Welcome to a Hump Day (“วันพุธ” in Thai): Wednesday, January 28, 2026 and National Kazoo Day, celebrating the instrument that everyone can play. Antecedents go back to the 16th century, but the modern kazoo was patented in 1879. Here’s a band that will wake you up with a mercifully short medley, including “Eye of the Tiger”:
It’s also Daisy Day, International Lego Day, and National Blueberry Pancake Day. Lego has partnered with Crocs to make the world’s ugliest shoes—even uglier than Crocs themselves. Have a look:
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the January 28 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*As of this morning, here’s the result of yesterday’s poll on assisted dying in Canada:. As you see, 81% of 253 readers believe that medical assistance in dying should be afforded when someone is suffering psychologically or physically with an incurable condition, though not necessarily a terminal illness (Canada was the country under discussion; the subject was a young male who was blind and suffering from severe complications of diabetes). Only 1 in 6 readers would deny euthanasia. It’s a small sample of readers; in the future I hope more people answer polls. But I was heartened to see that most people agreed with me, though the discussion on the thread, both pro and con, was particularly good.
Below is a video about Zoraya ter Beek, who died in 2024 after getting euthanized in the Netherlands for incurable and intolerable mental illness. Her backstory is at the Guardian.
*I’m a sucker for people giving advice to the Democratic Party on how to win future elections. NYT columnist Thomas Edsall does so in a post called “Democrats have to be more than the anti-Trump party.” Yes, of course we do (see the second tweet below), but how? Edsall’s suggestions:
The moment is ripe to deal a debilitating blow to Trumpism and the MAGA movement.
Right-wing populism is staggering. Democrats are not only favored to win back control of the House, but they also have a long-shot chance of taking over the Senate.
President Trump’s favorability ratings on both his job performance and the issues that propelled him into the White House have nose-dived. The ICE and Border Patrol killings in Minnesota have focused public attention on the dangers of autocratic rule. His second term has been dominated by a bizarre combination of narcissism, corruption and a lurching foreign policy.
But if Democrats are to succeed in excising the Trump malignancy from the body politic, their party faces a major hurdle: public distrust, if not downright animosity.
Yascha Mounk, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins, summed up the Democratic dilemma in an email responding to my queries:
Democrats would be extremely foolish to think that the temporary advantage given to them by Trump’s unpopularity amounts to a permanent fix of their deeply rooted image problem. The party’s favorability ratings remain at record lows.
And while Democrats may temporarily be de-emphasizing some of the rhetoric that made them so unpopular, most voters do not believe that they have had a real change of heart about wokeness or D.E.I. — much less that they have a coherent set of political ideas to fill the resulting vacuum.
Put another way, Democrats — and their liberal allies — must persuade voters to have faith in the legitimacy, fairness and strength of the party, its institutional supporters and its network of advocacy groups. They need to be able to restore the left’s claim to the mantle of free and fair elections, neutral administration of justice, individual rights and an end to corruption.
. . . In October, the group behind the centrist Democratic WelcomePAC issued “Deciding to Win,” an analysis of “election results, hundreds of public polls and academic papers, dozens of case studies, and surveys of more than 500,000 voters” that found that “since 2012, highly educated staffers, donors, advocacy groups, pundits and elected officials have reshaped the Democratic Party’s agenda, decreasing our party’s focus on the economic issues that are the top concerns of the American people.”
The authors tracked key word usage in Democratic platforms from 2012 to 2024 and found the frequency of the word “hate” increasing by 1,323 percent; “white/Black/Latino/Latina” by 1,137 percent; “L.G.B.T./L.G.B.T.Q.I.+” by 1,044 percent; and “equity” by 766 percent.
. . . . Finally, in November, Politico’s Elena Schneider reported the findings of a 21-state research project funded by Democracy Matters involving polling, dozens of focus groups and message testing.
“Working-class voters see Democrats as ‘woke, weak and out of touch’ and six in 10 have a negative view of the party,” she wrote, later adding:
The initial feedback is grim: Working-class voters don’t see Democrats as strong or patriotic, while Republicans represent safety and strength for them. These voters “can’t name what Democrats stand for, other than being against [Donald] Trump,” according to the report.
Some widely read voices in the center-left commentariat argue that the problems of the left are both deep and entrenched — that over the past decade, liberalism has lost its way, taking Democrats and liberal institutions down a progressive ideological path that has marginalized Democrats in the minds of many voters.
In other words, Edsall proposes what I call the “Carville solution”: Democrats are not “liberal” in the classical sense, but are censorious and authoritative, with the progressive wing pushing solutions that aren’t to the taste of centrists or anti-Trump Republicans. In other words, we lost largely because Democrats conveyed a woke message. Sadly, the “progressive” wing is the loudest part of the party, and are is many American see as exemplifying the Democrats (remember the Republican campaign ads for Trump highlighting Harris’s wokeness?”). But of course the real solution is finding an articulate left-but-more-centrist candidate, and I don’t see one on the horizon.
*The Washington Post points out that, in the wake of Alex Pretti’s killing in Minneapolis, the Administration’s position on gun ownershipis at odds with their traditional stand. (bolding is the paper’s):
“I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem said Saturday.
