The Frankish Reich

What's wrong with this official portrait or the Snow Queen c. 1990? Although generally unrecognizable, the pattern of pock marks allows for positive identification. The taxpayers may save on the framing costs.

There is one big wedge issue that kills that Libertarian Wave: immigration.

Thanks for nuthin Trump In principle, yes. But it was kind of a simple campaign promise, right? NO tax on social security. And now Trump is making his SSA send out similarly deceptive messages to befuddled old folks like me.

Or as the GOAT would say, "thanks, Shylock."

Message received from the Social Security Administration (I can elect to receive benefits starting next year) says the new BBB "delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans. The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned.” And guess what my wife I will save in taxes thanks to "no tax on social security?" You got it: Nothing. Zero. The increased deduction wouldn't apply till I'm 65, and that's a ways off. And even if I wait to get benefits, it won't apply because (1) it phases out, conveniently, in 2028 after Trump is gone; (2) there's an income phase-out that we'll exceed. So ... nothing. Zero. "Promises kept" indeed.

Maybe we should ask Jack Poso why God turned on Camp Mystic? Do they preach a non-inclusive/anti-New Testament version of Christianity?* * EDIT: before people (deliberately) misconstrue what I said, this is obviously a tragedy, and no, no person or persons are to blame for this act of nature. The sort of act of nature that may be loosely correlated with climate change, but that also tells us nothing about man-made causes of climate change. There. Yet another one of those where I had to check a few other sources to make sure this isn't parody. Answer: it isn't. She is really that stupid.

"Fiscally conservative, socially liberal." Depends how you ask the question. One take from a group that fits the description: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-government/fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal The problem is with how political coalitions form in our two-party/first past the post/federalist system. I live in what is now a deep blue state. The percentage supporting socially conservative views is maybe 30%. The liberal legislature keeps trying to undo a 1990s thing called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which basically requires a ballot measure to increase taxes. We've had a few of those. They all fail. People don't want higher taxes and higher spending either. So this kind of works in a state with high median levels of education, no particularly strong ethnic voting blocs, etc. I can't see it working in New York or Arkansas. The best Musk can do is to fulfill the Perot role, by dragging Dems and their candidates toward the center.

You would have a good point if it were clear that the goal of the Trump tariff game theory is to get to a point of true free trade. But that isn't it at all. The administration has clearly restated an old/discredited mercantilist theory of tariffs, and has also pointed to tariff revenues replacing income tax revenues. So ... no.

The critical difference between Milei and Trump: Milei is a free trader, actively working to remove - not increase - tariffs.

Sorry, I can't help it! But seriously: some of these things are legal issues. We don't like someone's message. Should we censor it? Punish it? Or should we just live with it, criticize it, but accept it based on higher free speech values.

It is a response to a comment about the allegedly horrific infringements on our liberty from our COVID response. So I'm pointing out that some of the same people who refused to wear masks then insist on wearing masks now. Albeit for different reasons. Got it?

People are acting like the devaluation of the dollar is necessarily bad or unexpected. Seems to me that it is the policy of the Trump Administration. It is Intro to Macroeconomics stuff that a devalued currency raises the cost of imports; all other things being equal, that should work to "improve" the balance of trade. It is a tariff by other means, plus it should also lower the cost of exports to foreign buyers. Economists can argue about whether the downside to a devalued dollar outweighs that. But I have to assume that the current administration's economists would think that a devalued dollar is a good thing. Here's an opinion from a noted economist that devaluation is a bad idea. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/07/why-donald-trumps-plan-to-weaken-the-dollar-is-flawed

But it is in the business of deciding what is "harassment" that should be banned or punished as an exception to that free speech principle.

I'm sure the government horrifically infringed on the civil liberties of the various masked ICE officers who sued it for requiring them to do outrageous things like wear masks. That was then, this is now.

I agree with you here. A lot of speech is offensive, at least to some people, and for good reason. But a free society has to tolerate that because the risks and consequences of limiting speech may be worse. But here's what I don't get: some of the people who support your viewpoint are the same people who say that Harvard should not tolerate exactly the same kind of speech made on its own campus. So how valuable exactly is this notion of free speech?

