I need a scorecard - some way to keep track of Trump's lengthening string of losses.
May 5, 2025
Not To Get All Techie And Shit
...but the use of chat apps and the infuriating nonchalance of these idiot motherfuckers in the Trump administration - it's got me boilin'. Again. Still.
May 4, 2025
Standing Up
"All" hasn't always meant 'all'. But if we're going to to that "more perfect union" thing, we need to be committed to working at it. Working harder that we have been anyway.
"...all...are created equal."
"...with liberty and justice for all."
I drove by UVa for that torchlight shit Aug 11, 2017 - and then I was downtown in Charlottesville the next day. It kinda knocked me back, and I felt the need to do my protesting in cyberspace.
But seeing what was happening with the BLM demonstrations, and then with more recent events - where only black folks are being detained and arrested, it's time for me to step up and get back in the game in meatspace.
I'm getting a little old for this, but I'm there. I'm up on my hind legs.
At this point, I've got way more to gain - way more important things - than I have to lose.
If we're not 'all', then we're nothing.
Like Mr Jefferson said:
"...with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."
That About Covers It
Americans didn’t vote for less stuff that costs more
Trump is wrong to say he has buy-in for transforming the world’s biggest economy.
President Donald Trump seems to be in denial about the unpopularity of his trade wars. On what he intended as a victory lap to coincide with the 100th day of his second term, he repeatedly attacked pollsters as “crooked people” who put out “fake polls.”
At a rally in Michigan on Tuesday, Trump claimed his approval rating was “in the 60s or 70s.” A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll puts it at 39 percent. This is the same share of American adults as approve of his handling of the economy. And nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, oppose Trump’s tariffs on imported goods.
These numbers are consistent across several recent public surveys. This led to one of the more awkward moments of the past week. During a live interview Tuesday, Fox News correspondent John Roberts asked Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff, about his network’s polling. “Particularly on the economy, tariffs and inflation, he’s well underwater,” Roberts said of Trump. To which Miller responded: “It is our opinion that Fox News needs to fire its pollster. … We don’t acknowledge any of that polling.”
In another interview Tuesday, Terry Moran of ABC News asked Trump about economists warning that his trade war with China will cost the typical American family thousands of dollars a year. The correspondent said many who voted for Trump fear the fallout. Trump replied: “Well, they did sign up for it, actually. And this is what I campaigned on.” Then he insisted that China will “eat those tariffs” rather than raise prices. This is unimaginable.
During a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, Trump seemed a little more willing to acknowledge that a protracted trade fight with China will force consumers to adjust their behavior. “Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls,” he said. “And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple bucks more than they would normally.”
This sounded like Trump’s “malaise” moment. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter delivered a notorious address from the Oval Office that was similarly motivated by a lamentation of U.S. dependence on foreign imports. In Carter’s case, though, the import was oil. “We can’t go on consuming 40 percent more energy than we produce,” he said. Americans didn’t want to wear cardigans or lower their thermostats. Outside wartime, calling for austerity has rarely been a winning political message.
Trump’s assumption, for decades, has been that Americans can have it all. During the rally Tuesday, he promised to make the country wealthy again. Yet here he was acknowledging to his Cabinet that Americans might need to pay more money for less stuff.
The president is right to say that he campaigned on imposing tariffs. At his rallies, he extolled the beauty of the T-word. Yet many of his voters did not think they were voting to end the era of consumerism. This has become a refrain from his administration. As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in March, “Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American Dream.”
Yes, Americans still want to put inexpensive Barbies, G.I. Joes and Disney dolls under their Christmas trees. But the United States depends on Chinese imports for far more than cheap toys.
Even a slight majority of Republicans, 51 percent, say they think Trump’s economic policies will cause an economic recession in the short term, even as they overwhelmingly continue to support him, according to the Post-ABC-Ipsos poll. Asked whether Trump’s policies will put the U.S. economy on a stronger foundation in the long run, only 31 percent of Americans said yes; 42 percent said they will leave us weaker, and 22 percent said it’s too soon to say.
