There should be a lot to write about today that I have missed so far.
Meanwhile, the Hackman demise mystery is more confused now than when I posted on it yesterday. The theories are getting really wild now: last night I heard an “expert” speculate that Hackman and his wife had simultaneous heart attacks.
I think we can officially conclude that the Hackmans did not kill their dog as part of a grand, planned exit, because two of the couple’s dogs are alive and well. Well, good. The post was primarily about the unethical practice of euthanizing healthy dogs “out of love.” (No one has yet suggested that the dogs conspired to rub out their masters, but the way the speculation is going, that theory may surface yet.
I always feel terrible when any well-loved and respected public figure has a final act that is embarrassing, lurid, pathetic or ugly. Often this means that the mess is remembered for than what went before, which was what mattered.
Do write something memorable for me today.
Ethics Alarms 
If you aren’t aware, today (28 Feb) is Economic Blackout Day. It’s a cobbled together progressive protest of something. Everyone is supposed to not go shopping. At all. I think it’s been mentioned in a post earlier, but just as a summary:
It checks off every box to form a proper leftist protest:
It’s easy – you can literally do it from your couch.
It requires no real sacrifice – everything you don’t purchase today, you can purchase tomorrow.
No one really knows why they’re doing it.
It’s not going to have any effect whatsoever.
It makes you feel like you’re doing something.
Anyway, the real benefit of this protest is the rest of us get to have “Normal American Shopping Day” – hopefully free of any blue-haired cow-nose-ringed hyper leftists, middle aged liberal Karens, and other varieties of progressive weirdoes.
Go enjoy!
Ideal time for shops to have one day super specials. How many progressive weirdos would change their minds about a boycott for a bargain.
Great idea! I would have suggested stores have a “We Dare You to Boycott This!” sale.
Ooooh, good day to buy a new pistol! That would be just as symbolically meaningless, though, as that industry is among those least likely to see a one-day (or any) effect from this type of protest.
Willem Reese wrote, “Ooooh, good day to buy a new pistol!”
I’m on it!
If the door was ajar, why did the maintenance workers who called 911 say they couldn’t get inside?
Were they not allowed to go inside?
Sorry, this is really bugging me.
As is this whole $5 million ticket to immigrate to the United States. What is that about? I agree that the poem “The New Colossus” is aspirational and not law, but I don’t think that we should put a price on the American Dream so high that only the super rich can afford it. This type of thing only gives fodder to Trump’s critics that he’s only for the wealthy and not the poor.
If the administration is trying to do real work at restoring trust in government and eliminating fraud, waste and abuse, putting a high-priced dollar amount on immigration may not be the way to do it. It reminds me of the so-called Trump Bible. I get that he’s a businessman. Not everything has to be monetized.
When I was a young teenager, I developed a self-deprecating sense of humor, probably as a coping mechanism for dealing with my parents’ divorce and the aftermath of a couple of subsequent significant traumas. By the time I was in college, I injected this humor into my papers until a wise professor cautioned me, “It’s almost as if you don’t want to be taken seriously.”
It’s almost as if this administration doesn’t want to be taken seriously.
There is important work to be done here. Stop trolling, stop your supporters in Congress from introducing ridiculous time-consuming bills that are not geared toward helping the American people and don’t put a price tag on American citizenship!
From Fortune:
The gold card would replace America’s existing EB-5 visa program, which requires foreign investors to pledge $1,050,000 in capital to an existing commercial enterprise plus an additional $800,000 for targeted areas of employment.
This appears to merely increase the value that needs to be invested, and put it against the debt, rather than what may be a dubious business enterprise.
I see. So this isn’t exactly charging immigrants $5 million, just would be investors?
I wonder what happened to the money the old program brought in?
<Looking sideways in Hunter Biden’s direction>
AM Golden wrote, “If the door was ajar, why did the maintenance workers who called 911 say they couldn’t get inside? Were they not allowed to go inside? Sorry, this is really bugging me.”
It bugs me too. I’m attributing this one to early reporting of unverified facts. I’m sure we’ll know more about that at confusing “fact” a later date.
AM Golden wrote, “As is this whole $5 million ticket to immigrate to the United States. What is that about?”