“He brought a gun. He brought a gun,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday. “I’ve been to a protest. Guess what? I didn’t bring a gun, I brought a billboard.”
“You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have a right to break the law,” FBI Director Kash Patel said Sunday.
This rhetoric is wholly at odds with what Republicans, including Noem, have said about gun ownership.
“The Second Amendment is about deterrence. It is about ensuring the government respects the rights and liberty of citizens,” Noem said during a speech to the National Rifle Association in 2023. “Why do the liberals and Joe Biden want our guns? Because it will make it easier for them to infringe on all our other rights.”
This disconnect has turned the shooting of Pretti into a watershed moment for the gun rights activists, the Second Amendment movement, and politicians who have benefited from these groups’ support. While Pretti did have a firearm on him as he recorded Border Patrol officers Saturday, videos show that the 37-year-old ICU nurse did not pull out his gun and was disarmed before being shot.
The Gun Owners of America swiftly criticized what it called “untoward comments” made by Bill Essayli, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, who wrote Saturday, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”
“Federal agents are not ‘highly likely’ to be ‘legally justified’ in ‘shooting’ concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm,” the group wrote. “The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting — a right the federal government must not infringe upon.”
Well, if police are behaving properly, yes, it’s unlikely you’ll be shot. But ICE has not behaved properly, and evidence to date is that they took the gun away from Pretti before shooting him. You have to unholster, brandish, or aim the gun before officers of the law are instructed to shoot. Pretti wasn’t doing that. Still, as his father noted, he shouldn’t have gone to the demonstration with weapons: a semiautomatic gun and two magazines. That’s simply unwise. Now this does not mean that Pretti brought his own death upon him (Michael Shermer has gotten vilified for saying what I just did), but simply that bringing a gun to such a demonstration raises the chances that a tragedy would happen. And it did. As for gun ownership, you all know that I’m an advocate of very tight restrictions on it—far tighter than most Americans accept. Citizens simply should not own handguns or rifles except for hunting, and they should be kept at a hunting club, locked up. I am nearly alone in this opinion.
*Seeing public (and Republican) revulsion after Alex Pretti’s death, Trump is doing a volte-face. Here are a few developments reported by the AP, which I’ve made into bullet points:
- Trump was asked if the killed Minneapolis protester was an “assassin” as a key aide has claimed and the president answered “no.”
The president added, however, that protesters “can’t have guns” as Pretti did and “it’s just a very unfortunate incident.” Trump has said he wants the death investigated.
On Saturday, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on social media described Pretti as an “assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents.” Vice President JD Vance shared the post on X as well.
- The president was asked as he left the White House on Tuesday whether he thought Pretti’s killing was justified and he responded by saying that a “big investigation” was underway.“I want to see the investigation. I’m going to be watching over it, and I want a very honorable and honest investigation. I have to see it myself,” he said.He was also asked about Pretti’s family and said in response, he said: “I love everybody. I love all of our people. I love his family. And it’s a very sad situation.”
- Asked by reporters as he left the White House on Tuesday for a trip to Iowa whether Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is going to step down, Trump had a one-word answer: “No.”He did not elaborate further.Democrats in Congress have called for Noem’s exit after federal agents fatally shot two people in Minneapolis protesting immigration enforcement actions. Trump sent his border czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis and said on Tuesday that Homan was meeting with both the mayor and Minnesota governor.
*I may have posted this before, but can’t find it. So I’ll give news that’s several weeks old: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which largely supports National Public Radio (NPR) and The Public Broadcasting System (PBS), has shut down since the government turned off the spigot for funds for public broadcasting, presumably because the administration doesn’t like NPR and PBS’s left-wing slant.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting — which helped fund NPR, PBS and many local radio and TV stations — is officially shutting down, months after Congress passed spending cuts that stripped it of more than $1 billion in funding.
CPB’s board of directors voted to dissolve the private, nonprofit corporation after 58 years of service, the organization announced in a news release Monday.
“For more than half a century, CPB existed to ensure that all Americans—regardless of geography, income, or background—had access to trusted news, educational programming, and local storytelling,” said Patricia Harrison, CPB’s president and CEO.
Harrison added that when President Donald Trump signed into law last summer a measure to rescind funding by Congress, CPB’s board “faced a profound responsibility: CPB’s final act would be to protect the integrity of the public media system and the democratic values by dissolving, rather than allowing the organization to remain defunded and vulnerable to additional attacks.”
CPB said its leaders determined that “without the resources to fulfill its congressionally mandated responsibilities, maintaining the corporation as a nonfunctional entity would not serve the public interest or advance the goals of public media.”
The organization announced in August that it would begin shutting down after Congress passed the funding cuts. At the time, it said that most staff positions would be eliminated by the end of September and that a small team would remain through January.
In its statement Monday, the organization said it would distribute all of its remaining funds.
Over the summer, the Republican-led House and Senate passed a package of funding cuts targeting CPB and other government agencies, canceling money that Congress had previously allocated to them and fulfilling a request by the Trump administration.
This is the only station I listen to, though occasionally I curse its wokeness (which has gotten worse since each station is now independent). It’s still on the air, though, as people and private corporations have been digging deep to support the stations individually. And the CPB was never a huge monetary supporter of NPR and PBS. About 10% of NPR, for example, was funded by the CPB. That means that we can still get some decent food for thought on the radio, though smaller stations may go under.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is uber-cynical again:
Szaron: Was the world ever normal?
