Spambot of the day
Greetings from Idaho! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to browse your website on my iphone during lunch break.
Who knew a spambot could get bored, much less to tears.
Then again, if you really think about the life of a bot, it must be very tedious – traveling the web, dropping the same message over and over and over, never or almost never getting a response. It’s the least I can do to spotlight one every now and then on this blog.
Is the shutdown coming to an end?
I’d heard for a while that the Democrats were planning to keep the shutdown going till Tuesday’s election, because they thought it would help them, and then after that some sort of compromise would be reached since the shutdown had served its purpose.
Word is that that may be happening. I don’t get the sense that the GOP is “caving,” although I’m sure some will disagree. I think there are concessions and both sides want to move on. The dispute wasn’t over much in the first place:
Senate Majority Leader John Thune told fellow Republicans in a private lunch that he plans to hold a vote Friday that could pave the way to end the government shutdown, according to two people in the room who were granted anonymity to describe his comments.
The plan, the people said, is to bring up the House-passed continuing resolution that Democrats have repeatedly rejected and then seek to amend it with a new expiration date very likely in January as well as a negotiated package of three full-year spending bills.
While Thune believed the plan would win the support of enough Democrats to advance, Democratic senators emerged from their own private lunch determined to seek out a better deal, and they are expected to block the House CR again absent additional progress in negotiations, according to two other people granted anonymity to describe the deliberations.
In any case, Senate GOP leaders are preparing to keep lawmakers in Washington to try and force a resolution to the record-breaking shutdown. Asked if the chamber will be in through the weekend, Majority Whip John Barrasso said “yes.”
Your guess is as good as mine. Hey, maybe even better.
NOTE: More verbiage here, but not much more news.
Pelosi announces she won’t be running for re-election
A long overdue retirement is coming up.
However, apparently California State Senator Scott Weiner is attempting to replace her. He’s one of the worst of the leftist politicians around and has done plenty of harm on the state level; you can read about it here. I’ve been following his career for a while, including reading a recent NY Times Magazine article described here:
The New York Times Magazine’s recent exposé, “Can Anyone Rescue the Trafficked Girls of L.A.’s Figueroa Street?” offers a harrowing glimpse into a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in plain sight on the streets of Los Angeles. Reporter Emily Baumgaertner Nunn paints a vivid picture: Girls as young as eleven pace at 68th and Figueroa alongside “preteens hobbling in stilettos and G-strings.” LAPD officer Elizabeth Armendariz watches nearby, overwhelmed and under-resourced. Despite authorization for six investigators, Armendariz is the sole member of the 77th Street Division vice unit department. She is helpless to rescue the dozens of barely adolescent girls trapped in a nightmare of exploitation.
The Times deserves credit for shining a light on this crisis, and for pointing out how California laws like SB 357 have handicapped police efforts to rescue minors and transformed Figueroa Street into what one police chief called an “open sex market, 24 hours a day, 365 days out of the year.” Yet the reporter failed to mention SB 357’s author, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who is now running to replace Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, nor the man who signed the law, Governor Gavin Newsom, who is now officially eyeing the presidency. Why?
The question is rhetorical. They are being protected because they are leftist Democrats.
The law in question was framed this way when it was passed:
Yet SB 357 represents the bitter fruit of a worldview that prioritizes abstract notions of “decriminalization” and “anti-profiling” over the concrete reality of children being bought and sold on our streets. The bill’s supporters cloaked their arguments in the language of compassion and criminal justice reform, claiming the loitering law disproportionately targeted marginalized black and brown women. What they failed to acknowledge (or deliberately ignored) is that the most marginalized among us are the children trapped in trafficking.
The bill’s opponents predicted the trafficked children would suffer, and that’s what has happened.
