Actually, it’s dumb jokes that are the mortal enemy of humor. I think that that’s what you were trying to say, so I’ll give it a pass, but next time, do better.
As for click polls, the site The Hill has them on every article & it's not the poll itself that ridiculous, but the bizarre correlations they have on the results.
So they will publish the results & then it says at the bottom, "People who answered 'NO' are more likely to be fans of the WNBA."
or "People who said they prefer 'NO ONIONS' on their burgers also tend to be drivers of sports cars"
I have no idea where this ludicrous bullshit comes from, but it certainly is never scientific, because I'm never a member of any group that correlates with what I clicked on in their polls. And I only click on their stupid polls to see those utterly idiotic correlations they draw!
As I couldn't remember any of their absurd correlations when i wrote that, I just made them up. But many of them relate to people that prefer gardening, watch certain sports, watch Fox [alleged] News & a few other totally absurd things, that simply don't make sense.
I just can't figure out where such idiotic stats come from!
I answered "Fun, but useless" to the click poll click poll. I'm usually curious to see how common my opinion is among PS readers, but the sample is not nearly random enough to have any real meaning. It's like, "I polled my parents on whether they deem their only child successful, intelligent, and helpful and a whopping 50% said they do!"
The science aspect of polls is making in inference about a broader population than the poll respondents. In this case you are making an inference about opinions of PS readers. I do the same and I think it is useful, even if it is flawed. An example was a poll about use of profanity in print media. I was surprised at the proportion of people who wanted it edited out. It was higher than I expected. That is good to know as I am a regular commenter.
It seems to me that the legalization of selling fireworks in Illinois is inevitable. It will join other members of the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" socially, physically and economically harmful (but acceptible) norms like cannabis sales and gambling by which governmental units can make money through taxation regardless of how much damage to blown up fingers, family finances or lungs is caused.
It's an argument that I have never liked. It's based on the assumption that the majority is always right or that's It's okay if everyone is doing it anyway. I always use the example that we might as do away with laws against murder or drunk driving since so many are doing it anyway. Fireworks are just fine when they are used to celebrate. They are not so great when they are thrown at other people or used to blow things up. I am personally not excited by things that create a lot of unnecessary noise, smoke, and garbage. I'm still waiting for my landlord to clean up the mess in the parking lot from the selfish slobs that live here and kept me up half the night. The Fourth can be celebrated just fine by picnics and parades, and flag waving- no matter what Mr. Adams said.
Not to be too morose but when reading the debate, I joked to my wife that if fireworks were legalized, hospital ERs should have a tough looking security guard at the door. When someone tries to come in with a hand missing, the guard should just shake his head NO and point the guy back to the parking lot.
I'm not sure what the cost-benefit analysis on legalizing these 3 things would show, but i do think taking marijuana sale and use out of the law enforcement/incarceration equation is a good thing. I did (do) agree with William F Buckley that the "war on drugs" has been an expensive failure. Narcotic use should be decriminalized and sales and manufacturing should be government controlled, perhaps like state liquor stores. Without access to the American market, cartels would collapse.
More people might do drugs? Perhaps, but deaths by gangs might go down? Whatever we are doing now isn't working too well.
PS: most of us Boomers partake of gummies, so our lungs are fine
I am fine with that, with some caveats. First, government and producers/suppliers should be prohibited from promotion. We don't need a marketing driven increase in consumption. Ideally, there would be a continued societal stigma greater than what exists related to smoking and public drunkenness. Second, the costs of dealing with the health and economic effects need to fall on the users through consumption and production taxes. Third, the law needs to allow the involuntary commitment of users to treatment facilities. I don't want public or private spaces taken over by addled or indigent users. Similarly, I don't want dispensaries in residential or general-purpose retail areas.
After 27 years in law enforcement, I can tell you without doubt that the war on drugs is a failure and that many of the people incarcerated or convicted of drug possession and use need treatment, not bars. But not the importers and distributors, they need to be criminalized.
We all also probably know that the plentitude of weed stores has not by any means stopped the illegal weed game. Bale after bale still comes in and is sold on street corners. And legalizing coke and heroin wouldn't stop anything either. I also believe that the government coffer filling taxation of cannabis has brought people into use of those products where the illegality of same kept people (like many gummie using boomers) from use.
As to cartels collapsing without the American market? Such a thing would temporarily hurt them, but Americans aren't the only people buying and using hard drugs.
As to cost benefit analysis, as stated here by others, the medical costs of using fireworks as purchased at Kaplan's and other places is probably astronomical and what gambling does to gamblers and their families and society can be easily accessed in a google search. Go to a casino or to your local gas station and see who's there and get a sense of the desperation as they chase money they've lost and will never get back. While their children wear other people's clothes. (Apologies to John Prine)
I'll give you that cannabis use should not be a criminal offense, it's probably less harmful than booze and tobacco which is taxed like crazy while tens of thousands are killed by both every year. So, why not add fireworks to the list?
After 50 years of equestrian activity, horses have done far more damage to my body than drugs, alcohol, gambling, caffeine or sugar. The medical cost of injuries from riding horses I would imagine is higher than that of fireworks. Do we ban equestrian sports, football, hockey, sky diving? If we use medical cost as an argument to ban an activity, then you better start going with Rahm's brother and ban old age, because that shit's expensive.
I think that all of the activities that you mention have safety in mind in that there's training for riding horses, equipment for sports and plenty of training and guidelines for sky diving. Coaches need certification, sky diving companies are subject to licensing and inspections and concussion guidelines in most every sport. And all of these things are taken upon by individuals who know the risks and are willing to take part regardless of that risk. The people who have the on the street fireworks displays have no training, no idea of safety precautions and put themselves and others in danger. I don't think it should be controlled over medical treatment costs but because goofs need to be protected from them selves.
I was too lazy to look at injuries, but on average fireworks result in about 10 deaths per year, horse riding about 79-100, skydiving 20, football 16 and bikes ( not involved in vehicle collisions) 440. I was also too lazy to look at per capita numbers, but fireworks seem to get disapprobation out of proportion to their risk. Btw, plenty of people who ride horses are untrained goofs.
I had the idea years ago to take confiscated hard drugs, render them safe enough they won't kill you outright, then let users have them for free. Make them sign a waiver accepting all responsibility for any adverse effects they experience, and make them consume the product on-site under medical supervision, but otherwise let them make their own bad choices.
I am concerned about the use of THC-based drugs by the public when driving or operating other heavy equipment. There are no reliable breathalyzer-equivalent tests to accurately test how impaired a THC user is. Given how much pot I smell in the mornings in the City, I can only imagine how many high drivers there are out there who indulge thinking (with good reason) that they almost never be busted for "high driving".
I've become annoyed by the abundance of click polls on so many of my substack subscriptions. My guess is that responding to a click poll is some measure of "user engagement" which works out to the author's advantage in the substack environment. I used to always respond. Now I seldom do.
"Do better" is at once a direct order and a judgmental call with a likelihood to be well received as any barked two-word insult. A better use of "better" when trying to convey disappointment with anther's actions would be "you're better than that." It ameliorates the put down by disguising it as a compliment, and is used effectively by baseball managers to get their point across to umpires without getting thrown out of the game, such as "c'mon blue, you've been missing that call all day -- you're better than that."