Trump said Friday on social media that the economy is going through a “transition stage.” He’s blaming his predecessor and urging patience. So far, the U.S. economy has proved quite resilient, even as businesses pause investment decisions while they wait for some certainty about what’s ahead. Though the labor market cooled last month, the government said Friday that employers still added 177,000 jobs. And though the U.S. economy shrank for the first time in three years during the first quarter, annualized gross domestic product contracted by just 0.3 percent.
A central challenge for Trump’s project is that he still has not secured buy-in to fundamentally transform the world’s biggest economy, let alone to decouple from China, the world’s second-largest economy. A resolution disapproving Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs failed in the Senate on Wednesday with only 49 votes but would have passed had two senators not been absent. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), who deserves credit for defending Congress’s constitutional prerogative, said afterward that many GOP senators privately dislike the tariffs and will start speaking out if the economy continues to weaken. They hope Trump cleans up the mess first.
With luck, this might still be possible. China signaled a new willingness Friday to start talks with the United States. Container ships that carry goods from China take about a month to cross the Pacific. Trump can get them moving again if both sides come to the table.
Oy
The spin doctors could make this out to be "Man of the People" kinda shit.
Donald Trump Says He Runs the Country and the World, But He Still Answers Calls From Unknown Numbers
Two reporters from The Atlantic cold-called the president. He picked up and had a little chat.
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters after inspecting the North Lawn with members of the White House grounds crew to look for a place to put a 100-foot-tall flag pole on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. He said that he wants to put two 100-foot flag poles, one on the North Lawn and another on the South Lawn. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Donald Trump talks a lot of smack about the media in public. But, in private, it turns out he’s happy to shoot the breeze with reporters—even the ones he claims are liars and lunatics.
Even when they cold-call him from an unknown number.
Even on a Saturday morning.
At least, that is how journalists Ashley Parker and Michael Sherer scored an interview with the president last month, according to their sweeping new cover story in The Atlantic about Trump's return to the White House.
In late March, just days after Trump excoriated both reporters on Truth Social following their request for an interview with him, Parker and Sherer wrote that they called the president directly on his cell phone from a number he didn’t recognize at 10:45 am on a Saturday. And he actually picked up.
“Who’s calling?” he reportedly asked, like any other 78-year-old grandpa, the sound of what Parker and Sherer said seemed to be the television blaring in the background at his Bedminster, New Jersey golf club.
“We had a perfectly fine, gracious interview,” Sherer told CNN Monday.
Despite his very public insistence on Truth Social that Parker is “as terrible as is possible” and Sherer “virtually always LIES,” the president apparently was happy to talk. On the subject of his new billionaire bestie, Jeff Bezos, Trump reportedly said, “He’s 100 percent. He’s been great.” And Mark Zuckerberg? He too has "been great,” Trump said. “Maybe they didn’t know me at the beginning, and they know me now,” Trump told Parker and Sherer of the tech executives.
Trump also used the call to take a victory lap around the recent capitulation of law firms and universities in the face of his threats. “What do you think of the law firm? Were you shocked at that?” he asked the reporters regarding Paul Weiss’s negotiations with the White House over an executive order that would have restricted its attorneys’ access to federal buildings.
And he celebrated the leverage he has over the rest of the Republican party. “When I endorse somebody, they win,” Trump told Parker and Sherer.
Trump warned the reporters that if The Atlantic wrote “good stories and truthful stories, the magazine would be hot,” and said that most media owners were growing tired of standing up to Trump, a possible reference to Bezos’s Trump-friendly turn at The Washington Post. “At some point, they say, No más, no más,” Trump reportedly said.