After seeing Trump’s tactics over the years it’s been really clear to me that Trump wants more investment in the USA to expand the job market here; therefore, it’s my personal opinion is that Trump is likely trying to get wealthy foreign individuals to rapidly immigrate to the USA so they will bring their dollars with them and invest them in the USA. Maybe this would inspire what I mentioned, but politically it’s another statement by Trump that the Trump deranged will spin into a major political negative.
“When I was a young teenager, I developed a self-deprecating sense of humor, probably as a coping mechanism for dealing with my parents’ divorce and the aftermath of a couple of subsequent significant traumas.”
Or you’re a Southern Baptist.
Actually, no. But I know exactly what you mean.
Something has been really bothering me for the last 15+ years about illegal immigration.
Why Have We Spent Our Tax Dollars On Illegal Immigrants? Seriously, Why?!
In my opinion, I think the outright enabling done by the political left to encourage illegal immigration into the United States of America with financial incentives is beyond unethical. I think the skimming and diverting of dollars from tax payers for this purpose can’t possibly be “legal”.
DOGe is clawing back the at the top soil and digging deep to reveal the massive spending abuse that’s been intentionally hidden from “we the people”, and the Democrats are scared to death because they know good an well that this is going leave their ideological tactics, figuratively, naked in the streets.
GO DOGe, GO!!!
I want DOGe to give “we the people” a reasonably accurate dollar figure that totals all the federal tax dollars that has been spent to support and enable illegal immigration over the last 4 years. I’d really like to know how much has been spend over the last 15+ years but that’s probably unreasonable to ask for.
IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn leaked Trump’s tax returns, but we’re now learning how much damage he really did – Washington Examiner
Why is the AUC up in arms over DOGE auditing the federal books when they never made a peep about a Booze Allen twerp downloading information on 400,000 taxpayers and giving it to The New York Times and Pro Publica? They hypocrisy is simply breathtaking. Do they really think only elected people can work for the government? Do they hear how ridiculous they sound?
Looks like Zelensky may have stepped on the rake:
https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/02/28/breaking-after-fiery-oval-office-exchange-trump-sends-zelensky-packing-n2186127?utm_source=breakingemail&utm_medium=email
Guess he assumed Trump would be as weak as Biden. Hope he has time to come crawling back.
That was 100% all around embarrassing for all involved.
What right wing folks who think a withdrawal of US support will cause Ukraine to surrender is they are oblivious to the history of Ukraine. Ukraine has suffered genocides thrice at the hands of the Russians. They do not want to go back. While it is true they are rounding up some males, there are many others who don’t have to be coerced into fighting. They were ready to go guerilla warfare if needed, but they really won’t because Europe won’t let that happen. The US involvement in Vietnam and both the Soviet and US misadventures in Afghanistan demonstrate the power of a strong resistance by the populace. Many in Europe know they’re next if Russia wins, so support from the rest of Europe is strong.
My only question is if the US will force the cutoff of US weapon sales paid for by Europe. That would be really stupid on our part, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump cuts it off for spite since Zelinski isn’t bowing down to Trump’s pressure.
Russia pretty much is not holding back. Other than taking things nuclear, they have few options left. But Ukraine is holding back in one major way: they’re leaving Russia’s oil export infrastructure intact. They’re not going after Russia’s export terminals, and Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to hit deep into Russia. Oil terminals are VERY soft. The only reason they’re not hitting the terminals is the US is asking them to not do so. Cut US support and that’s very likely to be Ukraine’s next step.
Puzzling analysis. A nation that wants critical aid from a more powerful ally has to “bow down,” or at least behave like the supplicant that it is. Zelensky’s conduct was completely unacceptable, and Trump’s response was spot on. Ukraine has no cards. He doesn’t get to tell the US that it needs to be in fear of Russia. If Churchill had told FDR that he had no choice but to support GB, FDR would have told him to eat crumpets.
What do you think of them having the argument on camera? My knee-jerk reaction was that this conversation should’ve happened behind closed doors, but I was surprised at how many positive comments there were on the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqOOOR7Kr-s
I’m hoping you’ll do a deep dive on it later.
Zelenskyy started the argument by disagreeing with Vance, on camera, at what was supposed to be a standard press conference. Once he criticized more broadly US support, he had consented to the televised exchange, and Trump could not pull the cameras without seeming weak or intimidated.