I agree that "do better" carries a bit of a judgement with it and even "you're better than that" expresses a dose of disappointment. Both are somewhat antagonistic. A very polite way to put it maybe would be "that wasn't as good as it could have been, would you like to try again?" or, if it's regarding an opinion "Given x, y, and z, I wish you would reconsider"
Most of the time, you can simply let other people say what they want to say and let it go. If it really bothers you, you can say that you disagree although that can open you up to an argument. Being an umpire, I liked the example of the person who talked about saying that to umpires. I’ll expand on that. I’ve spent many years being disagreed with. Does it automatically mean that I’m wrong? I have been on occasion. But it’s not automatic. Let’s remember the person saying it is also biased in favor of his team. I’ve yet to hear someone yell at me for a call that benefitted his team. So it’s not always about an honest evaluation of my umpire skills. What if when debating with someone, you are both right, always a possibility? How open-minded are the two people discussing the issue? Do better is not necessarily a mortal insult.
It's good news if fireworks injuries have been declining nationally. According to the CPSC, however,
fireworks-related injuries surged in 2024 to an estimated 14,700, up from 9,700 in 2023 – marking a 52% increase, the highest single-year rise since 2020 and the second largest in the past 25 years. During that same period, firework-related deaths rose by 38%, from 8 to 11. This increase coincides with more widespread accessibility.
The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) adopts the position that the importation, sale and use of all consumer fireworks and sparklers at the local, state and federal level should be banned with the exception of authorized public displays by professional licensed operators. This is the only effective means of eliminating the preventable social and economic impact of fireworks-related trauma and damage.
For those who object to a ban, would a minimum age limit be acceptable? How about time-of-day restrictions?
There is some obvious sarcasm in your answer. If an American company really wants to create explosives, let them do it for the military. Guns, alcohol, illegal drugs- we already have too much danger and excitement in our society.
Regarding immigration, there is a new study from the Dallas Fed (the hotbed of liberal propaganda), saying that declining immigration could cost the US GDP between 0.75 to 1 percentage points. Given that The GPD typically grows at about 2-3%, this is a huge number. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2025/0708
Not only are immigrants a large portion of the labor force at the low rungs of many vital industries, they are also a very significant consumer base. They also pay a lot of the same taxes that citizens do without being able to receive most of the benefits. A cheap labor force and a consumer base, just gifted to the country without the cost of raising them, it's any economist's wet dream.
Interesting study! “It states “The CBO projected that 7.3 million…“unauthorized” immigrants entered the US from 2021-2024”. “This dwarfed the prepandemic annual average of about 100,000.” I guess my question is how did “the labor force at the lower rungs of many vital industries” cope prior to 2021? The study makes many assumptions like “a mass-deportation scenario in which the number of people removed from the country annually rises to 1 million by year-end 2027.”
It then says: “Given these caveats, readers should be aware of the uncertainty around our estimates, especially regarding immigration’s effects on GDP growth”.
I hate to use fear as a motivator, but I think the fear of deportation is what basically halted the flow of unauthorized immigrants practically overnight. Let our immigration policies work or try to get them changed if you oppose them. My fear would be that no deportation and a path to citizenship for these 7.3 million would just motivate the next 7.3 million…
What harm have these 7.3 million caused an what harm would the next 7.3 million cause? With the population aging and birth rates plunging, you can just look at Japan to see how well xenophobia and isolationism bode for the economy.
Obviously I don't have the power to change the existing policy beyond voting accordingly, but it is every citizen's right to criticize it.
Our immigration policy lets in 1 million permanent immigrants per year and another 2 million temporary immigrants. (Student, work and family visas).
What harm have these 7.9 million caused? Just type in “negative effects of illegal immigration into AI. I’ll just list a few that come up. Strain on public resources, wage depression, fiscal impact of government assistance, family separation , community strain, waste and pollution, damage to public lands, increased crime, health risks and exploitation of workers and children.
You appear to be an open borders guy. Why stop at 7 million? What harm would another 100 million be?
I am not an open borders guy, I am for a sensible immigration policy that lets in law-abiding people seeking a better life for themselves and their families, who will be productive members of our society. These immigrants should be vetted and documented. This is how our country worked for many decades - people showed up at Ellis island, checked for TB, documented, and let in.
AI can also list the positive effects of immigration, which in my opinion greatly outweigh the negative ones, especially if moderated by accommodating policies:
1. **Economic Contributions:** Illegal immigrants often fill labor shortages in industries like agriculture, construction, and hospitality, supporting economic growth.
2. **Cultural Diversity:** They contribute to cultural richness and diversity, which can foster innovation and social dynamism.
3. **Remittances:** Many send money back home, supporting families and economies in their countries of origin.
4. **Entrepreneurship:** Some illegal immigrants start businesses, creating jobs and economic activity.
David, if you ask AI to give you a list of negative effects of illegal immigration, it will give you a list of negative effects of illegal immigration. If you substitute "negative" with "positive," it will give you list of positive effects, including labor, economic growth, demographic support (i.e., offsetting an aging population and a falling birthrate that is already well below replacement, though immigration is actually too small-scale to make up for it in the long run anyway), tax revenue, entrepreneurship, cultural contributions, and humanitarian and ethical considerations.
There's truth to some of the negatives you cite, but they are often exaggerated and offset by the positives. For example, it is true that public schools must educate the children of undocumented people, which can strain a system, particularly amid a rapid local increase. On the other hand, even as illegal immigrants pay taxes, they are not eligible for most forms of public assistance.
For another example, more people, whatever their origin, will always equate to more crime in absolute numbers, all else equal. The important issue is whether illegal immigrants commit crimes at *disproportionate* rates. The answer is no (not counting, of course, the misdemeanor of entering the country illegally in the first place).
This, from the respected liberal Brennan Center for Justice, rounds up a lot of the research:
This, from the respected libertarian think tank Cato, focuses particularly on illegal immigrants, noting at the outset:
"The evidence is overwhelming that immigrants in the United States have had a lower crime rate than native-born Americans since at least the 19th century. When people learn that fact, they aren’t surprised that legal immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans, but they are surprised that it’s also true for illegal immigrants."
Hein de Haas, a Dutch sociologist, is the founding member of the International Migration Institute at Oxford and wrote a 2023 book called "How Migration Really Works." You'd be hard pressed to find a more serious, academic, and comprehensive treatment of the subject in one volume. He looks at migration all around the world, but discussion of the U.S. experience is frequent. He busts myths on both sides of the issue. For example, he disputes the ideas that we are experiencing a global "refugee crisis" ("Refugee numbers are relatively small"); that most migrants are desperately fleeing abject Third-World misery at home as opposed to rationally seeking better opportunities (the desperately poor are not the ones who migrate, generally), and that there is a climate-induced migration crisis. Even as he counters these progressive narratives, he lays into many conservative ones as well, including the criminal immigrant narrative, pointing to study after study linking immigration to *lower* crime rates. Section titles from this chapter include: "In general, immigration lowers crime"; "Hard-working, conservative and community-oriented"; "Illegal immigrants have the lowest crime rates."
I don't believe in a chaotic open-border system. I'm not sure anyone does. The Economist this week is making me wonder if a major re-work of the asylum system is likewise warranted.
But we should recognize that the overwhelming factor driving both legal and illegal immigration to the U.S., and everywhere else too, is the draw, the jobs, the opportunities, the labor demand. This is why people come, why, indeed, they are *rational* to come despite the risks. We should welcome and authorize immigrants to meet that demand.