The interview came shortly before The Atlantic broke the news about National Security Advisor Michael Waltz accidentally inviting Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a private Signal chat, which prompted the president to sour on the magazine all over again. (Trump called Goldberg “a total sleazebag.”) But once again, his public barbs didn’t stand in the way of a separate invitation to the White House, which he extended to Sherer, Parker, and Goldberg last week. During that meeting, Sherer said on CNN, Trump “was in a far more conciliatory mood” and acknowledged the turmoil that has since overtaken the Pentagon. “I think he’s gonna get it together,” Trump said of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “I had a talk with him, a positive talk, but I had a talk with him.”
As for the news that his Cabinet officials had accidentally texted secretive strike plans to Goldberg, Trump said he’d instructed his team, “Maybe don’t use Signal, okay?”
The Atlantic’s story is a telling account of how the president staged an unlikely comeback after becoming a political pariah in the wake of the January 6, back when his team was reportedly having trouble getting him even booked on Fox & Friends. It also shows how he’s come back more powerful than the first time around now that the guardrails of his first term are off. As Trump reportedly put it during the Saturday morning phone call, “The first time, I had two things to do—run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys. And the second time, I run the country and the world.”
But even more than that, the story is a stunning illustration of how, perhaps the most media-savvy president of all time works the press in public and private—but still somehow does not know how to screen a phone call.
To me, it means he's a small man with only a sporadic understanding of the enormity of his position. And that's a deadly combination, the obvious portents of which we are seeing play out in real time.
There are historical examples of this
- Henry VI - The Naïve Fool - England
- George III - The Mad King - England
- Afonso VI "The Glutton" - Portugal - a grinning moron
- Charles IX "The Snotty King" - France - the murderous mama's boy
- John - England - the famously corrupt Prince John, from the Robin Hood stories
Two reporters from The Atlantic cold-called the president. He picked up and had a little chat.
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters after inspecting the North Lawn with members of the White House grounds crew to look for a place to put a 100-foot-tall flag pole on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. He said that he wants to put two 100-foot flag poles, one on the North Lawn and another on the South Lawn. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Donald Trump talks a lot of smack about the media in public. But, in private, it turns out he’s happy to shoot the breeze with reporters—even the ones he claims are liars and lunatics.
Even when they cold-call him from an unknown number.
Even on a Saturday morning.
At least, that is how journalists Ashley Parker and Michael Sherer scored an interview with the president last month, according to their sweeping new cover story in The Atlantic about Trump's return to the White House.
In late March, just days after Trump excoriated both reporters on Truth Social following their request for an interview with him, Parker and Sherer wrote that they called the president directly on his cell phone from a number he didn’t recognize at 10:45 am on a Saturday. And he actually picked up.
“Who’s calling?” he reportedly asked, like any other 78-year-old grandpa, the sound of what Parker and Sherer said seemed to be the television blaring in the background at his Bedminster, New Jersey golf club.
“We had a perfectly fine, gracious interview,” Sherer told CNN Monday.
Despite his very public insistence on Truth Social that Parker is “as terrible as is possible” and Sherer “virtually always LIES,” the president apparently was happy to talk. On the subject of his new billionaire bestie, Jeff Bezos, Trump reportedly said, “He’s 100 percent. He’s been great.” And Mark Zuckerberg? He too has "been great,” Trump said. “Maybe they didn’t know me at the beginning, and they know me now,” Trump told Parker and Sherer of the tech executives.
Trump also used the call to take a victory lap around the recent capitulation of law firms and universities in the face of his threats. “What do you think of the law firm? Were you shocked at that?” he asked the reporters regarding Paul Weiss’s negotiations with the White House over an executive order that would have restricted its attorneys’ access to federal buildings.
And he celebrated the leverage he has over the rest of the Republican party. “When I endorse somebody, they win,” Trump told Parker and Sherer.
Trump warned the reporters that if The Atlantic wrote “good stories and truthful stories, the magazine would be hot,” and said that most media owners were growing tired of standing up to Trump, a possible reference to Bezos’s Trump-friendly turn at The Washington Post. “At some point, they say, No más, no más,” Trump reportedly said.
