Thursday: Hili dialogue

March 20, 2025 • 6:45 am

Welcome to Thursday, March 20, 2025, the 79th day of the year and the First Day of Spring, which started at 5:01 a.m.   It’s also The Great American Meatout, honoring carnivorous humans.

It’s also International Earth Day, Ostara, celebrating the Spring Equinox, National Bock Beer Day, National Ravioli Day, French Language Day, International Day of Happiness, World Sparrow Day, and Oranges and Lemons Day.  In honor of Earth Day, here’s a great photo, labeled:

“The Blue Marble” is a famous photograph of the Earth taken on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft en route to the Moon at a distance of about 29,400 kilometres (18,300 mi). It shows Africa, Antarctica, and the Arabian Peninsula.

File from Wikimedia Commons via NASA. Public domain

Today there’s a Google Doodle marking the NCAA playoffs. Click to go to the site

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the March 20 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*In a news analysis, the NYT argues that there is no longer a question about whether Trump has plunged the nation into a constitutional crisis, but about how much damage the crisis will do. The Orange Man is, after all, defying judges’ orders, and brags that he isn’t accountable to the judiciary. John Roberts doesn’t like that.

Over the weekend, the Trump administration ignored a federal judge’s order not to deport a group of Venezuelan men, violating an instruction that could not have been plainer or more direct.

Justice Department lawyers later justified the administration’s actions with contentions that many legal experts said bordered on frivolous.

The line between arguments in support of a claimed right to disobey court orders and outright defiance has become gossamer thin, they said, again raising the question of whether the latest clash between President Trump and the judiciary amounts to a constitutional crisis.

Legal scholars say that is no longer the right inquiry. Mr. Trump is already undercutting the separation of powers at the heart of the constitutional system, they say, and the right question now is how it will transform the nation.

“If anyone is being detained or removed based on the administration’s assertion that it can do so without judicial review or due process,” said Jamal Greene, a law professor at Columbia, “the president is asserting dictatorial power and ‘constitutional crisis’ doesn’t capture the gravity of the situation.”

Mr. Trump raised the stakes on Tuesday by calling for the impeachment of the judge who issued the order, James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington, describing him on social media as a “Radical Left Lunatic.”

That last bit is what got Trump in trouble with Roberts, and he better stay on the good side of the Chief Justice.  This is, however, the first case in which Trump refused to obey a court order. If he does that with the Supreme Court, he could be impeached–and should be.

*Speaking of the Supreme Court, the AP notes that it doesn’t look to be in any hurry to rule on the “birthright” issue: Trump’s claim that babies born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are not automatically American citizens. It seems to me that this right is already enshrined in the Constitution, and is palpably legal, but things are moving slowly:

The Supreme Court seems to be in no hurry to address an issue that has irritated Republican and Democratic administrations alike: the ability of a single judge to block a nationwide policy.

Federal judges responding to a flurry of lawsuits have stopped or slowed one Trump administration action after another, from efforts to restrict birthright citizenship to freezes on domestic and international spending.

While several justices have expressed concern about the use of so-called nationwide, or universal, injunctions, the high court has sidestepped multiple requests to do something about them.

The latest plea comes in the form of an emergency appeal the Justice Department filed with the court last week, seeking to narrow orders issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that prohibit the nationwide enforcement of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to restrict birthright citizenship.

The justices usually order the other side in an emergency appeal to respond in a few days or a week. But in this case, they have set a deadline of April 4, without offering any explanation.

. . .The Trump administration’s acting top Supreme Court lawyer, Sarah Harris, described one major flaw in these court orders with universal effect. “Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” Harris wrote in the emergency appeal over birthright citizenship.

Her predecessor in the Biden administration, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, struck a similar theme in high court filings last year, noting that “the government must prevail in every suit to keep its policy in force, but plaintiffs can block a federal statute or regulation nationwide with just a single lower-court victory.”

The process is also slowed because it’s not even certain that district-court judges have the power to issue injunctions that apply to the whole country, but when they do it can hold up the process for a long time. One thing’s for sure: besides learning how Trump’s EOs fare in the next few years, we’ll learn a lot about the ambit of Constitutional law.

*The WSJ explains why Israel resumed the war with Hamas:

Israel took Hamas by surprise, but no one can say it wasn’t warned. On Monday night Israel hit Hamas with air strikes up and down Gaza. The Arab mediators and terrorist echo chamber are crying bloody murder, but what did they expect when Hamas refused to release hostages for 2½ weeks after the cease-fire ended?