If there's no work, there's no money for remittences or to live and nobody comes, or they go home. What that means is that if you want to deport lots and lots of undocumented immigrants, you lose a lot of labor, which will increase prices and lower growth. Why doesn't Trump crack down on employers who are knowingly hiring unauthorized workers at a massive scale? This could in theory lead to massive and relatively orderly self-deportation as the jobs dry up. Because it would be too effective and thus disastrous for the economy. Far better to look busy to your nativist base by inflicting random cruelty.
When you ask people, most will say they don't want to deport nice, law-abiding members of their community. Go after the criminals, they say. Except there aren't many of those. So, what happens when you go through that list? Go after the people who show up to appointments with immigration authorities, thinking they're doing the right thing, and all the other deceptive, haphazard, and cruel tactics (including separating families) that create a climate of fear even among people here legally on visas.
"I don't believe in a chaotic open-border system."
Mark just asked "What harm have these 7.3 million caused an(d) what harm would the next 7.3 million cause?" I used AI to answer that question for him. I think examples of each answer exists.
If he would have asked "What good have these 7.3 million caused...?" I would have given him AI's answer for that. And examples of each of those exist.
However, the analysis did not include any accounting for the significant increase in government aid and support spending for this 'surge' group of immigrants. This CBO report estimates that the increased spending at just the state and local level is nearly double the increase in tax revenue. Since government spending is included in GDP, this seems relevant.
Illinois and Chicago spent over $2 billion on services for the surge group last year and Illinois has included over $1 billion in the current budget, even after reducing some of the medical insurance spending. Chicago included nearly $500 million.
Also, the Fed report states that the majority of the GDP effect related to the surge is due to residential investment. So, it is likely being funded almost entirely by federal, state, and local spending. At least that is what happened here.
Finally, I couldn't figure out what they claimed the effect was on 2021-24 GDP. Were they claiming that the 2021-2024 GDP growth would have been lower without the surge? Because the data shows that the annual GDP growth (without Covid effects) has been pretty constant since 2013. There was no 2023-24 GDP spike to go with the surge.
What are you saying Marc Martinez? That we shouldn’t help desperate people who come here to live a better life? Like it or not, all humans on this small planet are in this together. You cannot shut down the border and contribute nothing to the improvement of the planet and of life for other human beings. It will catch up to you eventually. We seem to have forgotten President John F. Kennedy’s words: “So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.”
Try reading Thomas Piketty's Capital n the 21st Century, where he strongly credits America's tremendous economic growth (from the very beginnings of the country to relatively recent times) in a large part to immigration.
I really don't care about ICE statistics. I believe them to be as reliable as most things told us by the administration of the orange stain. Even if I believed them, the tactics used can't be justified. People going to courthouses to do what they were told to do by the government need to worry about being arrested and deported? The arguments by David about farmworkers are inane. Why does the think all the foreigners were used in the fist place? Are all growers dishonest crooks looking to take advantage of desperate workers? Wages are not being depressed for American workers. There are no long lines of Americans lined up to pick vegetables. I live in farm country. The paper used to run ads looking for people, especially teens, to do temporary summer work in the fields, such as shucking corn. They don't bother any more as no one was signing up. We have a Del Monte canning factory. When I formerly drove for the public bus company, there were several white workers that used to complain that they felt like foreigners because they were the only ones there speaking English. Do you think the company was doing this solely because they could pay Spanish speakers less? Or did it have anything to do with the local white population looking down on messy, smelly, physically taxing jobs? By the way, has anyone considered what would happen to the price of groceries if farmworkers were actually paid fairly?
That reminds about how it was in the USSR. Students and young white collar workers would routinely be bussed from cities out to collective farms at harvest time "for potatoes", which could actually be any crop. I myself experienced it around age 12-13, when our class was sent to gather sugar beets. I actually kind of enjoyed the break and being outside playing in the dirt! Then one summer a couple years later I went to a camp in southern Ukraine for about a month, this time voluntarily, we gathered tomatoes, bell peppers, and watermelons. Our reward for the watermelon duty was a small truck full of them dumped in the middle of the camp ground for us to gorge on. I also got paid, 100 rubles, enough to buy a fancy calculator!
Yes, many if not most Americans look down on low-wage, physically demanding and/or undesirable jobs. Growing up, if I was goofing off instead of doing my homework, my mother would ask if I wanted to spend my life digging ditches. I eventually started responding that ditch-diggers actually make good money, which would get me a slap upside the head.
And it's not a coincidence that fixing the broken system to allow migrant workers to come here legally never seems to get done, even though it always seems to be a talking point during election season. Plenty of farmers are perfectly happy to not only have cheap labor, but laborers they can bully around and threaten to have deported if they stand up for themselves.
In my opinion, the answer is not to target the workers who are here doing work we don't want to do for ourselves, often for much less money than we would accept for any job. To me, that's like prosecuting victims of sex trafficking for prostitution while doing nothing to the people exploiting them. It won't stop further exploitation, just make it more likely those being abused will keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
As much as anything, we need to fix stereotypes and the false narratives being spread. There are estimates of as many as 20 million illegal immigrants from south of the border. Listening to MAGAs, you would think that there should be 20 million serious felonies being committed. Yes, I’m aware that the mere act of crossing without going through the process is itself criminal. But I am less worried about them than I am by the danger I see around me every day. I could be a victim of the next school shooting by a teen pissed off at the world or looking for celebrity status. On my rare trips to the city, I keep my eyes open for potential carjackers looking to take me car and possibly shoot me. I am a lot more worried about our homegrown problems than I am about poor people escaping poverty and crime in their home countries. There is also a lot of hypocrisy involved. In this very forum we are debating the taking of jobs for Americans and depression of wages. I thought they were all freeloaders coming here merely to have American babies and access our welfare benefits.
Well all the MAGAts believe that crossing without authorization is a CRIME. BUT it is a civil offense. It is more like jaywalking than bank robbing. -
Some years back the New Yorker did a deep dive into the Alabama experiment with only hiring people who had e-verify status. No citizen was willing to work in the farms even when paid more.
My 89-year-old father would strongly affirm that living a long time is not for the faint of heart, so living forever would be awful. He frequently points out that most of his friends are dead as are all seven of his siblings and his wife. He feels he has mostly outlived his money, having been retired almost a third of his life at this point. He doesn't want to die but but often wonders why the hell he is still here. Aside from macular degeneration leaving him nearly blind, he is pretty darn healthy and his mind still good. He expresses that he is just kind of tired of life - not enough to choose the alternative, but tired nonetheless.
I'm not a fan of polling to begin with. I suppose click polls are "fun" but most of the time I don't respond. It's either I can't agree with any of the offered choices, or the question is not something that concerns me. Since the lack of response can't be measured, they're pretty much useless.
Kind of surprised click polling has garnered more convo than our immigration crisis. Is there a click poll for people who think the ICE stats have any basis in reality at all? And for those who support thugs kidnapping any brown person they choose (including those AT A COURTHOUSE) and then fixing a mistaken identity by charging American citizens with obstruction of justice—I hope you understand that your demographic could be next. Waiting until you or your family is targeted will be too late. I think a click poll for “how far is too far” for ICE may be helpful to learn what—if any—line in the sand the right wing has for current ICE tactics. Wake up!