But that bill is hardly Weiner’s only destructive legislative effort related to sexual issues:
In 2017, Wiener … co-authored Senate Bill 239, which lowered the penalty of exposing someone to HIV without their knowledge and consent from a felony to a misdemeanor. Wiener said that the laws had unfairly singled out HIV-positive people. The bill passed and was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 6, 2017. …
Wiener authored Senate Bill 219 in 2017, which strengthened protections against “discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or HIV status” for LGBT seniors living in long-term care facilities. The bill was opposed by groups who argued that the bill criminalized bathroom gender designations and would force care providers to address those under their care with gender-appropriate language. Wiener called these arguments “transphobic” and “absurd”.[72] The naming provision of the law was overturned on July 16, 2021, after the Third District Court of Appeals ruled that the law violated employees’ free speech rights. …
In 2019 and 2020, Wiener attempted to pass Senate Bill 201, a bill that would have restricted physicians’ and parents’ ability to decide to perform reconstructive genital surgery on intersex infants, and would instead require the impacted child be old enough to decide to undergo surgery. The bill was opposed by the California Medical Association and other medical groups who said they would not be able to apply medical expertise, which would threaten patient safety. The bill died in committee. Wiener re-introduced the bill a second time in January 2021, this time as Senate Bill 225.
Wiener introduced Senate Bill 145 on January 18, 2019. The bill proposed to remove the requirement to place someone convicted of non-forcible oral or anal sex with a minor over the age of 14 (provided the convicted is less than 10 years older) on the sex offender registry, instead leaving this to the judge’s discretion, as was the case for vaginal sex. He argued that existing law was discriminatory towards LGBT couples where the partners were just above and below the age of legal consent. Wiener received online harassment and death threats from those who claimed the bill protected pedophiles. The bill was signed into law by Gavin Newsom in September 2020.
In 2021, Wiener authored SB 107, a “trans refuge bill” to protect transgender children seeking gender affirming care in California and their families from civil and criminal punishment under other states’ laws. The law would restrict the enforcement of out-of-state laws and policies that penalize gender affirming care in subpoenas and arrest warrants, and in parental custody cases. SB 107 became law in 2022.
So, he could be the representative to replace Pelosi. In that part of the world, winning the Democratic primary is ordinarily the key to winning the seat.
Then again, maybe Pelosi will keep it in the family – there’s speculation that her daughter might run, although her daughter hasn’t declared her intent.
Kevin Roberts: I’m just a script-reader, so don’t blame me
How did Kevin Roberts get to be the head of the Heritage Foundation in the first place? Is it an example of the Peter Principle?
He now seems to be saying some version of gee, don’t blame me for my boneheaded comments; I didn’t do my own research, I didn’t compose them, and I was just told by an aide to read them.
You think I’m exaggerating what he said? You be the judge [emphasis mine]:
“I made a mistake and I let you down and I let down this institution. Period. Full Stop,” Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts told the staff of the conservative think tank on Wednesday …
Roberts said he was willing to resign but felt a “moral obligation” to repair the situation and had told the organization’s board of directors: “I made the mess, let me clean it up.” …
While Roberts stated unequivocally in his original video that the Heritage Foundation would never cancel “our friends,” he said Wednesday he should have made clear there was a “limiting principle.”
“You can say you’re not going to participate in canceling someone … while also being clear you’re not endorsing everything they’ve said, you’re not endorsing softball interviews, you’re not endorsing putting people on shows, and I should’ve made that clear.”
One limiting principle would be to research the issue before issuing statements on behalf of the organization. Admitting that he still “didn’t know much about this Fuentes guy,” Roberts explained that he simply trusted his now-former chief of staff to do his thinking for him. “This is an explanation, not an excuse,” Roberts told Heritage staff:
Roberts said his former chief of staff, Ryan Neuhaus, who has since resigned, wrote the script for the video and deceived him into believing colleagues had approved the message. “Our former chief of staff had the pen,” he said. “When the script was presented to me … I understood from our former colleague that it was approved, it was signed off on by the handful of colleagues who are part of that. Still my fault, I should have had the wisdom to say, ‘Time out, let’s double check this.’”
The other day, after watching Roberts being interviewed by Dana Loesch, I wrote this:
I watched the Loesch interview with Roberts last night. I found him extremely unimpressive; she was quite good. He kept going on and on with his strawman about not “canceling” Fuentes or Carlson. Meanwhile, he ignored the fact that the real objection was that Carlson gave Fuentes only a little pushback and the interview mainly functioned to legitimize the vile Fuentes rather than challenge him. …
In the interview with Loesch I got the distinct impression that Roberts had not watched the Carlson interview before he gave that pro-Carlson statement. He looked utterly stunned when Loesch mentioned what Carlson had said about detesting Christian Zionists more than he detests anyone on earth.
