Wednesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, April 16. 2025

Would a couples therapist ever tell you to break up?

Right-Hegel Meets Left-Hegel - The misreading of Hegel that Alexandre Kojève shared with Leo Strauss

Trump vs. Harvard. Plus. . .

How Much Does Each US Wealth Bracket Pay In Income Taxes?

Bernie Sanders at Coachella shows time is not on the Democrats’ side. The optics looked like a lefty senior citizen in a desperate attempt to win back the love of a nihilistic, Bushwick-dwelling grandchild

Democrat Rep. Laura Friedman Says the Quiet Part Out Loud — Admits House Democrats Meet “Every Single Week” with Far-Left AGs to Plot Lawfare Against Trump Agenda

Why Progressives Increasingly Support Violence - A new survey finds more than half of left-wing respondents believe assassinating Donald Trump could be justified.

Newsom Signs Bill to Cover Free Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants

The Case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

How Sweden’s multicultural dream went fatally wrong. Child soldiers, gang violence and murders for hire blight the once-famously peaceful country, journalist Diamant Salihu tells The Telegraph

The MAGA War on Ukraine - Why does so much of the US Right hate a country valiantly resisting a war of aggression?

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:21 | Comments (41) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Why do progressives increasingly support violence? It's simply because nobody wants to buy the ideological crap that they are selling. They are hyper emotional and completely frustrated. It's not complicated.

#1 Lord Heathen on 2025-04-16 07:42 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Why Progressives Increasingly Support Violence - A new survey finds more than half of left-wing respondents believe assassinating Donald Trump could be justified.

Concerning the survey, the survey used a scale of 1-7 for whether violence was justified. That kind of scale will generally spread out responses, so even a very low number will indicate some justification, however meager. Nor did the survey consider violence directed at the political left. Keep in mind that while 41% of Democrats indicated some possible justification for killing a political leader, 29% of Republicans also did.

As for the substance of political violence: Brutus isn't remembered for saving the Roman Republic, but for putting the final, fatal dagger into it.

#1.1 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 10:18 (Reply)

Meanwhile, in the real world, everyone including you knows the left is responsible for 95% of the actual political violence that occurs in the US.

#1.1.1 James on 2025-04-16 17:22 (Reply)

James: Meanwhile, in the real world, everyone including you knows the left is responsible for 95% of the actual political violence that occurs in the US.

Political violence

See Jason et al., A Comparison of Political Violence by Left-Wing, Right-Wing, and Islamist Extremists in the United States and the World. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2022: “we find that individuals and attacks associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent.”

#1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 21:09 (Reply)

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
Couldn’t find a more perfect example. :-)

#1.1.1.1.1 Anon on 2025-04-17 13:12 (Reply)

Are you actually pretending that that is credible evidence?

You've gaslighted, repeated absurdities and just out and out lied so many times and for so long you don't even know when you're doing it now.

#1.1.1.1.2 James on 2025-04-17 17:13 (Reply)

Anon: There are some ideas so absurd …

James: credible evidence?

Providing a specific instance and a study based on empirical data is a bit stronger argument than “Is not,” or even “IS NOT!!”

#1.1.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2025-04-17 20:16 (Reply)

Ah, yes, the desperate appeal to authority gambit. To paraphrase another wise man, “Who you gonna believe, a bunch of left-wing academics, or your own lying eyes?”

And as to your “specific example”? Pfft. Why not show burning Tesla dealerships, or the assassinated UHC CEO, or any of the hundreds of “fiery but mostly peaceful” riots? Or mention the numerous Democrat leaders actively and explicitly calling for violence? See the far right-wing mouthpiece Newsweek for multiple examples: https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-must-stop-their-violent-rhetoric-opinion-1955671.

#1.1.1.1.3.1 Anon on 2025-04-18 11:36 (Reply)

Anon: the desperate appeal to authority gambit.

No. It's an appeal to evidence. Certainly, the study could be wrong, but that would require actually looking at the data, and not waving your hands and declaiming, "Is not!" Your link is to an opinion piece that makes no pretense of analyzing the wider data.

James made a quantitative claim, "the left is responsible for 95% of the actual political violence that occurs in the US," which he didn't support and which is contradicted by Jasco et al. And from the survey, while 41% of Democrats indicated some possible justification for killing a political leader, 29% of Republicans also did (though many people probably considered hypothetical situations in their responses).