The right wing isn't interested in any "line in the sand". ICE has become a political tool of the Trump regime, and their targets are any deemed "criminal" in their eyes. Trump is already threatening to revoke the citizenship of whomever he decides are his "enemies".
Of course he also dangles such outrageous statements like catnip for the media to pounce on in order to distract from obvious issues he doesn't want people talking about, like the Epstein files and the obvious lies of various members of his cabinet about them.
I find it amusing that so many believe Trump's threats are mere distraction on his part. But, then, many of these same people didn't believe that the promises he made pre-election would come to pass. We're only six months in, look at the extensive damage caused by Trump's regime so far. They're just getting started.
Oh I take what he says seriously enough. Just because he might throw out one of these horrible comments to distract in the moment doesn't mean he won't try to do it later.
Guys in masks with guns throwing people in vans because of their appearance or because their visas have been revoked without notice (double secret probation anyone?) is not a good look for a country founded on democratic principles and rule of law.
In all this talk about immigration, there is not much conversation about demographic collapse in the West. The only nations replacing their population now are in Africa. We NEED immigrants who pay taxes and into Social Security and Medicare.
After the fall of Roman Britain, the population and economy of the island collapsed. It was boosted again by those darn Anglo-Saxon immigrants, my ancestors. (Then those pesky Normans arrived, enriching the language and giving us Magna Carta)
"Guys in masks with guns...." I am dismayed that this single act alone has not struck a nerve with the American public. Especially the right leaning second amendment loving public. For years I have heard how the second amendment is the only thing that is keeping the government at bay from coming in our homes at night wearing masks and doing whatever it is that they fear the government is going to do.
Agents of law enforcement simply don't cover up their faces or at least I can't remember a time in our history they did. There may well be isolated instances, but it certainly has never been the norm. I had to look up the Elian Gonzalez picture to refresh my memory, the agent was wearing protective clear goggles but no mask. Because this country has never operated like this, I fear going forward it will become the norm at all levels of law enforcement. What is the average citizen to do? If mask gunman come at an individual or group and are not easily identifiable as law enforcement? What happens when someone who is carrying a legally concealed firearm defends themselves?
To be deprive of one's liberty there is a due process which includes facing your accuser and the right to defend yourself. With the agents hiding their identity this makes it nearly impossible unless we are just to take it on blind faith that everything is and will be on the up and up. I am not a blind faith kind of guy.
I fear the day when this practice works its way to other levels of law enforcement.
They only really care if the government does these things to them, not if some anonymous brown-skinned person from Central America is affected.
I can remember plenty of outrage by the wingnuts over LEO "trampling" their rights, such as Ruby Ridge in 1992 or the Cliven Bundy standoff in 2014, just to name two incidents.
While there have been some egregious cases where local law enforcement covered a name tag or badge, we were expressly prohibited from doing so. If you're doing something illegal or untoward like robbing a bank that's when you cover up. Or if you're doing something you're ashamed of.
The government has no trouble defending this. They are putting their lives on the line due to dangerous Democrats and other wackos. So they must protect themselves by hiding their identities. Personally, I believe they are hiding in shame from acting like Nazi brownshirts.
See this article in Today's Intercept - not only are ICE law enforcement personnel hiding their identities, but ICE Judges - who are appointed by the Executive branch and are not part of the Judicial branch - are allowing attorneys representing ICE (i.e. the Trump administration) to refrain from identifying themselves on the record in the deportation hearings. How effed up is that?
I confess utter confusion about the 'tipping for the drive-thru' idea. So you tip at the drive-thru Starbucks or McDonald's but not inside? Do you tip at the drive-thru Walgreens or Osco pharmacy but wouldn't tip inside? Can someone explain what I'm missing that drive-thru service is different and warrants a tip?
I think we discussed here or at the old Change of Subject that we as a nation should figure out what is age-appropriate, e.g., voting, driving, consuming alcohol, etc.
we probably need to sit down and decide what services merit a tip and which ones don't. I'm certain there will be no disagreement whatsoever.
I’m too lazy to post a link, but google “Reservoir Dogs tipping scene” and you’ll find that Mr. Pink summarizes the mystification of this matter perfectly.
I kind of assumed that the person that said that meant that they only use the drive-thrus, but if they ever went inside, they’d tip there as well, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe they place higher value on the drive thru workers since they’re helping spare the commenter the ordeal of having to park their car and walk forty feet to place their order. This is an increasingly prevalent trait in our slothful and sedentary civilization.
Amazing to me that "do better" rankles people when there are so many other more annoying expressions and usages far more worth getting rankled over: (1) saying "amount of" when you mean "number of" (it's "number of peanuts" but "amount of peanut butter"); (2) using "lay" as the present tense, as in "I think I'll go lay down for a while" (it's "lie"); (3) using "fraught" without the necessary accompanying "with," as in "the issue is fraught." I could go to war over any of those -- and there are plenty more. "Do better," in contrast, wouldn't warrant even a mild skirmish.
You're leaving out my favorite. I spent most of my life not using or even hearing disrespect used as a verb. Now the really lazy spend their time "dissing" people.
That’s not the first time I’ve had that said about me. It’s still been a rarity for me to hear that until it became a part of ghetto slang and then came into common usage. 1614? I must be older than I thought.
With the exponential rate of medical miracles being discovered right now by AI, I believe we will all be able to live long healthy lives (100+) - first the rich, then the rest of us. The longevity research right now is incredible and is already finding signficant advances in treating our most intractable diseases. I'm optimistic that we are on the cusp of a new way, and age, of living. Ultimately, this should also save healthcare dollars as most of the money spent on medicare is to treat diseases of aging.
Literal mindedness is the mortal enemy of humor.
Actually, it’s dumb jokes that are the mortal enemy of humor. I think that that’s what you were trying to say, so I’ll give it a pass, but next time, do better.
What I was 'trying to say' was what I said.
Discourse would be greatly improved if participants refrained from the trumpian practice of stating their opinions as if they were immutable facts.
You're lying!(LOL) That's what's Trumpian.
As for click polls, the site The Hill has them on every article & it's not the poll itself that ridiculous, but the bizarre correlations they have on the results.
So they will publish the results & then it says at the bottom, "People who answered 'NO' are more likely to be fans of the WNBA."
or "People who said they prefer 'NO ONIONS' on their burgers also tend to be drivers of sports cars"
I have no idea where this ludicrous bullshit comes from, but it certainly is never scientific, because I'm never a member of any group that correlates with what I clicked on in their polls. And I only click on their stupid polls to see those utterly idiotic correlations they draw!
That’s how they get you to click on the poll!
I got a laugh out of one of your comments. I am not much of an onion eater and my 2015 Corolla is definitely not a sports car.
As I couldn't remember any of their absurd correlations when i wrote that, I just made them up. But many of them relate to people that prefer gardening, watch certain sports, watch Fox [alleged] News & a few other totally absurd things, that simply don't make sense.
I just can't figure out where such idiotic stats come from!
I answered "Fun, but useless" to the click poll click poll. I'm usually curious to see how common my opinion is among PS readers, but the sample is not nearly random enough to have any real meaning. It's like, "I polled my parents on whether they deem their only child successful, intelligent, and helpful and a whopping 50% said they do!"
