Ed (enuff said), Kazinski's jokey high theatrics, and whatever the hell MarkJawz is. And looking out to the world at large, our president is still a halfwit buffoon, he's still declared war on American communities to entertain his ghoulish base, and either Iceland or Greenland lurks somewhere in what's left of his brain.

We have a cosplay barbie doll running DHS, a head of DOJ who got the job because (a) the pedophile couldn't cut it and (b) Trump had already successfully bribed Bondi in the past. Our DOD is a TV talking head. Our HHS is an absolute freak. The FBI head is a petty hustler who was running scams right up until he was named head of the country's premier law enforcement agency.

Is America's Right Wing a mental disease?

[Kazinski]

Didn't seem plausible that someone, with a full deck at least, could be convinced to stage an attack on a Congresswoman, when he is going to end up in jail for decades.

And I'm not joking, I will be gone before SB kickoff.

[grb]

Kazinski : "....could be convinced to stage an attack"

Per the assailant's brother (in an interview with The Independent), Kazmierczak had an angry obsession with black folk in general and Somalis in particular. Per his mother, he had mental health issues. Per his neighbor, he was prone to long rightwing rants and hated Omar.

William-of-Ockham-wise, when does your tin-foil-hat gibberish become superfluous, Kazinski?

[grb]

(Apologies to Kazinski. I initially read his Omar comment as suggesting the assailant could be convinced as part of a secret scheme. He actually said the exact opposite)

[Magister]

Not to worry. We can expect that Kazinski will be back on the crazy train as soon as the lifelong rightwing crank writes a letter somehow blaming Tim Walz.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unless Omar is not a human being, she knew she was gonna get sprayed with something that was harmless. Notice how she lacks any of the human responses to a surprise spraying and disregard all concerns about it potentially being toxic.

Someone who grew up in a war zone would have a HEIGHTENED startle response and be MORE likely be concerned about what it was. It actually is quite irresponsible for her notto be concerned because it put the audience at risk as well — I would’ve pulled the fire alarm and told everyone to get the hell out of there until the fire department verified that the air wasn’t toxic.

Unless I knew it was only vinegar…..

And unless she’s like the rest of the far left, she carefully screens who’s let into her town halls.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, she was genuinely attacked by a nutcase, only idiots think it was staged.

Thankfully an ineffectual nutcase.

[bernard11]

only idiots think it was staged.

True.

Lots of idiots around here yesterday.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's depressing to consider, but it's always worth remembering that an IQ of 100 being average means that about half the population have below 100 IQs. And the schools don't exactly put a lot of work into teaching basic reasoning skills, perhaps because the government doesn't want what it pays the schools to teach subjected to critical examination.

Jussie Smollett hired people to fake a crime against him, but you'll note that it happened under circumstances where they could reasonably hope to have gotten away with it. Not in front of a police station.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whenever the police are investigating a crime, they have to keep a few facts out of the press, e.g., that the murder victim was wearing a red hat, because they will have people come in and confess to the crime and only the actual criminal will know that he was wearing a red hat, etc.

Is something about people wanting attention or something, but ask any police detective, false confessions are a real problem.

So you find some Patsy, who’s mentally unstable to begin with and convince him to squirt her with vinegar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Omar did NOT know if the substance was harmless, she is incredibly irresponsible in not immediately evacuating the room. I would suggest potentially criminally negligent.

That was what 10 or 20 cc in that syringe? I don’t wanna give the bad guys any ideas, but I can think of liquids that you can spray that amount of, that would quickly evaporate, and reach an LD 50 level in a room that size, particularly in extreme cold weather where all the windows and doors are shut.

LD50 stands for lethal dose for 50% of the people exposed to it.

There’s lots of nasty stuff out there. There’s lots of nuts out there. The chemical companies aren’t always as scrupulous as they should be, anyone remember the Atomic Boy Scout?

I remember a high school anthrax scare that wound up being muffin mix — you gotta take this stuff seriously because sometimes it is. In Somalia, they love to throw battery acid at women…

[jb]

The problem is that it ISN'T only idiots who think it's staged. There's people posting on here, like Life of Brian, who I can tell are not actually stupid. But they're happy to amplify and at least entertain voices that are STILL entertaining that it might be staged, despite what we've learned about the attacker and despite the fact the dude is facing serious federal charges.

Probably it's always been like this to a degree, but some combination of political polarization and social media are really polluting people's brains to make them grab into ideas that are politically appealing/convenient but obviously don't survive any real logical scrutiny. This definitely happens to people on the left as well, but I think it's really bad for our political moment that it's so hard to cut through the obvious bullshit, even with people who should know better.

[David Nieporent]

I've seen another angle today — one from the audience — and it makes even clearer how bullshit the conspiracy theory is. There was no nod, no eye contact, and her reaction to the attack is first shock, and then anger.

[grb]

Kazinski : "And I'm not joking, I will be gone before SB kickoff."

If it helps to lure you back, I'll petition the Super Bowl to have Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra perform at next year's halftime show.

[hobie]

Should we tell Kaz that modern televisions have a mute function?

[Frank Drackman]

There's also the option of oh, some 500 channels.
While stranded in LA (Louisiana, not LA) a few months ago (Those also serve who pass Gas for our Veterans) the best Hotel was one of these old time "Motor Courts" every room was smoking (for me, a feature, not a bug) Elevator didn't work, 90% of the guests were Truckers (and Trucker Groupies).
BUT,
50 inch Flatscreen, I know, not a big deal anymore,
500+ channels, including one that ran nothing but Leave it to Beaver episodes, (in Sequence) with 235 episodes I didn't come out for 5 days.
OK, except to pass Gas.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I get by not watching the Super Bowl at all. Spares me exposure to football as well as the halftime show, so it's a win-win.

[Kazinski]

The problem isn't the mute function, the problem is there are 5700 channels but there is nothing on.

So maybe I should go look at something different.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh, he’ll find Allah, go into therapy, and get off of some public service gig.

[Bob from Ohio]

"when he is going to end up in jail for decades"

Was not staged [just a drunk with a chip on his shoulder] but he's not getting "decades". Depending on his prior record, he'll get a year or so, might even get probation.

[hobie]

My favorite part was when Omar dragged herself off the ground and mouthed 'Fight! Fight! Fight!'. There's a photo of it circulating...looks like Iwo Jima.

[Frank Drackman]

Dude should have just grabbed the end of her Turban and ran, or threw a shoe at her like that Iraqi guy did with "W" (wasn't so funny when he got executed) or maybe a Pie, make it like a 3 Stooges Bit.
Back when he was still occasionally funny Howard Stern pondered why Ill-hand wore the Turban 24-7, he wasn't buying the Moose-lem story, saying she's probably bald like Will Smith's wife, or has one of those malformed heads babies get from difficult childbirth.(she was born in Somalia)
I do buy the "Moose-lem bit", with some relaxer like Michelle O uses, a few drinks, I think "Progress could be made"

Frank

[Riva]

Sigh. Whatever the motivations, the actions of this lunatic have nothing to do with President Trump or any supporter of President Trump. Logic is hard I guess.

[bernard11]

the actions of this lunatic have nothing to do with President Trump or any supporter of President Trump. Logic is hard I guess.

Since he himself is a supporter of Trump that is an uncommonly stupid thing to say. Logic is indeed hard, for some people.

[LexAquilia]

I wonder why they slapped him with a misdemeanor.

Weird. In MN, they slapped a rightwing terrorist with a misdemeanor charge.

Hmmm...

[Bunny495]

Local LEOs were providing security (more like insecurity) and took the guy into custody and charged him quickly so they could keep him in custody. There is a federal investigation and likely federal charges unless the Frey and Ellison insist there is local jurisdiction and forbid federal inference.

[LexAquilia]

I hope the guy gets charged by the Feds with a severe crime.

That will be hilarious because I'm sure that wasn't the deal he made with Omar.

lol

[Martinned]

I see no reason why this should be a federal case.

[not guilty]

Without having done a deep dive into the matter, I can't think of any federal criminal statute that would potentially apply based on what has been publicly reported.

The statute that I think comes closest is 18 U.S.C. § 249, which provides at subsection (a)(1):

(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin. — Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person

is subject to up to ten years imprisonment, or fine, or both.

Rep. Omar is black, muslim and of Somali ancestry, any of which conceivably could have motivated the attack, but there appears to be no bodily injury nor any use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device.

[John F. Carr]

It is a federal crime to assault a member of Congress. 18 USC 351. Rand Paul's neighbor went to prison for a non-political assault.

I think this is a reasonable exercise of federal power given that it only protects Congress and top executive and judicial officers. Surprisingly, simple assault is only a misdemeanor. Congress loves to make small crimes into felonies.

[Martinned]

O, I'm sure there's some sort of federal crime that this guy could be charged with. I'm just saying that, reasoning from first principles, there's no reason why assaulting a member of Congress should be prosecuted in federal court under federal law. I see no special Federal interest in protecting members of Congress from assault. (Particularly in their own states.) Preventing a member of Congress from attending Congress is a different matter, but that's not what happened here.

[Brett Bellmore]

" I see no special Federal interest in protecting members of Congress from assault."

Sure, sure, just understand that the people who actually write the laws happen to disagree with you about that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I see no special Federal interest in protecting members of Congress from assault."

Very strange. You have a lot of dumb opinions but this is one of the dumbest.

So, what if the local DA's friend assaults a congressman and so no prosecution?

[wvattorney13]

I don't have a problem with federal protection for members of Congress from attacks which result because of their exposure and actions AS a member of Congress.

Rand Paul's incident should not qualify IMHO. If I get in a fight with my neighbor because of a border dispute, he shouldn't get extra protection just because he is in Congress.

[not guilty]

"It is a federal crime to assault a member of Congress. 18 USC 351. Rand Paul's neighbor went to prison for a non-political assault."

You are correct. Thank you. Subsection (e) of that statute provides:

(e) Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a) of this section shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The remainder of the statute deals with killing, kidnapping, attempting to kill or kidnap or conspiring to kill or kidnap certain designated federal officials, including Members of Congress, each of which carries much more severe penalties.

[jb]

As usual, Lex's hot takes age very badly. Kazmierczak has now been charged with assault.

By the way, Lex, still waiting for the deets on the Signal chat where "Pretti coordinating and then blockading the road" on the day he was shot. You were very insistent that these were real yesterday.

[Mr. Bumble]

Francisco Franco, Renee Good and Alex Pretti are still dead.
H/T Chevy Chase.

[Frank Drackman]

Saw the new Video of Nurse Pretti kicking out the taillight of an ICE vehicle and spitting at an Officer.
Guy just needed to get laid.
Pretti I mean, those ICE guys make out like Wilt Chamberlain with a Lobby of Pan Am Stewardesses, especially the ones with Dogs.

Frank

[Kazinski]

Thats just one view of Pretti, here is another of Pretti helping a disabled veteran "get back on his feet".

https://x.com/i/status/2016670007933943950
But rather than just feel the emotion, realizing that can never happen again, some callous wingmut points out the American flag on the wall only has 6 red stripes and the picture was AI generated and never happened in the first place.

[Frank Drackman]

Bill Belichik's on to Cincinnati

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought alcohol was haram. Has a fatwat (or whatever the Mooslems call a hit) been placed on Omar for owning a winery?

[ThePublius]

Yes.

"Yes, alcohol is considered haram (forbidden) in Islam. The Quran defines alcohol as "the work of Satan," and Muslims are instructed to avoid it entirely due to its intoxicating nature. Both consumption and, in many interpretations, association with alcohol (serving, selling, buying) are prohibited."

The reason it's O.K. with Omar is that there really isn't a winery, it's a fraud, a scam.

[John F. Carr]

A fatwa is a legal opinion from an Islamic legal authority. Once upon a time courts in the civilized world followed Islamic law. Usually the decisions are not all that important or consequential. You might find somebody to opine that Omar has violated the rules. Getting a mufti to order a hit on her is unlikely.