The interview came shortly before The Atlantic broke the news about National Security Advisor Michael Waltz accidentally inviting Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a private Signal chat, which prompted the president to sour on the magazine all over again. (Trump called Goldberg “a total sleazebag.”) But once again, his public barbs didn’t stand in the way of a separate invitation to the White House, which he extended to Sherer, Parker, and Goldberg last week. During that meeting, Sherer said on CNN, Trump “was in a far more conciliatory mood” and acknowledged the turmoil that has since overtaken the Pentagon. “I think he’s gonna get it together,” Trump said of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “I had a talk with him, a positive talk, but I had a talk with him.”
As for the news that his Cabinet officials had accidentally texted secretive strike plans to Goldberg, Trump said he’d instructed his team, “Maybe don’t use Signal, okay?”
The Atlantic’s story is a telling account of how the president staged an unlikely comeback after becoming a political pariah in the wake of the January 6, back when his team was reportedly having trouble getting him even booked on Fox & Friends. It also shows how he’s come back more powerful than the first time around now that the guardrails of his first term are off. As Trump reportedly put it during the Saturday morning phone call, “The first time, I had two things to do—run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys. And the second time, I run the country and the world.”
But even more than that, the story is a stunning illustration of how, perhaps the most media-savvy president of all time works the press in public and private—but still somehow does not know how to screen a phone call.
Government vs Government
Ain't it funny how all that "states' rights" noise seems to have evaporated.
First they came for the immigrants.
Then they came for Judge Dugan.
Then they came for almost the entire government structure of a whole state.
I haven't been - and I hope to hell I will never be - quiet about it any of this.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on Friday against Denver and Colorado officials, alleging in federal court that they had passed “sanctuary laws” that violate the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit asks the U.S. District Court in Colorado to declare that several city and state policies are invalid, blocking the city and state from enforcing them. The laws and policies in question generally restrict the ability of state and local government employees to help with immigration enforcement.
“The Supremacy Clause prohibits Colorado and its officials from obstructing the Federal Government’s ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution,” the lawsuit argues. “The Supremacy Clause also prohibits Colorado from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment — as the challenged laws do — thereby discriminating against the Federal Government. The Sanctuary Laws are themselves unlawful and cannot stand.”
Mayor Mike Johnston’s office responded soon after the suit was filed.
“Denver will not be bullied or blackmailed, least of all by an administration that has little regard for the law and even less for the truth. We follow all laws local, state, and federal and stand ready to defend our values,” wrote Jon Ewing, a spokesperson for Johnston, who was named a defendant in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit also names Gov. Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, the state legislature, the city and county of Denver and Denver Sheriff Elias Diggins.
“Colorado is not a sanctuary state,” responded Eric Maruyama, a spokesperson for Polis, in a written statement.
“The State of Colorado works with local, state and federal law enforcement regularly and we value our partnerships with local, county and federal law enforcement agencies to make Colorado safer. If the courts say that any Colorado law is not valid, then we will follow the ruling. We are not going to comment on the merits of the lawsuit,” Maruyama continued.
The DOJ argued that because of a state law, it can no longer enter into agreements with local governments to detain immigrants in county jails, forcing it to transfer all its detainees to a facility in Aurora. The lawsuit claims that the state’s policies force it to release individuals into the public because it can’t afford to bring them to Aurora.
Immigrant advocates have argued that local governments should not — and don’t have to — work closely with immigration enforcement. They argue that when police partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, immigrants are afraid to report crimes and communities are less safe.
The federal lawsuit also argues that state and local laws make it harder for immigration agents to detain people who are set to be released from local jails. But city officials have pushed back on those claims, noting in one recent case that agents were notified more than an hour before a wanted person was released.