That’s like the joke about the only child who came in third as their parents’ favorite.
when one of my two kids asks who my favorite child is, I answer the cat's name.
The science aspect of polls is making in inference about a broader population than the poll respondents. In this case you are making an inference about opinions of PS readers. I do the same and I think it is useful, even if it is flawed. An example was a poll about use of profanity in print media. I was surprised at the proportion of people who wanted it edited out. It was higher than I expected. That is good to know as I am a regular commenter.
And fun, as I am frequently surprised at the results.
It seems to me that the legalization of selling fireworks in Illinois is inevitable. It will join other members of the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" socially, physically and economically harmful (but acceptible) norms like cannabis sales and gambling by which governmental units can make money through taxation regardless of how much damage to blown up fingers, family finances or lungs is caused.
It's an argument that I have never liked. It's based on the assumption that the majority is always right or that's It's okay if everyone is doing it anyway. I always use the example that we might as do away with laws against murder or drunk driving since so many are doing it anyway. Fireworks are just fine when they are used to celebrate. They are not so great when they are thrown at other people or used to blow things up. I am personally not excited by things that create a lot of unnecessary noise, smoke, and garbage. I'm still waiting for my landlord to clean up the mess in the parking lot from the selfish slobs that live here and kept me up half the night. The Fourth can be celebrated just fine by picnics and parades, and flag waving- no matter what Mr. Adams said.
I honestly don't care how many idiots blow off their fingers & lose an eye. Let Darwin win!
Interesting though that injuries have gone down since the liberalization of fireworks purchasing laws.
Not to be too morose but when reading the debate, I joked to my wife that if fireworks were legalized, hospital ERs should have a tough looking security guard at the door. When someone tries to come in with a hand missing, the guard should just shake his head NO and point the guy back to the parking lot.
I'm not sure what the cost-benefit analysis on legalizing these 3 things would show, but i do think taking marijuana sale and use out of the law enforcement/incarceration equation is a good thing. I did (do) agree with William F Buckley that the "war on drugs" has been an expensive failure. Narcotic use should be decriminalized and sales and manufacturing should be government controlled, perhaps like state liquor stores. Without access to the American market, cartels would collapse.
More people might do drugs? Perhaps, but deaths by gangs might go down? Whatever we are doing now isn't working too well.
PS: most of us Boomers partake of gummies, so our lungs are fine
I agree 100%
I am fine with that, with some caveats. First, government and producers/suppliers should be prohibited from promotion. We don't need a marketing driven increase in consumption. Ideally, there would be a continued societal stigma greater than what exists related to smoking and public drunkenness. Second, the costs of dealing with the health and economic effects need to fall on the users through consumption and production taxes. Third, the law needs to allow the involuntary commitment of users to treatment facilities. I don't want public or private spaces taken over by addled or indigent users. Similarly, I don't want dispensaries in residential or general-purpose retail areas.
After 27 years in law enforcement, I can tell you without doubt that the war on drugs is a failure and that many of the people incarcerated or convicted of drug possession and use need treatment, not bars. But not the importers and distributors, they need to be criminalized.
We all also probably know that the plentitude of weed stores has not by any means stopped the illegal weed game. Bale after bale still comes in and is sold on street corners. And legalizing coke and heroin wouldn't stop anything either. I also believe that the government coffer filling taxation of cannabis has brought people into use of those products where the illegality of same kept people (like many gummie using boomers) from use.
As to cartels collapsing without the American market? Such a thing would temporarily hurt them, but Americans aren't the only people buying and using hard drugs.
As to cost benefit analysis, as stated here by others, the medical costs of using fireworks as purchased at Kaplan's and other places is probably astronomical and what gambling does to gamblers and their families and society can be easily accessed in a google search. Go to a casino or to your local gas station and see who's there and get a sense of the desperation as they chase money they've lost and will never get back. While their children wear other people's clothes. (Apologies to John Prine)
I'll give you that cannabis use should not be a criminal offense, it's probably less harmful than booze and tobacco which is taxed like crazy while tens of thousands are killed by both every year. So, why not add fireworks to the list?
After 50 years of equestrian activity, horses have done far more damage to my body than drugs, alcohol, gambling, caffeine or sugar. The medical cost of injuries from riding horses I would imagine is higher than that of fireworks. Do we ban equestrian sports, football, hockey, sky diving? If we use medical cost as an argument to ban an activity, then you better start going with Rahm's brother and ban old age, because that shit's expensive.
I think that all of the activities that you mention have safety in mind in that there's training for riding horses, equipment for sports and plenty of training and guidelines for sky diving. Coaches need certification, sky diving companies are subject to licensing and inspections and concussion guidelines in most every sport. And all of these things are taken upon by individuals who know the risks and are willing to take part regardless of that risk. The people who have the on the street fireworks displays have no training, no idea of safety precautions and put themselves and others in danger. I don't think it should be controlled over medical treatment costs but because goofs need to be protected from them selves.
I was too lazy to look at injuries, but on average fireworks result in about 10 deaths per year, horse riding about 79-100, skydiving 20, football 16 and bikes ( not involved in vehicle collisions) 440. I was also too lazy to look at per capita numbers, but fireworks seem to get disapprobation out of proportion to their risk. Btw, plenty of people who ride horses are untrained goofs.
I had the idea years ago to take confiscated hard drugs, render them safe enough they won't kill you outright, then let users have them for free. Make them sign a waiver accepting all responsibility for any adverse effects they experience, and make them consume the product on-site under medical supervision, but otherwise let them make their own bad choices.
I am concerned about the use of THC-based drugs by the public when driving or operating other heavy equipment. There are no reliable breathalyzer-equivalent tests to accurately test how impaired a THC user is. Given how much pot I smell in the mornings in the City, I can only imagine how many high drivers there are out there who indulge thinking (with good reason) that they almost never be busted for "high driving".
I've become annoyed by the abundance of click polls on so many of my substack subscriptions. My guess is that responding to a click poll is some measure of "user engagement" which works out to the author's advantage in the substack environment. I used to always respond. Now I seldom do.
"Do better" is at once a direct order and a judgmental call with a likelihood to be well received as any barked two-word insult. A better use of "better" when trying to convey disappointment with anther's actions would be "you're better than that." It ameliorates the put down by disguising it as a compliment, and is used effectively by baseball managers to get their point across to umpires without getting thrown out of the game, such as "c'mon blue, you've been missing that call all day -- you're better than that."
I agree that "do better" carries a bit of a judgement with it and even "you're better than that" expresses a dose of disappointment. Both are somewhat antagonistic. A very polite way to put it maybe would be "that wasn't as good as it could have been, would you like to try again?" or, if it's regarding an opinion "Given x, y, and z, I wish you would reconsider"
Most of the time, you can simply let other people say what they want to say and let it go. If it really bothers you, you can say that you disagree although that can open you up to an argument. Being an umpire, I liked the example of the person who talked about saying that to umpires. I’ll expand on that. I’ve spent many years being disagreed with. Does it automatically mean that I’m wrong? I have been on occasion. But it’s not automatic. Let’s remember the person saying it is also biased in favor of his team. I’ve yet to hear someone yell at me for a call that benefitted his team. So it’s not always about an honest evaluation of my umpire skills. What if when debating with someone, you are both right, always a possibility? How open-minded are the two people discussing the issue? Do better is not necessarily a mortal insult.
