Your pro-Trump readers have left because you are (gasp) anti-Trump. (Somewhere in the cess pool of X, they can find a newsletter more to their liking). Austin Berg is offended by Gov; Pritzker's jab (as well as missing the point--hint, it was in the first part of that remark). What cry-babies these right-wingers are.
Perfect choice for the Tune of the Week". More than just a great pop song, a real slice of Americana with a great back story. And I am not leaving the PS, I have no place else to go.
The “nobody will remember” quip might be a meme but it’s so poorly written ——yet could have been very easily fixed. You can’t say “Nothing…..And”. It literally makes no sense. You could say “Nothing….Well, except for that time you….”
I think you overestimate the need for the convention to operate in Prime Time. Sure it’s annoying to those like me who are watching live. But I venture that very few watching live are who the DNC needs to reach to do whats needed to help the ticket. Most of the young people they want to energize to vote don’t watch live tv. They will scroll social media the next day to get a picture of what happened and what went right/wrong . They will watch snippets of highlights and the great lines….the next day…weather stuff ends at 10 pm or 1 am. The very few undecided voters are most likely to use that next day method to look at CNN or other free websites.
I agree with your points, but to me it implies that the networks shouldn't bother broadcasting the convention at all. It is hundreds of hours of free content for them, but I will be interested to see the viewership numbers. I have spent the convention weeks on NetFlix. But I agree with EZ, if the parties think that the free network airtime is valuable, then they should use it in the best way possible, not imitate the Oscars.
He was still kind of excusing Trump: "well, he's running for office, so it makes sense for him to use his influence and kill the deal". He explained it correctly, but didn't exactly criticize it.
He didn’t directly criticize it, but he validated the accusation that Trump had it killed because he wanted to keep the issue alive, not because it was too weak as his defenders had said.
Exactly. The problem is that political media focuses on political strategy and tactics instead of policy particulars (who’d watch THAT all day long), so it seems as if Langford is excusing Trump when he really is not.
I thought Langford was being quite frank about one of the core problems in our politics. He was expressing the driving force for most politicians on any issue. There are dozens of examples from both parties. This tactic is also a core part of the anger and emotion approach to campaigns by both parties. It is also a driver in the loss of intertest in bi-partisan efforts, as those that make the effort are often frustrated. He is correct when he laments the lost opportunities.
And I forgot to mention the penchant for passing bills in one chamber that are guaranteed to fail in the other chamber because they specifically include poison pills that the sponsors know will be unacceptable. Of course, these bills always have PR friendly names that boost the usefulness in campaigns.
So many and such great variety of musicians performed or allowed their music to be used at the DNC, with more slated, compared with the RNC, which had Kid Rock and a couple country stars and elicit a cease-and-desist letter or a lawsuit every other time they use a song at a rally.
It's kind of baffling that artists, musicians, comedians, filmmakers, creative people of all kinds seem to overwhelmingly support liberal causes or at least generally align with the Democrats, while the country at large is split basically in half.
Good, PolitiFact should be taking some heat! My husband was frustrated earlier this week with NPR commentators stating it was False for Democrats to say that Trump’s policies map to Project 2025 … their reasoning being that Trump says he knows nothing about it. “…ask yourself why any fact checker would credit anything a man with his finger perpetually to the wind has to say about his long-term intentions.” Maddening if now we can’t even count on the fact checkers!
"Active voice: "I love your article." Passive voice: "Your article is loved." Passive-aggressive voice: "I love the potential this article had." — @NC_Renic"
if school teachers don't start using this as a learning device, they have missed an opportunity.
Remember discussing the Non-Apology Apology on COS? We should come up with something for Lankford's explanation. He did everything he could to pin it on "republicans [looking] for a reason to be able to vote against it" instead of blaming Trump for his part.
The Non-Blame Blame? The Non-Accountable Accountability?
I would not unsubscribe to PS because it would often say things I disagree with (of course, one could find extreme counterexamples but they are not realistic). I find the tone of PS to be one open to disagreement. If I do anything I state my disagreement in the comments and explain why. Political statements that are purely opinion, I find no reason to say anything even if I disagree. What I am most likely to respond to are lines of reasoning that I consider bullshit and the original commenter does not even believe the logic -- they just like the conclusion. A recent example was pointing out that the investment return on stocks during the Biden administration was higher than it was in the Trump administration at the same duration point. If you think that is valid reasoning, then wait until January. Stocks surged in the last 6-7 months of Trump's term. If it ends up that returns were higher during Trump's tenure, will you conclude that Trump era policies were better for the economy?