Now, if your claim is that there are calls for violence on the political left and that others on the political left use intemperate language, then sure. But keep in mind that it also applies to the political right. But, as our original comment pointed out, « C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute. »

#1.1.1.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2025-04-18 12:46 (Reply)

" Would a couples therapist ever tell you to break up?" I can tell you over 50 years ago I was given that advice and followed through. Best decision I made in my life.

#2 JC on 2025-04-16 08:33 (Reply)

I thought the headline about the Ukraine War was satire. Sadly not. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and even the Ukraine are ultimately consequences of US/Israel aggression. At least Trump realises that the US/NATO have been defeated by Russia.

#3 DeGaulle on 2025-04-16 08:40 (Reply)

Indeed. Hating the Biden elites doesn't mean you hate the USA. Hating the corrupt Ukrainian elites that grow fat on corruption while the villagers are dragged off to die in Nulands/Merkels war doesn't mean you hate Ukraine.

#3.1 Freddo on 2025-04-16 10:56 (Reply)

re: Couples Therapy

I skimmed the article so maybe I missed it, but marriage wasn't mentioned once. What a silly idea that two people whoe are not married should consider counseling. This falls under the category of people with too much money and time on their hands.

If you're dating someone and considering couples therapy, then Yes!, break up as soon as you can. You've already waited too long. You also need to consider and decide if you are the problem, rather than the other person. If you're the one seeking couples therapy you should probably stop dating altogether until you get your life sorted out.

#4 jack walter on 2025-04-16 08:51 (Reply)

I'm beginning to suspect that a Hellmouth has opened up under Harvard. Not so much for the Trump-resistance; more the Jew-hate.

It would explain a lot.

#5 Codfanglers on 2025-04-16 10:25 (Reply)

re The MAGA War on Ukraine - Why does so much of the US Right hate a country valiantly resisting a war of aggression?

QUOTE:

The US$128 billion that the US has given Ukraine over the past three years amounts to less than US$120 per year per American.

What? THAT is supposed to make me feel better? That we have "only" added 120 billion to the national debt?

This is why we have a debt problem. Let's spend 100 billion here, 60 billion there because compared to a trillion, it's just not that much, even if all the spending follies add up to a trillion.

Sheesh . . .

It's all bullshit and we are doomed.

Governing is about making tough choices and people capable of making those choices simply don't run for office.

#6 feeblemind on 2025-04-16 10:32 (Reply)

The title you will never see out of the fake news media is:
Why has the left become so pro war, celebrating the deaths of millions at the behest of the United States while adding to the US bankruptcy.

Combined military casualties for both Ukraine and Russia range from 1.1 to 1.3 million, with civilian casualties adding tens of thousands more to the total human cost of the conflict.

#6.1 LibDis on 2025-04-16 10:51 (Reply)

feeblemind: What? THAT is supposed to make me feel better? That we have "only" added 120 billion to the national debt?

After spending trillions of dollars to contain Russia, yes, the economic cost of supporting Ukraine has been relatively small. Russia's expansion has been halted, its military degraded, its reputation damaged; and Ukraine survives.

LibDis: Why has the left become so pro war, celebrating the deaths of millions at the behest of the United States while adding to the US bankruptcy.

The alternative would be to allow an aggressive Russia to conquer and dominate its neighbors, defeating them in detail, almost inevitably drawing the United States into a much wider war. If there was any lesson from the world wars, it was that tyranny has to be confronted.

#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 11:21 (Reply)

Russia has been remarkably constrained in its reaction to NATO encroachment and hegemonic US/EU/Davos/IMF color revolution instigations intended to collapse their government and make them vulnerable to globalist exploitation. We overthrew Ukraine's elected government in 2014. Ukraine proceeded to wage genocide on their Russian-speaking citizens in the Donbas.

Ukraine is not a US problem. We have no national interest (or at least shouldn't have ... but for our secret biowarfare labs and political money laundering operations) there. We've been conned into dumping billions into an unwinnable local war, risking WW3. The Ukrainian government has been a den of corruption and anti-democratic behavior for a long time, not deserving of our support.

The US should unilaterally pull all non-humanitarian support from Ukraine.

