Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

End of 2nd period. This game has lived up to expectations and can't ask for much more. Will it be tied 3-3 after 3?

Nope, 2-2!    OT Baby.    Glad I’m not in the eastern time zone!

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Canada's goalie, Binnington, has been mediocre.  Not to take anything away from the US victory, both goals, from distance with no screen or front of net presence were lame.  He let a softie in against Sweden as well.  And Cooper has said he will play against the Finns tomorrow.  Yikes!

Dave

Binnington rises to the moment.   Congratulations Dave!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"We'll find out soon."

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-doesnt-let-trump-fire-federal-watchdog-2034723

Not yet but after this legal-delay nonsense from SCOTUS is over, I expect 'em to do whatever he wants. They're just playing us for now, trying to show their supposed impartiality, while they know they'll decide in Trump's favor later.

I don't see the separation of powers actions in the same manner as you do with regards to due process. IMO, the president fire can fire 'em but only after following due process in doing so. Unfortunately, with SCOTUS, it will be one or the other and we know which one it will be...

We’re both right - The first question is separation of powers, “does Congress have the authority to dictate the process for firing this sort of executive employee”.   The second question is, if the answer is yes, “did the president follow that process.”   My only quibble is I don’t think it is a “Due Process” issue under the 14th Amendment, like it would be if Trump had fired this employee because he was black.  I totally understand your point though.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"A new online tracker on the Department of Government Efficiency's website puts a dollar amount on the estimated savings from the DOGE effort to slash federal government spending at $55 billion."

"But an NPR analysis finds the numbers don't add up."


"The doge.gov/savings page then lists a "wall of receipts," DOGE's first major data release that initially claimed to show more than $16 billion in savings from ending contracts. After correcting an apparent clerical error, it now shows $8.5 billion."

"An NPR review of the more than 1,100 contracts in that initial release finds that DOGE's "maximally transparent" calculations still overstate its estimated savings totals by billions of dollars."


"NPR's analysis found that, of its verifiable work completed so far, DOGE has cut just $2 billion in spending — less than three hundredths of a percent of last fiscal year's federal spending."

"Think of Congress and its budget as the debt-ridden dad on the way to buy a $250,000 Ferrari on the credit card, and DOGE is the $2 off gas card he used along the way," Riedl said. "It's great that he saved $2 on gas, but I think his wife may be more concerned about the $250,000 car."


"Spokespeople for the White House and DOGE did not respond to multiple requests for clarification about the DOGE data and savings claims shared online."

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates-savings-federal-contracts

I think the voters understand the bolded part, but the appreciate the start and they appreciate the effort.  I think the Ds are doing themselves a huge disfavor by opposing DOGE so aggressively.  It comes across to the average voter like the Ds are actively in favor of waste and corruption.   That is not a good look.  I'm gonna start a new thread that is more or less related based upon a compelling article I read yesterday from conventional liberal Ruy Teixeira.

This opinion piece by old-school liberal Ruy Teixeira captured my attention.   It is very well sourced and has lots of compelling graphs, including the one below which demonstrates how Harris has completed the long-time-coming swap of the "Bob Dole" coalition with Bill Clinton's coalition of working men and women.  Not a winning strategy.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-157523749

Have the Democrats permanently swapped the loyalty of the highly educated and wealthy classes for the allegiance of the working men and women of America?  It looks like it.  But hey, those yard signs make Democrats feel so virtuous, right?  At least in my tony Denver neighborhood they do.

I understand that if Trump screws up the economy, or causes a foreign affairs collapse, the fickle US voters will elect the Democrats in 2028.  But is that a smart strategy for the Ds?  Basically count on the other side to screw it up so that you can run on the "not them" ticket?  I think the Democrats of 2025 have given up any chance of winning under less dire circumstances.  Demographics may indeed be destiny, and the Democrats willingly jettisoned a demographic advantage in exchange for what?

Originally Posted by James Brown

This opinion piece by old-school liberal Ruy Teixeira captured my attention.   It is very well sourced and has lots of compelling graphs, including the one below which demonstrates how Harris has completed the long-time-coming swap of the "Bob Dole" coalition with Bill Clinton's coalition of working men and women.  Not a winning strategy.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-157523749

Have the Democrats permanently swapped the loyalty of the highly educated and wealthy classes for the allegiance of the working men and women of America?  It looks like it.  But hey, those yard signs make Democrats feel so virtuous, right?  At least in my tony Denver neighborhood they do.