Probably not, but the market’s good performance is one argument against Trump’s assertion that the economy has gone to hell in a handbasket during the current administration.
Agree, but it is far from the strongest argument. I don't see the point of it when the Commerce Department publishes direct measures of economic change.
My main point is that someone who makes that argument will stop making it when it does not give a conclusion they want. I cannot take seriously people who would state the argument. While Eric Zorn did not directly make the argument, he did give space in his quotables section to print someone else making it. That being said, the quotables section is more light and sometimes whimsical.
I’ve had a longstanding debate with several of my Trump supporting friends that presidents don’t deserve most of the blame or the praise they get for the stock market’s performance
I would guess that your Trump supporting friends cite the price of gas and the inflation rate. That is just more cherry picking of economic stats to end at a conclusion.
As far as I can tell, market makers in the stock market are pretty much lemmings. Presidents don't have much influence, and the Fed has more power to dim exuberance than to encourage it, as was shown in 2008. It took years of historically low interest rates to make a difference, if in fact it did, though the markets are now addicted to them. Speaking of 2008, there certainly were policies of the Bush administration with regard to housing that contributed to that debacle.
However one sees the political value of stock market gains, the market itself is barely relevant unless you have enough investment capital (pretty unlikely for regular wage-earners not carrying generational wealth). And for those who have it, severe dips in those markets only mean they might want to wait another year to buy that Tuscan villa they’ve been eyeing. Regulations in place since the crash of 1929 keep penny investors protected from utter ruin.
I tend to agree that the stock market is not a particularly good measurement of a president's performance. Just like gas prices, there are all sorts of global crosscurrents and events that influence things. Urban crime is another example. And it's common for presidents or other electeds to take credit for good developments over which they have little control, and slough off blame for bad developments over which they have little control. My overall point is more directed at the catastrophizing Trump, who adds dollops of lies to his superficial analyses. You'd think we were a hellscape rather than the richest, most prosperous nation in the world.
David Brooks pointed out, back in 2016, that among his base Trump gets the story right in a way that no other politician did. When you get the story right, then you can get a lot of facts wrong and maintain credibility. The story is that the culture and the economy have been moving away from a large swath of people, and it is the fault of liberal elites who are to globally focused and not focused on our country.
The fact is that narratives are much more powerful with humans than cold facts. Countering someone's narrative with facts will not be helpful. Denigrating Trump's base only provides support to their narrative.
Crowds: What about I photo or two and someone with a clicker to count. "Behind Enemy Lines" comes across as a pro -fight group. It's a war - so chaos (of '68) or shut down a democratic function to make their point - seems in line with making it a fight and not looking for peace. Attacks: A year plus of our future leaders speaking... "Weird" "Ugly" "Stupid" - it's all playground name calling. Let's not even talk about the accusations and negativity used for the lower level office races. RFK Jr... other than the "Not Harris or Trump" voters, anyone who was voting for him as the strongest candidate option - is weird, ugly and stupid... sorry I jest - they are cuckoo for cocoa puffs. *Numerous deceased Kennedys? Too soon. ShotSpotter - Hey, it's one of Johnson's few promises he can keep. Pritzer's JB vs J.B. certainly will pay off in his future run for the Presidency. Mark the date 8/13/24. Love live Clarence Page
EZ’s curiosity about what the goals are of the Hezbollah flag waving, pro-Palestinian protesters seems naive. The answer to the third and fifth questions that he posits are obviously a resounding “YES”. Of course you’ll never see the word “peace” on display in any of their protests, because peace is the opposite of that which they seek. The driving force behind these protests is simple, virulent hatred of Jews (or as Garry Spelled Correctly puts it with bluntness, but accurately, they are Jew hating scum!), and the less sugarcoating that the media engage in over this sordid fact, the better.