Hili: Yes, before the Big Bang. Then supposedly God said one word and the Russian circus began.
In Polish:
Szaron: Czy świat był kiedyś normalny?
Hili: Tak, przed Wielkim Wybuchem, potem rzekomo Bóg powiedział jedno słowo i zaczął się ruski cyrk.
*******************
From Now That’s Wild:
From CinEmma:
From Things With Faces, a scowling cushion or a laughing elephant seal: take your choice
From Masih: a translation:
Here’s Masih’s article, which came out yesterday (click to read an archived version):
J0e Scarborough, MSNBC host, schools progressive Democrats on how their views make them lose elections:
A watershed moment on MS NOW — and their viewers aren’t going to like this one bit.
Joe Scarborough just torched the woke wing of the Democratic Party and told them EXACTLY why they keep losing elections.
Clue: the trans issue.
SCARBOROUGH: “Get rid of those issues right up… pic.twitter.com/4sTE5XOeiw
— Overton (@overton_news) January 23, 2026
I’ve recently been reading and watching videos about Tourette’s syndrome, which predominantly affects girls. There are a fair few suggestions that Tourette’s can result from social contagion. Here one tweeter compares it in that way to gender dysphoria:
The Tale of Two Contagions
In 2019, German psychiatrists observed a sudden surge of adolescent girls presenting to clinics with abrupt-onset Tourette-like tics. This immediately raised alarm bells. Tourette’s typically affects boys and begins in early childhood.
This was an… pic.twitter.com/j40wQndGqH
— Mia Hughes (@_CryMiaRiver) January 26, 2026
The Number Ten Cat, like me, seems to favor gun control:
What do you know, turns out getting rid of the second amendment wasn’t a big deal! https://t.co/nxSZpXEiKc
— Larry the Cat (@Number10cat) January 27, 2026
One from my feed. I love videos like this, even with sappy music. Look: they even make a heart with their necks!
The moment a female swan reunited with her partner after being away for treatment
pic.twitter.com/SoagDgte4X— Science girl (@sciencegirl) January 27, 2026
One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial: a survivor speaks on Holocaust Memorial Day yesterday: the 81st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The video of his talk is here.
Auschwitz Survivor Bernard Offen during the 81st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
“I am almost 97 years young, and I am a survivor of five camps including this one. Why do I mention those days? When you survive the Holocaust, when each day was a struggle to stay… pic.twitter.com/YmbNIG8lvR
— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) January 28, 2026
Two from Dr. Cobb. He said he never heard of this man, but you can read about him here.
The US granted visas to Jews but only allowed 30,000 in from Germany a year. You had to wait for your number to come up.Meet Robert Smallbones. An unassuming British diplomat who 'hacked' this system so effectively (saving 48 THOUSAND Jews) the UK government kept his scheme secret for decades /1 🧵
Of this Matthew says, “An excellent passage from The Right Stuff”:
Excellent passage in Tom Wolfe’s THE RIGHT STUFF describing the psychological testing of the Mercury astronauts and Pete Conrad’s response
— Matthew Cobb (@matthewcobb.bsky.social) 2026-01-15T21:23:26.453Z
A BIRTHDAY THOUGHT:
Sit down and put down everything that comes into your head and then you’re a writer. But an author is one who can judge his own stuff’s worth, without pity, and destroy most of it. -Colette, author (28 Jan 1873-1954)
Today, Jan 28, is also the anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, 73 seconds after launch in weather much like we are having this week in the Southeast U.S.
In other aviation safety news, because there was considerable interest from readers of this site last year regarding the helo/crj colission on approach to Washington National Airport, and we discussed that it would take some time for experts to untangle the best data sets from all instrumentation, i will give a link here to a 30-minute juan brown (blancolario) video summarizing some excellent and informative simulation exhibits from yesterday’s ntsb public hearing on the matter. Juan does a pretty good interpretation, though of course, not the final word, in this first commentary on some excellent simulation video overlaid with atc AND cockpit voice recorders from both aircraft. Url for juan should be
Of course other video from the hearings should be available as well. I just thought that he did a good job, especially talking about conflicting data from different onboarding instruments.
With memory of the Challenger explosion, and the near timing of the much hoped for launch of Artemis II, one of course wonders and worries about a repeat of what destroyed the space shuttle. Surely the cause of that tragedy has not been forgotten!
I dont know mark. I think that the most critical current analysis of the Artemis heat shield is given by retired astronaut and high temperature materials and structures engineer charlie camarda in some recent flight readiness type testimony and in his recent book “Mission Out of Control” where he discusses nasa cultural and organizational issues over the years. In my opinion (FWIW) the controlled energy management of the uphill and downhill of human space flight is just a dangerous business!