And it probably won’t get you thrown out of a game!😉
Depends on the ump. I’ve worked with some pretty thin-skinned ones.
It's good news if fireworks injuries have been declining nationally. According to the CPSC, however,
fireworks-related injuries surged in 2024 to an estimated 14,700, up from 9,700 in 2023 – marking a 52% increase, the highest single-year rise since 2020 and the second largest in the past 25 years. During that same period, firework-related deaths rose by 38%, from 8 to 11. This increase coincides with more widespread accessibility.
The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) adopts the position that the importation, sale and use of all consumer fireworks and sparklers at the local, state and federal level should be banned with the exception of authorized public displays by professional licensed operators. This is the only effective means of eliminating the preventable social and economic impact of fireworks-related trauma and damage.
For those who object to a ban, would a minimum age limit be acceptable? How about time-of-day restrictions?
I say ban the importation from China & require all consumer fireworks to made in this country.
That will raise the prices & provide a lot of employment, plus a few massive explosions every year when a factory making them blows up!
There is some obvious sarcasm in your answer. If an American company really wants to create explosives, let them do it for the military. Guns, alcohol, illegal drugs- we already have too much danger and excitement in our society.
Regarding immigration, there is a new study from the Dallas Fed (the hotbed of liberal propaganda), saying that declining immigration could cost the US GDP between 0.75 to 1 percentage points. Given that The GPD typically grows at about 2-3%, this is a huge number. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2025/0708
Not only are immigrants a large portion of the labor force at the low rungs of many vital industries, they are also a very significant consumer base. They also pay a lot of the same taxes that citizens do without being able to receive most of the benefits. A cheap labor force and a consumer base, just gifted to the country without the cost of raising them, it's any economist's wet dream.
Interesting study! “It states “The CBO projected that 7.3 million…“unauthorized” immigrants entered the US from 2021-2024”. “This dwarfed the prepandemic annual average of about 100,000.” I guess my question is how did “the labor force at the lower rungs of many vital industries” cope prior to 2021? The study makes many assumptions like “a mass-deportation scenario in which the number of people removed from the country annually rises to 1 million by year-end 2027.”
It then says: “Given these caveats, readers should be aware of the uncertainty around our estimates, especially regarding immigration’s effects on GDP growth”.
I hate to use fear as a motivator, but I think the fear of deportation is what basically halted the flow of unauthorized immigrants practically overnight. Let our immigration policies work or try to get them changed if you oppose them. My fear would be that no deportation and a path to citizenship for these 7.3 million would just motivate the next 7.3 million…
What harm have these 7.3 million caused an what harm would the next 7.3 million cause? With the population aging and birth rates plunging, you can just look at Japan to see how well xenophobia and isolationism bode for the economy.
Obviously I don't have the power to change the existing policy beyond voting accordingly, but it is every citizen's right to criticize it.
Mark, I don’t even know how to respond to that.
Our immigration policy lets in 1 million permanent immigrants per year and another 2 million temporary immigrants. (Student, work and family visas).
What harm have these 7.9 million caused? Just type in “negative effects of illegal immigration into AI. I’ll just list a few that come up. Strain on public resources, wage depression, fiscal impact of government assistance, family separation , community strain, waste and pollution, damage to public lands, increased crime, health risks and exploitation of workers and children.
You appear to be an open borders guy. Why stop at 7 million? What harm would another 100 million be?
I am not an open borders guy, I am for a sensible immigration policy that lets in law-abiding people seeking a better life for themselves and their families, who will be productive members of our society. These immigrants should be vetted and documented. This is how our country worked for many decades - people showed up at Ellis island, checked for TB, documented, and let in.
AI can also list the positive effects of immigration, which in my opinion greatly outweigh the negative ones, especially if moderated by accommodating policies:
1. **Economic Contributions:** Illegal immigrants often fill labor shortages in industries like agriculture, construction, and hospitality, supporting economic growth.
2. **Cultural Diversity:** They contribute to cultural richness and diversity, which can foster innovation and social dynamism.
3. **Remittances:** Many send money back home, supporting families and economies in their countries of origin.
4. **Entrepreneurship:** Some illegal immigrants start businesses, creating jobs and economic activity.
Ok. “Liked” that comment!
"Sensible immigration policy" is very different from: "What harm have these 7.3 million caused an(d) what harm would the next 7.3 million cause?"
David, if you ask AI to give you a list of negative effects of illegal immigration, it will give you a list of negative effects of illegal immigration. If you substitute "negative" with "positive," it will give you list of positive effects, including labor, economic growth, demographic support (i.e., offsetting an aging population and a falling birthrate that is already well below replacement, though immigration is actually too small-scale to make up for it in the long run anyway), tax revenue, entrepreneurship, cultural contributions, and humanitarian and ethical considerations.
There's truth to some of the negatives you cite, but they are often exaggerated and offset by the positives. For example, it is true that public schools must educate the children of undocumented people, which can strain a system, particularly amid a rapid local increase. On the other hand, even as illegal immigrants pay taxes, they are not eligible for most forms of public assistance.
For another example, more people, whatever their origin, will always equate to more crime in absolute numbers, all else equal. The important issue is whether illegal immigrants commit crimes at *disproportionate* rates. The answer is no (not counting, of course, the misdemeanor of entering the country illegally in the first place).
This, from the respected liberal Brennan Center for Justice, rounds up a lot of the research:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/debunking-myth-migrant-crime-wave
This, from the respected libertarian think tank Cato, focuses particularly on illegal immigrants, noting at the outset:
"The evidence is overwhelming that immigrants in the United States have had a lower crime rate than native-born Americans since at least the 19th century. When people learn that fact, they aren’t surprised that legal immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans, but they are surprised that it’s also true for illegal immigrants."
https://www.cato.org/blog/why-do-illegal-immigrants-have-low-crime-rate-twelve-possible-explanations
Hein de Haas, a Dutch sociologist, is the founding member of the International Migration Institute at Oxford and wrote a 2023 book called "How Migration Really Works." You'd be hard pressed to find a more serious, academic, and comprehensive treatment of the subject in one volume. He looks at migration all around the world, but discussion of the U.S. experience is frequent. He busts myths on both sides of the issue. For example, he disputes the ideas that we are experiencing a global "refugee crisis" ("Refugee numbers are relatively small"); that most migrants are desperately fleeing abject Third-World misery at home as opposed to rationally seeking better opportunities (the desperately poor are not the ones who migrate, generally), and that there is a climate-induced migration crisis. Even as he counters these progressive narratives, he lays into many conservative ones as well, including the criminal immigrant narrative, pointing to study after study linking immigration to *lower* crime rates. Section titles from this chapter include: "In general, immigration lowers crime"; "Hard-working, conservative and community-oriented"; "Illegal immigrants have the lowest crime rates."
I don't believe in a chaotic open-border system. I'm not sure anyone does. The Economist this week is making me wonder if a major re-work of the asylum system is likewise warranted.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/07/10/scrap-the-asylum-system-and-build-something-better?giftId=8af535a5-f4b1-4f9e-809c-a541abef5371&utm_campaign=gifted_article
But we should recognize that the overwhelming factor driving both legal and illegal immigration to the U.S., and everywhere else too, is the draw, the jobs, the opportunities, the labor demand. This is why people come, why, indeed, they are *rational* to come despite the risks. We should welcome and authorize immigrants to meet that demand.