The Sultan's legal advisors had a role like OLC in modern Presidential administrations. "Hey, Mohammed, I'm going to war and I need a letter explaining why it's not a violation of my duty of peace towards fellow Muslims." A fatwa would be provided explaining why those follow Muslims needed a good beating.

[Martinned]

A fatwa isn't a "legal opinion", still less does it have anything to do with "ordering a hit" on someone.

Islam does not have popes. Every muslim decides for themselves what they want to do.

I can recommend the Baburnama, the memoirs of the founder of the Mughal dynasty, for an impression of drinking culture in 15th century (now) Afghanistan. Babur might have disapproved of excessive drinking, but nobody was ordering a hit on anybody.

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

[Bob from Ohio]

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
fat·wa
/ˈfətwə,ˈfätˌwä/
noun
noun: fatwa; plural noun: fatwas
a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority.

"ruling on a point of Islamic law" seems pretty close to "legal opinion"

[Martinned]

Yes, but it is exactly not the same as a "legal opinion", particularly not in the sense that people on a legal blog would use that term. A fatwa is a ruling on a religious question, just like the religious opinions in the Talmud etc. "Islamic law" is a bit of a misnomer.

[Bob from Ohio]

Pedant,

Its an opinion on a matter of religious law.

[John F. Carr]

In America, at least, the term "fatwa" became associated with "ordering a hit" after the Ayatollah Khomeini called for the death of Salman Rushdie.

[Martinned]

Yes, I know, but there's no reason to encourage that kind of casual islamophobia.

[Bob from Ohio]

Marrying a non-Muslim is also haram but she did so.

The hair covering is just rube bait. Her religious Somali voters and leftists are the rubes.

[Frank Drackman]

Sending Holman to Minneapolis reminds me of my Youth Baseball days, other team would have this shitty pitcher, throwing slop, I couldn't wait to get to the Plate.
Of course I usually batted 9th, and they'd pull the guy right before my turn.
New Pitcher would be one of the Outfielders, maybe the Shortstop or 3rd Baseman, not a regular Pitcher but good arm and could throw smoke.
And a bit wild.
You'd have to stand there while he took his warm up pitches, with a few going high into the Backstop just to let you know how things were.
Pretty nice when Tom Holman's the "Nice Cop"

Frank

[Bunny495]

I grew in Miami and as a kid played Little League ball. I was at the plate with 3-2 count. Of course I am taking all the way, actually obeying the sign from the first base coach for a change (I was batting something like .580 but not enough official at bats, since I was leading the division in walks, to qualify for the title). After a Ball Four (the best book about baseball ever written) call I was trotting to first base when the opposing coach shouted at me, ''you were lucky there was not a good pitcher like Steve Carlton". In high school I played on the basketball team with Steve when he was a junior but he only played baseball as a senior. Top my baseball story is you can.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, you're really old.
I am too, first MLB game I remember watching complete was the 1970 Allstar Game where Charlie Hustle De-Cleated Ray Fosse (Pete had money on the game, no joke, he really did)
Loved "Lefty" and all of my favorite pitchers were Southpaws, Vida "True"(HT C. Findley) Blue, Tug McGraw, Sparky Lyle, Tommy John, even liked Wilbur Wood who looked like he should be tending Bar at the VFW.

Frank

[bernard11]

a few going high into the Backstop just to let you know how things were.a few going high into the Backstop just to let you know how things were.

Maybe they were emulating Ryne Duren (or Steve Dalkowski). Did those pitchers wear Coke bottle glasses?

[Frank Drackman]

My refractive error wasn't Coke-bottle level but I had the Black Frame Cereal Killer USAF Issue, a few years before Buddy Holly made them cool again (Posthumously), "Chin Music" was one of my best pitches.

Frank

[MarkJawz]

Ultimately, there is no way you can deport tens of millions of people without being somewhat cruel. That's why Trump's ICE is justified.

[Frank Drackman]

You've gotta be cruel to be kind in the right measure
Cruel to be kind, it's a very good sign
Cruel to be kind means that I love you, baby (no Homo)
Oh Oh, (OK maybe a little Homo)
You've gotta be cruel to be kind

[jb]

Ultimately, there's no way to get America's rate of gun violence to match the rest of the world's without confiscating everyone's guns. That's why President Newsom's new executive order banning all guns in America is justified.

[Martinned]

You mean his executive order authorising the ATF to shoot any and all individuals they see carrying a fire arm? Absolute immunity is great!

[MarkJawz]

Most of what ICE is doing is not violating the constitution. It's just "cruel" or "inhumane."

[jb]

LOL, make up your mind.

[Armchair]

So, I had an interesting conversation with a liberal. He seemingly supported shutting down the government over ICE. And I pointed out that, you know, ICE is funded (as part of the OBBA)...they won't actually stop working if you shut down the government. But you will shut down the courts that are needed to get the detainees out of jail. Shutting down the government is actively detrimental to helping immigrants.

And his response was that it was "symbolism". And it clicked for me. It wasn't about helping the immigrants. It was about "looking like" you were helping the immigrants. And it explained a lot.

You see the same thing with the sanctuary city policies. If you actually care about the immigrants, releasing child molestors and rapists back into the immigrant community seems to be a poor idea. But if you just want to "look like" you're supporting the immigrants, absolutely! No ICE in the jails, ever! Even if they're picking up rapists who would be released to the immigrant community! Again...image over actual results.

You saw it again with "Defund the police". It was a dumb idea...more police were requested by the minority communities, not less. But liberals wanted to "look supportive"....so Defund away!

Much of the politicking is the same. It's more about "looking supportive" that about getting actual results. A compromise on immigration that delivers real results? That looks like you don't support immigration. Better to take a radical hard line (and get nothing)...because it looks better. Even if it's actually worse.

Something to consider.

[Swede425]

Remember the last time they shut down the government?
It was horrible! It impacted every aspect of my life and it was all I could think about 24/7!
Like how they rioted in Minneapolis last time?
I really hated that. I sure hope they don't do that again.
Some people did something. Whatever.

[Bunny495]

Well the upside of a shutdown is Trump can fire a bunch of libtard federal workers like he did last time.

[Martinned]

I pointed out that, you know, ICE is funded (as part of the OBBA)...they won't actually stop working if you shut down the government. But you will shut down the courts that are needed to get the detainees out of jail.

The US is dysfunctional part 103,404,999...

[Bwaaah]

"It was about "looking like" you were helping the immigrants."

This is the story of the current Democratic Party. Looking right is a product of good upbringing and education.

What is the difference between looking right and doing the right thing? Unfortunately, doing the right thing can look bad. It can call for aggression, disruption, conflict. But looking right [almost] always looks right.

In a world where anything can be recorded, in sound or video or both, and a recording of a bad looking moment can be replayed back for the rest of your life, doing the right thing can be a self-destructive act.

Talking wrong can be expensive. Saying the right thing is cheap.

And a corollary: doing nothing [almost] never looks wrong.

Interesting fact: Almost all of the Democratic Party's positions look right to me. That said, I learned by my early twenties that looking right wasn't a substantive road for making real change and progress in life.

[Sarcastr0]

It wasn't about helping the immigrants. It was about "looking like" you were helping the immigrants.

Armchair explains the left. Reveals his own pinched understanding of political tactics.

Remember when he was doing crocodile tears about federal pay in the last shutdown?
I sometimes wonder if he convinces even himself.

[Bwaaah]

You always call out tears that nobody shed.

You oppress like a girl.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I know you had one DEI person tell you that were insensitive or something and you've been regretfully MAGA ever since and crying about it.

And if you don't remember his shitshow during the recent shutdown, that's on you.

[Armchair]

Is California killing itself with its wealth tax?

Maybe yes... See, California is currently a very top heavy state, with the rich paying much of the taxes. But the wealth tax proposal is threatening to have many of the uber-rich...if not all of them...leave.

"Three men I spoke with in the largest billionaire Signal chat said they ran an informal poll, and 70% of the chat (around 60 people, not all of whom were billionaires) indicated they would leave the state if the ballot proposition passes. According to that same poll, around 15% have already left the state."

"I’ve spoken with around 10% of billionaires in the state myself. Of the 21 men I interviewed, 20 would have been impacted by the ballot measure. All 20 of them, including the Democrats, as well as several of the most committed diehard proponents of revitalizing San Francisco, are now developing an exit plan. (Three have already left.)"

https://nypost.com/2026/01/27/opinion/tech-elite-will-flee-california-over-wealth-seizure-ballot-measure/

Problem is...it gets worse. It's not just the uber-rich. They take their employees and companies with them. And then...you get the network effects. Even if an uber-rich wants to stay, the network that kept them there is gone.

Through happenstance, Silicon Valley just happened to pop up in California. A network of closely aligned businesses and individuals that prompted the computer then the internet boom. It didn't have to happen in California....there's no intrinsic geographic reason why it needs to be there. But once it did, the network effects keep it going. Tech supports nearby tech. But what happens when all the big boys move out due to wealth taxes? What happens when the start ups move on as soon as it becomes clear the state is going to seize 5% of their company or more?

It kills the network. Silicon Valley dies. Like Detroit as an auto hub did. And you're left with an overly large government without the tax base to support it.

[Frank Drackman]

Average home price in California, $750K
and that's not really accurate, because the house you pay $750K for in California looks about like the hovel I lived in during Med Screw-el that I paid $150 monthly rent. ($400 in todays Shekels)
It was former military housing, so no Central Air, windows were sliding like on a Trailer, No Insulation because they didn't want to tear out the Asbestos, Lead in the Pipes AND the Paint, which didn't matter because every new occupant painted the walls in their favorite color. Good in that it was on Campus, Bad in that it was on Campus. No HOA so you could do cool things like park your Motorcycle in the Living Room and have a Dog Kennel in the backyard. Mostly Grad students living there, 3 bedrooms so many were rented out to whoever had the $$$, and a number of Po' Black Fambilies who were "Grandfathered" in when the Screw-el bought the land.
It's since been torn down, mostly Fraternity Houses now, there's a lesson there but I don't know what it is.

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

the largest billionaire Signal chat

LOL. This is some truly limp reporting from the NY Post.

California's promised rich dude exodus has been promised for 20 years, and hasn't happened so far beyond balyhoo'd anecdotes.

Maybe it will all go up in smoke, but I'd wait till that actually starts happening, not this wishcasting clickbait.

[Frank Drackman]

Scott Adams finally left.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Silicon Valley formed because of Stanford University being there, it was Stanford University post World War II that led all of this.

[Krayt]

A warning for all Governors!

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like Pretti Boy Alex has become the new Saint Floyd George.
https://x.com/NormEisen/status/2016492606117609787

[LexAquilia]

If Norm Eisen is there then the rebel leadership has decided to make Alex the casus belli for the Color Revolution, Part Deux

He traveled to the Confederate State of MN in the dead of winter for that photo op.

[Joe_dallas]

Pretti's state of mind is not relevant for the agent to judge, but Pretti's behavior is relevant, and his behavior reflects his state of mind.

He brings a gun to a protest and participates in physical attacks on property and verbal assaults of people. Not the gentle ICU nurse depicted by the left

[Mr. Bumble]

...or his AI modified picture.
https://nypost.com/2026/01/28/us-news/photo-of-alex-pretti-altered-by-ai-to-look-more-pretty-was-originally-staff-portrait-at-minneapolis-va-hospital/

[Michael P]

Yup, after he was on the losing end of two prior violent altercations with ICE that he initiated. It's sadly typical of the left.

[Bob from Ohio]

"two prior violent altercations"

The spitting/kicking SUV was one. What's the other?

[Joe_dallas]

reports are that he was involved in ICE altercation one week prior resulting in broken rib (with the caveat that it was likely a bruised rib, not a broken rib which I am basing on his level of physical activity on the day of shooting)

[Life of Brian]

Absaroka posted this CNN clip yesterday where they analyzed the spitting/kicking video and then actually said it wasn't clear if that was the same incident as the one where he supposedly broke a rib.