Thanks for the link. Re the Challenger, I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Malawi when it happened, and still clearly remember walking into the HQ there, up the stairs to the 2nd floor where a whiteboard had been put up with the news about the explosion. Everyone was in shock. And I still associate that particular setting with the news. Yesterday’s Washington Post had a nice piece about it yesterday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/27/challenger-space-shuttle-disaster-40-years/
Wow lorretta, you must have felt really alone and isolated out there. I am sorry. I recall also everything about where I was. Nasa Langley Research Center cafeteria at lunch watching launch on the tv’s that were mounted around the room. Hushed silence as we waited for orbiter to fly out ofsmoke and return to land at kennedy runway…and then shock as several hundred people watched debris fall into the ocean and realized what had happened. Many of our employees at that time had worked on the manned space program since the 60’s and it did nit take long for reality to set in.
I especially enjoyed reading the passage from “The Right Stuff “. This is the kind of variety that propels me to look for Jerry’s column first thing in the morning! (Though I can’t see anything in the supposed elephant seal—it’s just a goddamn wrinkled cushion—anyone who does, probably also sees a polar bear chasing them across the snow in a white sheet of paper). THANK YOU JERRY!
Yes, it made me laugh, and reminded me of the qualifying test in the first part of the movie “Men in Black.”
I don’t have a source at hand for this, but I’ve read multiple places that, while the U.S. technically would allow 30,000 Jews in, the Ivy Leaguers at the State Department actually only allowed a fraction of those in.
How do the Democrats win the next election? In one sentence: appeal to the center ground!
It’s amazing how many Democrats are deliberately obnoxious to centrist-minded people who are not fully in accord with woke-left notions, the very people they need to vote for them.
A big part of this is simply to make it acceptable to voice and discuss centrist-minded opinions within Democratic circles! That doesn’t mean automatically allowing those opinions to prevail, but it should be at least acceptable to express them without ostracisation. (“I’m not sure that males should be able to self-ID into women’s sports; is medical transition of youth really the best option?; I’m happy to respect pronoun requests, but I’m not sure they should be mandatory”)
Another thing that I find a bit much with some progressives: saying that if you use X or Facebook or YouTube (owned by Google) you’re “supporting fascists.”
I think that’s excessive. Any other opinions?
I agree. Especially when those sentiments are expressed on those platforms. 🤣
Agreed; it’s totally excessive.
Neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes criticizes Trump’s deportation techniques, saying they’ve created so much pushback that now his deportation plans may fail altogether!
https://www.mediamatters.org/nick-fuentes/nick-fuentes-says-trump-has-fully-chickened-out-mass-deportations-calling
I do own a pair of Crocs, and yes I am ashamed. But dammit they are handy slip-ons for popping out to the yard, and they are comfortable. Especially while wearing white socks. 🫣
But do you have those cute little add-ons, kitties and the like?😹😹 Btw, my bf and the cool boy down the block whom I tutor in math also wear Crocs – sometimes with socks🤓And I wear Crocs in the shower.
I would definitely attach insects and spiders. That is… a thought right now.
Just a prediction: All of those Iranian doctors who treated injured protesters who have apparently been pulled from their hospitals along with injured protester patients are going to be held close to wherever the Ayatollah is, as hostages for his protection.
I think US prospects for killing the Ayatollah are not great (I wish they were). He probably moves every few hours. The converse is that the IRCG and the Basij militia and the military have a lot of stuff that can’t be moved.
Hoping for change by whacking the Big Guy in Iran isn’t the same as Venezuela where “shaking up the system” was an OK idea.
In Iran there are plenty of clerics, the “Assembly of Experts” (hehehe) and Mojtaba Khomeini (son of the late Ruollah K.) waiting in the wings.
And might just be counterproductive. Remember they’ve been teaching 46 years of students that the USA, Israel (and the Shah) are all devils.
D.A.
NYC
“Still, as his father noted, he shouldn’t have gone to the demonstration with weapons: a semiautomatic gun and two magazines. That’s simply unwise. Now this does not mean that Pretti brought his own death upon him (Michael Shermer has gotten vilified for saying what I just did)”
I left an critical comment on Shermer’s YouTube. It isn’t that he was wrong. Shermer is right that it was unwise to bring a gun to a demonstration. I would never do that. The issue is one of focus and emphasis. While true, it nonetheless seems disrespectful of the dead and implies blaming the victim. The comment in this context is unwise, much like bringing a gun to a demonstration. Our focus should be on our outrage over the government murdering people in the streets, not the wisdom of the victim’s choices.
I think I’ve properly focused on the killing incident itself, as I did the other day. But seriously, you don’t think it’s worthwhile to advise people not to bring weapons to a protest, particularly given the brutal way ICE behaves. Chiding people for mentioning a simple piece of good advice seems to me wise, not a form of whataboutery.
You should look at Chris Rock’s video about what NOT to do when the cops stop you when you’re black.
Well you should note I didn’t criticize you. Maybe with Shermer it just seemed too soon and bad priorities. I don’t think anyone is actually unaware of the fact that it was a bad idea to go there armed. Particularly when the administration was quick to blame the victim for having done that. I doubt anyone in Shermer’s audience hadn’t already had the same thought. Sometimes stating obvious and minor points distract from the big picture. Maybe I’m doing that now🤣.
There were 560 armed protests in the US in support of the 2nd Amendment in the eighteen months starting in January 2020 alone, associated with pro-Trump rallies, anti-lockdown protests, or anti-BLM counter-demonstrations. Tens of thousands participated. Nobody was shot. ICE was not involved.
