I don’t know enough about legal precedents or the housing situation in BC to comment on the merits of the particular policy being litigated, but I feel it’s self-evident that restricting what people can do with their property is, in general, a bad thing. Such restrictions are often necessary to prevent some other, even worse outcome and that may be the case here, but why would you cheer this part of the article in isolation?

I would save the analogy to a fire with the maximum number of alarms for the stuff that will happen later. This one will have just one alarm in retrospect.

If this is what you call a genocide truly beginning, what words would you use to describe a time when people start being killed?

A purely symbolic gesture. The USA didn’t actually have to withdraw from the accords before it could ignore the accords, in which case it would have plenty of company.

I like Aztec history way more than U.S.A. history

I’m not sure that I would want you in charge :)

I don’t think that’s a settled matter.

From the Wikipedia article about Burdick:

Although the Supreme Court’s opinion stated that a pardon carries “an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,” this was part of the Court’s dictum for the case. Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. In Lorance v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion.”

the slave owning richest man in the country turned warlord

Washington? He was rich but he wasn’t the richest man in America either before or after the revolution.

Somehow he’s not near the top of my list of people to feel sorry for.

Biden has been absolutely consistent about is this belief that he believes that had he stayed in the race, he would have defeated Donald Trump again

And this is one reason why. He was dead weight that held back Harris (or someone more capable that might have emerged if there had been a competitive primary).

The fact that this was a good idea is humiliating.

Nor is this a “free speech” issue. The right to speak out, even online, has not changed. The government’s authority here is to determine what foreign companies are allowed to operate within our borders, a nearly ironclad power.

This could be true if the ban was content-neutral but, on the contrary, the ban is explicitly intended to limit Americans’ access to content that the government disapproves of. The right to free speech includes the right to hear. Americans have the right to listen to Chinese propaganda if they so choose and banning TikTok is exactly the same sort of censorship (differing only in degree) as the Chinese government’s censorship of information coming from outside China.

The whole idea of using government coercion to control “disinformation” is censorious in a way that violates the 1st amendment. People have the right to speak, the right to listen to, and the right to encourage others to listen to even the things that the government considers to be harmful lies.

I don’t care why Trump reverses the TikTok ban, as long as he does.

IMO the racist interpretation is that it’s funny because while the stereotype is true, the idea that behavior alone could bridge the distance between white people and black people is ridiculous.

The anti-racist interpretation is that it’s funny because in order for the stereotype to be true, the ridiculous notion that Trump is black and Obama is white would also have to be true. For the people who like Trump, there’s also the implication that it’s wrong to discriminate against someone just because according to the stereotype he’s more likely to be a felon, given that someone who definitely is a felon is also the right person to be President.

The joke:

The post to his Facebook page shows a picture of President-elect Donald Trump speaking to former President Barack Obama at last week’s funeral for Jimmy Carter. A caption above the photo reads: “Do you realize, by the time I’m sworn in I’m going to be a felon that worked at McDonald’s? I’m blacker than you.”

I think there is both a racist and an anti-racist interpretation of this, but I also think that someone laughing at the anti-racist interpretation would probably know better than to post the joke publicly without context.

“I can’t answer that,” Kennedy replied, pausing and then dramatically adding, “I can, but I won’t.”

This is a weird thing to say, but my standards for what counts as “unbelievably irresponsible” are apparently a lot higher than some people’s because this ain’t it.

Do you think he can actually experience insecurity? My impression has been the opposite - I think he’s literally shameless. He has absolute confidence and so he never feels the self-doubt necessary to believe that someone worth having as a friend wouldn’t want to be his friend. Only bad people (who are probably plotting against him) wouldn’t want to be his friends.

I admit that if that’s what he’s like, then I’m a little jealous. I mean, I don’t want to be him but I do want to be able to meet a person, be rejected, and then go on with my life without having my deep insecurity triggered. Hell, I just want to be able to meet a person instead of being crippled by even the possibility of rejection.

This is a lot more reckless than I was expecting, and I didn’t have high hopes. Denmark is a NATO ally. If the USA is challenging its territorial integrity like this, the ability of that alliance to act as a deterrent is going to be seriously compromised. That’s bad for reasons bigger than Greenland.

Trump is doing more damage to the security of the USA and its allies than he would have if he merely sank a couple of aircraft carriers, and most voters aren’t even going to be aware of that.

In its report, the Ethics Committee explained that “Representative Gaetz did not appear to have negotiated specific payment amounts prior to engaging in sexual activity with the women he paid. Instead, the women had a general expectation that they would typically receive some amount of money after each sexual encounter.”

Where’s the boundary between prostitution and a sugar daddy/sugar baby relationship which is not in itself illegal? This seems like the latter rather than the former to me. It’s still crazy that the attorney general nominee is claiming to be a sugar daddy in order to defend his character.

Some of the doctor killers surrendered immediately, but there were manhunts for ones who fled. The killers were usually caught quickly so most manhunts didn’t need to be nationwide, but law enforcement considered the attacks a big deal. This guy managed to flee the country and the international hunt for him lasted over two years until he was caught in France and extradited.

Yes, which is why I brought up the murders of abortion doctors. Those got a lot of nationwide attention when they happened. For example, look up George Tiller. The common theme is the connection between the murder and the controversial nature of the victim’s career. Meanwhile, the violent deaths of wealthy people not associated with anything controversial might make it into the local news briefly but they won’t get nearly as much attention.

I don’t agree with their conclusion. It’s true that the murder of a CEO would get more police attention than the murder of an ordinary person even in less unusual circumstances, but this particular case is extraordinary not because the victim was a CEO but because so many people support the murder.

Murders of abortion doctors were similar ideologically-motivated attacks against someone hated by a large part of the public, except that abortion doctors aren’t members of the elite. These murders were still quite a big deal and received a lot of attention on the national level.

Musk is doing the setup for a joke, because back in the day we had “Boehner loses control of his caucus.” Now it’s Johnson’s turn.