#6.1.1.1 ruralcounsel on 2025-04-16 12:51 (Reply)

ruralcounsel: Russia has been remarkably constrained in its reaction to NATO encroachment

Invading a sovereign country, even after promising to honor the country's existing borders, is not "constrained".

ruralcounsel: Ukraine is not a US problem.

Really, why should United States worry about what happens in a faraway land that most Americans could never find on a map. It's not as if it might affect them. It would be surprising if domestic U.S. papers even bothered to report the news.

#6.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 13:08 (Reply)

Given how active our military has been in "assisting" the Ukrainians, the Russians would have been justified in using tactical nukes on all of NATO. We are combatants.

They've been remarkably constrained.

#6.1.1.1.1.1 ruralcounsel on 2025-04-16 16:39 (Reply)

Amazing how so many right wingers turned on a dime from Russia being the bad guy and the USA being the good guy to parroting recent left-wing rhetoric about the USA being the source of all evil in the world and Russia being peace loving and reasonable.

The fact that a different set of idiots are making such nonsensical assertions doesn't make it any less of a lie. I'll tell you the same thing I've told the idiot progressives, I believe, including Zac. Since you hold this country in such contempt and hold Russia in such high regard, buy a one-way ticket to Russia and never come back here. You'll make the USA better with that single act.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 James on 2025-04-16 17:44 (Reply)

For the love of God. Give your damn brain a chance.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Lord Heathen on 2025-04-16 21:05 (Reply)

Pull your head out of your posterior. Your brain is suffering from oxygen deprivation.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 James on 2025-04-17 17:15 (Reply)

James: including Zac. Since you hold this country in such contempt and hold Russia in such high regard, buy a one-way ticket to Russia and never come back here.

Doubtful. Putin is an authoritarian oligarch. While we have suggested engagement, we have never held Russia’s current regime in high regard. The United States and the American people, on the other hand, have largely been a force for good in the world.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 21:13 (Reply)

ruralcounsel: Given how active our military has been in "assisting" the Ukrainians, the Russians would have been justified in using tactical nukes on all of NATO.

So, you say, the bar for constraint is anything less than not using nuclear weapons. Breaking a treaty, invading another country, bombing civilians, torturing and killing captives, and kidnapping thousands of children, is constraint.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 22:25 (Reply)

Given how active the Soviet Union and Red Chinese militaries were in supporting both North Korea and North Vietnam would we have been justified in nuking them? I believe Ukraine is European problem and we don't need to be involved. But I doubt nukes are going to be flying.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.3 John Fisher on 2025-04-17 11:04 (Reply)

Zachriel We broke treaties (promised not to push NATO up to Russia's borders). We invaded other countries (Iraq, Syria, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Bosnia). We bombed civilians (see previous examples). We tortured and killed captives (Remember Abu Graib and black sites for renditioning?). Kidnapped children? Well we do have hundreds of thousands that we allowed to be trafficked into the US who have disappeared. Does that count?

John Fisher If the Soviet pilots flying for North Vietnam were blowing up American cities and military bases on US soil, yes we would have been justified in letting the nukes fly. Would we have? Hopefully leveler heads would prevail and the Russians would have withdrawn their pilots, just as we should withdraw our support for Ukraine using all of our high tech weaponry by providing them space-based intel and targeting info.

James I'm a Cold War era Navy vet, so I find your comments ludicrous (as well as dishonest.) I hold my country to the highest standards. Forgiving its failings without accountability is a disgrace. Nor is holding it accountable aligning with other foreign governments. Suggesting that is un-American. Perhaps you should leave and go volunteer in Ukraine. Put your ass where your reckless mouth is. That would make America a better place.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.3.1 ruralcounsel on 2025-04-18 19:44 (Reply)