I understand that if Trump screws up the economy, or causes a foreign affairs collapse, the fickle US voters will elect the Democrats in 2028.  But is that a smart strategy for the Ds?  Basically count on the other side to screw it up so that you can run on the "not them" ticket?  I think the Democrats of 2025 have given up any chance of winning under less dire circumstances.  Demographics may indeed be destiny, and the Democrats willingly jettisoned a demographic advantage in exchange for what?

This shift has been building for a long time, so is it intentional?  Or did the Democrats assume it was no big deal?  Do they still figure it is no big deal, even after 2024?  

Teixeira in 2021 views through his highly accurate crystal ball:

"Given that Democrats are becoming more and more dependent on the white college vote—the key group that delivered their victory in 2020—while actually losing ground among nonwhite working class voters, this ideological mismatch between the two groups of Democrats could assume ever-greater importance in future elections, depending on which group has the upper hand in determining the Democratic party “brand”. To the extent issues and rhetoric that appeal mostly to college-educated white liberals are promoted, there could be serious attrition among working class nonwhites who find such issues and rhetoric unappealing."

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/white-college-educated-democrats

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Russ Carroll 
Trump will defy the courts because he defies everyone and everything. It’s only a question of how, and whether he gets away with it or not.

Richard Davis
Really?  When did he ever defy the courts.  I know Joe Biden did.  When did Trump?

Point made, Russ.  Richard of course will move the goalposts.  He will say that Trump had "never defied a Supreme Court order."  Totally predictable argument tactic, but in this one instance, we might give him a pass.   The left through their "Constitutional Crisis" hysteria of last week was more or less guaranteeing that Trump would blatantly defy a major Supreme Court opinion limiting executive authority, and thereby provoke a constitutional crisis.  

So, all rational readers understand your use of the word "will."  You have good basis for your opinion that Trump will defy a Supreme Court order.  For example, Trump defied the lower courts many times in his endless and 100% fruitless litigation to "prove" the 2020 election was stolen or rigged.  This resulted in many sanctions and many fines, and indeed the defiance rose to such a level some lawyers were disbarred.

Even so, I remain optimistic that Trump will not provoke a constitutional crisis, and even if he does, I think the system holds, as discussed at length last week.  J

Originally Posted by Maurice Clark

Hi James,

You are fortunate then. Those satellites were a real pain for me photographing Comet 2024 G3 ATLAS. I was taking hundreds of images to make animations of the comet as it set, and the images were criss-crossed with satellites.  Below is just one of those. A 20 second image using a 100mm lens. My 28mm lens images were worse.

Funny, I remember back in the late 60's when Echo 1 was about the only naked eye satellite visible, we were ecstatic if we managed to photograph it. Now they are vermin!

Cheers,

Maurice

Yes, I can imagine that the satellites are a real pain for near horizon level shots after dusk and before dawn.   I remember that from shooting Neowise at dusk.  Starlink satellites operate at about 300 miles altitude though, so they are in the earth's shadow and invisible reasonably early (maybe an hour?) after sunset.  So I don't see them when I'm doing planetary or deep sky later in the night.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

I believe Ronald Reagan would be pissed. Whatever it is in Washington is no longer the GOP as we knew it.

Perhaps.  Our snarky friend from up North agrees with you.   Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg news and other sources, Zalensky is meeting with Trump in DC on Friday to sign the rare minerals development deal.  I reckon they'll talk about Trump's plan to end the war too.   

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-agree-us-terms-minerals-202429904.html

Macron thinks peace is imminent.  

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/02/25/french_president_macron_the_arrival_of_president_trump_is_a_game-changer_he_has_the_capacity_to_re-engage_with_russia.html#google_vignette 

I know that none of this is even close to done of course, but Zalensky's visit to DC to meet with Trump is a good sign, don't you think?  More progress is hinted at than ever was over the last four years during the __________/Harris administration.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

There's no other way to view this.

Dave

There is also only one way to view a Canadian who posts something this snarky.  So, I have to ask - which will be more upsetting to you personally - four more years of war and countless Ukrainian deaths - or a peace deal that may not be perfect, but which happened to be brokered by Trump?

Snark out of my system, did you read anything about the competing resolutions, beyond your Facebook cut/paste?  UN gamesmanship is not my cup of tea, but it appears Trump's team and some allies are trying to broker a deal, and buttering up Putin is no doubt part of the overall plan.