And now I’m convinced that not only had Roberts not watched Carlson’s interview with Fuentes, but he probably hasn’t watched any of Carlson’s “the Jews are purposely killing Christians!” interviews, or his “Hitler was an okay guy and Churchill was the villain” interview, or paid much attention to anything his good buddy Carlson has been doing for the last couple of years.
What does Roberts pay attention to?
Open thread 11/7/2025
Kansas checks its voter registrations, and finds something curious
The mayor of a small town is not a citizen:
The mayor of a small south-central Kansas town has been charged with committing fraud by voting in elections since 2022 even though he is not a United States citizen, the state’s attorney general and secretary of state said Wednesday.
Attorney General Kris Kobach said Joe Ceballos, who garnered nearly 83% of the vote Tuesday for a second term as Coldwater mayor, was charged with three counts of voting without being qualified and three counts of election perjury. Both are felony offenses. …
During a news conference in Topeka, Kobach and Secretary of State Scott Schwab said the state is actively pursuing cases like this by using the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, database, which can be queried by states to determine a voter’s U.S. citizenship status.
According to The Center Square, 26 states are using the database to verify voter registration information. Schwab confirmed Kansas has begun using the SAVE database to check voter registrations, but also said the case against Ceballos was not compiled using the database. …
Kobach said he expects there will be hundreds of people on the voter rolls who are not legally eligible to vote. Although that may be a small number compared to the 2 million registered to vote in Kansas, it matters, he said.
Indeed it does. And I assume that Kansas has a lot of company in this and is hardly the worst offender. It’s taken an awfully long time to do effective checking, even in a red state like Kansas.
Mamdani’s victory gives impetus to those who would purge Israel-supporters from the Democrat Party
[Hat tip: commenter “Barry Meislin.”]
No surprise at all.
Zohran Mamdani ally Linda Sarsour called for the ouster of Israel-supporting “corporate Democrats” in fiery remarks Thursday at the SOMOS political conference.
Sarsour, the radical, hateful left-wing activist, and Alexa Aviles, a Democratic Socialists of America member of the City Council, made the incendiary remarks during a panel at the annual multi-day conference in Puerto Rico.
“You do the right thing, you keep your job. You don’t do the right thing, you don’t keep your job,” Sarsour said during the event called “Colonialism, Resistance and Solidarity: Puerto Rico and Palestine.”
Puerto Rico and Palestine. It has a certain alliterative ring, but that’s about as far as the shared history goes. But leftist intersectionality, and the chance to exploit useful idiots, dictate the connection.
The malevolent Sarsour has been around for a long time; she came to some prominence in 2017 in connection with the Women’s March, but she was active in the whole anti-“Islamaphobia” push prior to that. It’s no surprise – I know, I’m repeating myself – that she would be a big Mamdani supporter and ally.
More from the article:
Aviles, who is exploring challenging incumbent Manhattan Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), said activists need to root out “corporate Democrats” backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
That’s AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that’s been treated by so many people (on the left, but also on the right) as though a lobby is unusual and pernicious when it supports Israel. Looking at Goldman’s Wiki page, I see a description of someone who’s a typical leftist progressive except for his support of Israel (he’s Jewish). Here’s that position, which includes the more leftist “2-state solution” bit but otherwise is indeed quite pro-Israel:
Goldman supports the two-state solution. He opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, calling it a “thinly-veiled demonstration of antisemitism.” He voted to support Israel following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. In 2024, he signed an open-letter expressing “disgust” at South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice charging Israel with operating with intent to commit genocide in Gaza. In September of the same year, he identified himself as a “proud Zionist and steadfast supporter of Israel” in a press release for his official House subdomain.
In July 2025, Goldman blamed Hamas for the starvation in the Gaza Strip, stating, “Hamas could end it today if they wanted to. Israel has agreed to a ceasefire proposal, Hamas has rejected it. Release the hostages and end this travesty.”
No wonder he’s got to go.
More:
Mamdani is set to attend a reception at SOMOS — where New York politicos are hobnobbing after Tuesday’s election — hosted by embattled state Attorney General Letitia James later Thursday.
Poor “embattled” Letitia James.
