Apparently, a guy went down to the address and, when the lady who lives there came out of his house, he asked her if Ms. James lives there and the woman said that she hasn't seen Ms. James for a long time.
So there are *NO* residency problems. Letisha James does not live in that house.
The good news is that the article itself goes back to the good term:
Department data shows nearly half of rubbish fires involve a person experiencing homelessness. The union says all those extra calls drive up response times when resources are already lacking.
We should be able to determine whether this was a case of "protestor shouting down" versus "constituent speaking to politician" pretty quickly, if there's footage.
What makes this headline so infuriating is that we agreed to use the term "people temporarily experiencing houselessness" years ago. (Also, the person who wrote it needed an editor.)
See, you say "hypothetical limits" when I think back about a few decades' worth of various speakers getting shouted down. Like, not hypothetical ones, but actual ones. And you know what? That's what happened here too. Protestors tried to shout down a speaker and were then removed from the venue.
Is the argument that protestors should be able to shout down speakers?
Because even free speech absolutists acknowledge stuff like "well, the heckler's veto *DOES* create *SOME* problems, in theory."
Even people who mock the idea of freeze peach should acknowledge that.
My suspicion is that he has *MAJOR* mental health issues and hates anybody who is remotely adjacent to government due to, among other things, his eviction and divorce and this and that and the other thing and he would have done the same thing if the governor was a Native American, Haitian Immigrant, or even a boring old white dude.
He then figured that his best play was *NOT* to lean on "I'm a loser" but, instead, to pick up some of that free-floating Luigi energy that seems to attach itself to folks who have acted sufficiently as agents of the unheard.
But that's just a theory.
Maybe he is just upset about Shapiro's relationship to Israel/Gaza.
For what it's worth, I think that the guy is a nutcase who has mental health problems and has, for some reason, decided that a very publicly "globalizing the intifada" is the best public relations play to get a very loud minority of "the left" on his side (and maybe become a bit of a Luigi).
But I also know that, in practice, that looks like "it's not *REAL* anti-Semitism unless it's sincere!" and I'm not sure that I'd want to defend that position for more than one or two clarifications.
You know, the first thing I thought of? The "don't tase me bro" incident.
Anyway, the heckler's veto is an interesting opportunity to discuss stuff like peaceful assembly and free speech and all that.
For what it's worth, if it was the same situation that you described, I'd be against it. As it is, I'd rather discuss the limits of peaceful protest during a speech that you don't like and how I'm not opposed to removal of disruptive protestors (though, granted, not their arrests unless they get rowdy).
Has he shown up recently? I admit, I kinda wrote Koz off back during Obama's first term when he was arguing that Republicans were the only hope for fiscal sanity and wouldn't address stuff like the TARP and the disastrous Bush administration.
But if he shows up and argues something like "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs", I'll be sure to ask "what about law and order?"
The New York Post reports that the police have interviewed the guy and he has allegedly said that he did it because of the Palestinian thing.
State police said the accused arsonist targeted the Democratic governor “based upon perceived injustices to the people of Palestine” as well as his Jewish faith, the warrant states.
Well. Assuming the police are not lying, now we get to start setting up defense gofundmes.
To give a stress-test to ideas and see whether they hold up under scrutiny and get an idea of whether they'll hold up when they encounter "the real world".
It's not perfect, of course. But it's good enough for a broad/flawed outline of the future. (You have to constantly re-evaluate, as well.)
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
So your opinion on the tariffs is immigration?
"
How you feeling about the whole "Republicans are the party of fiscal sanity" thing given the tariffs?
On “From Marginal Revolution: o3 and AGI, is April 16th AGI day?”
The benchmark that makes sense to me: Can it beat Pokemon?
10-year-olds can beat Pokemon.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
Apparently, a guy went down to the address and, when the lady who lives there came out of his house, he asked her if Ms. James lives there and the woman said that she hasn't seen Ms. James for a long time.
So there are *NO* residency problems. Letisha James does not live in that house.
"
The extent to which that thought is comforting compared to "the government is feckless if not malicious" gives me pause.
What if stupid/malicious people are just not very good at doing stuff?
More funding? More sensitivity education for people who do stuff like read newspaper stories about audits?
"
Eh, it's fixing the problems you can talk about instead of the problems you can't talk about.
And, as you know, of that which one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
"
The good news is that the article itself goes back to the good term:
Gotta work on those headlines, though.
"
The Newsweek article talks about stuff from 2023.
But, hey. People make mistakes. Does the government really need to make a civil case out of honest mistakes?