The lawsuit targets several state laws:
- HB19-1124: This law is one of those most often cited by Republicans unhappy with Colorado’s immigration policies. Nicknamed the Protecting Colorado Residents From Federal Government Overreach act, it prevents law enforcement officers from arresting or detaining an individual on the basis of their immigration status, or holding someone in jail past their release time just so immigration officials can come pick them up. It also prevents authorities from providing information about an individual’s immigration status to federal officials. Officers can continue to assist federal immigration enforcement officials with executing warrants issued by federal judges, and they can transfer people from jail or prison into the custody of immigration officers, if they have a court order.
- SB21-131: This law aims to further restrict cooperation between state employees and federal immigration agents by preventing the state from looking into people’s immigration status or disclosing anyone’s personal identifying information to ICE, except as required by law or courts.
- HB23-1100: This law prohibits the state and local governments from contracting with private companies to operate immigration detention facilities.
The lawsuit also targets policies in Denver:
- City Ordinance No. 94-17: This law was adopted in 2017 under Mayor Michael Hancock. It bars city employees from using “any city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws,” the lawsuit states. That includes helping with investigations, detention or arrest procedures, as well as requesting information about a person’s immigration status in most cases. It also bars federal immigration agents from “secure areas of any city or county jail or other city-owned law enforcement facility for the purpose of conducting investigative interviews or any other purpose related to the enforcement of federal immigration” unless they have a warrant from a federal judge or magistrate. And it says that officers will not detain people solely on the basis of administrative warrants from immigration agents.
- Executive Order No. 142: This order issued by Hancock declared Denver a "safe and welcoming city for all” and touched on numerous subjects. It called for city employees to be trained on “the limitations around collecting and sharing national origin, immigration and citizenship data, including sharing information pertaining to appointment times, dates or whereabouts of clients … with federal immigration enforcement officials.” It also called on city leaders to report on “any efforts” they were aware of by immigration agents to get city help enforcing immigration laws.
May 3, 2025
The Declaration
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Today's Belle
Trump either has to figure out how to spin it as a W, or keep doubling down until the whole thing craters in on all our heads.
So, as is typical, Trump's self-loathing is at war with his survival instincts. How hot does he allow that war to get?
So, as is typical, Trump's self-loathing is at war with his survival instincts. How hot does he allow that war to get?
May 2, 2025
Leopards Eating Faces
I don't know what to say here, except that I'd like just a few minutes with this guy in a locked sound-proof room.
The best way to sell
White Supremacy
is to put a black face on it.
It's The Corruption, Stupid
For the low low price of $500K, Don Jr will wire you in for a chat with Dad.
The Labor Dept reported 177,000 new jobs for April - good news. But GDP shrank, and prices are starting to tick up even as imports have made a significant jump.
Remember, more supply is supposed to make for lower prices, but hey - it's early, and we're still waiting to see just how much Trump can squeeze out of his toadies before he has to relent just a tiny bit.
So we could be looking at the runup to a potentially amazing round of price gouging as that supply starts to dwindle.
What say you, Google A.I. ?
To prepare for potential tariff-related price increases, consumers should consider purchasing items like appliances, electronics, furniture, and clothing before they potentially become more expensive. Additionally, stocking up on groceries, especially those with a high import content, might also be a good idea.
Items to consider buying sooner rather than later:
Appliances:
Half of the home appliances sold in the U.S. are sourced from China, making them vulnerable to price increases if tariffs are imposed.
Electronics:
Electronics like phones, laptops, and TVs rely heavily on global supply chains, and tariffs on parts or finished goods can lead to higher prices.
Furniture:
Many furniture manufacturers source materials and components internationally, potentially making furniture more expensive with tariffs.
Clothing and Textiles:
The clothing industry is another sector that could be significantly affected by tariff increases.
Groceries:
Items like beer, meat, and other imported groceries may become more expensive as tariffs affect the supply chain.
Aluminum and Steel Products:
Consumers looking to purchase aluminum- and steel-based products may want to brace for higher prices as well.