They said they were looking at more video, so there may be updates today.

[Brett Bellmore]

Glad it's been established (By sources leftwingers would pay attention to!) that it really was him. Yes, I've heard that he was in at least two violent clashes with ICE before getting shot at the third.

Which doesn't make it a clean shot, of course. But does put it in context that he had to work at getting shot, they weren't really all that trigger happy.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, I see it as mainly putting a major pinch on the "they shot a POOR INNOCENT NURSE in COLD BLOOD" halo narrative they ran with from day 1.

[jb]

Doing several things that shouldn't result in anyone getting shot doesn't make it more okay to shoot someone the third time the the first.

Sometimes cops incorrectly shoot people at traffic stops. But it would be pretty dumb to say "well, that was his third speeding ticket this month; he really had to work at getting killed by the cops."

[Joe_dallas]

No - getting stopped three times doesnt justify shooting the guy. But it goes to show that Pretti behaved in a manner consistent with a criminal mind and behaved that why when he got shot.

[David Nieporent]

It of course does not "go to show" any such thing. Nor — since the events of the day when he was shot are all on video — do we need to rely on inferences from other days to guess how he might have behaved on that day.

[Life of Brian]

Propensity evidence most certainly goes to the question of intent, which is of course not captured in the videos and the haloed-nurse crowd has been endlessly harping on.

[Magister]

Life of Brian spent so much time ignoring "propensity evidence" about the man who attacked Omar. His blind spot is entirely on the right side of his field of vision.

[David Nieporent]

Propensity evidence most certainly goes to the question of intent, which is of course not captured in the videos and the haloed-nurse crowd has been endlessly harping on.

Um, Pretti's intent isn't relevant to evaluating the shooting. The killers' intent of course matters, but that can only be based on what they observed, which is captured in the videos.

(To be sure, if the killers said, "We were afraid he was going to shoot us because we knew he had attacked us the other day," then it would be relevant, but nobody has made such a claim. Also, "we were afraid he was going to shoot us because he had kicked a taillight the other day" is pretty pathetic anyway.)

[Joe_dallas]

What is relevant is Pretti's behavior at the time of the shooting. His intent and state of mind are reflected in his behavior at the time of the shooting and immediately prior to the shooting. What you and Mag are trying to dodge is that the agent is allowed to evaluate his state of mind and/or his intent as is reflected by his actions/behavior for purposes of evaluating the threat.

[not guilty]

"Propensity evidence most certainly goes to the question of intent, which is of course not captured in the videos and the haloed-nurse crowd has been endlessly harping on."

Life of Birdbrain, the intent of the decedent in a homicide prosecution is not at issue (except sometimes where the accused claims self-defense).

Character evidence is excluded by Federal Rule 404(a) and its state counterparts as to both the accused (during the prosecution's case-in-chief) and the victim (at all stages). If the accused adduces evidence of his good character, that can open the door to rebuttal by the prosecution.

Propensity evidence is generally excluded because of the risk that the jury will give it undue weight.

Per Fed.R.Evid. 401 (and its state counterparts, evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Absent a claim of self-defense, the intent of the deceased in a homicide prosecution is of no such consequence. In the case of self-defense, prior assaultive behavior of the deceased is consequential if and only if that behavior is known to the accused at the time of the fatal event. Prior assaultive behavior of the deceased is otherwise non-consequential.

[David Nieporent]

What is relevant is Pretti's behavior at the time of the shooting.

Yes, that's what I tried to explain to you. And whether he was Mother Theresa or Jeffrey Dahmer before that day isn't relevant.

What you and Mag are trying to dodge is that the agent is allowed to evaluate his state of mind and/or his intent as is reflected by his actions/behavior for purposes of evaluating the threat.

What you aren't smart enough to understand is that unless the agent knew about Pretti's acts on previous days, he cannot "evaluate" Pretti's state of mind or intent based on those prior acts.

[not guilty]

"What is relevant is Pretti's behavior at the time of the shooting. His intent and state of mind are reflected in his behavior at the time of the shooting and immediately prior to the shooting. What you and Mag are trying to dodge is that the agent is allowed to evaluate his state of mind and/or his intent as is reflected by his actions/behavior for purposes of evaluating the threat."

The issue is whether the agent had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to himself or to other person(s). Prior assaultive behavior of the deceased is relevant to the agent's claim if and only if that behavior is known to the agent at the time of the fatal event -- in that case, his claimed fear would be more reasonable than it otherwise would be.

Prior assaultive behavior of the deceased which was then not known to the shooter is simply not relevant.

If the shooter(s) had seen Mr. Pretti in a previous, hostile interaction with ICE personnel, that would be relevant. Even if any of them had heard about such a prior incident from another source prior to the fatal shooting, it would be relevant. Absent that, a prior incident is no more relevant than what Mr. Pretti may have eaten for breakfast that morning.

[Life of Brian]

Who in the world is talking about "evaluating the shooting" and "a homicide prosecution"?

We were discussing whether it's more likely he was there to help little old ladies out of the road, as the bevy of garment-rending media tribute pieces would have us believe, or to pick fights with ICE.

His pattern of showing up at ICE events and picking fights with them certainly helps settle that.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, MAGA has seized on the taillight incident to prove something irrelevant — that Pretti wasn't a saint — to justify his murder.

But while it does not in any way do that, one thing that it does go to show is that Pretti was not some would be assassin. He had an opportunity to shoot them that day (and possibly on another day as well, if rumors are accurate), and did not do so.

[Riva]

The Story of Alex Pretti.

Read by Elizabeth Warren.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/2016676363277664512

[David Nieporent]

We were discussing whether it's more likely he was there to help little old ladies out of the road, as the bevy of garment-rending media tribute pieces would have us believe, or to pick fights with ICE.

Why would anybody be talking about what he "was there to" do, as opposed to what he actually did when he was there?

[Absaroka]

"What you aren't smart enough to understand is that unless the agent knew about Pretti's acts on previous days, he cannot "evaluate" Pretti's state of mind or intent based on those prior acts."

...and even if the shooter(s) go "Hey, this is the guy who kicked out our taillight last week" that would justify arresting him, not "and now that he's disarmed I'll shoot him in the back".

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 28 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
What is relevant is Pretti's behavior at the time of the shooting.

"Yes, that's what I tried to explain to you. "

DN - That last statement reiterated my original comment. You chose to distort what I originally stated. Common ethical issue

[Life of Brian]

Why would anybody be talking about what he "was there to" do, as opposed to what he actually did when he was there?

You're really working hard at this one!

Pretti has been painted as a patron saint (you may not care for the juxtaposition with the violent footage, but Elizabeth Warren's ode in Riva's video is a splendid example) who just innocently tried to help someone and got attacked and ultimately killed by ICE out of the clear blue sky.

But we now know the guy's not a calm, loving, misunderstood tender angel: he's an unbalanced, ICE-obsessed shitkicker.

Like it or not, that makes the final video footage read quite differently than it does through the haloed-saint lenses. (Which, of course, is why they ran the haloed-saint narrative: to prime you to smooth over the gray areas in the video in Pretti's favor.)

[David Nieporent]

Pretti has been painted as a patron saint (you may not care for the juxtaposition with the violent footage, but Elizabeth Warren's ode in Riva's video is a splendid example) who just innocently tried to help someone and got attacked and ultimately killed by ICE out of the clear blue sky.

Again: we can see — it's on video! — what happened that day. He did try to help someone and was killed by ICE out of the clear blue sky when he tried to do so. He may have kicked a taillight on another day, but that in no way changes what happened on that day.

[not guilty]

"Who in the world is talking about 'evaluating the shooting' and 'a homicide prosecution'?"

The ICE agents committed a cold-blooded murder of a suspect whom one of them had disarmed. Each of them deserves to be prosecuted in Hennepin County for premeditated, intentional murder.

[David Nieporent]

Seems like Pretti Boy Alex has become the new Saint Floyd George.

I asked before and you didn't answer. Is it some sad attempt to show disrespect that causes you to keep getting his name wrong? Or is it brain damage?

[Mr. Bumble]

Which one or both?

[David Nieporent]

George Floyd.

[Mr. Bumble]

Blame Drack Frankman who first used it. Does it really matter to you? Why would anyone "respect" a serial criminal?

[David Nieporent]

I dunno; I still can't figure out why one would vote for such a person for any office, let alone the presidency.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sweet mystery of life...
...and I can't figure out why anyone (let alone a supposed 80 million people) would vote for dullard, plagiarizing, fabulist liar
who was rejected by his party on several attempts to run for president and then became the candidate and ultimately president.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Pretti Boy Alex"

Good one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Has the Supreme Court ever defined what a jury of one’s peers is?

I ask because “ peers“ had a very specific meeting back in 1791, and bear in mind over half the white population was unable to serve in a jury back then because it wasn’t allowed to vote.

Up until about the Civil War, we had proper requirements for voting, that’s why Jefferson changed it to “ pursuit of happiness“.

I asked because Schumer is now saying that he will wait until the Democrats are in power again and then have a show trial for the ice guys and convict them of murder. I would argue that they have the right to be tried by their peers– other law enforcement officers and or retired lower enforcement officers.

[John F. Carr]

The right to a jury of peers comes from the Magna Carta in 1215.

In military courts officers have a right to be judged by officers. In civilian courts all people are created equal and the judge will look to bias rather than social status. I was in an all-white jury pool for a black defendant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But has there ever been a Supreme Court decision on the point I raise? I’m not aware of one.

[John F. Carr]

The court in modern times has been hostile to attempts to restrict the jury pool. For example, Batson v. Kentucky (no race discrimination) and Taylor v. Louisiana (no sex discrimination).

Once states were allowed to be more selective. From a "this day in history" page:

July 15, 1965. Governor Nelson Rockefeller signed a bill abolishing "blue ribbon" juries.

Passed in the 1930s, the old law allowed counties with populations of more than one million to create “special” juries composed of persons from high economic and educational levels. Blue ribbon juries, including grand juries, were an elitist and undemocratic approach to the administration of justice with a long tradition in American criminal justice.

https://todayinclh.com/?event=new-york-abolishes-blue-ribbon-juries

In 1947 the Supreme Court allowed such juries by a 5-4 vote. I doubt such a practice would be allowed today.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/blue_ribbon_jury

[Martinned]

It's analogous to the history of democracy. Historically, every time someone said "everyone should be entitled to vote", they ended up with lots of rules limiting who counted as "everyone", as in "well, by everyone we obviously don't mean women, children, slaves, foreigners, poor people, or unbelievers", etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not exactly analogous, because the trend has been in the direction of letting an ever larger fraction of the population vote, while at the same time reducing ever further the power of juries.

[Voize of Reazon]

Not exactly a Analogous, because the trend has been in the direction of letting an ever larger fraction of the population vote, while and at the same time reducing ever further the power of letting an ever larger fraction of the population serve on juries.

[Brett Bellmore]

While serving on juries became less important both because juries were transformed into mushroom farms, (Kept in the dark and fed bullshit.) and fewer and fewer cases ever saw a jury due to people being scared into plea agreements.

[MarkJawz]

I have always felt the same way when a white self-defender is tried before a jury of angry racist blacks.

[not guilty]

"I have always felt the same way when a white self-defender is tried before a jury of angry racist blacks."

In that it is significant enough that you presently remember how you felt, do you have any example(s) of that actually happening, MarkJaws?

[MarkJawz]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/sean-grayson-faces-20-years-prison-fatal-shooting/story?id=129668798

A jury of his peers would have been 12 white men in law enforcement or military. Not 9 emotional women and 2 blacks.

[not guilty]

The ABC News story that you link says nothing about the race and/or gender of the jurors, nor about the racial attitudes of any jurors, black or white.

And you have now gone from kvetching about "a white self-defender [being] tried before a jury of angry racist blacks" to kvetching about inclusion of "9 emotional women and 2 blacks" on the jury. Which is it?