There are a lot of people protesting Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza who are not anti-Semitic and do not hate Jews. There are people who are appalled by the fact that this “war” has killed tens of thousands more women and children than Hamas combatants. In many ways, Israel’s response to the events of October 7th has been like our country’s response to the 9/11 incidents. In the 9/11 terrorist attacks approximately 3,000 people died, and maybe that number will double over time as a result of long term health effects. We responded by waging wars that resulted in over 400,000 violent deaths of civilians, which number increases to over 4,000,000 deaths if one includes indirect deaths resulting from those wars. See article below.
There is something to be said for considering the 9/11 attacks and the October 7th attack as criminal behavior and punishing it accordingly, rather than starting wars that kill and punish civilians more effectively than anyone else. In addition, the war response, by killing civilians in numbers much greater than “terrorists” or combatants, radicalizes the population where innocent civilians are killed, creating more terrorists in the process.
Israel will learn at some point that it cannot kill its way out of the Palestinian problem. And the more time it spends doing what it is doing now, the longer it will take before a peaceful two-state solution will be able to be achieved.
You say that there are people protesting Israel’s role in the conflict that don’t hate Jews, and while I don’t doubt that, I must say that I have yet to meet one. In contrast to the relatively modest, masked and mostly muzzled protest participants, the people that I have known over the years who harbor a strong pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli worldview (and they tend to be VERY obsessive about it) are always very forthcoming about what’s really stoking their passions, and it isn’t any inordinate amount of sympathy for Palestinians or their plight. Consider that these are the same people that were out in the streets CELEBRATING Hamas’s attack before the sun went down on October 7th. Do you actually believe that they would have been less jovial and properly appalled by the attack if the death toll had been in the tens of thousands rather than the comparatively paltry 1100 that day? Come on!
I tend to agree that the responses to both 9/11 and 10/7 appeared to be out of proportion to the aggressions that provoked them (appeared to be anyway, with the aid of hindsight), but acts of war have to be met with forceful responses. Responding to attacks of such magnitude has to elicit something more than “Well, we better get the detectives on this”. I also don’t agree that there are any more terrorists being recruited by strong military responses. The hatred is already there. If I recall correctly, Bin Laden’s principal grievance with us was that we (infidels) were stationed on Saudi land, and thus defiling its sanctity. The fact that we were there to protect them from external hostilities didn’t matter. No good deed goes unpunished.
Israel’s response to October 7 was exactly what Hamas wanted. They provoked a rage driven response that they knew could be harnesed to elicit pro Hamas anti Israel protests.
I don’t know what the appropriate response should have, or could have, been. I will leave that to better minds.
I'm with you on your observation that retaliation for both 9/11 and 10/7 became utterly disproportionate and that, as a matter of scale, a law-enforcement response rather than a military one can seem preferable. It certainly would avoid the loss of a greatly disproportionate number of blameless lives. But it's not the sort of task for which law enforcement, not even SWAT teams, trains for. My hope in the weeks after 9/11 was that teams of Navy Seals and/or Army Rangers were quickly and quietly going after Bin Laden before he could disappear. Eventually, but only after we'd gone to war in Iraq (uninvolved in 9/11--just Shrub upstaging Papa Bush by going all the way to Baghdad?) and Afghanistan, Seal Team 6 got Bin Laden after all. Yet we fought on, and VA hospitals remained full of brave, wounded vets, and our cemeteries with those who paid the ultimate price.
When I talked about treating the 9/11 attacks as criminal behavior and punishing them accordingly, I was thinking along the same lines as you: using the CIA or Navy SEALs or Army Rangers for an extraordinary rendition (kidnapping) to get the perpetrators back under the jurisdiction of the United States. I thought your comment was spot on and articulated better than mine.
Your pro-Trump readers have left because you are (gasp) anti-Trump. (Somewhere in the cess pool of X, they can find a newsletter more to their liking). Austin Berg is offended by Gov; Pritzker's jab (as well as missing the point--hint, it was in the first part of that remark). What cry-babies these right-wingers are.
I don’t think that Berg was offended by Pritzker’s quip, I think that he just thought that it was stupefyingly lame and devoid of wit, which it was.
In your and Berg's opinion. Others might differ,
amen
Perfect choice for the Tune of the Week". More than just a great pop song, a real slice of Americana with a great back story. And I am not leaving the PS, I have no place else to go.
The “nobody will remember” quip might be a meme but it’s so poorly written ——yet could have been very easily fixed. You can’t say “Nothing…..And”. It literally makes no sense. You could say “Nothing….Well, except for that time you….”