Toys:
China makes a large percentage of the toys sold in the U.S., so tariffs on these goods could lead to price increases.
Why now?
Tariffs primarily impact imported goods:
Prices on products already in U.S. warehouses may not rise dramatically immediately, so now is a good time to purchase items you need.
Prices on products already in U.S. warehouses may not rise dramatically immediately, so now is a good time to purchase items you need.
Potential price hikes:
Economists expect tariffs to push up prices on a range of imported goods as businesses pass on increased costs to consumers.
Supply chain disruptions:
Tariffs can disrupt supply chains and lead to shortages, potentially driving prices even higher.
Important considerations:
Shop around:
Even with potential price increases, it's still wise to compare prices at different retailers before making a purchase.
Consider store brands:
Private-label goods (store brands) may offer a cheaper alternative to name-brand products.
Be mindful of your budget:
Tariffs could lead to higher prices across a range of items, so it's important to be mindful of your spending habits and make informed decisions.
Birds & Bees
The 6th Great Extinction proceeds apace.
75 percent of North America’s bird species are in decline, study says
Birds are rapidly vanishing from North America, with dramatic population losses in places that were once thought safe.
Great egrets and little blue herons. Blue-winged warblers and yellow-bellied sapsuckers. Snowy owls and tropical kingbirds.
Across North America, three-fourths of bird species are in decline, according to a sweeping study of avian populations published Thursday, the latest sign of a slow-moving extinction crisis that threatens entire ecosystems.
The population losses among the continent’s birds — red-winged blackbirds belting conk-la-ree! in marshlands, chickadees gathering around suburban bird feeders, peregrine falcons swooping between skyscrapers — should serve as a canary in the coal mine for people who live alongside birds, scientists say.
For a majority of bird species, the decrease observed between 2007 and 2021 was greatest in the places where they are most abundant, suggesting birds are struggling even in their strongholds.
“Those locations where species were once thriving, and where the environment and habitat was once really suitable for them, are now the places where they’re suffering the most,” said Alison Johnston, an ecological statistician at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland who led the research published in the journal Science.
“That was the most concerning finding,” Johnston said.
The study builds on research published in 2019 that used radar data to find that North America had lost more than 3 billion birds between 1970 and 2017. The new study doesn’t offer an update of that number or determine whether the overall bird population is declining faster than before. Instead, it took a more granular geographic look at the population trends of nearly 495 bird species.
Johnston’s team analyzed a robust online database called eBird, which collects more than 100 million bird sightings by professional ornithologists and amateur birders around the world every year.
“Birders have been keeping logs in their journals for 100 years or more. It’s just part of birding,” said Ken Rosenberg, a retired conservation scientist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology who was part of the team that designed and launched eBird in 2002. “So there had been this dream, this vision of, like, what if we could harness all that information?”
Using a machine learning model to account for changes in how people observed birds over time, the researchers found that 75 percent of the documented species were in decline.
The result “reinforces the known pattern of mass decline,” said Richard Gregory, a University College London professor not involved in the research. “Taken as a whole, and depressingly, the heavy weight of evidence points towards a worsening situation for North American birds.”
There is no one single reason for this new silent spring. For many grassland species, farms are engulfing habitats and showering pesticides on insects that many birds eat. Along coastlines, construction and other activity are eating into beaches and wetlands where birds feed and nest. In the Arctic, rising temperatures are morphing critical breeding habitats.
There are still reasons for hope in the findings. For the vast majority of bird species in the study, there are pockets where subpopulations were stable or even growing. That granular analysis could help scientists and government officials better understand the factors allowing particular birds to thrive, which could inform how to protect whole species.
But the federal government under President Donald Trump is pushing forward with regulatory changes that weaken a century-old law protecting migratory birds and permit more mining, construction and other activities even if they destroys the habitats of endangered birds and other species.
Amanda Rodewald, a Cornell ecologist who co-wrote the study, noted that some of the same pressures weighing on birds, such as climate change and air pollution, are also bad for human health and well-being.