According to Wikipedia, the 2020 census indicates the following about the demographics of Sangamon County, Illinois:

For every 100 females there were 92.6 males, and for every 100 females age 18 and over there were 89.3 males age 18 and over.

The racial makeup of the county was 77.4% White, 13.2% Black or African American, 0.3% American Indian and Alaska Native, 2.2% Asian, <0.1% Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, 1.0% from some other race, and 5.9% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino residents of any race comprised 2.7% of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangamon_County,_Illinois [Footnotes omitted]

And where do you get the idea that Mr. Grayson was defending himself? The story you link states, "Grayson's attorneys declined to comment on his sentencing." That likely indicates that he was not self-represented at trial. (If he was, he had a fool for a client, as Springfield, Illinois's most famous resident is said to have remarked.)

Someone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial before an impartial jury, not "a jury of his peers." Peerage is not now and has never been recognized in the United States.

[not guilty]

"Has the Supreme Court ever defined what a jury of one’s peers is?"

Not to my knowledge. I surmise that that is because the Sixth Amendment nowhere refers to peers or peerage. It instead states in relevant part:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law[.]"

The Supreme Court has opined:

In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, "indifferent" jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510. "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process." In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 349 U.S. 136. In the ultimate analysis, only the jury can strip a man of his liberty or his life. In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as "indifferent as he stands unsworne." Co.Litt. 155b. His verdict must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial. Cf. Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199. This is true regardless of the heinousness of the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender, or the station in life which he occupies. It was so written into our law as early as 1807 by Chief Justice Marshall in 1 Burr's Trial 416 (1807). "The theory of the law is that a juror who has formed an opinion cannot be impartial." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 98 U.S. 155.

Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961) [Footnote omitted.]

SCOTUS has held that “an essential component” of this guarantee of impartiality is the “selection of a [trial] jury from a representative cross-section of the community.” Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 528 (1975) (the fair cross-section requirement is violated by the systematic exclusion of women). The Court explained that:

We accept the fair cross-section requirement as fundamental to the jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and are convinced that the requirement has solid foundation. The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power -- to make available the common sense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional, or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. at 391 U.S. 155-156. This prophylactic vehicle is not provided if the jury pool is made up of only special segments of the populace or if large, distinctive groups are excluded from the pool. Community participation in the administration of the criminal law, moreover, is not only consistent with our democratic heritage, but is also critical to public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. Restricting jury service to only special groups or excluding identifiable segments playing major roles in the community cannot be squared with the constitutional concept of jury trial.

419 U.S. at 530.

[Martinned]

Surprisingly, if a cross-section of the community includes a large percentage of people who oppose the death penalty, impartiality is suddenly much less of a priority.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The rule is not to have the jury have a cross-section that reflects the opinion of the community on the specific possible punishment.

BTW, the first execution in the U.S. in 2026 occurred in Texas yesterday. Texas executed five people last year. Only a few counties in Texas are most likely to sentence people to death.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure. The jurors are about the only people in the process who aren't lawyers at this point, and the system is being rigged to transfer as much power away from them to the lawyers as possible. The ideal being to convert criminal juries into just as much of a rubber stamp as grand juries are said to be.

[not guilty]

"Surprisingly, if a cross-section of the community includes a large percentage of people who oppose the death penalty, impartiality is suddenly much less of a priority."

Research of bifurcated trials where the jury first considers guilt/reasonable doubt and then in the event of a guilty verdict, considers the sentence in a separate hearing has shown that a "death qualified jury" -- that is, a jury composed of members who all say that they could impose the death penalty in the event of conviction -- is statistically more likely to return a verdict of guilt in the initial phase than a non-death qualified jury.

A shady prosecutor may file a death notice in what on the facts should be a second degree murder case, in hope of getting a marginal murder case to a more conviction prone jury panel than would sit in a garden variety murder case.

[Bunny495]

Most of us know the old joke about how a jury is made up of people too dumb to get out of being selected. I was always able to get out because I my locker in the FSU gym was two lockers away from the local DA and we were friends who not only trained together but also competed in local swim meets. The judges always dismissed me as soon as I mentioned this. I have to point out that for a student getting twenty bucks a day (what ever it pays) and maybe a free meal is an economic boon, while to a skilled plumber it is a pay cut that may affect how easily he can make his mortgage payment.

Point is the past you detail favored what I will term rich white landowners while today it favors poor mostly renters who see any income stream something to take advantage of.

[SykesFive]

Athenian juries were notoriously composed of the poorest citizens.

Where I practice we are seeing younger, more affluent, and more educated jurors than even just 5 years ago (pre-COVID). A lot of knowledge workers, remote workers, and people with corporate or government jobs who have employer policies favoring jury duty. It's not just retirees and busybodies. Judges have been talking about how they have to alter their approaches since jurors under age 30 used to be very rare but are now commonplace.

I guess it's possible poor people are sitting around hoping to be called but that's just absolutely not what the panels I've seen look like. They just don't come in.

[Bunny495]

I can't speak to your experience. I do know that between say 25-50 I got regular letters summoning me to jury duty and actually served on some juries. It seems around the age of 60 I stopped getting them. Once peeps reach retirement age and basically sit around all day they all have nothing better to do than be on a jury so the demographics get out of whack.

[Martinned]

Note that in England there is much less leeway to purge undesireables from the jury pool than in the US. You're pretty much stuck with the random group of people you draw.

[Bob from Ohio]

Good thing the UK Regime is getting rid of juries then.

[Martinned]

That is a good thing, but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about. (Also, I don't think it's going to happen.)

[David Nieporent]

I ask because “ peers“ had a very specific meeting back in 1791,

…in England, sure. It has no meaning in the U.S., and the phrase "jury of your peers" is not in any American founding document. It's from Magna Carta. The Constitution just says "jury."

Up until about the Civil War, we had proper requirements for voting, that’s why Jefferson changed it to “ pursuit of happiness“.

Property ownership requirements for voting disappeared in the U.S. decades before the Civil War, except in South Carolina. (The same place that didn't have a popular vote for president until the Civil War.)

[LexAquilia]

Does the E6 hint that the collapse of the EU is soon?

Also, Spain is part of the E6 and Spain, in classic Leftwing fashion, is legalizing 500,000 illegals by royal decree.

I guess it's just too important to save democracy to use democracy!!

The E6 is going to complete their conversion to a 3rd world shithole ruled by colonial White elites (and their Jew puppetmasters)

[John 4]

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnderReportedNews/s/PsJ3Jcotcw

His name was Charlie Kirk!!!

[Sarcastr0]

I've seen this in lefty spaces a lot, but I don't much like it.

I understand it slots into the narrative of MAGA as all coldblooded grifters, but in reality people grieve differently and it's not even really our conversation to have.

If MAGA thinks she's legit, she'll be fine. Otherwise she'll be quietly shelved unless she finds some rich sponsor for her message.

[John 4]

Commenters will draw their own conclusions of course.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, and I'm allowed to comment on said conclusions.

Disagreeing agreeably; an art the right set aside some time ago.

[John 4]

+1!

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "it's not even really our conversation to have"

Right. That's for them and their ways, not for us and ours.

[Sarcastr0]

What a bot-like post.

[Bob from Ohio]

Policing a widow's mourning is so cool.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm more country/folk than pop, but Bad Bunny slaps.

It's always been the case that olds never did like new cultural stuff. But this has some race stuff. And some 'my opinion still matters' wanker that past generations' complaints have not.

MAGA is really telling on itself with it's panic about him. May it be another nail in the coffin of their cultural relevancy, as they seem to fear.

[SRG2]

In the long term it doesn't matter. Eventually, real football will overtake gridiron to become the number one team sport in the US and no-one except the two teams' supporters will give a shit about the Superbowl.

[Martinned]

Why do you think ICE has already started planning razzia's for the World Cup?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Eventually"!!

The betting culture alone will keep NFL more popular than kickball

"Over under is 2. Again? That's the 365th game in a row."

"no-one except the two teams' supporters will give a shit about the Superbowl"

People still care about the NBA finals, World Series and Stanley Cup even though those sports are less popular than the NFL.

[John F. Carr]

So make prop bets. How many dives. How many throw-ins. How many minutes of keep-away time wasting.

[LexAquilia]

MAGA doesn't exist.

[Magister]

Donald Trump: "MAGA is me."
LexAquilia: "MAGA doesn't exist."
Something wrong with the premises if the syllogism concludes that Donald Trump does not exist.

[LexAquilia]

Where is MAGA's corporate charter? Where is their org chart? How many employees do they have? Can we license their brand for cool schwag?

MAGA doesn't exist.

[not guilty]

Whether "MAGA" exists as a legal entity or not, the cult of MAGA adherents definitely exists.

[LexAquilia]

Nope. MAGA is a figment of your imagination, just like ANTIFA is one of mind.

They don't exist.

[Magister]

Where is MAGA's corporate charter? Where is their org chart? How many employees do they have? Can we license their brand for cool schwag?

MAGA doesn't exist.

This would explain a lot of right wing denial. Where is climate change's corporate charter? Where is non-binary gender's org chart? How many employees does unconscious bias have? Can we license the legitimacy of Biden's 2020 election for cool swag?

[LexAquilia]

They are all in the same locations with Antifa's charter. Since my reasoning is just a parody of all the dumbass commenters here when someone mentions Antifa.

HTH

[Magister]

You can buy MAGA swag all over the place; Trump registered it as a service mark in 2015. The MAGA corporate charter is currently Project 2025. The MAGA org chart is all of the executive branch, and majorities of the legislative and judicial branches, of the federal government, and a good chunk of the Republican party and various lobbying groups. ICE alone has 22000 MAGA employees.

LexAquilia should probably stop disparaging other people's IQs.

[Bunny495]

As someone who came of age in the 1960s I feel confident saying today's music is shit and there is no way to sugarcoat it. When asked who his favorite musician was Bob Dylan answered Steven Foster. Dylan pointed out his songs were still known today and Foster had some of the most far out lyrics ever. To wit: "It rained all night the day I left, the weather it was dry; the sun so hot I froze to death, Susanah don't you cry". Over fifty years later music from the 1960s is still played, I am not sure the same will be true for Bad Bunny.

[Life of Brian]

Truth all around. Oh for the day when "Elvis the Pelvis" was the bleeding edge of the musical Overton window.

[Sarcastr0]

Old people sure do sound old and crochety.

Art is subjective.

[Sarcastr0]

Old man shakes fist at cloud.

[Life of Brian]

Says the dude who forgot in the span of 2 minutes that he had already posted an "old people" reply.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh no I double-tapped.

You can love Elvis.
Insisting we all go along and you're objectively right is where you become silly and out of touch.

[Life of Brian]

Oh no I double-tapped.

Two completely different posts. Stop digging.

You can love Elvis.

Actually don't care for Elvis that much. Keep working on that reading comprehension thang.

[Sarcastr0]

"Oh for the day when "Elvis the Pelvis" was the bleeding edge of the musical Overton window."

Glad you're not the stick in the mud you seemed like, then.

[Life of Brian]

If you don't understand and haven't within 30 seconds been able to minimally educate yourself on a) the concept of the Overton window, and b) the culture-shock element of Elvis's routine at the time, I really don't think there's any more progress to be made.

Fortunately, I suspect my point got across just fine to those not in the business of perpetual contrived misunderstanding.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anyone remember Obama‘s response when the Republicans shut down the government? When he was having the national park service block off roads with boulders and everything else?

I propose that Trump play by the same rulebook.

Eliminate all enforcement of domestic violence and racism laws simply state at any complain anything that happens until the government is reopened won’t ever be investigated.

Shut down the EPA and tell the evil corporations they can dump anything they want to in the rivers or into the air while the governmentis shut down.

Tell police department that they’re free to beat up on as many minorities as they want to because they’ll be no investigation of prosecution or anything they do while the government is shut down.

Do this for absolutely everything the left cares about.