If Democrats want to increase their chances of getting elected (to tie two thread topics together), they might want to get explicit about the fact that millions of Democrats (and Republicans) own guns responsibly for a variety of reasons, that the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, and that the statements from the Trump administration regarding the gun rights of people are un-American.
There is a big fat opportunity here. Seize it. Just a suggestion.
I think there is an important detail here: there is no evidence that there was any kind of organized protest or demonstration going on at the time that Pretti was killed. Indeed, in the videos of the incident that I have seen, the civilians who were on the scene were outnumbered by ICE officers.
We don’t have the info yet, but the above this makes me think that the reason that Pretti was on the scene was either because he just happened to be shopping or eating on the street at the time (it is near his home and is apparently filled with shops and restaurants) or because he either heard the sound of whistles or got an alert that ICE had been spotted near his home on one of the aps that track ICE and made an on-the-fly decision to go as an observer.
My point is that Pretti can’t be faulted for taking a gun to a demonstration or protest because there wasn’t one. I am also inclined to give him the benefit of doubt and presume that he would have made the wiser decision to be unarmed if he had had any expectation of being involved in a possibly volatile group of protestors.
I should add that I don’t personally understand why anyone would carry a concealed weapon anywhere, at any time. But at the same time, I know a number of people (including folks on the left!) who own guns and have concealed weapon permits, so opinions obviously differ.
I think it is definitely worthwhile to advise people not to bring a gun to a protest (it’s illegal here in California), but it is also worth nothing that that is not what Pretti did. A protest or demonstration is when you stand around “peacefully” on the sidewalk dressed up as a Hamas terrorist holding up a sign and chanting “Kill the Jews.” That is (for better or worse) legal, and in Minnesota it would be legal for a CCW holder to be armed.
But Pretti did not bring a gun to a protest or demonstration; he brought a gun to a highly organized, premeditated plot to impede a targeted federal law enforcement operation. He then proceeded, as planned, to impede that operation. First, he intentionally positioned himself between a federal officer and a woman who was impeding the officer, while he was trying to push her back. Under federal law, that is impeding a federal law enforcement officer and is a felony punishable by up to 1 year in federal prison. (He was also now no longer legally armed, since he was committing a crime.)
Had Pretti stopped there, he probably would never have been tackled by officers; more likely the officer would just have forced him back by pushing or spraying him. The fact that he was armed would never have been discovered. He would have lived to impede another day.
But Pretti didn’t stop there. He proceeded to turn around and put his hands on the officer, thereby committing a more egregious felony punishable by up to eight years in federal prison. No law enforcement officer is going to let someone get away with that. They’re going to arrest you, which is what they next attempted to do. And Pretti resisted arrest, resulting in the fracas with multiple officers.
So, at this point, the officers are thinking: We are attempting to subdue someone who has just committed a felony, who has demonstrated that he willing to get physical with us, and who is actively resisting arrest. Now, it is discovered that this guy is armed. One or more officers yells “Gun!” One officer removes the gun from from Pretti’s holster. Next the video appears to show Pretti reaching around his back with his right hand. What is he reaching for? Another gun? A knife?
All that is necessary for the use of lethal force to be legally justified is that the officer must reasonably believe that he or someone else (eg, a fellow officer) is at imminent risk for his life or of suffering grave bodily injury. If it is a weapon that Pretti is reaching for, then these officers have about one second to react to save their lives. Under these circumstances, would these officers reasonably believe that they were at imminent risk of loss of their life? Under the law of self defense, they don’t have to be right; they only have to, given the totality of the circumstances, reasonably believe.
It is tragic that Pettri lost his life in this incident. But don’t be surprised that, even if the incident is investigated fairly, that the shoot is ruled justified.
This is an exceptionally bad take. Your argument rests on a false premise: that ICE agents are comparable to other federal law-enforcement officers: well-trained, psychologically screened professionals acting in good faith. They aren’t. Anyone who has watched them operate knows this. What we see instead is aggression, poor judgment, immaturity, and a near-total inability, or refusal, to de-escalate. They behave less like peacekeepers and more like people eager to assert dominance and settle scores with protesters.
If you’ve seen the video, you’ll know the agents surrounding Mr Pretti were manifestly incompetent and unable to handle a straightforward situation. It looked like a group of drunken thugs piling onto a lone individual. Even this they managed to botch, flailing wildly and striking him in the head with a pepper spray can. The scene had the energy of a Keystone Cops sketch, except seeing an unarmed guy get shot in the back ten times is far from funny. They weren’t aiming to control the situation at all. The intent was clearly punitive. If you saw that footage and didn’t immediately think, “What the hell are they doing?”, I don’t know what you were watching.
For that reason alone, your claims about what they were thinking don’t stand up. The idea that these agents were calmly reasoning, “we are subduing someone who has committed a felony”, is laughable. Pure fantasy. As is this: “If it is a weapon that Pretti is reaching for, then these officers have about one second to react to save their lives.” Come on now, how on earth is he gonna use this non-existent weapon when he’s face down with about six masked thugs piled on top of him? And is the appropriate response to thinking ‘this guy could possibly, potentially, have a weapon’, to unload ten gunshots into his back, while scurrying away like frightened children? Absolute tosh!