If there's no work, there's no money for remittences or to live and nobody comes, or they go home. What that means is that if you want to deport lots and lots of undocumented immigrants, you lose a lot of labor, which will increase prices and lower growth. Why doesn't Trump crack down on employers who are knowingly hiring unauthorized workers at a massive scale? This could in theory lead to massive and relatively orderly self-deportation as the jobs dry up. Because it would be too effective and thus disastrous for the economy. Far better to look busy to your nativist base by inflicting random cruelty.
When you ask people, most will say they don't want to deport nice, law-abiding members of their community. Go after the criminals, they say. Except there aren't many of those. So, what happens when you go through that list? Go after the people who show up to appointments with immigration authorities, thinking they're doing the right thing, and all the other deceptive, haphazard, and cruel tactics (including separating families) that create a climate of fear even among people here legally on visas.
"I don't believe in a chaotic open-border system."
Mark just asked "What harm have these 7.3 million caused an(d) what harm would the next 7.3 million cause?" I used AI to answer that question for him. I think examples of each answer exists.
If he would have asked "What good have these 7.3 million caused...?" I would have given him AI's answer for that. And examples of each of those exist.
Thanks for that link, it is really interesting.
However, the analysis did not include any accounting for the significant increase in government aid and support spending for this 'surge' group of immigrants. This CBO report estimates that the increased spending at just the state and local level is nearly double the increase in tax revenue. Since government spending is included in GDP, this seems relevant.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464
Illinois and Chicago spent over $2 billion on services for the surge group last year and Illinois has included over $1 billion in the current budget, even after reducing some of the medical insurance spending. Chicago included nearly $500 million.
Also, the Fed report states that the majority of the GDP effect related to the surge is due to residential investment. So, it is likely being funded almost entirely by federal, state, and local spending. At least that is what happened here.
Finally, I couldn't figure out what they claimed the effect was on 2021-24 GDP. Were they claiming that the 2021-2024 GDP growth would have been lower without the surge? Because the data shows that the annual GDP growth (without Covid effects) has been pretty constant since 2013. There was no 2023-24 GDP spike to go with the surge.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/full-year-gdp-growth
What are you saying Marc Martinez? That we shouldn’t help desperate people who come here to live a better life? Like it or not, all humans on this small planet are in this together. You cannot shut down the border and contribute nothing to the improvement of the planet and of life for other human beings. It will catch up to you eventually. We seem to have forgotten President John F. Kennedy’s words: “So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.”
Try reading Thomas Piketty's Capital n the 21st Century, where he strongly credits America's tremendous economic growth (from the very beginnings of the country to relatively recent times) in a large part to immigration.
Click Polls - I think confirms that readership skews to the not so funny "Quip of the Week" option.
I really don't care about ICE statistics. I believe them to be as reliable as most things told us by the administration of the orange stain. Even if I believed them, the tactics used can't be justified. People going to courthouses to do what they were told to do by the government need to worry about being arrested and deported? The arguments by David about farmworkers are inane. Why does the think all the foreigners were used in the fist place? Are all growers dishonest crooks looking to take advantage of desperate workers? Wages are not being depressed for American workers. There are no long lines of Americans lined up to pick vegetables. I live in farm country. The paper used to run ads looking for people, especially teens, to do temporary summer work in the fields, such as shucking corn. They don't bother any more as no one was signing up. We have a Del Monte canning factory. When I formerly drove for the public bus company, there were several white workers that used to complain that they felt like foreigners because they were the only ones there speaking English. Do you think the company was doing this solely because they could pay Spanish speakers less? Or did it have anything to do with the local white population looking down on messy, smelly, physically taxing jobs? By the way, has anyone considered what would happen to the price of groceries if farmworkers were actually paid fairly?
That reminds about how it was in the USSR. Students and young white collar workers would routinely be bussed from cities out to collective farms at harvest time "for potatoes", which could actually be any crop. I myself experienced it around age 12-13, when our class was sent to gather sugar beets. I actually kind of enjoyed the break and being outside playing in the dirt! Then one summer a couple years later I went to a camp in southern Ukraine for about a month, this time voluntarily, we gathered tomatoes, bell peppers, and watermelons. Our reward for the watermelon duty was a small truck full of them dumped in the middle of the camp ground for us to gorge on. I also got paid, 100 rubles, enough to buy a fancy calculator!
Yes, many if not most Americans look down on low-wage, physically demanding and/or undesirable jobs. Growing up, if I was goofing off instead of doing my homework, my mother would ask if I wanted to spend my life digging ditches. I eventually started responding that ditch-diggers actually make good money, which would get me a slap upside the head.
And it's not a coincidence that fixing the broken system to allow migrant workers to come here legally never seems to get done, even though it always seems to be a talking point during election season. Plenty of farmers are perfectly happy to not only have cheap labor, but laborers they can bully around and threaten to have deported if they stand up for themselves.
In my opinion, the answer is not to target the workers who are here doing work we don't want to do for ourselves, often for much less money than we would accept for any job. To me, that's like prosecuting victims of sex trafficking for prostitution while doing nothing to the people exploiting them. It won't stop further exploitation, just make it more likely those being abused will keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
As much as anything, we need to fix stereotypes and the false narratives being spread. There are estimates of as many as 20 million illegal immigrants from south of the border. Listening to MAGAs, you would think that there should be 20 million serious felonies being committed. Yes, I’m aware that the mere act of crossing without going through the process is itself criminal. But I am less worried about them than I am by the danger I see around me every day. I could be a victim of the next school shooting by a teen pissed off at the world or looking for celebrity status. On my rare trips to the city, I keep my eyes open for potential carjackers looking to take me car and possibly shoot me. I am a lot more worried about our homegrown problems than I am about poor people escaping poverty and crime in their home countries. There is also a lot of hypocrisy involved. In this very forum we are debating the taking of jobs for Americans and depression of wages. I thought they were all freeloaders coming here merely to have American babies and access our welfare benefits.
Well all the MAGAts believe that crossing without authorization is a CRIME. BUT it is a civil offense. It is more like jaywalking than bank robbing. -
Some years back the New Yorker did a deep dive into the Alabama experiment with only hiring people who had e-verify status. No citizen was willing to work in the farms even when paid more.
Illinois law specifically states if no traffic is coming, you are permitted to walk across against a red light!
My 89-year-old father would strongly affirm that living a long time is not for the faint of heart, so living forever would be awful. He frequently points out that most of his friends are dead as are all seven of his siblings and his wife. He feels he has mostly outlived his money, having been retired almost a third of his life at this point. He doesn't want to die but but often wonders why the hell he is still here. Aside from macular degeneration leaving him nearly blind, he is pretty darn healthy and his mind still good. He expresses that he is just kind of tired of life - not enough to choose the alternative, but tired nonetheless.
My Mom, who died a year and a half ago, felt the same way. My dad (dead 10 years prior), and most of her friends were gone.
I'm not a fan of polling to begin with. I suppose click polls are "fun" but most of the time I don't respond. It's either I can't agree with any of the offered choices, or the question is not something that concerns me. Since the lack of response can't be measured, they're pretty much useless.