It was never tenable to give Hamas a reprieve while it wasn’t giving up hostages. Nor was it effective to let Hamas negotiate in peace and quiet while it regrouped, with every incentive to drag out talks. But it was important for Israel to give a hostage deal every chance. Israel accepted the proposal of Trump envoy Steve Witkoff; Hamas rejected it.

Israel also needed time to integrate a new military chief of staff and his more aggressive operational plan. Military force isn’t replacing negotiations—it’s Israel’s best leverage. That’s the theory of Israel’s new campaign, which is designed to escalate steadily but stop when Hamas comes to terms.

Initial Israeli strikes seem to have been successful at targeting senior figures, midlevel commanders and infrastructure. Among the dead are Hamas Prime Minister Issam Da’alis and jihadist icon Abu Hamza, the masked public face of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The White House says Israel notified it of the attack in advance. “Hamas could have released hostages to extend the cease-fire but instead chose refusal and war,” a spokesman for the National Security Council added.

On Friday Mr. Witkoff had made clear his impatience with Hamas, which still holds as many as 24 living hostages, including Edan Alexander of Tenafly, N.J. “Hamas is making a very bad bet that time is on its side. It is not,” Mr. Witkoff warned. “Hamas is well aware of the deadline” to make a deal, he said.

Hamas was indeed stalling for time while they regrouped, offering only one live American and four dead American hostages: a pathetic and insulting offer, and one they knew Israel would refuse. It’s clear that Hamas will never, ever give up all of its hostages, for without them it has no meal ticket to bargain with. And Israelis will no stop protesting their government’s actions in the war if all the hostages, dead or alive, are returned. In fact, Hamas has not admitted how many hostages it has, and how many are alive. All information about those matters comes from the IDF.

*The NYT reports that there is an “Old Age Home” set up for geriatric Senior Penguins at Boston’s New England Aquarium (archived here; h/t Ursula).

Good etiquette is expected at meal time in the penguin colony, but the diners with the best manners are found on a new, special island for birds of a certain age.

There, geriatric African penguins don’t have to worry about younger birds bombarding the buckets of fish delivered by trainers at the New England Aquarium in Boston.

“They all get a good opportunity to eat and take their time and not feel rushed, not get pushed off the island by another animal that’s anxious to eat,” said Kristen McMahon, the aquarium’s curator of pinnipeds and penguins.

Six seabirds have moved to the island for “retired” penguins since it opened in February. Their relocation is meant to address the large number of penguins at the aquarium who are living well beyond the age they would be expected to reach in the wild. About half of the aquarium’s 40 African penguins are older than the bird’s life expectancy of 10 to 15 years, Ms. McMahon said, and some have doubled it.

The residents of what Ms. McMahon described as a “country club for older animals” are sectioned off from three other islands inhabited by youngsters via a mesh gate in the water.

They can still see their fellow seabirds, but from the remove of a craggy rock island that has less pecking and noise.

“The birds are definitely quieter, there’s less territoriality,” said M

That’s it: I’m going to the Aquarium when I’m next in Boston.  The penguin display is certainly something (the African penguins are from South Africa), but I wish they could swim free.

*And a not-so-nice story from the AP, with the link now disabled. Why did they kill Walter?

Several dozen people gathered Saturday at an apartment complex along the South Carolina coast to remember a longtime resident who died the day before — an alligator named Walter who sunned beside a pond on the property for more than a decade.

Walter was killed on the property after several complaints over the past week, the management of Daniel Island Village told WCIV-TV in a statement.

Neighbors in the apartment complex near Charleston said Walter had been hanging around the complex for more than a decade, not only earning a name but a little fame.

Vigil organizer Rebekah Cole told the TV station that people with pets and children could walk right past Walter and not be bothered.

“He was a piece of the community. Even though he was a cold-blooded animal, we all loved him and it tore us all up,” Cole said.

In a February 2024 Facebook post, Daniel Island Village marked warmer weather after the winter chill with a photo of the alligator hanging out by a pond.

“Daylight savings time is coming to an end! It is getting warmer out! Daniel Island Village is on the verge of a beautiful blossom! The proof is in the pudding, WALTER is OUT!!” the post read.

Here’s a news report on Walter:

YOU DO NOT KILL ANIMALS THAT ARE NOT HURTING YOU!!!!!  Whoever killed that gator is a horrible, cruel person.