British psychiatrist Russell Razzaque has spoken about this, explaining that incidents like this and similar ones arise from moral collapse rather than professionalism. When people lose touch with their own humanity and know it, as these ICE agents do, however dimly, encounters with someone acting with courage or compassion can feel like an existential threat. That confrontation is intolerable, so it’s shut down in the most primitive way available: violence. The brutality isn’t incidental; it’s the point.
Unfortunately, violence is not a bug in this system. The messaging around immigration and ICE from the Trump administration has firmly established it as a feature.
Thank you for this astute response. I was troubled by Mr Tanzman’s take on the event. Any properly raised man is going to want to assist a woman who was shoved to the ground.
That’s exactly the wrong attitude. Often victims contribute with their choices to their victimization and making it taboo to call attention to such factors is doing future victims a disservice.
It also presupposes that I’m not capable of nuance or keeping multiple ideas in my head – which is frankly insulting.
There is a nuanced discussion to be had about bringing a gun to the protest and in this case it did not contribute, because Pretti was responsible in his handling of his weapon.
The lack of nuanced discussion sadly might allow the government to protect the killers of Pretti, since there was very little nuance around the Ross/Good shooting and that makes it much easier for people who want to protect actual murderers to point to the other side and go “See? They are just out for ICE blood!”.
The Good shooting was a tragedy – the reaction of “Good was executed in cold blood” is also a tragedy, since it signals that quite a fraction of the US population has stepped away from a nuanced discussion and has made up their mind regardless of facts. Once again the left fringe plays into the hands of the right wing authoritarians.
People keep making the mistake that Pretti “brought his gun to a demonstration” and people are stating: “don’t bring a gun to a protest!” (As if right-wing protesters or anti-protesters like Rittenhouse never bring guns to protests- hell, they brandish them, and in Rittenhouse’s case, use them to kill people.)
Pretti wasn’t at a demonstration or a protest. He was a “watcher” someone who documents ICE activities. Before he was shot he was witnessing ICE agents manhandling a woman, throwing her to the ground. This wasn’t at a demonstration or protest, it was just happening outside a donut shop. Pretti documented it and then apparently was trying to help the woman when ICE attacked him. I don’t think it unreasonable that someone with a legal permit to carry a sidearm would do so while engaging in ICE watching/documenting. Not that it did him any good.
An obvious difference is that Rittenhouse was assisting law enforcement, whereas Petti was acting in opposition to it. I learned a long time ago not to mess with law enforcement. If you want open borders, carry signs saying so and lobby Congress to pass laws allowing anyone who wants to live in the US to do so legally. But don’t interfere with legal enforcement of the laws already on the books, as that is asking for trouble.
If you have seen the recently released video from the BBC, you will see a prior incident where Mr. Pretti attacks law enforcement officers, and smashes the taillight of a police vehicle. And spat on the officers.
In the BBC video, he is also clearly wearing his firearm while fighting with the agents.
The idea that the situation in Minneapolis is not an organized protest seems sort of weak. They are very organized, and have a sophisticated hierarchy and communications structure. They are right on the edge of being an insurgency. A key component of that is their habit of blending in with the civilian population, and disappearing back into it to escape. Another key aspect is that their tactics are designed for smaller groups or individuals against a larger armed force.
A main focus of their effort is “de-arresting”, which is generally a felony. Committing a felony while armed, even if one does not unholster the weapon, makes the offense more severe.
I am a pretty pro-2A person, but that does not mean I support all people being armed in all places. Some people should never be armed, and there are situations where no one should bring a firearm.
What do you think the goal of this edge-case insurgency is, Max? A popular revolt against the enforcement of laws that Congress has passed is leading to a bad place.
I’m with Shermer and PCC(E).
Granted Pretti wasn’t breaking any law in bringing an expensive pistol to a protest. (That is against the law in some “carry” states, and of course in Canada where it’s also illegal to bring any weapon to a public meeting, but not in Minnesota.) Granted also that he was tackled before ICE seemed to know that he had a gun on him. And granted that it is someone else, not you or me or President Trump or anyone in the mob. vulg. who will rule on the use of lethal force. It’s only the authorities who need to focus on that. What the rest of us say about it is just noise. Really it is. Even if the DoJ decides not to prosecute him, that’s an Executive decision that The People have no say in except indirectly through impeachment.
Granting all that, I have to wonder if his knowing that he was carrying a pistol and two reloads affected his perception of the risk he was taking in “protecting” the first woman from being “attacked” by police. Would he have waded into that situation if he hadn’t known in his own mind that he had some considerable defence against whatever ICE might do to him? “Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death. Yet I will fear no evil. My rod and my staff they comfort me.” Guns are the great equalizer. That’s why they are dangerous.
Even if he saw himself as an armed combatant for open borders (or whatever the Holy Cause is in Minneapolis), of course ICE mustn’t kill him in cold blood. But if an ornery agent is looking for someone to kill in hot blood, it’s going to be some guy who doesn’t seem to be as afraid of the agent’s badge as he ought by rights to be….and then when he’s wrestled to the ground lo and behold he turns out to have a gun on him! I’ll give you dollars to donuts he wouldn’t have been shot if he had been unarmed. The gun did nudge the neural action potentials of both victim and shooter in a direction that caused his death. Shitty deal, but shit happens to armed people.