Kind of surprised click polling has garnered more convo than our immigration crisis. Is there a click poll for people who think the ICE stats have any basis in reality at all? And for those who support thugs kidnapping any brown person they choose (including those AT A COURTHOUSE) and then fixing a mistaken identity by charging American citizens with obstruction of justice—I hope you understand that your demographic could be next. Waiting until you or your family is targeted will be too late. I think a click poll for “how far is too far” for ICE may be helpful to learn what—if any—line in the sand the right wing has for current ICE tactics. Wake up!
The right wing isn't interested in any "line in the sand". ICE has become a political tool of the Trump regime, and their targets are any deemed "criminal" in their eyes. Trump is already threatening to revoke the citizenship of whomever he decides are his "enemies".
Of course he also dangles such outrageous statements like catnip for the media to pounce on in order to distract from obvious issues he doesn't want people talking about, like the Epstein files and the obvious lies of various members of his cabinet about them.
I find it amusing that so many believe Trump's threats are mere distraction on his part. But, then, many of these same people didn't believe that the promises he made pre-election would come to pass. We're only six months in, look at the extensive damage caused by Trump's regime so far. They're just getting started.
Oh I take what he says seriously enough. Just because he might throw out one of these horrible comments to distract in the moment doesn't mean he won't try to do it later.
Guys in masks with guns throwing people in vans because of their appearance or because their visas have been revoked without notice (double secret probation anyone?) is not a good look for a country founded on democratic principles and rule of law.
In all this talk about immigration, there is not much conversation about demographic collapse in the West. The only nations replacing their population now are in Africa. We NEED immigrants who pay taxes and into Social Security and Medicare.
After the fall of Roman Britain, the population and economy of the island collapsed. It was boosted again by those darn Anglo-Saxon immigrants, my ancestors. (Then those pesky Normans arrived, enriching the language and giving us Magna Carta)
"Guys in masks with guns...." I am dismayed that this single act alone has not struck a nerve with the American public. Especially the right leaning second amendment loving public. For years I have heard how the second amendment is the only thing that is keeping the government at bay from coming in our homes at night wearing masks and doing whatever it is that they fear the government is going to do.
Agents of law enforcement simply don't cover up their faces or at least I can't remember a time in our history they did. There may well be isolated instances, but it certainly has never been the norm. I had to look up the Elian Gonzalez picture to refresh my memory, the agent was wearing protective clear goggles but no mask. Because this country has never operated like this, I fear going forward it will become the norm at all levels of law enforcement. What is the average citizen to do? If mask gunman come at an individual or group and are not easily identifiable as law enforcement? What happens when someone who is carrying a legally concealed firearm defends themselves?
To be deprive of one's liberty there is a due process which includes facing your accuser and the right to defend yourself. With the agents hiding their identity this makes it nearly impossible unless we are just to take it on blind faith that everything is and will be on the up and up. I am not a blind faith kind of guy.
I fear the day when this practice works its way to other levels of law enforcement.
They only really care if the government does these things to them, not if some anonymous brown-skinned person from Central America is affected.
I can remember plenty of outrage by the wingnuts over LEO "trampling" their rights, such as Ruby Ridge in 1992 or the Cliven Bundy standoff in 2014, just to name two incidents.
While there have been some egregious cases where local law enforcement covered a name tag or badge, we were expressly prohibited from doing so. If you're doing something illegal or untoward like robbing a bank that's when you cover up. Or if you're doing something you're ashamed of.
The government has no trouble defending this. They are putting their lives on the line due to dangerous Democrats and other wackos. So they must protect themselves by hiding their identities. Personally, I believe they are hiding in shame from acting like Nazi brownshirts.
See this article in Today's Intercept - not only are ICE law enforcement personnel hiding their identities, but ICE Judges - who are appointed by the Executive branch and are not part of the Judicial branch - are allowing attorneys representing ICE (i.e. the Trump administration) to refrain from identifying themselves on the record in the deportation hearings. How effed up is that?
https://theintercept.com/2025/07/15/ice-lawyers-hiding-names-court/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLjZF1leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETBzajZXczJrQ0p2TkpldzlSAR5lMSW3JmMP6H2HjcnS_8TdKkzbSLmx09n26Uat7NrOMaDRUqcPlWvbBZpDMw_aem_l8bYPiJ8SeMlOvzEq-hENg
I confess utter confusion about the 'tipping for the drive-thru' idea. So you tip at the drive-thru Starbucks or McDonald's but not inside? Do you tip at the drive-thru Walgreens or Osco pharmacy but wouldn't tip inside? Can someone explain what I'm missing that drive-thru service is different and warrants a tip?
I think we discussed here or at the old Change of Subject that we as a nation should figure out what is age-appropriate, e.g., voting, driving, consuming alcohol, etc.
we probably need to sit down and decide what services merit a tip and which ones don't. I'm certain there will be no disagreement whatsoever.
I’m too lazy to post a link, but google “Reservoir Dogs tipping scene” and you’ll find that Mr. Pink summarizes the mystification of this matter perfectly.
"Hey, why am I Mr. Pink?"
“Because you’re a faggot, alright!”
(Please note: this is a verbatim dialogue exchange from the movie).
I kind of assumed that the person that said that meant that they only use the drive-thrus, but if they ever went inside, they’d tip there as well, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe they place higher value on the drive thru workers since they’re helping spare the commenter the ordeal of having to park their car and walk forty feet to place their order. This is an increasingly prevalent trait in our slothful and sedentary civilization.
Amazing to me that "do better" rankles people when there are so many other more annoying expressions and usages far more worth getting rankled over: (1) saying "amount of" when you mean "number of" (it's "number of peanuts" but "amount of peanut butter"); (2) using "lay" as the present tense, as in "I think I'll go lay down for a while" (it's "lie"); (3) using "fraught" without the necessary accompanying "with," as in "the issue is fraught." I could go to war over any of those -- and there are plenty more. "Do better," in contrast, wouldn't warrant even a mild skirmish.
"Do better" doesn't bother me. Maybe I'm too young to have ever been on the receiving end of it.
What bothers me? "Gift" as a verb.
Agreed! I should've included that one in my list. But as I said, there are plenty to complain about. My list wasn't meant to be exhaustive.
How abour "surpassed." as in "The number of things he gifted surpassed the number of things I gifted"?
Verbing used to be mocked (see Alexander Haig, ask your grandfather) now it is practiced in quality periodicals.
I cannot count the amount of times I have this wrong. I will try to do better. Now excuse me while I go lay down.
Sorry, I am guilty of all the above. But your reminder will (hopefully) help.
Hah! I see what you did there!
You are forgiven, irregardless of your errors.
You're leaving out my favorite. I spent most of my life not using or even hearing disrespect used as a verb. Now the really lazy spend their time "dissing" people.
The OED lists "disrespect" as a verb, with its first use as such in 1614. So you are a little behind the times.
That’s not the first time I’ve had that said about me. It’s still been a rarity for me to hear that until it became a part of ghetto slang and then came into common usage. 1614? I must be older than I thought.
With the exponential rate of medical miracles being discovered right now by AI, I believe we will all be able to live long healthy lives (100+) - first the rich, then the rest of us. The longevity research right now is incredible and is already finding signficant advances in treating our most intractable diseases. I'm optimistic that we are on the cusp of a new way, and age, of living. Ultimately, this should also save healthcare dollars as most of the money spent on medicare is to treat diseases of aging.