I agree. But I read the last line as 'Even that time you ....'
I think you overestimate the need for the convention to operate in Prime Time. Sure it’s annoying to those like me who are watching live. But I venture that very few watching live are who the DNC needs to reach to do whats needed to help the ticket. Most of the young people they want to energize to vote don’t watch live tv. They will scroll social media the next day to get a picture of what happened and what went right/wrong . They will watch snippets of highlights and the great lines….the next day…weather stuff ends at 10 pm or 1 am. The very few undecided voters are most likely to use that next day method to look at CNN or other free websites.
My wife and were going to watch Biden out of respect for the office, but we couldn’t stay up and missed it.
You can watch Biden’s convention speech on YouTube. That’s how I watched it.
I agree with your points, but to me it implies that the networks shouldn't bother broadcasting the convention at all. It is hundreds of hours of free content for them, but I will be interested to see the viewership numbers. I have spent the convention weeks on NetFlix. But I agree with EZ, if the parties think that the free network airtime is valuable, then they should use it in the best way possible, not imitate the Oscars.
What's the point of having prime time caliber speakers if you're not showcasing them in prime time?
Regarding the ‘finger up the butt’, my doctor used to live in the neighborhood. I’d see him at social gatherings. But I’d never shake that hand.
James Joyce was asked by an enthusiastic reader "May I shake the hand that wrote 'Ulysses'?"
He replied "Madam, this hand has done a lot of other things."
😂
I liked the candor of Lankford regarding the immigration bill. He put it right at the feet of #45. Good for him.
He was still kind of excusing Trump: "well, he's running for office, so it makes sense for him to use his influence and kill the deal". He explained it correctly, but didn't exactly criticize it.
He didn’t directly criticize it, but he validated the accusation that Trump had it killed because he wanted to keep the issue alive, not because it was too weak as his defenders had said.
Exactly. The problem is that political media focuses on political strategy and tactics instead of policy particulars (who’d watch THAT all day long), so it seems as if Langford is excusing Trump when he really is not.
He’s a politician. He doesn’t want to directly confront Trump, but wanted to maintain his integrity. I get it perfectly.
For sure. I see nothing wrong with Langford’s response given the context.
I thought Langford was being quite frank about one of the core problems in our politics. He was expressing the driving force for most politicians on any issue. There are dozens of examples from both parties. This tactic is also a core part of the anger and emotion approach to campaigns by both parties. It is also a driver in the loss of intertest in bi-partisan efforts, as those that make the effort are often frustrated. He is correct when he laments the lost opportunities.
And I forgot to mention the penchant for passing bills in one chamber that are guaranteed to fail in the other chamber because they specifically include poison pills that the sponsors know will be unacceptable. Of course, these bills always have PR friendly names that boost the usefulness in campaigns.
I'm glad he said it out loud. Speak directly. Point the finger. Lay responsibility at the feet of those who are responsible.
So many and such great variety of musicians performed or allowed their music to be used at the DNC, with more slated, compared with the RNC, which had Kid Rock and a couple country stars and elicit a cease-and-desist letter or a lawsuit every other time they use a song at a rally.
It's kind of baffling that artists, musicians, comedians, filmmakers, creative people of all kinds seem to overwhelmingly support liberal causes or at least generally align with the Democrats, while the country at large is split basically in half.
Hadn’t seen this before, but it is good:
I love (Illinois Gov. JB) Pritzker, but every time he appears on stage I think his first words are going to be "Yabba-dabba-do!” — Stephen Colbert
Good, PolitiFact should be taking some heat! My husband was frustrated earlier this week with NPR commentators stating it was False for Democrats to say that Trump’s policies map to Project 2025 … their reasoning being that Trump says he knows nothing about it. “…ask yourself why any fact checker would credit anything a man with his finger perpetually to the wind has to say about his long-term intentions.” Maddening if now we can’t even count on the fact checkers!
"Active voice: "I love your article." Passive voice: "Your article is loved." Passive-aggressive voice: "I love the potential this article had." — @NC_Renic"
if school teachers don't start using this as a learning device, they have missed an opportunity.
Remember discussing the Non-Apology Apology on COS? We should come up with something for Lankford's explanation. He did everything he could to pin it on "republicans [looking] for a reason to be able to vote against it" instead of blaming Trump for his part.