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Szaron are looking for entertainment:

Szaron: Maybe we can watch a film?
Hili: I prefer my own dreams.
In Polish:
Szaron: Może obejrzymy jakiś film?
Hili: Wolę własne sny.

*******************

From Strange, Stupid, or Silly Signs:

From reader Pliny the In Between’s Far Corner Cafe (click to enlarge if you can’t read the caption):

From Things With Faces, an eerie reflection:

From Masih, another of the brave, one-eyed Iranian women shot in the face by the misogynistic regime:

More on this later today; indigenous people in Australia are demanding reburied of some of the world’s oldest hominin fossils, denying scientists the right to study them on the grounds of, well, superstition (some are 40.000 ytears old, for crying out loud!). Here’s a tweet about what’s happening in Oz:

From Malcolm. Are orange cats really weirder than other cats?

Two baby elephant tweets from my feed. They are adorable! (Ignore the superfluous apostrophe in the second one.)

One from the Auschwitz Memorial that I reposted:

A French girl gassed to death upon arriving at Auschwitz. She was ten.

— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2025-03-20T10:11:01.483Z

Two posts from Dr. Cobb, showing what his Crick biography will look like in the UK and American editions. Buy it! (It comes out November of this year.) First, the UK edition:

UK cover reveal for CRICK. There may be some tweaks, and a more focused quote, but this is what we have. Only say nice things. Out in November (!), pre-order from your local bookshop or somewhere nice.

— Matthew Cobb (@matthewcobb.bsky.social) 2025-03-19T16:01:01.463Z

And the American version:

And here’s the US cover. Again, only say nice things pls.

— Matthew Cobb (@matthewcobb.bsky.social) 2025-03-19T16:07:06.539Z

56 thoughts on “Thursday: Hili dialogue”

  1. Over the weekend, the Trump administration ignored a federal judge’s order not to deport a group of Venezuelan men, violating an instruction that could not have been plainer or more direct.

    This is completely one-sided, typical of the NYT, and why it should be ignored. The order is, in fact, highly debatable, starting with the fact that the judge in question did not allow the Justice Department to respond before making his ruling. If we are having a constitutional crisis, it is because leftist judges are trying to prevent the Executive Branch from doing things that are part of its Article II powers. It is typical of the Left that they do something, like pushing trans surgeries for kids, and then cry foul when someone objects. The fact is, that it is in the interest of the Left to have a constitutional crisis, so they are fostering it and advertising for it.

    1. But if it is debatable, the correct action is not to ignore it but challenge it through the courts.

      Sorry but Tr*mp is out of control and your constitution turns out to be toothless.

      1. Sorry but you’re wrong; the Constitution is not toothless. The Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of legality under the Constitution, has not ruled on the legality of any of Trump’s Executive Orders. And the Constitution has been invoked many times to make binding law. Freedom-of-speech cases are famous examples.

        1. I hope jeremyp is wrong but I’m not so sure about that. What are the “teeth” that are needed to enforce a judicial ruling? The justice department? It’s part of the executive branch so it’s being packed with loyalists. Congress? Ha! Why would Trump care about the SC? That’s what makes this a constitutional crisis. He clearly wants the opportunity to test out defiance of the SC on something that will impact a small number of non-voters. Birthright citizenship would be a good test to crack open the door to unchecked power.

          1. But the birthright citizenship case undermines your own argument. The President has had no choice but to submit his XO to the Courts if he hopes to prevail. Opponents have obtained injunctions against it pending those Court decisions (which will go to the Supreme Court if he is determined to.) in the meantime all babies being born in the U.S. continue to be U.S. citizens.

            The President is not trying to usurp the Constitution. His argument is that the definition of birth citizenship in the 14th Amendment permits the interpretation that only children of U.S. citizens are automatically citizens. Your implied view that this is wrong, and my view that it is maybe right, are both irrelevant. If the Supreme Court rejects the President’s position and says the 14th means yes all babies except those born to foreign diplomats are indeed citizens, then the President loses and the State Dept. must issue passports to them as now. The President can’t lawfully interfere and tell State not to issue those passports, or tell Border Patrol to inquire of re-entering American travelers what their parents’ citizenship was, and refuse entry accordingly. And he can’t go around the country with his private army deporting American citizens whose birth certificates and passports he doesn’t like.