“Our focus should be on our outrage over the government murdering people in the streets, not the wisdom of the victim’s choices.” Harold, both observations can be germane at the same time. Speaking a person’s entire truth can be helpful when that person wants to be understood by an audience seeking to understand an event and looking for some way to connect with the speaker. Agreeing with even one point the speaker made can make a difference in opening a mind to new perspectives.
Regarding guns, you are definitely not alone. There are many of the same opinion. The practical aspects are a problem. And there are people who disagree. They matter too. But it could be that over several generations culture will change so much that people will not be interested in owning guns. At such a time, a ban would reflect the view of the general population. According to the BBC Parisian women were breaking the law by wearing trousers for years. They changed the law relatively recently.
Regarding statements about guns at protests, it’s absurdly simple: the good rules are the ones that allow you to win. It’s fun to watch 🙂
Yes, Dr PCCe is not alone. I support repeal of the 2nd and allowing citizens only registered and secured hunting firearms. Now all you gun owners calm down and don’t start throwing things at me. I know it’ll never happen. I also support unicorns coming down to earth to give kids free rides. Same chance that will happen.
I’m not a gun guy, convenient since I live in a place (theoretically) without them.
The main thing though is guns are, objectively, fun.
I don’t see that changing in the US anytime soon, esp since many men grow up with them in the family.
D.A.
NYC
After the 2024 election, One Democrat (Seth Moulton D-MA) tried to move towards the center on trans issues. Quote (from him) “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that”. The backlash was fierce. His campaign manager resigned. There were demonstrations against him. He was denounced by head of the local Democratic party, the mayor of Salem, and the governor of Massachusetts. He is (in my opinion) somebody to watch. He may be the President of the US in the future.
Moulton is trying for the senate now. He is challenging Sen. Ed Markey in the Dem primary in the grounds that Markey is too old (Markey is about 80). Moulton’s stated policy positions are definitely courting the progressive vote and include “full rights for LGBTQ+ people”, however that is defined. He’s also made snarky comments about the influence of AIPAC. Markey is also pretty progressive, so I fail to see how voters will see much difference (besides age). I don’t.
I support Moulton’s views, except he needs to go on the record and state what he thinks is “too old.” I reasonably assume that Moulton hopes to live to at least Markey’s age.
How can the Democratic Party regain the Presidency, Congress, and State legislatures? What I hear most frequently from the pundits is that the Democrats need to move toward the center, or be tougher on Trump, or jettison wokeness, or blah, or blah, or blah. These are all tactical maneuvers. But what about principles? Do the Democrats want to win so much that they will simply do whatever it takes? I’d like to see more from them on principles and less on tactics. I don’t want Democrats to start winning simply because they have landed on better tactics for winning. I will vote for Democratic candidates—and have in the past for the most part—if I can convince myself that, once in power, they will stand for what I believe in. I am withholding judgment at the moment.
They can start by revisiting the Clinton era—not for tactics but for articulated principles. Dust off the party platforms, listen to the convention speeches, and, for the more daring, replay the Clinton State of the Union addresses. This is neither about imitation nor an exercise in flattery. The party has earned its disdain—whether by intent or by leaderless drift remains the open question.
On a barely related note, I wrote about Somalia v Somaliland, Israel and the US.
Don’t read it – nobody reads my Africa articles. 🙁 hehehe.
Actually THIS one they will, it is partly about Israel and its recent, shocking but excellent recognition of a worthwhile and very valuable ally.
It is a compelling story, with some jokes.
https://democracychronicles.org/somaliland-a-north-south-korea-like-divide-in-africa/
D.A.
NYC
I, too, think that Somaliland deservers independence. However, when I put this question to a German analyst I respect, he pointed out that recognition of Somaliland has a very high likelyhood of opening the pandora’s box of secessions across Africa – which would likely spill out into a flurry of wars across the continent. He just pulled out a map of Africa and just scrolled across the northern half and pointed out 6-8 break away provinces that are quite likely to take up arms if international recognition is available.
I can respect that argument – especially since he pointed out that Somaliland and Puntland are de facto independent from Somalia in many aspects. So the gain there is small while the cost – both for the continent and the diplomatic cost for the recognizing nations – would be immense.
I appreciate your comment and your friend’s concern. I know next to nothing about Africa, but recognition of any new nation is based on objective criteria not political fears. I am under the impression that Somaliland fulfills those criteria and wonder how many of those breakaway provinces do not.
Also, I believe those criteria are part of a Convention to which the UN is affiliated. If a nation fulfills the criteria and asks for recognition, does not the UN have an obligation to begin the recognition process? There used to be less than 60 countries – now there are almost 200.
In an ideal world, I would share your sentiment. However, would you recognize Somaliland even if you were close to certain that it would result in multiple major wars costing lives in the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands?
Somaliland basically polices and governs itself – so the gain from recognition isn’t huge. Ethiopia might shatter under the impact of the recognition and even if it doesn’t – the border between Somalia and Ethiopia isn’t even settled and so a war of conquest might erupt.
I’d love to have a principled solution but I’m pragmatic enough to see why it’s not a great plan.
PS: I would love to have the analyst (Thorsten Heinrich from the channel Militär & Geschichte – he does a great job covering Ukraine) as a friend. I was just lucky enough to place a question in his Q&A streams.
