No, not the bees. My eyes!

Or so I’ve heard…

This is Bond-villain level megalomania, and therefore actually kind of cool.

There isn’t much the court can do if Trump refuses to comply and Republicans in Congress continue to support him. I hate to say it, but avoiding a confrontation may be better than getting into that situation, both for the court and for the country.

In practice, no one will be hurt by this change, except for the pain caused by a defeat in the culture war. If I were you, I would consider risking my career over real harm done to individuals, but not over abstract harm done to an idea, even an idea I supported.

So, do I sell because he’ll keep wrecking the economy, or do I hold because he’ll keep backing down? What do the licensed financial advisors here, acting in their professional capacity and accepting full legal responsibility for the consequences, think?

You’re still capable of feeling joy on the inside?

After the tariffs were unveiled in front of TV cameras at the White House, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told those countries named: “Do not retaliate, sit back, take it in, let’s see how it goes, because, if you retaliate, there will be escalation.”

I’m sure that went over well. Xi loves sitting back and taking it in, especially when this is on Trump’s mind:

“'Oh, he used the word ‘rape.’ That’s right. I used the word ‘rape,’” Trump said at the Detroit Economic Club after his remarks were met with what sounded like some gasps from the audience. “They raped our country,” he repeated.

I’m curious about how well-informed most Americans are about the Soviet Union. Do they know that it was once a place where ordinary people were accused of crimes without evidence, taken away without a trial, and never seen again? Do they know that this generally happened because of the smallest suspicion that a person was not fanatically loyal to the government, rather than a violent criminal? Do they know that a million people were killed this way? And do they know that the Soviet Union was one of many places like that?

I expect that the Soviet Union doesn’t seem particularly relevant to younger generations of voters, but isn’t this the sort of lurid history that did interest them as adolescents? And don’t older voters remember the Cold War?

Titled “The Perimeter” and published on Monday, the report said the stated purpose of the plan was to create a thick strip of land that provided a clear line of sight for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to identify and kill militants. “This space was to have no crops, structures, or people. Almost every object, infrastructure installation, and structure within the perimeter was demolished,” it said.

The article presents this as a new revelation, but wasn’t creating a wider buffer zone on the Gaza side of the border one of the explicitly stated war goals? (And visible from space.) I’m surprised that there isn’t signage and barbed wire to prevent civilians from wandering in accidentally, but the rest seems to be describing what a buffer zone (or “kill zone”) is almost by definition.

I am not a lawyer, but I think that presenting the defendants’ case as written in their memorandum would not be lying, although I can see how doing so would make an honest man uncomfortable. Reuveni supported the morally right side when, in effect, he argued for the plaintiffs, but in doing so he failed to fulfill a lawyer’s obligation to zealously defend his client. If he wanted to do both, he should have declined to take the case in the first place (although presumably he would have been demoted or fired for that too).

With that said, a man can do the right thing now even when he could have done so earlier and didn’t (and doing so in court was certainly more dramatic than refusing to take the case would have been). I wouldn’t mind donating money to him the way that people of a different sort donated money to Daniel Penny.

I’m not sure how to reconcile my view with the principle that even the worst criminal defendants have the right to competent legal representation. I suppose I make an exception here because the federal government is never in danger of being railroaded.

Obviously the judge can’t order the dead raised, but if El Salvador won’t release him then does the judge have the authority to decide whether or not Trump made a good-faith attempt to have him released? I don’t think anyone knows at this point. It’s clear to all that Trump could in fact have him released (or at least have his body returned if he has been killed) so what happens if Trump says that he tried and El Salvador said no? Will the judge accept Trump’s transparent lie, or will he risk creating a Constitutional crisis that Trump would probably win?

I’m not optimistic. I don’t think the American system of government is capable of handling the executive branch along with a majority of the legislative branch acting in bad faith with the support of a large part of the public.

My dog’s favorite game was to have me grab his tail. He would immediately spin around and grab my wrist, and then he would bite harder and harder until I let go. As soon as I let go of his tail, he would let go of my wrist. I don’t bruise easily so I was fine, but other people who tried it got bruises.

I have no idea what he got out of that game. People thought I was being mean to him, but if I held my hand out then he would walk backwards to put his tail in my hand.

Newsom is directing his state to pursue “strategic” relationships with countries announcing retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., urging them to exclude California-made products from those taxes.

It sounds like he wants foreign countries to do California a favor without getting anything in exchange (and even that might be unconstitutional). Or is there something that he has the authority to offer in exchange which I’m missing?

Dog owners’ tolerance for being attacked by dogs: LOW

Cat owners’ tolerance for being attacked by cats: HIGH

“Aww isn’t that cute, he suddenly hurt me!”

Note that the argument about whether or not he is a gang member is beside the point. The White House concedes that he should not have been taken to El Salvador even if he is a gang member, but denies that the court has the authority to order the White House to make even the smallest attempt to bring him back.

The White House is saying that if they grab you and take you to a foreign country where you are imprisoned, that’s it. The courts can’t do anything. It won’t matter if you’re a law-abiding citizen or if taking you out of the USA was unambiguously against the law. Only the executive branch, the people responsible for your predicament, get to choose if and when they do anything at all to secure your freedom.

Read the document they submitted to the court.

When I got my dog at the shelter, they told me two things about him:

• He liked to eat garbage.

• He liked being held like a baby.

He was a good size for it too, about 30 lbs. Big enough for a real hug, but not too heavy to lift comfortably. He would press his neck against mine when I held him - I think that was his way of reciprocating. The funny thing is that he was jealous about my hugs. If I hugged another person, he would whine, stand on his hind legs, and try to push that person away from me with his front legs.

I don’t see how that’s related to excluding particular countries.

Edit: What I mean is that I don’t understand how you conclude

So if you aren’t exporting/importing from those countries they wouldn’t be included. It doesn’t even matter if there was a trade surplus.

based on the formula.

Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were also not included

At least they’re being consistent. If Biden had excluded Russia along with those countries from some global economic policy, I wouldn’t be suspicious.

That’s not how it works. Stock prices don’t fall below the level that rich people are willing to buy them at, specifically because rich people buy them at that level.