[LexAquilia]

It's called the Washington Monument Syndrome. The Democrats are intentionally cruel so people will acquiesce to their terroristic demands.

[Martinned]

Don't be silly. Trump/Project 2025 invented that rulebook, and are already implementing it. The only difference is that you, being an anonymous clown on the internet, are even more shameless than the US Regime.

[John F. Carr]

In the short term, reduced federal intervention in domestic violence, racism, policing, and pollution will have negligible effect. We are already a year into reduced enforcement in these areas.

It's not legal for me to dump a load of dioxin in the river simply because Trump told his people to look the other way for now. These cases take decades, not weeks. They are still cleaning up Pittsfield almost 50 years after GE stopped dumping PCBs. The Superfund designation took 20 years and the cleanup may take 30 years or more.

[Martinned]

The American mind cannot comprehend this:

Homicides at lowest level in nearly 50 years, ONS says

Homicides have fallen to their lowest level for nearly 50 years across England and Wales, official statistics show.

There were 499 victims of murder, manslaughter and infanticide in the year to September, according to crime statistics published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

It is the lowest number since 1977 and a 7% fall on the previous year, largely due to a drop in the number of people killed by knives - 174, down 23%.

Crimes with weapons also continued a downward trend. Knife crime offences were down by 9% to 50,430 and firearms offences fell by 9% to just under 5,000, their lowest since 2003.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgk86rr0vxyo

[Swede425]

Way to go!
That must explain why they have so many officers available to go to your house if you write a mean tweet.
All the other crime is disappearing!

[Bwaaah]

This is a great and significant emerging trend in the U.S. as well. It's not clear why it's happening. (It's probably driven by at least a few unrelated factors.)

Interestingly, to a significant extent, this trend is occurring within the context of a longer term trend of de-incarceration, which makes it doubly fantastic.

I believe ubiquitous shared law enforcement data has played a big role. Being a "fugitive from justice" isn't so easy as moving to another jurisdiction, which was all you had to do in the old days of paper records and non-shared information. Cameras are everywhere, pushing police to be more on the up-and-up, and exposing criminal actors for their actual doings. GPS ankle bracelets further expose high-risk actors who aren't in jail.

It's hard for people to get away with wrongful visible actions these days, like violent crime, without getting caught. Much of information-based crime still goes unseen at first, but ubiquitous audit trails make those crimes more difficult to hide over the longer run too.

I welcome this kind of substantive improvement in the prevalence of crime in the U.S.

[ducksalad]

IMO the biggest driver isn't crime control technology. It's the long term change from an honor culture to a dignity culture.

Which is great for crime levels, and probably a good thing overall. But there are costs too. Erosion of individual responsibility, Karen/lawfare culture, safetyism, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Something like that, anyway. When I look at my son's generation, and compare it to my contemporaries at that age, I'd have to say that even though my friends were all "good kids", we were MUCH less strict about following rules.

I've a bit of a theory that it's a long term side effect of women's suffrage causing society to become gradually more matriarchal. (Because women are actually a modest majority of the population.)

[ducksalad]

Moved in 1970 from upstate NY (culture already mostly switched) to NC (not yet switched, but about to).

In NY everyone seemed to agree that words never justified blows. There were violations, of course, but they were violations.

In NC there was a general consensus that certain words required blows in response. If you were a man, that is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, in Michigan in the 60's and 70's it was pretty much assumed that boys got into fights, that it was a part of growing up. I got bullied in elementary school, and it only stopped when I beat the crap out of school's head bully, which put me on the 'leave alone' list.

Now I think the same incidents would automatically involve criminal charges.

[ducksalad]

Because women are actually a modest majority of the population.

It's even more pronounced if you look at the voting population. 8.7 million gap.

Maybe a combination of men being disqualified as felons, and women being more inclined to do their "chores".

[Bwaaah]

That's a very interesting remark to me.

I never thought enforcement regimes could account for much change. They pretty much kick in after the fact. Something more deeply affective of behavior, such as cultural changes, would more likely have a more significant effect.

Your theory of "honor" vs "dignity" is exactly the kind of subtle notion that would never occur to me, and yet, could reflect that kind of cultural transition that dramatically changes behavior. It changes one's view of oneself, juxtaposed against others. It changes notions of power, and of success.

I'm going to be thinking about this a lot.

[ducksalad]

Well, it's not my idea. I believe there are whole books proposing it as an explanation. It seems convincing to me.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm glad to see you come around on crime rates from a couple of years ago when the numbers were not as important as the *experience* of New Yorkers.

I think it's the lack of lead.

[ducksalad]

Ah, the leaded gas theory.

The flaw in that one is that general irrationality doesn't seem to be going down. Anecdotal based on what we see posted here....

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the theory revolved more around deficient impulse control, than irrationality.

[Bwaaah]

I presented solid NYPD crime data. Even though that data comported with large nationwide increases in crime (2020-2023), you dismissed it as non-representative "cherry-picked" B.S.

I said that the sharp increase in crime comported with my observations on the streets. You called that my B.S. feelz.

I'm glad your feelz came around now that the data does something for you. You pretended there was no 2020-2023 crime wave, and jumped back in with the good news of abating crime in 2024.

You're a bullshitter every year, Sarc.

[Sarcastr0]

As I recall I provided data and you did some kind of 'well that doesn't mean much to an actual person who lives in NYC and just got mugged'

Which is very dumb.

I think it was on a rare Somin non-immigration post.
I might be able to find it if you want to walk down memory lane.

But from above it seems like you've gotten less dumb at least in that aspect, I'm glad to hear it.

[David Nieporent]

Homicides at lowest level in nearly 50 years, ONS says

Homicides have fallen to their lowest level for nearly 50 years across England and Wales, official statistics show.

It's all thanks to Stephen Miller and the deportations.

[LexAquilia]

Correct!

[LexAquilia]

What does history say about the following scenario:

A nation led by Whites, is no longer led by Whites.

What does history say happens to the Whites in nearly every case?

[ducksalad]

Let's see.

Solid increase in GDP:
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/zaf/south-africa/gdp-gross-domestic-product#google_vignette

Solid increase in manufacturing:
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/zaf/south-africa/manufacturing-output

Stable white population, consistent with developed countries, except for one blip when the nervous nellies left:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_South_Africans

Record levels of tourism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_South_Africa

By the way, next time you're at the liquor store get some Amarula cream liqueur, it's delicious and (I know this matters to you) it looks like it at least started as white owned business.

[Dr. Ed 2]

South Africa isn’t even able to provide enough water to drink, people are starving there because they can’t feed itself, every white person is trying to flee the ANC is far more racist than the white government was.

I understand that while everyone is black racism in South Africa is based on tribe, just like Rwanda, and only members of one tribe are allowed to be in the ANC. I did a grad seminar with those folks, they’re the right most racist people I’ve ever met.

[not guilty]

A nation led by Whites, is no longer led by Whites.

What does history say happens to the Whites in nearly every case?

Let's see now. From 2009 to 2017 the United States was led by a nonwhite President and Attorneys General, Secretaries of Labor, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Barack_Obama

What does history say has happened to the whites since then? A disproportionate number of them have gone batshit crazy.

If we get a black Speaker of the House next January, even more whites likely will do so.

[not guilty]

Politico reports:

For years, Republicans have had some reliable terra firma: If they were talking about immigration and border security, they were winning.

Even amid the backlash from Donald Trump’s 2016 pledge to ban all Muslim immigrants to his 2024 amplification of baseless claims that migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets—immigration remained a durable, winning issue for the GOP.

Now the ground is shifting under them.

A torrent of viral images from Minnesota and beyond as Trump’s immigration agents stepped up their shambolic interior campaign of enforcement in recent months — and the killing of two people in Minneapolis in two separate incidents this past month — have led to a loud public backlash, soured voters on the GOP’s approach and eroded President Donald Trump’s standing on the issue ahead of the looming midterms.

The broad sweep of public polling shows Trump fumbling what has historically been his party’s strongest issue, which even Democrats concede paved his path back to the White House. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found this week Trump hit a second-term trough on the issue, with a majority of Americans — 58 percent — saying his crackdown has gone too far. Only 39 percent approve of his handling of immigration, down two points from earlier this month, and an 11-point erosion from last February. What’s more, a poll from the Democratic-aligned Searchlight Institute this week found that 58 percent of likely midterm voters want ICE to be reined in.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/29/republicans-trump-immigration-midterms-00754270

The rogue agents of ICE are turning the public away from Trump's vile hate rhetoric regarding immigrants in the same manner that Bull Conner and Jim Clark in the 1960s helped turn public opinion away from the segregationist blather of Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox and George Wallace.

[Swede425]

OH NO!
WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?
Just kidding. I know what to do.
Keep deporting them.
And never stop.
Look how rabid it makes Team Mental Illness.
Let's hope they don't burn down Minneapolis or something.
That would be horrible.

[LexAquilia]

Now check the polls that ask how many Americans want ALL illegals deported.

It's a majority.

[not guilty]

So what?

Should I also check the polls that ask how many Americans want federal thugs shooting American citizens to death? Those shootings are not deporting any immigrants, legal or illegal,

As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.

[LexAquilia]

If you polled them a more accurate question:

"If an American citizen is under a foreign state actor's influence and is obstructing law enforcement in the US in service of foreign goals, is that an act of war? Did that American become a traitor committing treason? What if that American is a Democrat politician and is coordinate with foreign nations to subvert the lawful functioning of government? "

I think mine is closer to reality than yours. *shrug*

[not guilty]

LexAquila, which "American ... Democrat [sic] politician" do you posit "is coordinate [sic] with foreign nations to subvert the lawful functioning of government?"

[LexAquilia]

Oh you know the ones. Come on. Do you really not keep up with current events?

[ducksalad]

Yesterday prohibition(s) got mentioned.

At one time the majority in favor of stamping out ALL alcoholic beverages was so large that the amendment got ratified by 46/48 states. Then people saw what it would take to actually stamp out ALL alcoholic beverages and in about three presidential terms public opinion had completely reversed.

[wvattorney13]

As an aside, I always heard that the prohibition supporters overplayed their hand. That while a large majority of people were in favor of outlawing saloons, whiskey, and the demon rum, the idea that their frosty beer and/or nice glass of wine was being swept up in the law was a real eye opener.

It directly caused the regular Joe to be part of the opposition.

[jb]

That's not true. Every poll I've ever seen shows a large majority of people letting the "dreamers" stay.

[Brett Bellmore]

And yet Congress wouldn't pass a law to legalize them, even with Trump asking for one in his 1st term. Wonder why.

[jb]

Because Congress is super broken and basically can't do anything significant other than through reconciliation any more.

[Martinned]

You mean the bill that Trump was for before he was against it?

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean the bill he was for before it became a Trojan horse for a general amnesty?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People also regularly support various "illegals" staying, voicing their opposition to targeting them.

People have some vague concern about certain types of immigrants. This includes the level of their concern.

People support certain things to be criminalized. They don't want ICE-like tactics to enforce them. In fact, they are not too upset if they are relatively ineptly enforced.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we need to establish as a baseline matter that immigration laws WILL be enforced, before we start enacting changes to them.

[ducksalad]

How about adultery laws? Do we have to fully enforce them before we can change them?

[ducksalad]

On 2nd thought may have misread you. Do you mean an agreement that if we reform the laws, the new laws will be enforced?

Or do you mean that full submission is required before you are willing to talk about it?

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that you're talking about an amnesty in exchange for strict enforcement.

But we tried that back in the 80's, and the amnesty happened, and the strict enforcement didn't. Why would we expect it to happen any differently this time, when there's still a major faction within the Democratic party, (And a smaller but not insignificant faction in the GOP!) who basically don't want any enforcement at all?

That's why you need to establish FIRST that the laws on the books will be strictly enforced. Because there is no such trust to make the deal possible.

You simply can't make such bargains when there is, rationally, no expectation that the terms of the bargain will be observed. You need to reestablish trust before there can be bargains.