“Humans share those same environments,” Rodewald said. “So if they’re not healthy enough for birds, they’re unlikely to be healthy enough for people, too.”
The "Sixth Extinction" refers to a period of accelerated biodiversity loss driven by human activities, potentially leading to a mass extinction event. It's characterized by a rate of species extinction far exceeding the natural background rate, with scientists estimating a potential loss of 20 to 50 percent of all living species within this century. This is a serious concern because biodiversity loss impacts ecosystems, economies, and human well-being.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
1. What is a Mass Extinction?
Mass extinctions are characterized by a rapid and significant decline in global biodiversity, often leading to the extinction of at least 75% of existing species within a relatively short geological timeframe (less than 2 million years).
There have been five major mass extinction events in Earth's history, each marked by catastrophic shifts in the global environment.
2. The Sixth Extinction:
The Sixth Extinction is a term used to describe the ongoing, human-driven mass extinction event.
It's unique in that it's primarily caused by human activities, including habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, and overexploitation of resources.
Scientists are increasingly concerned about the current rate of biodiversity loss, which is significantly faster than the natural background rate.
This accelerated rate of extinction is causing alarm because it could lead to the loss of essential ecosystem services, and potentially cause irreversible damage to the planet's ecosystems.
3. Causes of the Sixth Extinction:
Birds are rapidly vanishing from North America, with dramatic population losses in places that were once thought safe.
Great egrets and little blue herons. Blue-winged warblers and yellow-bellied sapsuckers. Snowy owls and tropical kingbirds.
Across North America, three-fourths of bird species are in decline, according to a sweeping study of avian populations published Thursday, the latest sign of a slow-moving extinction crisis that threatens entire ecosystems.
The population losses among the continent’s birds — red-winged blackbirds belting conk-la-ree! in marshlands, chickadees gathering around suburban bird feeders, peregrine falcons swooping between skyscrapers — should serve as a canary in the coal mine for people who live alongside birds, scientists say.
For a majority of bird species, the decrease observed between 2007 and 2021 was greatest in the places where they are most abundant, suggesting birds are struggling even in their strongholds.
“Those locations where species were once thriving, and where the environment and habitat was once really suitable for them, are now the places where they’re suffering the most,” said Alison Johnston, an ecological statistician at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland who led the research published in the journal Science.
“That was the most concerning finding,” Johnston said.
The study builds on research published in 2019 that used radar data to find that North America had lost more than 3 billion birds between 1970 and 2017. The new study doesn’t offer an update of that number or determine whether the overall bird population is declining faster than before. Instead, it took a more granular geographic look at the population trends of nearly 495 bird species.
Johnston’s team analyzed a robust online database called eBird, which collects more than 100 million bird sightings by professional ornithologists and amateur birders around the world every year.
“Birders have been keeping logs in their journals for 100 years or more. It’s just part of birding,” said Ken Rosenberg, a retired conservation scientist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology who was part of the team that designed and launched eBird in 2002. “So there had been this dream, this vision of, like, what if we could harness all that information?”
Using a machine learning model to account for changes in how people observed birds over time, the researchers found that 75 percent of the documented species were in decline.
The result “reinforces the known pattern of mass decline,” said Richard Gregory, a University College London professor not involved in the research. “Taken as a whole, and depressingly, the heavy weight of evidence points towards a worsening situation for North American birds.”
There is no one single reason for this new silent spring. For many grassland species, farms are engulfing habitats and showering pesticides on insects that many birds eat. Along coastlines, construction and other activity are eating into beaches and wetlands where birds feed and nest. In the Arctic, rising temperatures are morphing critical breeding habitats.
There are still reasons for hope in the findings. For the vast majority of bird species in the study, there are pockets where subpopulations were stable or even growing. That granular analysis could help scientists and government officials better understand the factors allowing particular birds to thrive, which could inform how to protect whole species.