The Non-Blame Blame? The Non-Accountable Accountability?
I would not unsubscribe to PS because it would often say things I disagree with (of course, one could find extreme counterexamples but they are not realistic). I find the tone of PS to be one open to disagreement. If I do anything I state my disagreement in the comments and explain why. Political statements that are purely opinion, I find no reason to say anything even if I disagree. What I am most likely to respond to are lines of reasoning that I consider bullshit and the original commenter does not even believe the logic -- they just like the conclusion. A recent example was pointing out that the investment return on stocks during the Biden administration was higher than it was in the Trump administration at the same duration point. If you think that is valid reasoning, then wait until January. Stocks surged in the last 6-7 months of Trump's term. If it ends up that returns were higher during Trump's tenure, will you conclude that Trump era policies were better for the economy?
Probably not, but the market’s good performance is one argument against Trump’s assertion that the economy has gone to hell in a handbasket during the current administration.
Agree, but it is far from the strongest argument. I don't see the point of it when the Commerce Department publishes direct measures of economic change.
My main point is that someone who makes that argument will stop making it when it does not give a conclusion they want. I cannot take seriously people who would state the argument. While Eric Zorn did not directly make the argument, he did give space in his quotables section to print someone else making it. That being said, the quotables section is more light and sometimes whimsical.
I’ve had a longstanding debate with several of my Trump supporting friends that presidents don’t deserve most of the blame or the praise they get for the stock market’s performance
I would guess that your Trump supporting friends cite the price of gas and the inflation rate. That is just more cherry picking of economic stats to end at a conclusion.
Ah, you know them too!
"I just want things to go back to the way the used to be"
As far as I can tell, market makers in the stock market are pretty much lemmings. Presidents don't have much influence, and the Fed has more power to dim exuberance than to encourage it, as was shown in 2008. It took years of historically low interest rates to make a difference, if in fact it did, though the markets are now addicted to them. Speaking of 2008, there certainly were policies of the Bush administration with regard to housing that contributed to that debacle.
However one sees the political value of stock market gains, the market itself is barely relevant unless you have enough investment capital (pretty unlikely for regular wage-earners not carrying generational wealth). And for those who have it, severe dips in those markets only mean they might want to wait another year to buy that Tuscan villa they’ve been eyeing. Regulations in place since the crash of 1929 keep penny investors protected from utter ruin.
I tend to agree that the stock market is not a particularly good measurement of a president's performance. Just like gas prices, there are all sorts of global crosscurrents and events that influence things. Urban crime is another example. And it's common for presidents or other electeds to take credit for good developments over which they have little control, and slough off blame for bad developments over which they have little control. My overall point is more directed at the catastrophizing Trump, who adds dollops of lies to his superficial analyses. You'd think we were a hellscape rather than the richest, most prosperous nation in the world.
David Brooks pointed out, back in 2016, that among his base Trump gets the story right in a way that no other politician did. When you get the story right, then you can get a lot of facts wrong and maintain credibility. The story is that the culture and the economy have been moving away from a large swath of people, and it is the fault of liberal elites who are to globally focused and not focused on our country.
The fact is that narratives are much more powerful with humans than cold facts. Countering someone's narrative with facts will not be helpful. Denigrating Trump's base only provides support to their narrative.
Liked the Barack Obama quote!
Crowds: What about I photo or two and someone with a clicker to count. "Behind Enemy Lines" comes across as a pro -fight group. It's a war - so chaos (of '68) or shut down a democratic function to make their point - seems in line with making it a fight and not looking for peace. Attacks: A year plus of our future leaders speaking... "Weird" "Ugly" "Stupid" - it's all playground name calling. Let's not even talk about the accusations and negativity used for the lower level office races. RFK Jr... other than the "Not Harris or Trump" voters, anyone who was voting for him as the strongest candidate option - is weird, ugly and stupid... sorry I jest - they are cuckoo for cocoa puffs. *Numerous deceased Kennedys? Too soon. ShotSpotter - Hey, it's one of Johnson's few promises he can keep. Pritzer's JB vs J.B. certainly will pay off in his future run for the Presidency. Mark the date 8/13/24. Love live Clarence Page
EZ’s curiosity about what the goals are of the Hezbollah flag waving, pro-Palestinian protesters seems naive. The answer to the third and fifth questions that he posits are obviously a resounding “YES”. Of course you’ll never see the word “peace” on display in any of their protests, because peace is the opposite of that which they seek. The driving force behind these protests is simple, virulent hatred of Jews (or as Garry Spelled Correctly puts it with bluntness, but accurately, they are Jew hating scum!), and the less sugarcoating that the media engage in over this sordid fact, the better.