            But if the Supreme Court accepts the President’s argument that it’s not just babies of diplomats denied citizenship, his XO on the matter stands and he will have won a perfectly legal constitutional victory.

            Now sure, lots of Leftists deny the legitimacy of the Supreme Court because it has Trump appointees on it. But that’s beside the point. They are the Supreme Court, and you’re not, I tell them. If “The Resistance” (TM) in the State Dept. issued passports to the children of non-citizen aliens in defiance of the XO, is is they who would be undermining the Constitution, not the President.

          2. Leslie,
            I understand your argument but my point was that Trump is looking for an opportunity to defy the law in a way that has minimal political consequences as a test case. So to say “The President can’t lawfully interfere …” misses the point that I’m arguing which is that he specifically intends to defy the law so he can find out if and how he will be opposed.

            Again, what are the “teeth” that ensure the law is obeyed? Roberts and what army will stand in his way?

          3. Neil, I can’t get into Donald Trump’s mind and learn his motives. If you think he is looking for a way to defy the law, birth citizenship isn’t the evidence you’re looking for….unless (as perhaps you predict), he will himself attempt, somehow, to treat those alien-born babies as not U.S. citizens, say by intimidating his lackeys in State to deny them passports. But predictions aren’t evidence, no matter how certain you are that they will come true. All we can say is that birthright citizenship remains intact for now, despite his XO claiming to abridge it.

            Advancing a novel constitutional theory is not defying the Constitution, provided one is willing to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. If he is not, then it will depend on hundreds of thousands of civil servants, most of whom hate his guts, refusing to follow illegal orders from the top. Without a secret police force controlled personally by the President, it’s hard to see how he could enforce his will on them. I agree that the Supreme Court has no recourse to violence to enforce its rulings, neither does Congress. It was President Eisenhower, not the Supreme Court, who sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce court-ordered school desegregation. Ultimately the Executive has to want to obey and enforce the law, because the Executive state has the monopoly on lawful violence. That’s what a republic just is.

            But if you worry that the President plans to usurp the Constitution, the XO seeking to end birthright citizenship isn’t the evidence you need to bring. (As a foreigner I won’t get into whether actually defying a single judge’s nation-wide injunction on other questions is attacking or merely probing.)

            As a Canadian, I can only yearn for the restriction and restraints placed on an American President. A Canadian Prime Minister with a Parliamentary majority can do just about anything he wants, especially if the courts are deferential to Parliament, which they are because the normally Liberal Government appoints all the judges and the Constitution promotes group rights over the individual, a bias that strengthens rather than limits state power to enforce those group rights. If the Courts told him, “No you can’t impose this measure through the Executive Cabinet. You need Parliament to legislate it,” he would reply, “OK, I will introduce the legislation and instruct my MPs to pass it toute de suite. In the Westminster system of “responsible” government, the entire governing party in the legislature, every last (wo)man of them, are the toadies of the PM, who controls their political careers. If our country was more powerful, we’d be dangerous.

    2. No matter how far the President goes in order to establish an autocracy, the Apparatchiks are always ready to defend him.

    3. Judge Boasberg was originally appointed by the ‘leftist’ George W Bush. He was elevated by Barack Obama and confirmed 96-0 – clearly a sign that Boasberg only appeals to the ‘left’. He was appointed to FISC by that other ‘leftist’, Chief Justice Roberts. He found against Hillary Clinton (emails) and for DJ Trump (tax returns). So I wondered what evidence may exist that Boasberg is a leftist judge.

      All I could find was that Trump posted on social media that Boasberg was a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator”. So, I guess Big Brother stating it should be good enough for everyone in this post 1984 world.

      So we should definitely allow deportations at the mere suggestion without evidence a person might possibly be a gang member from a country with which we are not at war using a law that requires us to be at war. And rather than deport them to that country, we should deport them to another country with an atrocious record of forced labor, beatings, and killings of prisoners. Why would we follow pesky little things like due process of law? Or Article III powers?

      1. And God…I mean Trump forbid, we allow a French scientist into the states who had some negative tweets about Trump.

        Google and weep…

        1. The woman in question was a supporter of terrorist groups (Hezbollah to be specific). She went (was invited) to the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. She was not denied entry for “negative tweets”.

          1. Are you talking about the French scientist Mark R. mentioned? They were a he.

            I’ve tried to find information to support your claim, but haven’t been able to find any. If you have time could you provide a source?