But the federal government under President Donald Trump is pushing forward with regulatory changes that weaken a century-old law protecting migratory birds and permit more mining, construction and other activities even if they destroys the habitats of endangered birds and other species.
Amanda Rodewald, a Cornell ecologist who co-wrote the study, noted that some of the same pressures weighing on birds, such as climate change and air pollution, are also bad for human health and well-being.
“Humans share those same environments,” Rodewald said. “So if they’re not healthy enough for birds, they’re unlikely to be healthy enough for people, too.”
And what say you, Google A.I. ?
Here's a more detailed explanation:
1. What is a Mass Extinction?
Mass extinctions are characterized by a rapid and significant decline in global biodiversity, often leading to the extinction of at least 75% of existing species within a relatively short geological timeframe (less than 2 million years).
There have been five major mass extinction events in Earth's history, each marked by catastrophic shifts in the global environment.
2. The Sixth Extinction:
The Sixth Extinction is a term used to describe the ongoing, human-driven mass extinction event.
It's unique in that it's primarily caused by human activities, including habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, and overexploitation of resources.
Scientists are increasingly concerned about the current rate of biodiversity loss, which is significantly faster than the natural background rate.
This accelerated rate of extinction is causing alarm because it could lead to the loss of essential ecosystem services, and potentially cause irreversible damage to the planet's ecosystems.
3. Causes of the Sixth Extinction:
Habitat loss and fragmentation:
- As human populations grow and develop, natural habitats are destroyed and fragmented, making it difficult for species to find food, shelter, and breeding grounds.
Climate change:
- Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are leading to rising global temperatures, which are causing significant shifts in climate patterns, affecting habitats and species distributions.
Pollution:
- Pollution from industrial activities, agriculture, and other sources can harm or kill species, disrupting ecosystems and reducing biodiversity.
Overexploitation:
- Overfishing, overhunting, and unsustainable resource extraction can deplete populations of certain species, making them vulnerable to extinction.
Loss of ecosystem services:
- Ecosystem services, such as clean water, air, fertile soil, and pollination, are essential for human survival and well-being. The loss of biodiversity can disrupt these services, impacting human health and livelihoods.
Impact on human health:
- The loss of certain species could lead to the loss of potential medicines and other beneficial substances, impacting human health and well-being.
Uncertainty and instability:
- The loss of biodiversity can create instability in ecosystems, making them more vulnerable to disruptions and potentially leading to cascading effects that affect other species and the environment.
Reduce our carbon footprint:
- Transitioning to renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, and reducing our consumption patterns can help mitigate the effects of climate change.
Protect and restore habitats:
- Establishing protected areas, restoring degraded habitats, and promoting sustainable land use practices can help preserve biodiversity.
Address pollution:
- Reducing pollution from industrial sources, agriculture, and other sources can help protect species and ecosystems.
Promote sustainable consumption:
- Making conscious choices about the products we buy and how we use them can help reduce our impact on the environment.
Support conservation efforts:
- Funding and supporting conservation organizations and initiatives can help protect species and habitats.
At the current rate, we'll be head-first and ankle-deep in our own shit in the next decade.
May 1, 2025
Fun With Numbers
Trumplefucks love to spin the GDP numbers - like, 0.3% is nothing, we'll have that up again in no time at all.
Problem is, getting down to zero (no growth) you have to shrink the economy by about 2½%. Then you go down another 0.3%.
Of course, it's not quite that simple - because economics is never simple, and the reality of it is rarely within the realm of factual math - it's not called the Dismal Science for nuthin'.
But in one very real sense, Trump's tariff fuckup drove the economy down by about 2.8%
Today's Quote
(paraphrasing Mr Hitler, and edited for context)
I expect the legal profession to understand that the nation is not here for them but they are here for the nation ... From now on, I shall intervene in these cases and remove from office those judges who evidently do not understand the demand of the hour.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)