Which means the strict enforcement must come first.

[ducksalad]

Two things here. First, I don't see that Republicans have a better record of keeping their side of bargains. *You* would, but I can't see the likes of LexAquilla or MarkJawz doing so.

Second, some of us aren't talking about an amnesty. It's more a combination of outright legalizing more immigration on a permanent ongoing basis, and a strict insistence that enforcement methods stay within the bounds we observe for other crimes. No "immigration exceptions" to the 4th Amendment or due process.

That last part does mean accepting that enforcement will be markedly less efficient than restrictionists would like. But that's the case for lots of other crimes. For example, we only catch a minority of rapists and a tiny fraction of drunk drivers. I don't think an expired visa is anywhere near as serious as rape or drunk driving and therefore no extraordinary measures are justified.

[Bob from Ohio]

Lots of words to describe amnesty.

Legalizing everyone and in effect no deportations is amnesty.

[ducksalad]

You're wrong! I want way more than amnesty.

Brett might have thought I wanted a one-time exemption for existing "dreamers" followed by a crackdown on new cases. No, sir. Not voting for that.

My criteria for immigration would anyone who isn't going to be a criminal. If someone grew up here since childhood and has no criminal record, then they've proven they met my criteria, even better than a new arrival who has been extensively vetted. Thus there is no need to deport them. Ever.

Does that make you happy?

[David Nieporent]

In a libertarian world, there would be free admission to all but criminals/terrorists and the like. In the world in which we live, a reasonable compromise would be:

1. Best efforts to keep anyone from entering w/o inspection. Anyone caught gets turned back.
2. If you get caught w/in, say, 5 years of entry, you get deported.
3. If you commit a serious crime — violent crime, crime with a victim, etc. — at any time when you're not a citizen, you get deported after serving your sentence.
4. If you're here for longer than 5 years and you haven't committed any such crime, you get "amnesty" for your illegal entry. That doesn't mean you automatically become a citizen; it just means your presence is no longer unlawful.
5. "Dreamers" — people brought here as children — have a path to citizenship once they become adults, assuming none of the aforementioned criminal activity.

[ducksalad]

David - I like your criteria, but there's probably a wide divergence on how people would define a "best effort" to secure the border.

The Rio Grande used to look like just a river here. Not particularly beautiful or clean, but a decent place to lounge, fish, canoe, etc.
Now every time we go it looks a little bit more like the cold war East German border, always some new measures under construction. But I might agree to accept that if the bargain really was reasonable shall-issue entry requirements and no more police state stuff inside.

Dr. Ed probably wants kill zones, minefields, and robotic death drones.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed probably wants kill zones, minefields, and robotic death drones.

And snowplows!

(Also nukes. To quote Dave Barry, I am not making this up. He has called for nuking both Gaza and illegal immigrants.)

[MarkJawz]

Fuck no.

"Legalizing more immigration" on top of the absurdly high levels we already have for "family reunification," "student visas," "diversity visas," and other bullshit is a no go. And if you insist that illegal aliens get the full suite of legal protections that they are not entitled to (and no I don't care what leftist courts have ruled about "persons"), then practically speaking, no one gets deported.

You're either ignorant or being disingenuous.

[ducksalad]

You're either ignorant or being disingenuous.

No, I just don't give a shit that you don't like immigrants. They do not, in general, bother me at all.

Making you happy is not my policy goal. The "Great Replacement" conspiracy is mostly fake. However, if your real-life personality and opinions match your posts here, then it is actually literally true that a randomly-picked unvetted South American is a better pick to have in the US than you. They might or might not be bad, we know you are.

However, we have a constitution and (assuming you're a citizen) it says you get to stay here and express your awful opinions. So no worries, there's no intention to deport you!

[Brett Bellmore]

Ok, so you're not even proposing a bargan, you want to outright win without giving anything up. I see even less reason to agree to that.

[ducksalad]

On the second part, no compromises on the 4th Amendment or due process of law, I really do have a hard time seeing how any respectable person loyal to the constitution could disagree, or consider respecting those things a concession needing something in return.

On who is allowed in and who is allowed to stay, DN more or less stated my ideal policy, but I could see bargaining* on that part. Kids with a proven record of behaving and who had no part in the decision to enter illegally seem to me to be the very lowest imaginable priority for deportation.

*This whole discussion, of course, is under the polite fiction that we have any say at all in the decision making.

[Sarcastr0]

Man who says no compromise with Dems is possible seems offended someone didn't try and compromise with him.

[ducksalad]

Well, Sarc, I'm not a Democrat and he knows that. Perhaps he thought there was hope.

[wvattorney13]

From reading this and other threads, that seems to be the game. Feign some concessions and declare that you do support some enforcement with the condition that "due process" or "the 4th Amendment" is to be followed---after all who could oppose that?

But when you read deeper it seems as if ANY except the most ineffectual enforcement offends that persons notions of due process or the 4A. In other words, amnesty, both now and forever in the future.

I mean, sure, if they commit a very serious felony they can be deported after that, but barring such a circumstance, no other type of enforcement.

[Swede425]

Really?
A guy you may have heard of just became president (again) a little over a year ago. He ran on locking down the border and deporting illegal aliens.
Guess what he did?
He locked down the border and now he's deporting illegal aliens.
The only people upset about it are the people who want illegal aliens in this country.
Have your temper tantrum, but those folks are getting deported.
The thing that really makes the dead-enders batshit crazy?
How easy Trump did it. That border got closed down fast. Rounding up illegal aliens happened fast. After Brandon said it couldn't be done without more legislation and how helpless he was. He was right about one thing: he was helpless.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I also repeat my previous comment that vox populi is not always a great indicator of what is correct.

I'm sure a lot of people around here know that. They oppose what the majority supports in various cases.

Parsing poll data is a fine parlor game. Life is more complicated in practice, including the enforcement of policy. People are not like "we are fine with speeding," for instance. Blah blah.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As opposed to the general riot and insurrection that these guys are trying to work in. Oh wait media is not reporting on that….

[LexAquilia]

@martinned
You're need quickly in a forum on UK political topics -- STAT

UK: The British police are routinely stopping Americans entering the UK to take a digital snapshot of their phones looking for inappropriate social media messages. Islamic migrants arriving by boat face no such inspection.

https://x.com/amuse/status/2016824317812605409

Holy Hell, what a fucking tyrannical nightmare land Leftwing UK has become.

Good thing I've already spent plenty of time there, now I will feel no need to ever go back. (I didn't anyways, London is already a shitty 3rd hellhole -- but sailing off the coast was a pretty unique experience)

[jb]

You know, your brand of politics might not be very good if you constantly have to lie to try to support it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm240jvnen0o

[David Nieporent]

There are probably about 2 dozen twitter accounts that only post MAGA lies. Every story they post is fake. @amuse is one of them. And those are Voltage!'s only source of information.

[LexAquilia]

Did you bother reading either one for vomitting your shitty hot take?

His article doesn't refute mine.

HTH

[LexAquilia]

So you do understand the UK is randomly stopping Americans for naughty thoughts?

No quibbles by you. Only that there is a way for the UK to check illegals phones for smuggling?

And that somehow refutes my statement?

Can you connect the dots in your thinking? I'm not seeing it.

[jb]

Okay, I guess I have to spell it out for you:

1) Your Tweet makes two claims. The first is that Americans are having their phones searched at the UK border. The second is that Muslims arriving by boat aren't being searched in the same way. My article contradicts the second claim since it shows that the UK is specifically targeting the migrants arriving by boat.

2) By contrast, there's no evidence for the first claim at all. The BBC video is about phone searches for people arrested in the UK, and makes no reference to Americans' phones being searched or about phones being searched at the border, much less a digital snapshot being taken.

3) So, actually the Tweet is a complete inversion of the truth. No snapshots of Americans' phones, but they are doing searches of Muslim migrants arriving by boat.

[David Nieporent]

It's also one of those every-accusation-is-a-confession things, because Trump has explicitly required searches of visa applicants' social media accounts.

[Bob from Ohio]

"required searches "

Not in effect yet. Proposed rule only requires passwords and public settings.

https://abc7news.com/post/tourists-42-countries-will-have-submit-5-years-social-media-history-enter-us-trump-plan/18272541/

[Mr. Bumble]

That can't be true because David Notsoimportant only gets his information from "reliable" sources.

[jb]

Yeah, I was going to mention that but didn't want to give Lex a way to charge the subject. It's not like he's going to admit that he's posting bullshit, but at least other people can see see what it is without any distractions.

[LexAquilia]

No. Wrong again.

My tweet is about social media searches.

Your tweet is about when they're investigating smuggling.

wtf, how much more do I have to spell it out for you?

[jb]

Yeah, they're investigating smuggling by taking migrants' phones and looking at what's on them.

[LexAquilia]

They aren't randomly searching unsuspicious illegals to hunt for no-no comments on social media?

Surely since that was what my link was about, yours would have been too. Right?

[jb]

Hey, do me a favor and go look at point #1 in my explainer above. It might help you understand the relevance of the article I posted since you seem to be having an extra hard time today.

[John F. Carr]

A pseudonymous former Boston police officer sued the department for revealing that she resigned with disciplinary charges pending. This was described as Title VII retaliation. The discipline involved a possibly false accusation of rape. I assume she alleged sex discrimination.

She lost in the First Circuit this week.

As for releasing her termination status to the Washington Post for a 2017 article on police misconduct, the department was obliged to do so under state law and there was no evidence that the employees who released her records had any retaliatory intent.

As for releasing her termination status to prospective employers, she signed authorizations allowing them to see Internal Affairs reports.

I wonder, how did this simple case take five years to resolve? Or 17 years?

2009: Plaintiff accuses fellow officer of raping her.
2012: Plaintiff sues Boston police in state court. Internal investigation decides that she lied and goes after her instead.
2013: Case dismissed for discovery violations. Department plans to terminate her.
2014: Plaintiff resigns with charges pending.
2016: Plaintiff sued Boston police again. Case dismissed for failure to serve process.
2017: Plaintiff sues again. Court rules the 2016 dismissal was with prejudice.
2020: Plaintiff sues in federal court in DC. Having lost on the merits in state court, she is only allowed to sue based on acts from 2017 or later. Hence the case is only about post-termination retaliation.
2023: Case transferred to Massachusetts, a more relevant location.
2025: Summary judgment to defendants.
2026: Appeal decided.

Doe v. Boston, https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1134P-01A.pdf

This is the Washington Post article. The article did not use her name. A reporter confirmed that she was on the list of officers who resigned with charges pending.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/police-fired-rehired/

[John F. Carr]

Is it ethical to submit false evidence to the Ethics Committee investigating you? I'll leave that one to your conscience. Is it criminal to do so? Apparently so. A jury convicted former Colorado state Senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis of forgery and attempting to influence a public servant.

https://coloradosun.com/2026/01/28/sonya-jaquez-lewis-convicted-felonies/

[Zarniwoop]

I'll leave "criminal" for others, but as far as "ethical" goes, that seems pretty well established. I coincidentally listened to a CLE recently about ways to get in trouble with lawyer trust accounts, and one of the key takeaways was "if you accidentally screw up, fix and notify - you'll probably be fine". And the flipside is basically a variation on "it's not the crime, it's the coverup"; trying to flim-flam the Ethics committee is almost always way worse than a simple mea culpa and can easily lead to suspension or disbarment.

[loki13]

Bingo! Or, put another way ... a lack of candor can be a killer.

Different jurisdictions have different levels of tolerance for infractions by attorneys and the discipline that will be imposed. I know I've covered this issue before, but even in the jurisdictions that are the most "harsh," it is my opinion that they (the state Bars and/or the state courts) are not harsh enough.

Look, I get it. Discipline and sanctions that affect your license (suspensions and disbarment) ... that's you job. But there has to be better self-policing and I think it would be great if attorneys who ... maybe ... didn't have the best internal ethical compass ... understood that there would be consequences for not behaving in an ethical and professional way as officers of the court.