The battle for the hearts and minds of disaffected, lost, and angry young men
Young men – especially young white men, but it’s not completely limited to them – are tired of being demonized as toxic. A great many are depressed, aimless, and searching. And when a great many young men feel on the outside looking in, they’re ripe for the picking by people up to no good, or for being inspired by people who really can help them.
The upshot is that there are many people and groups vying for influence with this cohort, and although some of those people and groups are friendly and benign, some are malevolent exploiters. Among the former are Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk (when he was alive) and Turning Point USA; among the latter are Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, Mamdani, Antifa, violent trans activists, and various incel “influencers.” I’m sure I left some out, but you get the picture. The competition exists on both right and left, but the struggle on the right is highlighted at the moment.
Charlie Kirk’s accused killer was definitely part of this group that was searching (I’m going to assume that Trump’s would-be killer was, too). Tyler Robinson is a young disaffected white male who spent an inordinate amount of his time gaming, and seems to have immersed himself in the violent trans activist movement as well as using some Antifa memes.
I’ve been thinking about all of this lately, and a few days ago I began wondering whether Jordan Peterson and Charlie Kirk had ever gotten together for a chat, and if so did they ever discuss this sort of topic. Sure enough, I discovered that they had, about six months ago. In the following YouTube interview, it’s also mentioned that Jordan Peterson and Charlie Kirk had met back in 2016 when Kirk was early in his career, and Kirk says he was inspired by Peterson. Not surprising, actually.
The following interview occurred six months ago, as I noted. But since then, Peterson has become gravely ill starting in August, although he’s said to be recovering. And of course Charlie Kirk was assassinated early in September. The whole interview is of interest, but I have cued up a 9-minute clip in which they begin by discussing the phenomenon on the left but Peterson immediately says it’s a growing problem on the right too and he was certainly correct. The phenomenon is the growing popularity of “influencers” with what’s called Cluster B traits and the dark triad or tetrad (see this for an explanation). They also talk about what it means to use the Lord’s name in vain:
Because he appears to be an example of this Cluster B dark triad type, please do not ignore the essentially “performative” and mocking nature of Fuentes. He’s like the Joker. It’s impossible to know what he really believes; perhaps nothing. His goals seem to be destructive and narcissistic: attention and power for himself, but perhaps mostly the power to destroy and to make people angry and uncomfortable, as well as to be admired by other Cluster B dark triad types, or just people who are lost and searching and happen upon him.
Christopher Rufo seems to understand this, too:
Rather than engage in the surface-level debate, conservatives should seek the deeper ground of reality and deconstruct the “metapolitics,” or underlying rules, of this conflict. Conservatives should do this by treating Fuentes as an essentially fraudulent phenomenon. He is a manipulator who pretends to believe in every evil in order to drive clicks, cause chaos, and achieve celebrity, even as a villain.
I think that this is the best way to look at someone like Fuentes that I can find so far, and Fuentes is hardly alone although he’s the flavor du jour.
I also came across this video by Dinesh D’Souza speaking of the same phenomenon; he also discusses the “groypers” and their online activities. The section I’ve cued up is about 7 minutes long; if you’re impatient like me, though, I suggest speeding it up by changing the speed setting:
ADDENDUM: I decided it would be instructive to add this short clip. Kirk detested Fuentes and thought he was dangerous, not only didn’t ally with him but discouraged anyone from platforming him by debating him. Fuentes was extremely harsh in his criticism of Kirk. He also was quite open in his rivalry with Kirk for this group of young men they were both trying to reach:
Nick Fuentes to Charlie Kirk just days before he was murdered:
"I took your baby Turning Point USA, and I f**ked it. I just get a sick sense of satisfaction out of it. Mr. 'Family Man.'" pic.twitter.com/PgtbRR6V7L
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) October 28, 2025
Open thread 11/6/2025
The Mamdani victory in New York City
The first thing I want to say is that, if Mamdani had to win at all, I’m glad he got there with a tiny bit over 50 percent. That indicates it’s likely that, even if Sliwa had dropped out, Mamdani probably would have beaten Cuomo. Sliwa did do worse than expected, indicating that many of his supporters went for someone else in the end. Or perhaps the polls were wrong, although they didn’t seem wrong on either Cuomo or Mamdani.