Zelensky was demanding we puts US boots on the ground. Zelensky was not satisfied with the security of having US non military personnel in his country to develop the minerals deal while Germany and France stand ready to dissuade Putin aggression. If his people want to fight to the last man or woman let him. Trump is trying to deescalate the conflict to prevent the creation of a Sino-Russian alliance. Russia already has NoKo soldiers fighting there.
To those who believe Zelensky is the defender/leader of the free world I would ask if they are willing for us to get into a long protracted ground war or a quick nuclear confrontation.
I believe that Zelensky was trying to use the anti-Putin sentiment that has been pushed here since 2016 against Trump to his advantage by challenging him in such a public forum. Trump knows that the entire Trump is a Russian asset began in Ukraine and his first impeachment was directly tied to his call to Zelensky who did not dismiss the notion that it was a qui pro quo deal to attack Biden. Trump will not be fooled twice.
Indeed. One of my favorite moments from “Darkest Hour” was when Churchill (Gary Oldman) dives into a bathroom to haggle with FDR about how the Neutrality Act won’t let him use U.S. resources to deliver the old planes they were selling the English. Churchill balks that the planes belong to the English now, “We paid for them…with the money you lent us.”
A Gene Hackman spot courtesy of Ann Althouse:
It can be watched on youtube. Just click on Watch on YouTube.
This is a question for the lawyerly types here. It is in regard to the birthright citizenship issue, particularly this part.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
What makes a person “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,. . . “
How does one become subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
If “Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court or other official body to hear and decide cases and administer justice. It encompasses the geographical area or subject matter over which a court has authority” where does the legal authority over an infant begin and why?
I ask this because I believe every state has established a minimum age at which a child can be brought before the court for behaviors the child has exhibited that violate prescribed laws. For example: a two year old that picks up a handgun and shoots his brother cannot be prosecuted due to age. If a child under a certain age cannot be prosecuted because laws prevent such prosecution then how is the child subject to any state or national jurisdiction?
The closest argument that I can come up with is child protective services but those services are available to all children irrespective of citizenship or location of birth. Moreover, any sanction imposed would inure to the custodial adult. The child is a mere object a state agency is created to protect and is no different than other agencies created to protect domesticated and wild animals. Even if a sanction were imposed on the animal it was done to protect a human and there is little to no due process afforded to animals subject to euthanasia. So the parallels to CPS seem a stretch.
Subject to the jurisdiction creates a narrow exception for the children of diplomats. They are legally present in the US, but immune from its jurisdiction (in the event of criminality, the family member is either prosecuted by their home country or is expelt from the US).
Thus, if a diplomatic family gives birth in the United States, the child would not normally get citizenship (thus avoiding a conflict of interest for the diplomat).
Virtually any other circumstances, the mother giving birth and the child this born would be subject to US jurisdiction.
There may have been
“There may have been…” Did you mean to finish that?
Rich,
I understand all of that. However, contemporaneous explanations from the originators of the language don’t seem to limit this to simply diplomats and their family members. Maybe I should be asking why if it was meant to only mean diplomats why did they haggle over the language and not just say diplomats. Are there any other situations in which a child born here and not to a diplomat not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
You said “They are legally present in the US, but immune from its jurisdiction”. My issue was that if a child under a certain age cannot be prosecuted for a crime how is that child subject to the the nation or state’s jurisdiction.
Does anyone here play with the Grok AI on TwitteX?
It has its own new symbol, a black hole/Saturn sort of icon at the top right of any tweet (should we call them tweeX now?) that will give you the AI’s view/explanation of a post or comment. Sometimes it’s very accurate; others it has missed the point or some other relevant information. Oddly, it often catches satire.
Interestingly, you can interact with and correct it, and it seems to learn. It appears to be “friendly”, and will use responses like “You’re absolutely correct…”, and revise its answer/information if that’s warranted. Sometimes it will resist but further explain its position.
I don’t know if, or how much, to fear that humans will turn to machines for companionship rather than other humans.
And apropos of nothing, other than the immigration topic pops up often here, a joke:
Customer in a book store: Do you have Trump’s book on how to get rid of illegals?
Clerk: What? Get the f**k out, and don’t come back!
Customer: Yeah, that’s the one. Do you have it in paperback?