Zach's assessment of Russia is rather hilarious. Trillions to 'contain Russia' is fundamentally fictitious. It is trillions spent to shore up the military industrial complex that arose after WWII. That has gotten us a US manufacturing base that has been stripped bare by the very US oligarchs that have been at the trough lapping up the taxpayer cash. What has the middle class gained from manufacturing's export to cheap labor countries other than rapidly declining middle class lifestyle having to compete with imported cheap legal and illegal labor. And the entire conversion aided by endless wars to divert attention while feeding the war machine. Using the 'coalition of the willing' through the UN, Nato or any handy institution to continue the aggression at Russia or any other countries placed on our political shit list to keep the grift, greed, and power grab moving forward. Russia has not been expanding but instead shrinking ever since their retracement from East Germany and much of the eastern bloc countries. If Nato could keep its greedy fingers off a prize it hopes to capture, which is Russia and its natural resources, there would be little conflict. Russia simply wants Russians in the eastern bloc countries treated like the rest of the citizenry but leave it to the warmongers to seize the opportunity to stir up shit. Europeans can't defend themselves from their Islamic invaders, but they sure want to borrow Nato muscle to prop up their foolish meddling in Russia and the Ukraine. Modern Europe is little more than a hollowed out amalgam of countries that don't even like each other and chaff at central government functionaries in which the citizens have no vote. Western Europe's future is the same as the old Soviet Union future, decay and retrenchment. They best learn to get along and trade with each other.

#6.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2025-04-16 13:35 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia ... It would be illegal for Garcia to enter the United States, as it was when he came here the first time.

That's nonsense. No less an authority than the United States Supreme Court says the government needs to facilitate Garcia's return to the United States.

QUOTE:

No one disputes that Abrego Garcia was here illegally, so why is there any debate?

That is not correct. Garcia was under a "withholding of removal" status, which legally allowed him to live and work in the United States. Per the Supreme Court order: "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal," and that it is "the Government's own well-established policy" to facilitate the return of anyone who has been deported while their petition for review is pending.

#7 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 10:54 (Reply)

The only reason Garcia was not deported was that he convinced an Immigration ALJ that he was afraid rival gangs in El Salvador might make it risky for him to return. Hardly a glowing recommendation for allowing him to stay in the US. We don't want ANY gangs here. Any petition for review that is honestly heard will refuse to allow him to stay.

What happens to him in El Salvador is not our business.

As for SCOTUS, they were very careful NOT to order Trump to bring him back. "Facilitate" is open to wide interpretation, including just not interfering with his return. It certainly doesn't mean send US law enforcement to El Salvador to kidnap him from El Salvador authorities. Garcia is an EL Salvador citizen, and El Salvador has him now. The El Salvador government refuses to return him, as is their right.

He isn't coming back.

#7.1 ruralcounsel on 2025-04-16 13:00 (Reply)

"No less an authority than the Supremce Court..." There is no lesser authority in the federal government than the Supreme Court. And there is no greater violator of its designated authorty than the Supreme Court either.

#7.2 jack walter on 2025-04-16 13:05 (Reply)

jack walter: There is no lesser authority in the federal government than the Supreme Court.

There are plenty of lesser authorities in the federal government. The Supreme Court is the head of the Judicial branch, coequal with the Executive and Legislative branches, and the final arbiter of the Constitution. Lesser authorities include the federal Appeals and District Courts.

jack walter: And there is no greater violator of its designated authorty than the Supreme Court either.

Perhaps, but as Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson quipped, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." While not a perfect system, granting the power to a single person to act without accountability would lead to a "century of authority". In this case, there were no dissents from even the most conservative of justices.

The Great Writ is centuries old, and a fundamental bulwark of liberty.

jack walter: As for SCOTUS, they were very careful NOT to order Trump to bring him back.

But the court did order him to facilitate his return, consistent with existing government policy. The government can't just refuse to take any action. Gee whiz. They facilitate the return of prisoners from Russia; so, they can certainly facilitate the return of someone unlawfully deported.

jack walter: The El Salvador government refuses to return him, as is their right.

The agreement of the United States with El Salvador states they will hold detainees, "for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on long term disposition.”

Bukele is clearly doing Trump's bidding. Bukele even said he didn't have the power to return him to the United States, which is preposterous. Furthermore, this is a violation Trump's own constitutional duty that he "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"; which means trying to fix the unlawful deportation of Garcia.

#7.2.1 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 13:54 (Reply)

"But the court did order him to facilitate his return, consistent with existing government policy. The government can't just refuse to take any action. Gee whiz. They facilitate the return of prisoners from Russia; so, they can certainly facilitate the return of someone unlawfully deported."

Watch the government refuse to take any action. Just like Biden took no positive actions to stop our southern border invasion. Or to stop BLM riots from burning down our cities. Or investigating ANTIFA.