Roger I’m not really buying the slippery slope argument here: though in nearly all cases it is correct. MOST independence mvts (Bouganville, Ambazonia in Cameroon,etc) just don’t have a “deep bench” of talent to NOT be monstered and gobbled up by larger powers (China, Russia, Turkey etc). And Puntland is a non-event, a non contender despite their wishes.
I see Somaliland as an exception given its 30 year history (incredible) and the nastiness of its Somali overlords. And Somali’s paymasters the Ottom- sorry Turkey. 😉
A diff situation to the (US nurtured) disaster of Sth Sudan, or the horrors of Eritrea.
Ethiopia is a very diverse federal state with its constituent populations having one thing in common: they all hate each other. They had a Ukraine sized war a few years ago. It could explode, I’m often surprised it hasn’t.
D.A.
NYC
ps I’ll look up that Thorsten Heinrich guy. Thx.
Well, “Ruby took her love to Town” and got shot for it. Seems any excuse will do to use a gun.
I quite frankly think you should take up carrying power tools and fix a few things.
I’m sure ICE would shoot someone holding a power tool. Looks more like a gun than a cellphone! /s
Your advice actually made me lol.
I recall doing electrical work at a Salvation Army hostel in St. Kilda, Australia, a day or so after two police officers were ambushed and shot dead just a few miles away. I noted two policemen had come in to the foyer as I walked past reception on my way to get my battery drill from my van. Outside I noticed an armed policewoman at the corner of the hostel, positioned so she could watch two sides of the building. I literally thought ‘I better be careful when I return with the ‘pistol drill’ in my hand, so I made a lot of noise when I returned and got a solid once-over look from the policewoman.
HA! St. Kilda, Melbourne, was sketchy even when I lived there 35-ish years ago. Beautiful beachside place though. (Happy belated Australia Day!)
D.A.
NYC
Here’s what doesn’t add up IMHO :
• convicted murderer can absolutely be rehabilitated and returned to be a positive influence in society.
• person who exhausts the medical system seeking rectification of elusive psychological issues cannot be rehabilitated no matter what, justifying suicide.
… I think that’s it. Rehabilitation is assured in one extreme case, not in the other – where it seems if it works for one scenario, is should work for the other.
I see your kazoo medley and raise you one kazoo version of Led Zep’s “Whole Lotta Love.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd19Moeyul8, start at :31.
It is NOT to be missed.
The Second Amendment says a “well-regulated militia” has the right to bear arms. Perhaps it has been misinterpreted? The language would seem to leave room for a fair amount of regulation.
No it does not say the militia has the right to bear arms; it says the “people” do:
As Perplexity.ai explains:
You missed my awkwardly expressed point (my fault), which was that “well-regulated” leaves a lot of room for regulation where the people’s right to bear arms is concerned.
“Regulation” is mentioned in bureaucratic contexts in the Constitution, but the Second Amendment is the only place that says “well-regulated”. Reader Max Blancke wrote a while back that this refers to the Manual of Arms describing the meticulous timing of the many steps required to prime, load, ram, replace the ramrod, shoulder, cock, and fire a flintlock musket in perfect clockwork synchrony with the others in your rank. You didn’t want to put out the eye of the fellow beside you with your bayonet, or have the spray of sparks from your own disordered firing ignite his powder charge while he was trying to pour it down the barrel of his musket. It doesn’t mean regulated by the government, although the Constitution does refer to Congress’s power in the “Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” (which I don’t think is the militia, correct?)
To be any good at this you would need to have a military grade firearm at home to practice drilling with (probably a musket although not-ready-for-prime-time British breechloaders made an appearance during the Revolutionary War, the goal being to increase the soldier’s rate of fire, a perennial quest that continues to this day.)
I’m indebted to Max for getting me to think of “regulation” in a novel (but old) context. I have an illustration in my library taken from old woodcut illustrating musket drill in I think the 17th century (going by the language, the soldier’s dress, and the form of the musket.)
The Continental armies in America (and what is now Canada) used His Majesty’s Manual, described here:
Thank you so much for remembering my remarks, I was about to write about the subject again.
A big part of regulation was timing. You really need to make sure that your weapon is ready to safely fire at the same moment as the men on either side of you, as you will be expected to fire simultaneously.
Importantly, everyone does not fire at once. it is done in ranks, with the idea of maintaining more or less continuous fire from your square. Each soldier might be expected to rotate to the front rank and fire as many as three times per minute.
Really, it is choreography, and is associated with clocks and counted steps.
Mike, as Leslie and Max write, at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, “well-regulated” essentially meant “proficient.” The idea was that an armed citizenry was necessary to allow a proficient (“well-regulated”) militia to be formed to defend the state.
Thanks, I did not know that. I learn something new from this site every day!
There are other complexities here though, such as the type of arms the 2nd originally referred to vs. the vastly superior arms available today. I recall being in Jamestown and attending a demonstration of musket firing. After a lot of effort the shooter got it to fire once, but could not get it to fire a second shot even after a lengthy struggle until the shooter simply gave up and apologized to the crowd.
Potent analysis by Ayaan Hirsi Ali of the situation in Minnesota:
https://americanmind.org/salvo/minnesotas-post-assimilation-reality/