            I’ve looked through more than a dozen news items from a wide range of sources and all of them describe reports that the French scientist was denied entry into the US after their phone was searched and anti-Trump messages were found on it.

            The only other information I found is a statement by a DHS spokesperson who said that the French scientist was denied entry into the US because when their phone was searched they found “confidential information on his electronic device from Los Alamos National Laboratory — in violation of a non-disclosure agreement”.

            The people that denied him entry didn’t mention anything about support of terrorist groups.

    4. Trump has sent a group of people — no one knows exactly who — not for simple deportation but to a brutal prison in El
      Salvador.

      This is appalling. There could be citizens amongst them—who knows?

      1. The people of El Salvador face a very real choice. Bukele’s prison or rule by brutal gangs. They have chosen the prison. Bukele is very popular (he has an approval rating of over 90%). My guess is that faced with same choice, most folks would make the same decision.

        Before Bukele, was Duterte. I read quite a few online comments about Duterte. Without exception, Americans denounced him. Without exception, Filipinos supported him.

        1. I agree that Bukele is helping the dire situation in El Salvador.

          But to send a group of men (no one even knows who they are) from the US seems to violate the US constitution. If one knew for sure they were all illegal migrant gang members then OK. But some of Trump’s people have even said, so what if a few of them weren’t?

  2. A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
    We live in a world in which we need to share responsibility. It’s easy to say “It’s not my child, not my community, not my world, not my problem.” Then there are those who see the need and respond. I consider those people my heroes. -Fred Rogers, television host, songwriter, and author (20 Mar 1928-2003)

  3. Below is a quote from today’s newsletter from Heather Cox Richardson which discusses the deportation of the alleged Venezuelan invaders. This is a sad commentary of what I fear the United States is becoming.

    In a webcast on Monday, Trump ally Steve Bannon defended the deportations even if, as his guest said, they swept in “some gardener or something who’d never been in trouble.” Bannon replied: “ Big deal…. Maybe some people got caught up in it. Who knows?… I think they got everybody who was a bad guy, but guess what? If there’s some innocent gardeners in there? Hey, tough break for a swell guy. That’s where we stand.”

    1. Sounds to me like Bannon’s is the “egg-breaking” mindset prevalent in the “mostly peaceful” BLM protests.

  4. That lighting thing coming out of the glass is a caustic.

    I only grasped that relatively late.

    Going to seek out CRICK ASAP ALL CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTZ!!!1!!

  5. Why are there different/separate U.S. and U.K. covers (editions?) of Matthew’s book? My cynical side says it has something to do with lawyers.

    I, a U.S.er, rather like the U.K. Cover version.

      1. Oops. I asked this, too, below. Is it because they think that Crick looks more British in the cover for Britain and that he looks more American on the American cover? The marketing team seems to think that each cover is more attractive in its own market.

        1. Whatever the reason for the differences, I think both covers are well done.

  6. On defying court orders:
    “That last bit is what got Trump in trouble with Roberts, and he better stay on the good side of the Chief Justice. …….If he does that with the Supreme Court, he could be impeached–and should be.”
    Too many toadies in congress for impeachment to happen any time soon! Trump has control of the Justice Department, so it seems that he can do what he wants, and there is no viable mechanism to stop him in the short term. All judges from SCOTUS on down can do is complain, they have no real power of enforcement.
    Trump’s big mistake is going after programs that benefit his voters, and taking actions which seem to have us headed for recession. Hopefully, his stupidity will turn the tide against him. Hitler was much smarter when he took over the German government, but kept most Germans happy. A smarter version of Trump could probably have had us well on the way to dictatorship.

    1. I agree with this analysis except for the last sentence. Trump is smart and has us well on the way to a dictatorship.

      1. Trump is smart and has us well on the way to a dictatorship.

        I agree with the latter but not the former. I think Trump is a deeply stupid man who has discovered that a belligerent, aggressive, chaotic approach to business and the world around him can make him wealthy and powerful. He has also learned that it doesn’t matter how many times he fails; if he maintains the frenzy, he will be able to stay rich and powerful. That’s why almost every business he’s run has failed but he remains Trump.

  7. Matthew, why are the UK and US covers different? And, of course, congratulations!

    I’ve long wondered how the decision of a single federal judge can stop the execution of a federal law or executive action. Even federal judges are influenced by the community standards of their own districts, so their decisions may not comport with the norms in other districts. Now that President Orange is testing the boundaries, the Supreme Court will have to weigh in. In fact, this President will put many judicial norms to the test.