As it stands, I am always amused and depressed when I read the discipline section of any state's bar news. You will read some horrible fact pattern that you assume is a disbarment (solicited sex and drugs from clients in exchange for legal services) and ... public reprimand and 30 day suspension.

With that said ... most state bars that I know of ... have a hard-on for trust accounts. Don't ... eff ... with trust accounts. On purpose. On accident. I mean ... you are better off straight up knowingly lying in court and disobeying a court order than making an accidental error with a trust account.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Erin Reed tracks trans issues, including an anti-trans bill passed by Kansas. Her latest:

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/mary-bridge-childrens-hospital-in?lli=1&utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2

Being anti-trans is a concern of a subset of comments on this blog as much as being anti-immigrant. It is a hysteria of the moment.

We are not just talking about edge issues like sports (which itself has hysteria). Or notifying parents about what their junior high school child is doing at school. Like many issues, there is play around the joints, though my position often is in one direction.

We are talking about going after veterans and calling them liars. Lots of ordinary people, including parents of trans people, could do without all of these laws and special targeting.

Some girl playing soccer at school is not their concern. If someone wants to be called "he" or even "they," people can let it go.

Others go another way.

[not guilty]

I believe that virulent anti-trans hysteria became a thing in the wake of overt bashing of gays and lesbians becoming less socially acceptable. I surmise that that shift in public opinion is related to more gays and lesbians coming out of the closet in the wake of same sex marriage becoming accessible nationwide, such that more of the haters realized that their rhetoric can injure someone near and dear to them.

The haters suddenly needed a target group which is less numerous, less well-organized and less likely to self-disclose than gays and lesbians. Trans folks fit that bill nicely.

Haters gonna hate!

[Bob from Ohio]

Libs go full court on some new culture issue, any response is "hysteria".

[John F. Carr]

A lawsuit says AI agent Grok has a duty to prevent nonconsensual sexual images. In practice, such a duty would prevent generation of sexual images.

I read that porn sites have largely quit the "amateur content" business model because too much of it is nonconsensual or underage. It was not possible for moderators to detect and delete violations of law or policy. Under federal law, makers of commercial pornography must keep records showing proof of age of actors. Even if she's over 18 and you know she's over 18 you need written proof.

One article mentioned a girl made to appear wearing Nazi symbols. AI can be offensive or defamatory without being sexual. But sex is more fun to write about.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/grok-maker-xai-faces-non-consensual-sexual-deepfake-class-suit
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72185111/doe-v-xai-corp/

The counts are

Strict Liability – Design Defect
Strict Liability – Manufacturing Defect
Negligence
Public Nuisance
Common Law Right of Privacy
Right of Publicity
Defamation
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intrusion into Private Affairs
California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 ("All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.")
California Unfair Competition Law, which the complaint alleges forbids "immoral" conduct.

[Bunny495]

I saw a verfiable post that 98% of the new vids on PornHub were AI generated. While AI slop vids often have things like wandering clothes like a blue dress morphing to red or shoulder length blonde hair turning into brunette pig tails none of this really matters in porn. It has been claimed that while Betamax was a superior technology to VHS (it was) VHS displaced Betamax because it was favored by porn guys. Even in the old usenet days porn dominated everything else.

[David Nieporent]

I saw a verfiable post that 98% of the new vids on PornHub were AI generated.

I will do some empirical research and get back to you.

[LexAquilia]

Gross. Porn is degenerate goy-slop

[Hugh]

Nothing as of yet from Steven Halbrook or David Kopel on the Trump administration's denigration of the 2nd amendment rights of Mr. Pretti.

Given his other posts, I have little doubt Mr. Kopel is appalled by the administration's treatment of Mr. Pretti's 2nd amendment rights to legally carry a firearm to a protest.

Mr. Halbrook is another story. Based upon his other posts, he seems to be a "2nd amendment rights only if you agree with my semi-fascist political leanings" type of guy.

Surprise me and prove otherwise, Mr. Halbrook.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's like Eugene Volokh talking about the 1A violations of the Trump Administration or David Bernstein talking about Trump in unprecedented ways (ala his book on Obama) abusing executive power, in breaking the law, he goes in another direction.

[hobie]

I remember the 2020 Super Bowl where all the hayseeds boycotted it because it was co-headlined by Shakira (a dirty Latina from Columbia) and Jennifer Lopez (a dirty Latina from Puerto Rico) with opening acts that included Bad Bunny (a dirty Latino also from Puerto Rico). And also the boycott of 2023 for Rhianna (a dirty Afro-Caribe Latina from dirty Barbados - just down the street from Bad Bunny's dirty, dirty Puerto Rico).

Oh? That didn't happen, you say? Well, why didn't it happen? Or is that you cannot keep track of what you're supposed to hate from year to year?

[ThePublius]

"Jennifer Lopez (a dirty Latina from Puerto Rico)"

J-Lo was born in the Bronx.

[Life of Brian]

That's a ouchie, folks.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Or missing the satire.

[hobie]

Parents both from dirty Puerto Rico...regardless, more of the bad Latino immigrant genes Trump and Vance warned us about on the campaign trail.

Now that we're past the technicalities, what do you think, Pubes?

[Life of Brian]

Oh? That didn't happen, you say? Well, why didn't it happen? Or is that you cannot keep track of what you're supposed to hate from year to year?

Or, perhaps none of those prior artists announced they would perform the entire halftime show in Spanish and, when questioned if that was appropriate for a Super Bowl, smugly instructed us to learn Spanish. Just a thought.

[jb]

Yes, people definitely waited for him to say that before getting upset that he was performing. I remember the very positive initial reaction by the MAGAs when his selection was first announced.

/s obviously

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that was the "when questioned if that was appropriate" part.

[jb]

Kind of missing the point. Sure, it may have made y'all even madder that he's not dumbing down his music for you, but most of MAGA was already upset about his selection before he said that. So it leads one to believe that there might be other reasons than anything he has said about his plans for the performance.

[Life of Brian]

Sure, it may have made y'all even madder that he's not dumbing down his music for you

You can educate me, but I'm not aware of anyone asking for that. As with most lyrical translations, I suspect that would have killed the meter/rhyming/etc.

The question was whether it was appropriate to select a 100% Spanish performer in the first place.

[hobie]

You know, until 12:01am, Jan 20th, 2025, Latin voters mattered to MAGA. Don't you still want all the Venezuelan families whose men we murdered in the invasion, or the guys in CECOT, or the guys bobbing around in the ocean, or any of the various assorted brownies to vote in the next election cycle? Accepting Bad Bunny and his global influence could be good for business.

[hobie]

Full disclosure: I don't know anything about Bad Bunny's music, but apparently all his hits are recorded in Spanish (just like Ricky Martin!). Why should he have to bastardize his work just so a bunch of xenophobes don't get their feels hurt?

[ThePublius]

I like J-Lo. I don't know much about Shakira or Rhianna's music. I don't care for Bad Bunny, the music or the persona. But it has noting to do with race or ethnicity.

[hobie]

Well...what is it supposedly about? Genuinely curious...

[ThePublius]

Just about preference in music and performance. Why is it so mysterious to you?

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA isn't saying 'Bad Bunny isn't to my taste' they're saying 'this is a cultural assault on America.'

[Bob from Ohio]

A few twitter posts is not "MAGA"

[Sarcastr0]

Donald Trump calls Bad Bunny 'absolutely ridiculous' choice for Super Bowl halftime show

Or just read the comments here.

[Sarcastr0]

Tuberville: "Unfortunately we've got the Woke Bowl, because we're getting more and more woke. We got Bad Bunny or Bad Rabbit at halftime. I'll be watching the TPUSA halftime show. It's just unfortunate we've gotten to this point."

Your party seems full of racists, Bob.

[LexAquilia]

What's racist about that statement?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sarah Cooper, best known for lip synching Trump, has a lot of funny content on YouTube and I'd suppose other places. Very talented.

[Brett Bellmore]

I must confess I heard that "Very talented" in Trump's voice.

My own son does a hilarious Trump impression. You can't say the stuff isn't hilarious, even people who LIKE Trump find Trump impressions funny.

[hobie]

A lot of the times, if you close your eyes while listening to Trump...he sounds really gay. This didn't go unnoticed in the gay community. And this gay guy here does hilarious lip syncs of Trump speeches:

https://youtube.com/shorts/-YADXlgiLH4?si=HZk8fBwaP3NzsQmz

[ThePublius]

As Larry the Cable Guy would say, now that's funny, right there!

[Frank Drackman]

Its more like Floyd the Barber with the wistful soft fading out,
"Like the cry of a whining child, a whining child......."
OK, yes, if Floyd wasn't gay he sure did a great impression of one, of course he was an "Actor"

Frank

[hobie]

Please only comment if you can make any sense or references that the rest of us can understand, Frankie. Thank you.

[ThePublius]

That's pretty funny. I had never heard of her before. Just watched some on Youtube.

[John F. Carr]

I like Mark Critch, who plays Trump on the Canadian show "22 Minutes". In this episode Trump visits Greenland and talks to local politicians about his plan to take over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=651_MuV9gZA. Apparently one of the hostile natives thought Critch was the real Trump. The politicians were in on the joke.

[John F. Carr]

The Attorney General of Massachusetts sued more towns over their failure to zone for multifamily housing near transit stops. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled last year that there is an enforceable requirement for such zoning. But the remedy for failure to zone is unclear. Zoning rules in towns are adopted by voters. The requirement for multifamily housing is not specific enough for a court to order mandamus-type relief. It is more like a requirement for voting districts free of racial discrimination, where many lines on a map will comply with the law as interpreted by the trial judge.

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. It's hard to imagine that a judge can order town voters to vote a certain way. If I had to decide the case, bound by the SJC decision that the Attorney General is entitled to some relief, I would declare that the noncomplying town zoning bylaw is unenforceable. Then no injunction is needed. Anybody can build a multifamily house anywhere.

https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-campbell-sues-nine-communities-for-noncompliance-with-mbta-communities-law

[jb]

"If I had to decide the case, bound by the SJC decision that the Attorney General is entitled to some relief, I would declare that the noncomplying town zoning bylaw is unenforceable. Then no injunction is needed. Anybody can build a multifamily house anywhere."

I like this. Gets the incentives right.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Anybody can build a multifamily house anywhere."

Anybody can burn down a multifamily building anywhere as well.

[ducksalad]

Suspicious number of apartment and duplex fires recently in ... Ohio.

https://www.fox19.com/2026/01/25/5-displaced-westwood-apartment-fire/

https://www.wdtn.com/news/local-news/kettering-fire-crews-battle-apartment-blaze/

https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2026/01/one-dead-in-martins-ferry-duplex-fire/

[hobie]

In the annals of Circular Firing Squads Under Busses:

"Kristi Noem Blames Stephen Miller for Alex Pretti Smear Campaign"
https://newrepublic.com/post/205811/department-homeland-security-stephen-miller-alex-pretti-smear-campaign

"Miller Suggests Federal Agents May Have Diverted From ‘Protocol’ Before Pretti Shooting"
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/28/us/stephen-miller-alex-pretti-shooting.html

Noem->Miller->ICE

And ICE gets a free ticket to the Greyhound

[M L]

"AssauIt me, motherfcker!!!" - Alex Pretti on January 13th trying to get injured by federal officers

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/2016700958315593760

[hobie]

Oh, he was definitely fucking around. They should have called the police and had his ass arrested for breaking their tail light.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahaha!

[hobie]

I'm serious about what I said. Clearly you are not.

[Magister]

Blunderbuss in the Underbuss! Time for more popcorn.

[M L]

Thank heavens, help is on the way.

Wuhan Institute of Virology Offers to Help India Contain Nipah Virus Outbreak

https://www.breitbart.com/health/2026/01/29/wuhan-institute-virology-offers-help-india-contain-nipah-virus-outbreak/

[hobie]

You should get RFK to look into this. He's uniquely qualified.

