Overheard

It can be very hard

to maintain mental health these days,

because so many coping methods

are based on the idea

that your anxiety, while real,

is unwarranted.

Right now, we need

something more like:

"OK, it's extremely warranted,

but you still gotta do

stuff around the house.

Otherwise, you're going to get

fascism and dead plants."

Dr Knurick

I don't know what it is about certain people - like this mush-brained BKjr.

I think I get the part of it where anti-vaxxers say they're just pushing back on commercialized medicine.

But I don't think that's what's happening - at least that's not what they end up focused on. When your "movement" gets turned into a death cult, sponsored by the power of the federal government, then you're giving all of us a problem that should be exclusive to you.

If you don't want to get vaccinated, then OK, that part's up to you. But that makes you a potential threat to the herd - my herd - and I don't need anything extra to worry about. So do what you think you should do, but do that somewhere else - away from the rest of us.

A Small Bright Spot

...which could turn into a big blazing beacon - if we can keep any kind of spotlight on it, which fortunately, Trump is helping us with.

It seems like he thinks he can do this National Guard thing bit by bit, and get us used to the presence of US Military on the streets of our cities, so we'll just let it slide when he decides to do whatever really shitty thing he has in mind.

So we have to stay active and push back against every move. Because when confronted often enough with a particular question of ethics, most people will eventually come down on the side of justice.

The question here will revolve around whether or not enough people can be convinced that their neighbors don't make up the majority of the problem.

Majority of US Troops Surveyed Say They’re Aware of Their Duty to Not Follow Illegal Orders

With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines.

Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests.

When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal?

The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.”

Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold.

We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so.

Compelled to disobey

U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.

Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense.

Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.”

When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.”

Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.”

Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey.

The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.”

One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.”

Soldiers, not lawyers

But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance.

Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law.

Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S.

“Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.”

Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.”

Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general.

This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law.

Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel.

This finding was also borne out in our survey.

When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points.

Drawing the line

As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes.

The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders.

When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order.

But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%.

While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable.

Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one.

Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city.

The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.”

Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same.

Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly.

The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders.

Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line.

Rebs With Guns

Overheard

Trump says voting by mail is rife with fraud

Trump votes by mail

∴Trump is a fraud

We're Letting This Happen

I hope all the "good Americans" get a chance to collect the dead bodies of our victims.

Today's Belle

It's just another stunt.

If "rampant crime" was the real reason, those governors would've send their Guard to their own cities.

Bad Juju

Even if you can’t trust the data, these 13 warning signs will tell you the economy is in trouble
Dave Smith - August 18, 2025

For decades, statistics that came directly from the U.S. government, especially from agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), have long been the gold standard for measuring the health of the American economy. But this trust has been shaken by recent events, including substantial downward revisions to jobs data, bruising political accusations, and the unceremonious dismissal of Erika McEntarfer, the BLS’s top official, at the beginning of the month. The resulting uncertainty has left many Americans asking: If official government data can’t be trusted, how can you know if the economy is struggling?

For decades, regular reports from the BLS and other agencies have offered a detailed portrait of economic activity, from employment levels to inflation to productivity. Businesses, investors, and policymakers depend on these numbers to make informed decisions. But collecting this data is an imperfect, daunting task, particularly in an economy as large and fast-moving as that of the U.S.

The most recent jobs report underscored this difficulty. Initially, BLS figures showed moderate job growth. But after significant downward revisions, the numbers painted a far bleaker picture: Job growth was much weaker than what was previously reported, with the pace of job creation weaker than it’s been in decades, excluding the pandemic-era years. Such revisions are common but usually not this dramatic, and the political repercussions—especially President Donald Trump’s firing of the BLS commissioner and claims of political tampering—have further fueled doubt, criticism, and confusion.

So this invites the question: If you cannot trust official numbers, what concrete signs reveal economic trouble? Economists point to several alternative indicators that, individually and collectively, offer insight—often visible without needing to consult official statistics. Here are the telltale signs the average person, or a skeptical observer, should watch for.

Beyond the numbers: Recognizing economic distress

1. Labor market conditions
Even in the absence of official jobs figures, warning signs often emerge in the labor market:

• More visibly unemployed people: Lines lengthening at job centers, more “help wanted” signs vanishing, and rising rates of layoffs reported by major companies.
• Wage stagnation: If you and those around you are not receiving raises, or if companies pull back on hiring bonuses and perks, it often reflects broader malaise.
• Surge in part-time or gig work: In downturns, full-time jobs often give way to part-time or contract gigs, sometimes observable through employer and media reports.

2. Consumer behavior and social signals

The everyday economy leaves trails in consumer behavior and community life:

• Reduced spending: Noticeable drops in traffic at restaurants, shops, and malls; fewer people traveling or eating out; increased coupon clipping and price sensitivity.
• Rising defaults: More “for sale” and “foreclosure” signs, growing anecdotes of evictions or missed payments, and upticks in bankruptcies reported by courts and real estate boards.
• Charity demand: Food banks, shelters, and local charities may report higher demand, sometimes before the effects register in official figures.

3. Business activity
Businesses are often quicker than government statistics to reflect trouble:

• Layoff announcements: Corporate press releases, layoff tracker websites, and industry newsletters provide early warnings about sectors in distress.
• Inventory and discounting: Retailers stuck with excess unsold goods may start offering steeper discounts or holding clearance sales.
• Small-business closures: More empty storefronts, business liquidations, or community announcements about long-standing establishments shutting their doors.

4. Alternative and composite data
When government data falters, or is mistrusted, private sector and international organizations’ indices become invaluable:

• ADP private payroll data: While not always fully aligned with BLS figures, private payroll processors like ADP provide independent snapshots of employment trends.
• Human Development Index (HDI) and Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI): These composite measures integrate health, education, and income measures to provide a broader sense of economic well-being. States such as Maryland and Vermont have implemented GPI to supplement GDP, for example, to offer more nuanced local insights.
• Well-being indexes and social metrics: Life expectancy, educational attainment, and even poll-based “happiness” measures often capture public sentiment and living standards in ways GDP and job tallies alone cannot.

5. Public mood and media reporting

• Media and social media can be canaries in the coal mine: When headlines become dominated by stories of job losses, business failures, or personal financial hardship, it usually signals real underlying distress, even if official data has not yet caught up.

It’s understandable to be skeptical of government data, especially in the current climate. But it’s important to understand the economy is more than just a set of aggregated numbers.

There will be plenty of warning signs if things are trending downward, from empty storefronts to rising bankruptcy rates to visible community distress. So if you don’t feel as if you can rely exclusively on official figures, experts advise keeping your ears to the ground: Pay attention to local businesses, listen to stories from regular people, and keep track of movement in the private sector. The telltale signs are rarely hidden; they are, for better or worse, all around us.

Chess vs Checkers

How Putin got Trump to impose sanctions on the US is likely to remain a mystery, but the shit Trump is doing sure as fuck looks like that's exactly what Putin talked him into doing.

Dear President Putin