    1. Judges have that power because that’s the way our system of government was designed to work. The executive branch and the judicial branch, and the legislative branch, are supposed to be separate. They are each supposed to have certain limitations, responsibilities and powers devised with the intention that they provide a check on each other.

      The executive branch is not supposed to make or interpret laws. It is supposed to see that legislation (i.e., laws) are executed faithfully.

      The judicial branch is supposed to interpret the laws and administer justice, and even the executive is supposed to be subject to the judicial branch. Just like everyone else. Actually, especially the executive branch is supposed to be subject to the judicial branch’s authority in matters of justice. That is the primary purpose of the judicial branch, to be a check against the executive branch.

      The legislative branch’s primary purposes are to create and amends laws and to provide oversight of the executive branch’s execution of them.

      In short, the legislative branch make the laws, the executive branch executes the laws and the judicial branch makes sure the laws are followed. That’s the way our government was set up, that’s the way it is supposed to work. But for a long time now the executive branch has been slowing taking powers and authority from the other branches by many means, both direct and indirect. Bush Jr’s administration significantly stepped up this behavior, neither Obama or Biden walked any of it back, and Trump didn’t throw the rule book away so much as doesn’t care that there are rules. At this point the legislative branch is half neutered. Instead of doing their job of legislation they simply allow POTUS to rule by EO. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. And the judicial branch is hit or miss. The highest court is undeniably corrupted.

      Not directed to you Norman, but an aside, I must admit to some surprise that so many seem to think that a US president can do whatever they want. Even more interesting is how many people seem to want the US president to be able to do whatever they want. That is a deeply unpatriotic point of view, counter to the views and intentions of the US Founding Fathers that devised our system of government and directly opposed to the basic idea of modern democratic government that so many people in the US believe that the US invented.

      1. You have it exactly right. It’s looked to me for many consecutive administrations (Democratic and Republican alike) that the legislative branch has been happy to sit back and protect their own necks. They feign outrage on X or on their chosen cable news outlet and get no closer to solving our county’s actual problems. Why aren’t they in session hammering out an immigration bill? No guts.

      2. “The highest court is undeniably corrupted” On what planet? Yes, we have SC justices who don’t know what a women is, however I would not call that “corruption”.

        1. I need to clarify that I wouldn’t classify our SC as “undeniably corrupted”, either. I carelessly didn’t mention that in my comment to Darrell’s comment.

        2. You and Debi should do yourselves a favor and google “Alito corruption” or “Thomas corruption” and learn something about some of your SCOTUS justices. I don’t know if 2 corrupt justices would meet your definition of “undeniably corrupted” but on my planet, I’d say one corrupt justice would make SCOTUS undeniably corrupted.

  9. I am very much looking forward to Dr Cobb’s book, no matter the cover. I do like both, though I prefer the UK one. Dr Crick is youthful in that one and he looks, I dunno….both hopeful and awed by the implications of his work. I like that.

  10. The idea that Venezuela can send Tren de Aragua members to the U.S., but the U.S. cannot send them back is simply outrageous to ordinary Americans.

    This is not the hill Democrats should be choosing to die on.

    1. The problem is that it’s not clear who they are. I agree that if they are gangsters then off they go.

      And don’t forget this is not simple deportation. They’ve been sent to a prison in El Salvador.

      Surely the identity of the men should be established first.

          1. I was talking about Democrats in general, not you personally. I would like to see the Democrats return to sanity. They need to have some positive agenda and not just 24/7 Trump-Musk hatred.

      3. You appear to confusing El Salvador and Venezuela. Trump has sent gang members back to both countries.

      4. Not sure why your so excised about this FK.
        ID and citizenship info are extremely easy to obtain, even at the arrest stage. Fingerprints (and soon face scans) are ubiquitous, linked to file and nationality.

        Deportees to El Salvador are foreigners at the moment (for deporting US citz is big trouble lawsuit wise)… pretty much all of them. And some places (Venez. for eg) have been aversive to taking their own criminal citizens BACK.

        On whether or not to outsource US convicts – a separate plan, not this one – there is another argument. I think you might have mixed the two up maybe?

        regards as always,

        D.A.
        NYC

        1. He violated a judge’s order too

          As a Canadian I’ve developed a strong distaste for Trump. I consider him completely incompetent.