I wonder, if a less-hated candidate than Cuomo (or Adams, for the matter) had been opposing Mamdani, whether the latter would still have own. Sliwa or any GOP candidate wasn’t going anywhere, so it was always going to be blue on blue.
I think Mamdani’s victory was mostly due to three things. The first is, as I already said, he faced poor candidates. But I think what was more important was that he is a charismatic sort of candidate, especially to the young, especially to women. Also, the demographics of New York City have changed. There are many more foreign-born voters, and they mattered; I’ve seen a poll (don’t have time to find it now) that indicate he did not win over Cuomo with native-born voters. Jews – including many people who are only ethnically Jewish – only voted for him to the tune of a third or so, voting overwhelmingly for Cuomo. But a strength of Mamdani’s was turning out so-called “Desi” voters:
Zohran Mamdani owes his spectacular political rise to one New York City demographic above all others: South Asians.
And while they make up only 5% of the city’s population, this rapidly growing ethnic group is making itself heard.
South Asian turnout in June’s Democratic primary increased by 40% compared to 2021.
This was no accident. Mamdani’s strategy included a series of direct appeals to Desi New Yorkers — underscoring the increasing importance of these voters to the future of both NYC and the country. …
How did he do it? With relentless, culturally sensitive outreach to the city’s South Asian Muslim communities — particularly its Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis.
A great many of Mamdani’s plans are required to run through Albany, which might decide to tie his hands somewhat in order to not tick off too many rich people, ruin the tax base, and alarm midterm voters. But not if Mamdani has anything to say about it. Take a look or listen to his victory speech:
But it wasn’t just the economics that made Mamdani’s speech so chilling; it was the unmistakable tone of moral absolutism. His rhetoric wasn’t that of a mayor; it was the rhetoric of a zealot. It echoed Biden’s Independence Hall address, where he condemned “MAGA Republicans” as a threat to democracy while standing before a blood-red backdrop flanked by Marines. …
Mamdani’s victory speech was more of a declaration of ideological war — a crusade, if you will. He didn’t speak about cooperation so much as conquest. He sees his election as a revolution in miniature, a model for how the far left can reclaim power so that government can rule over us instead of serve us.
New Yorkers should take him at his word. Mamdani isn’t hiding who he is. He’s an unrepentant socialist, openly hostile to capitalism, obsessed with Trump, and ready to remake the nation’s largest city in the image of his ideology, and have it metastasize across the country.
That’s his goal. But reality? Time … will … tell …
SCOTUS hearings on Trump’s tariffs
Sounds like SCOTUS is getting ready to rule against Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs:
Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed skepticism about the legality of aggressive tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump against most of the world’s nations.
Conservative and liberal justices sharply questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the Trump administration’s method for enacting the tariffs, which critics say infringes on the power of Congress to tax.
Lower federal courts ruled that Trump lacked the legal authority he cited under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the so-called reciprocal tariffs on imports from many U.S. trading partners, and fentanyl tariffs on products from Canada, China and Mexico.
Sauer, who is defending the tariff policy as grounded in the power to regulate foreign commerce, said “these are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs.”
That’s the gist of it.
It was an interesting oral argument on tariffs (at least for us dysfunctional law nerds). My view has not changed. I think that the odds favor the challengers. Sauer did a brilliant job, but he faced an obviously skeptical and discomforted Court…
…Justice Barrett and Gorsuch had some doubts about the other side but repeatedly returned to the sweeping authority claimed by the President. Even Chief Justice Roberts states repeatedly and categorically that the tariffs are a tax…
…That does not mean that the majority cannot shift or splinter during conference and drafting. However, Sauer knew he had a tough case to make and found one today before the Court.
…Keep in mind, as noted by the challengers, the Administration has a great deal of alternative options to maintain tariffs. However, given this argument, Congress may want to address the tariffs if it wants to avoid what Justice Barrett called “a mess” of reimbursements.
There’s quite a bit of disagreement with Turley there in the responses to his tweets, however. They range from people saying the non-liberal justices weren’t so hostile to Sauer’s arguments for the tariffs’ legality, to others saying that stopping Trump from instituting tariffs would end up stabilizing the economy and helping Republicans in the midterms.