When our people are imprisoned by Russia, we get them back because Russia does so willingly. El Salvador has made it clear they will not. And besides, we only get back lesbian WNBA players who broke Russian law, or overzealous missionary types that annoyed Russian authorities enough that they got labeled as spies.

Unlawfully deported? Why bring him back just to lawfully deport him? He's a criminal. We don't want him. He should never have been here. Keep playing these frivolous lawfare games and watch how fast we put hard and fast limits on District and Circuit Courts.

#7.2.1.1 ruralcounsel on 2025-04-16 16:53 (Reply)

ruralcounsel: Watch the government refuse to take any action.

Then the government will be in defiance of the court and of the law.

ruralcounsel: El Salvador has made it clear they will not.

The United States is paying El Salvador to hold the detainees, the agreement being that the detainees are to be held "pending the United States’ decision on long term disposition.” Regardless, the Supreme Clurt held that the government must make a good-faith effort to correct their unlawful action.

rural counsel: Why bring him back just to lawfully deport him?

Garcia has the right to due process under the Constitution, under immigration statutes, and under court order. It only matters if you believe in the Constitution, in limiting the power of the executive to act without restraint, and the rule of law.

#7.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 20:44 (Reply)

He had his due process and was ordered deported.

Then he took advantage of a loophole to get reclassified ... improperly, IMO, by a rogue POTUS's administration that was ignoring immigration law everywhere else. He got a second bite at the apple, and was pending having that overturned.

Due process is NOT a neverending appeals process.

#7.2.1.1.1.1 ruralcounsel on 2025-04-17 05:14 (Reply)

ruralcounsel: He had his due process and was ordered deported.

The ruling was made in 2019—under the “rogue” Trump administration. The government did not appeal. The Convention on Torture is not a “loophole”, but a Senate-ratified treaty, under federal statute and regulation.

Appeals are part of due process, which, in the United States, is per the Constitution, statute, and case law. Regardless, the government was bound by the decision unless or until it was overturned.

#7.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2025-04-17 07:49 (Reply)

I hardily encourage you and your fellow progressives to fully embrace the cause of Garcia. Hard to imagine anything that illustrates your contempt for the average American and hatred of America more than your concern that every i be doted and every t be crossed before any action is taken against foreign nationals with violent criminal records who entered the country illegally.

But on to the legal niceties. The AG is statutorily authorized to overrule any decision by an immigration judge. Perhaps now is a good time for such a decision.

#7.3 James on 2025-04-16 17:34 (Reply)

James: your concern that every i be doted and every t be crossed before any action is taken against foreign nationals with violent criminal records who entered the country illegally.

There is no evidence that Garcia has committed a violent crime. He migrated to the United States when he was sixteen to escape gang violence.

You accept what the government claims and reject due process, whereby the government would have to show cause before a court. In this case, in apparent defiance of an order from the Supreme Court. That’s the very essence of authoritarianism and directly contrary to the concept limited government.

#7.3.1 Zachriel on 2025-04-16 20:53 (Reply)

Multiple restraining order filed against him by his wife, and photos of her after he assaulted her. Hard to see how that isn't evidence of violent behavior. Two court findings that he was an MS 13 member.

His legal status is ambiguous. Your assertion that he is here legally is so imprecise s to be inaccurate. It is plainly legal for him to be deported.

Garcia has had multiple due processes. Lost them. As a legal matter, it is an open question whether he is entitled to anymore. Non is his return to El Salvador despite the prohibition actually a miscarriage of justice. Even that restriction can be overturned by the AG.

As a matter of policy, all of the LW agitation and lawfare, and most of the rulings by the Dem. appointed judges and dubious rulings attempting to overturn the results of an election. It is obvious to 80%+ of the population that most illegals need to be removed.

#7.3.1.1 James on 2025-04-17 17:27 (Reply)

James: Multiple restraining order filed against him by his wife

Apparently, they resolved their marital issues years ago through counseling. Regardless, even if the “withholding from removal” order was in error, even if he was a convicted murderer, the order still stands. A unanimous Supreme Court said the government acted unlawfully and must facilitate his return.

#7.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2025-04-17 22:05 (Reply)

The article on taxes paid by 'wealth' brackets was actually about income brackets. Income and wealth are not the same and I have not seen a breakdown of income taxes paid by net worth.

#8 John Fisher on 2025-04-17 12:08 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, April 16. 2025

Wednesday morning links