          YMMV.

      5. I submit politely that it is no business of us foreigners where the President of the United States deports his aliens to or what happens to them when they get there. We can leave that in the capable hands of the American people to litigate if they want to.

        If I thought there was a serious risk that ICE might mistake me for a Venezuelan gangster and deport me to El Salvador, then I might reconsider visiting.

        Sticking with the positive, I note with some satisfaction that President Trump has endorsed Liberal Mark Carney for Prime Minister in the election which will be called this weekend, for 28 April. That oughta be the kiss of death for him. Maybe Mr. Trump has our backs after all!

    2. I’d like to add that those who are up in arms about this probably don’t live in communities that are being affected by such gangs.

  11. Choosing violent gangs from Venezuela as a hill to die on, is not likely to work out well for the Democrats. For example, ‘birthright citizenship’ involves lots of folks that the public is not upset by. I am not trying prejudge to outcome of the Supreme Court case. I am making a political point.

    1. Yes Frank. Harder to imagine a worse, more useless and failure bound hill to die on than that. We’ve had some… disorder … some urban unpredictability… in NYC from these Venezuelan gangs here lately (said like a defense attorney 😉
      It is bonkers.

      Maybe only penises in girls’ changing rooms and mutilating autistic teenagers would be a more disastrous position for the Dems? Or “looting is legit” (NYTimes, 2020), BLM? hard to tell.
      Oh no. I’ve got it: PALESTINE! And Hamas as “resisters” – surely the creme de la stupid?
      Tsk. Hard to tell.

      I used to be a Democrat until the Great Craziness began in 2014.

      D.A.
      NYC

      1. “I used to be a Democrat until the Great Craziness began in 2014.”

        +1 Same here. I think Bill Clinton had it about right.

        1. What happened in 2014? The answer is rather unclear. Back in 2014 Michael Brown died after attacking a police officer (according to the Obama administration). No less than Kamala Harris claimed that he was “murdered”. That claim earned her four Pinocchios from the Washington Post. E. Warren also claimed that Michael Brown was “murdered”.

  12. I’ve been reading conservative opinion writers about what they call “activist” judges. In all cases they fail to understand how the Judges are thinking, and as a result they say their actions are political rather than judicial. Some of them go on to claim Article I and II gives the President executive powers, and without really thinking this through they end up believing this means he can do what he wants with the government. They don’t realize Judges aren’t thinking that way. I wish the Judges would make their thinking more clear to them.

    When I’m reading what conservatives are writing, I make pains to point out to them in comments that the Founders had a different meaning for “executive”, and that the Executive Branch carries out the will of the Legislative Branch. I quote James Madison in the Federalist 51: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” And I further inform them if the President wants to reform or eliminated USAID, or the Department of Education, he has to ask Congress to do it, and that’s how the Judges are thinking. I don’t know if I’m making an impression on these conservative opinion people or not. I apparently am making an impression on Rachel Maddow though. She also brought up James Madison’s Federalist 51 on her show the other day.

  13. Bustin’ da roolz here I know…. but here is Dawkin’s latest interview which I know will appeal to many at WEIT:

    AI, Evolution, universe, etc.

    I haven’t watched it all yet but it is Richard Dawkins so your half hour won’t be wasted and what I’ve seen in very good as usual.
    best
    D.A.
    NYC

  14. “Are orange cats really weirder than other cats?”

    Only if you think males are weird 🙂

    There are simply more male orange kitties.

    The orange color in cats is controlled by a gene (often denoted as O for orange) located on the X chromosome. Since this is a sex-linked trait, the inheritance pattern differs between males and females due to their chromosome makeup:

    Males (XY): They have only one X chromosome. If that X carries the O gene, the cat will be orange. There’s no second X to “compete” with a different color gene, so a single O is enough. This simplicity makes orange males MUCH more common.

    Females (XX): They have two X chromosomes. To be fully orange, a female needs the O gene on both X chromosomes (homozygous, O/O).

    Our Ceiling Cat host knows this, of course. So, I suppose he is skeptical about whether orange kitties are actually weirder than other cats. I doubt it. They are just disproportionately male!

    (I have two “apricot” [muted-orange] Devon Rexes. I’m in love with them. When they die, I might as well go too! I often hope longevity researchers swiftly solve cats’ kidney issues, which limit their lifespans.)

Comments are closed.