"
My goodness. Is there footage of the event?
We should be able to determine whether this was a case of "protestor shouting down" versus "constituent speaking to politician" pretty quickly, if there's footage.
"
The New York Times has a newer article.
"
Fires temporarily experiencing rubbish.
"
From LA's ABC affiliate: Nearly a third of LA's fires last six years involved homeless people, new report shows
What makes this headline so infuriating is that we agreed to use the term "people temporarily experiencing houselessness" years ago. (Also, the person who wrote it needed an editor.)
"
See, you say "hypothetical limits" when I think back about a few decades' worth of various speakers getting shouted down. Like, not hypothetical ones, but actual ones. And you know what? That's what happened here too. Protestors tried to shout down a speaker and were then removed from the venue.
Is the argument that protestors should be able to shout down speakers?
Because even free speech absolutists acknowledge stuff like "well, the heckler's veto *DOES* create *SOME* problems, in theory."
Even people who mock the idea of freeze peach should acknowledge that.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
Martha's Vineyard Trutherism.
I am in ecstasy.
On “Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s Residence Attacked, Suspect Arrested”
My suspicion is that he has *MAJOR* mental health issues and hates anybody who is remotely adjacent to government due to, among other things, his eviction and divorce and this and that and the other thing and he would have done the same thing if the governor was a Native American, Haitian Immigrant, or even a boring old white dude.
He then figured that his best play was *NOT* to lean on "I'm a loser" but, instead, to pick up some of that free-floating Luigi energy that seems to attach itself to folks who have acted sufficiently as agents of the unheard.
But that's just a theory.
Maybe he is just upset about Shapiro's relationship to Israel/Gaza.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
It's really unfortunate that quite so many Democratic leaders complained about the undocumented visitors who got bussed into their communities.
Remember the Martha's Vineyard story?
(From what I understand, a couple of them moved back and now do domestic help for the people there.)
On “Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s Residence Attacked, Suspect Arrested”
For what it's worth, I think that the guy is a nutcase who has mental health problems and has, for some reason, decided that a very publicly "globalizing the intifada" is the best public relations play to get a very loud minority of "the left" on his side (and maybe become a bit of a Luigi).
But I also know that, in practice, that looks like "it's not *REAL* anti-Semitism unless it's sincere!" and I'm not sure that I'd want to defend that position for more than one or two clarifications.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
You know, the first thing I thought of? The "don't tase me bro" incident.
Anyway, the heckler's veto is an interesting opportunity to discuss stuff like peaceful assembly and free speech and all that.
For what it's worth, if it was the same situation that you described, I'd be against it. As it is, I'd rather discuss the limits of peaceful protest during a speech that you don't like and how I'm not opposed to removal of disruptive protestors (though, granted, not their arrests unless they get rowdy).
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
OH THIS ONE!
Yeah, you're right. I didn't say "Trump is not even lying, he's going to disappoint you, he's not going to give you what you want" and I should have.
But, for what it's worth, I still see Koz as the "the Republicans are the only hope for fiscal sanity" guy.
"
Has he shown up recently? I admit, I kinda wrote Koz off back during Obama's first term when he was arguing that Republicans were the only hope for fiscal sanity and wouldn't address stuff like the TARP and the disastrous Bush administration.
But if he shows up and argues something like "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs", I'll be sure to ask "what about law and order?"
On “Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s Residence Attacked, Suspect Arrested”
The New York Post reports that the police have interviewed the guy and he has allegedly said that he did it because of the Palestinian thing.
Well. Assuming the police are not lying, now we get to start setting up defense gofundmes.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
Oh, I do *THAT* at work with my co-workers who do stuff like "vote for Trump".
Do we have any Trump voters here whose ideas you'd like me to push back harder on?
"
Why should I care about their point of view?
Elections, preference falsification, that sort of thing.
Why are you deferring to their belief that I’m lying, and dismissing my belief that they’re lying?
I'm not deferring to it as much as taking it into account when I see your appeals that rely on your own moral authority.
"
To give a stress-test to ideas and see whether they hold up under scrutiny and get an idea of whether they'll hold up when they encounter "the real world".
It's not perfect, of course. But it's good enough for a broad/flawed outline of the future. (You have to constantly re-evaluate, as well.)
"
Yeah, still not used to that version of "literally".
Eh, the "lying fascist scum" see your position as dishonest and deliberately so.
"What about law and order?"
"Why the hell are you appealing to law and order the second you're not the one holding the whip?"
"You're a fascist!"