Actually I called them Pro-Hamas Jew hating scum!
But thanks for the mention!
There are a lot of people protesting Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza who are not anti-Semitic and do not hate Jews. There are people who are appalled by the fact that this “war” has killed tens of thousands more women and children than Hamas combatants. In many ways, Israel’s response to the events of October 7th has been like our country’s response to the 9/11 incidents. In the 9/11 terrorist attacks approximately 3,000 people died, and maybe that number will double over time as a result of long term health effects. We responded by waging wars that resulted in over 400,000 violent deaths of civilians, which number increases to over 4,000,000 deaths if one includes indirect deaths resulting from those wars. See article below.
There is something to be said for considering the 9/11 attacks and the October 7th attack as criminal behavior and punishing it accordingly, rather than starting wars that kill and punish civilians more effectively than anyone else. In addition, the war response, by killing civilians in numbers much greater than “terrorists” or combatants, radicalizes the population where innocent civilians are killed, creating more terrorists in the process.
Israel will learn at some point that it cannot kill its way out of the Palestinian problem. And the more time it spends doing what it is doing now, the longer it will take before a peaceful two-state solution will be able to be achieved.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians
You say that there are people protesting Israel’s role in the conflict that don’t hate Jews, and while I don’t doubt that, I must say that I have yet to meet one. In contrast to the relatively modest, masked and mostly muzzled protest participants, the people that I have known over the years who harbor a strong pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli worldview (and they tend to be VERY obsessive about it) are always very forthcoming about what’s really stoking their passions, and it isn’t any inordinate amount of sympathy for Palestinians or their plight. Consider that these are the same people that were out in the streets CELEBRATING Hamas’s attack before the sun went down on October 7th. Do you actually believe that they would have been less jovial and properly appalled by the attack if the death toll had been in the tens of thousands rather than the comparatively paltry 1100 that day? Come on!
I tend to agree that the responses to both 9/11 and 10/7 appeared to be out of proportion to the aggressions that provoked them (appeared to be anyway, with the aid of hindsight), but acts of war have to be met with forceful responses. Responding to attacks of such magnitude has to elicit something more than “Well, we better get the detectives on this”. I also don’t agree that there are any more terrorists being recruited by strong military responses. The hatred is already there. If I recall correctly, Bin Laden’s principal grievance with us was that we (infidels) were stationed on Saudi land, and thus defiling its sanctity. The fact that we were there to protect them from external hostilities didn’t matter. No good deed goes unpunished.
We will agree to disagree, I think.
Agreed.
Israel’s response to October 7 was exactly what Hamas wanted. They provoked a rage driven response that they knew could be harnesed to elicit pro Hamas anti Israel protests.
I don’t know what the appropriate response should have, or could have, been. I will leave that to better minds.
I'm with you on your observation that retaliation for both 9/11 and 10/7 became utterly disproportionate and that, as a matter of scale, a law-enforcement response rather than a military one can seem preferable. It certainly would avoid the loss of a greatly disproportionate number of blameless lives. But it's not the sort of task for which law enforcement, not even SWAT teams, trains for. My hope in the weeks after 9/11 was that teams of Navy Seals and/or Army Rangers were quickly and quietly going after Bin Laden before he could disappear. Eventually, but only after we'd gone to war in Iraq (uninvolved in 9/11--just Shrub upstaging Papa Bush by going all the way to Baghdad?) and Afghanistan, Seal Team 6 got Bin Laden after all. Yet we fought on, and VA hospitals remained full of brave, wounded vets, and our cemeteries with those who paid the ultimate price.
When I talked about treating the 9/11 attacks as criminal behavior and punishing them accordingly, I was thinking along the same lines as you: using the CIA or Navy SEALs or Army Rangers for an extraordinary rendition (kidnapping) to get the perpetrators back under the jurisdiction of the United States. I thought your comment was spot on and articulated better than mine.