[John F. Carr]

Two substack posts.

Tom Cooper discusses a video showing what it looks like to get shot down by a big, long range Russian missile. America and Ukraine are short on this kind of missile. Russia can run combat air patrol out of range of anything Ukraine can shoot.

The missile had a 60 kg warhead which exploded next to a Ukrainian Su-25. The pilot died instantly and the plane fell apart. Much like the airliner shot down in the same part of the world in 2014. A man-portable SAM or a Sidewinder can leave the target injured but flying, especially a tough target like an A-10 or Su-25 (which flies the same close air support mission). A big missile kills it instantly.

https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/air-war-howz-dad-working-part-5

Nate Silver discusses the decline of the Washington Post as a source of political news. It was running with the New York Times until early 2024. Then the Times took off and the Post declined. Trump's first term was good to both papers.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-sad-and-self-inflicted-decline

[ducksalad]

Bills have been introduced in each house of the Tennessee legislature to bar naturalized citizens from running for congress in a party primary. They are SB 1825 by Senator Brent Taylor (R-Memphis) and HB 2036 by Representative Johnny Garrett (R-Goodlettsville).

https://ballot-access.org/2026/01/26/tennessee-bills-to-bar-naturalized-citizens-from-running-for-congress-in-a-party-primary/

[David Nieporent]

It's of course completely unconstitutional in multiple ways. States cannot create new qualifications for federal office, nor can they discriminate against naturalized citizens.

[jb]

Wow, the comments on that site. I should appreciate the MAGAs here more. There are a lot of really really stupid partisans on both sides, although it gets better as you scroll down a little more.

[ducksalad]

Sorry, didn't mean to link in a way that would pop open the comment section. The comments there are famously bad.

[Life of Brian]

Hot off the presses, Ilhan Omar has responded to the calm recitation of standard poison control measures for being sprayed with an unknown substance, none of which she followed, with "I fear losing my dignity more than I fear losing my life," "coward losers," and "fuck off."

In the unlikely event that's actually correct, then it follows that her dignity also meant more to her than the lives of her staff and audience in the room where the "unknown substance" had just been aerosolized.

Really quality human being.

[jb]

LOL, MAGAs still desperately trying to pretend one of their own didn't do this.

President Bush, don't you know that the correct procedure when confronted with a potential improvised explosive device is to evacuate the area and destroy the device in place? Why did you endanger everyone else by calmly continuing your press conference after that dude threw some potential shoe grenades at you?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I guess it's not all that surprising that we jumped to "look, SQUIRREL!!!" right out of the box. What can you really say in her defense?

[ducksalad]

Perhaps that she was smart enough to tell the difference between a disruptive protester and an assassination attempt.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so it's somehow more believable that she pressed on against the wishes and advice of those around her because she was the only one in the room smart enough to know ex ante (for various unstated reasons) there was actually no threat, than that she was the only one in the room who knew what had just been sprayed in the room.

[Krayt]

MAGA shouldn't start questioning the motives of politicians giving bizarre, incredulous explanations to cover sketchy behaviors and statements.

[Sarcastr0]

She didn't follow the poison control protocol!!!

Straining to find something to excuse why they're so fucking mad at the Congresswoman for getting attacked.

What losers.

[Life of Brian]

She flatly and repeatedly disregarded the people around her begging to take any sort of basic precautions at all:

Speaker 2 (04:46):
We won't continue.

Ilhan Omar (04:46):
We will continue. These fucking assholes are not going to get away with it.

Journalists (04:49):
We need to go get checked. [inaudible 00:04:57]. Whatever it is smells so bad. She needs to go get checked. I don't know what that was.

Ilhan Omar (05:03):
That's what they want.

Journalists (05:06):
It's not about him, Ilhan.

Ilhan Omar (05:06):
Please.

Journalists (05:09):
It's not about him. It's about your safety. No, he sprayed something on you.

Ilhan Omar (05:12):
Please.

Journalists (05:12):
You need to go get checked.

Speaker 2 (05:14):
And it smells.

Ilhan Omar (05:15):
We're going to keep talking. Just give me 10 minutes. Just give me 10 minutes. [inaudible 00:05:26]. Please don't let them have the show. Please don't let them have the show. Here is the reality that people like this ugly men don't understand. We are Minnesota strong and we will stay resilient in the face of whatever they might throw at us. Everybody settle down. I'm going to finish my remarks.

She's either a cold, calculating fraud, or a reckless, soulless bitch. Take yer pick.

[John F. Carr]

The journalists must come from the generation that was made to fear that one peanut could take out an entire school. Omar sounds like a child of pre-CPSC playgrounds. (In fact she is younger than that and wasn't in America until 1995.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Bring back reporters.

[ducksalad]

Endangering the poor journalists. Perhaps they could get her on the false imprisonment and firearms charges? You know, for when she pointed her gun at the journalists and forced them to stay.

Too bad for you she didn't treat it like a big emergency requiring evacuation. If she had you'd be here posting "Ha ha, she's a drama queen acting like apple cider is a deadly weapon!" and making jokes about arming ICE with vinegar squirt guns because Somalis are terrified of it. That would have been slightly more effective and at least mildly funny. Your narrative here is really lame and stupid.

[Life of Brian]

Too bad for you she didn't treat it like a big emergency requiring evacuation. If she had you'd be here posting "Ha ha, she's a drama queen acting like apple cider is a deadly weapon!" and making jokes about arming ICE with vinegar squirt guns because Somalis are terrified of it.

See, actually, THAT would have been stupid, because at the time [supposedly] nobody knew it was ACV.

Search my posts to your heart's content for anything resembling a joke or downplaying the precautions taken when an envelope shows up in the mail with white powder leaking out of it, whoever the recipient. I'll be here.

You're making light of this one after the fact, I wager, because the thought of what might have happened had she... erm, "guessed" wrongly that it was benign is just a bit too uncomfortable.

[Sarcastr0]

How embarrassing for you that you post like this.

[ducksalad]

You're making light of this one after the fact, I wager, because the thought of what might have happened had she... erm, "guessed" wrongly that it was benign is just a bit too uncomfortable.

I'm making light of it because both Omar and the journalists are presumably mature adults capable of assessing risk, and each was independently free to leave without the consent of the others.

The idea that someone running a press conference is in loco parentis for the attendees, or has responsible custody of them like a jailer, is nonsense.

Journalists go to fires, crime scenes, protests, even war zones. They're big boys and girls and don't need the authorities (or Mama Ilhan) to advise them. If as you imply, everybody stayed, and you're the only one saying it was too dangerous, perhaps you could consider the possibility that maybe they're the ones with normal levels of fortitude and you're the outlier on the low side. Not that there'd be anything wrong with that. We can't all be above average.

[Sarcastr0]

What a tool you are.

No one but you is gonna rules lawyer courage.

You hate this lady; we get it. Now stop making it everyone else's problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't like her policies, but her attitude strikes me as just fine.

[Bunny495]

Biden/autopen gave SS protection to Omar but Trump cut it off. No question in my mind that if Omar had SS protection they would do just what they did to Trump when he was shot; drag him to a secure location, kicking and screaming of necessary. I am old enough to remember the sarin shit in the Tokyo subway. Omar is dumber than a fence post and there is no way to sugar coat it.

[hobie]

And her not knowing the procedures for a poisoning - when the rest of us have known such since birth - disqualifies her...how?

[bernard11]

Just amazing how Trumpists turn an attack on Omar, into a basis for criticizing her.

A Trump-addled idiot throws some stuff at her , and it's all staged. Are you insane?

[John F. Carr]

In 2017 the Tenth Circuit decided Vasquez v. Lewis, which held that driving from Colorado to Kansas on I-70 was not suspicious. A driver unconstitutionally detained was entitled to money damages. This reaffirmed a 1997 decision involving the same Kansas police officer violating the same constitutional rights. Despite this decision officers continued to be trained to target Colorado drivers.

This week the Tenth Circuit reviewed an injunction against the policy of violating constitutional rights.

The court ruled plaintiffs had standing. The argument that only criminals have anything to fear was rejected. Traffic violations are often unintentional. They can be caused by police driving too close, forcing the driver to touch the forbidden line at the edge of the traffic lane. Plaintiffs might be passengers in a car without the power to stop the driver from getting pulled over. "Rather than being mere speculation, there is a substantial risk that Plaintiffs – no matter how carefully they try to follow traffic laws – will be pulled over by KHP at some point again."

Orin Kerr has posted about the difficulty of getting injunctions against Fourth Amendment violations. In this case, City of Los Angeles v. Lyons does not forbid an injunction because the unconstitutional policy is clear and plaintiffs are being targeted.

On the power of the court to grant an injunction, "We also reject Superintendent Smith’s argument that money damages provide an adequate alternative remedy. Plaintiffs have alleged a substantial risk of ongoing constitutional injury, which cannot be fully redressed by money damages alone." A past award of money damages did not stop constitutional violations.

But on the merits of the injunction, the District Court should have done no more than order better training. "Plaintiffs have made no showing that officers will persist in this practice even after being trained not to do so. ... the demands of federalism prohibit federal courts from ordering such broad relief against a state agency without a strong showing of necessity."
Specifically, the District Court should not have ordered officers not to prolong traffic stops in an attempt to trick or coerce drivers into allowing a search.

Judges Hartz and Kelly wrote the majority opinion. Judge Federico dissented in part and would have given the District Court free rein to craft an injunction. Federico is from Kansas, a former public defender appointed to the court by Joe Biden.

Shaw v. Smith, https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111377962.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Who runs a business today without a website? Apparently Ilan Omar's husband. Tried to order some wine from eSTCRU winery (https://estcru.co/) and got back a message "link not found".

[hobie]

I tried to interpret the 'link not found' link you provided, and, yes, after looking at all the black space on the screen...I, like you, have determined that Omar is a crook. You know, Bumble, we two are a lot a like.

[LexAquilia]

Her winery went from nothing to $30M to vanished in a span of a few years.

Totally above board.

[Bunny495]

Looks like once again the Senate is playing chicken with how close we can get to a shutdown. The silly thing to me is not just that ICE will continue unabated to function but it also gives Trump the chance to fire more federal workers. Libtards are saying it is symbolic. That is true it is symbolic of libards being libtards.

[hobie]

Driving in my car today, I hear on Clay and Buck, that because [somehow!] ICE is also being funded with monies meant for FEMA, that Dems are blocking money meant for hayseed disaster victims.

So at the red light I'm sipping on my decaf and think to myself, 'Wait a minute! Isn't diverting money away from FEMA in the first place, also diverting money from hayseed disaster victims?'

I mean, why the hell was FEMA money going to ICE super-salaries?

[David Nieporent]

it also gives Trump the chance to fire more federal workers.

Um, did you miss the whole DOGE fiasco? Trump doesn't need an excuse to fire federal workers.

[ducksalad]

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/29/trump-sues-irs-and-treasury-for-10-billion-over-leak-of-tax-records.html

Trump and family are asking for a $10B payment from the taxpayers to them as compensation for their tax returns being leaked. That's equivalent to one year budget of the FBI, or $115+/- from every family of four in the United States, to make up for what "we" did to him.

And to think I mailed my return in an ordinary envelope with a licked flap by USPS. Should've used an armed courier, at least.

The person who leaked the returns, Charles Littlejohn, also leaked the returns of 7,600 other people. Assuming their privacy is not less important than Trump's, the settlement would be $76 trillion, or $870,000 for every family of four, to pay for our collective criminal negligence in electing the people who hired Littlejohn.

Littlejohn was hired as a contractor in 2017.

To summarize: Trump hires Littlejohn. Littlejohn leaks Trump's return. Therefore, we should pay Trump $10B.

But no fear, Pam Bondi's DOJ has the official job of defending us in this lawsuit. Her boss can correct her if she's not doing a good job on that.

[LexAquilia]

That's also equivalent of 4 months of AIDS spending or 1 year of Somali Daycare operations.

I hope they get it!