Sorry, the question as posed initially asked for a, well, lawyerly response. Does calling for genocide (maybe not "genocide" but forced displacement of a people from their recognized land - think "from the river to the sea") violate college codes of conduct? So you got an answer from me that's not that different than the answer the Ivy League presidents gave: no, because unless it is aimed a particular people on campus, it doesn't fit the definition of threatened violence against those people, so 1st Amendment considerations mean we accept it as free speech. There's another question: is it offensive? That one is easier. Yes. It is offensive to call for the elimination of a people from the face of the earth. Always and everywhere. And a subquestion: is it offensive to say "from the river to the sea?" Is it offensive to say "Israel shall control Gaza and the West Bank and the Palestinian residents just have to move somewhere else?" I'm not so sure this one is categorical. It's a political question. UN declarations have always honored the principle of self-determination, but then the question is always "who is the self that gets to determine?" Displaced Palestinians and their offspring aren't voting in Israeli elections for obvious reasons. Russia, after forcibly killing or removing ethnic Ukrainians from much of eastern Ukraine, probably says "let's have a vote amongst the remaining (mostly pro-Russia) people about which country they wish to belong to." So this is more complicated. But since people seem confused by my take, I'll repeat it: calling for the elimination of a people is always offensive and wrong. Depending on the context, it may be a violation of a college's rules, but that requires an examination of the rule and the conduct that allegedly violated the rule.

OK, I live in the Mountain time zone and I'm ready to go to sleep. Meanwhile, in the good old Eastern Time Zone ... a dozen personal grudge threads bumped up by the guy who complains about people who post too much? Get. A. Life. Goodnight.

I did all kinds of things. Started out doing securities litigation, then spent some time as a federal attorney. Left the federal government but came back after 9/11 and did national security type work. You hear about people who signed up for the military after 9/11; I guess at my age by then this was the next best thing. Then spent most of the rest of my career in that type of work, generally national security related work (including plenty of immigration; again, the post-9/11 thing) and appeals work. Now I just pick up private work when I feel like it or when I think there's an important issue.

Thanks. Interesting system from our U.S. perspective. I've long lobbied for something like your "layman judges" - in other words, ordinary citizens who apply, are given some training, and then sit on juries for a period of time. I'm a semi-retired lawyer who recently served on a jury. (Don't ask why they picked me; I have no clue.) Chaotic as our system is (and depressing as I watched people scramble and make up laugh-out-loud excuses to be excused from serving), in the end the 11 others with me took their job seriously and I thought we reached a fair and considered verdict.

I did, at least generally, and from what I saw I think the jury got that one right too. (DUI conviction but acquitted of murder/manslaughter)

Hah! I have no need for store-bought tomatoes until mid-October. I just picked the first ripe ones of the year.

At least you didn't say THRICE

Not just saying the quiet part out loud. No. Actually boasting that he - the Attorney General of Florida - is going to participate in a sham of due process (note the quotes around the word "process") by having national guard JAGs play immigration judge in kangaroo courts. This out to get you disbarred.

Corruption. So prevalent now that hardly anyone notices. Mr. Trump is suing for $20 billion, claiming that CBS deceptively edited a 2024 campaign interview with Kamala Harris. The version that aired, his lawyers recently argued, “led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers,” including Mr. Trump. CBS has released the full tape, and it shows that these claims are concocted. Yet the President has leverage over Paramount, because its merger with Skydance Media requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC. Mr. Trump has reportedly turned down a $15 million settlement offer, and the Journal reported Wednesday that a mediator has proposed that the two sides settle the lawsuit for $20 million. The business logic for settling Mr. Trump’s grievance is easy to grasp: What’s $20 million in grease money, if it might save an $8 billion merger? Unless, that is, a big payout to the President could be viewed as a bribe. It’s obvious that Mr. Trump is relying on the threat of regulatory disapproval as leverage in the lawsuit. Does this really fit the federal bribery statute? What level of legal frivolousness is required before settling a civil suit becomes pretextual? https://www.wsj.com/opinion/paramount-donald-trump-lawsuit-cbs-fcc-first-amendment-23c10b02?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAgf43_7HI3WPOUFzOoFFnkHLlGoyR-Zstcmf5vLWRfstyqWTSkI7q00o4yjtD0%3D&gaa_ts=68657009&gaa_sig=PsZe2KxQMmKnhDX6V6Rljhwc-qRpfSqnP5aH2_9QHmxhkilDH8qjycxHHjA_cjxmLPEAgolLAHqWw6i73dOy3g%3D%3D

Since you asked: No. I don't call this one racist. It is playing upon a meme. That meme has been shown to be untrue, but if you don't pay attention to the source, it could have come from a Jimmy Kimmel or some similar comic making fun of the made-up story about eating the cats and eating the dogs. So yes, just a wisecrack. Not like KBJ doing a little dance rather than writing a reasoned opinion, which is, in my expert opinion, simply and clearly racist. And if this one ^^ supports it, it must be racist.