• Texas governor going against Biden and saying Texas is being invaded (border crossing from Mexico) (and Biden has not fulfiled Article 4.4 to protect the states and has triggered Article 1.10.3 and Texas as a state has a right of self defense. Public by a huge majority wants this (what Abbot wants), but Gov Abbot may lose in court (to a solicitor general sent by Biden to go against him). So Abbot might ‘become a national hero’ and what would the effect be on opinion of courts? ‘Biden ‘actively fighting Texas on this when Texas just seems to be trying to reinstate a border.’ ‘From failing to do his duty to actual sabotage’ (cutting wires). Sacks.
    #Texas #Constitution

    Will this move already, but more so if it goes further, cause Texans and other states to in law and in politics be bolder in independent views rather than playing along with the Federal program?

    New immigrants vote Democrat. Undocumented immigrants said to be (Tucker) 22m, not the reported 11m. Dems want to give them voting rights.

    Republicans are neocons and ‘want to go to war’ but Trump and RFK are against illegal immigration and against foreign wars, and they're crushing it in the polls, because Americans also don't want illegal immigration or to be in foreign wars, in the majority.

    LILLEY UNLEASHED: UNRWA part of the problem in Gaza - YouTube

    Farmer protests: Armoured police vehicles block highway as tractors push to reach Paris - YouTube

    ‘Demand An Answer’: Amid Mass Firefighter Resignation, Stanley Town Officials Say Little - YouTube

    FBI issues dramatic public warning: Chinese hackers are preparing to 'wreak havoc' on the US - YouTube (CNN)

    'Throw 'em in jail': Ford calls for changes to criminal code - YouTube
    He wants us to believe people are flying in for 2 weeks to steal cars?

    Dr. Jordan Peterson: I've been sentenced to re-education and I'll fight back - YouTube (Fox)

    DARPA a government agency that pays for itself - Samo
    Possibly you could have gotten the same technologies out of other institutions without DARPA.
    DOD used to be much better at declassifying technologies. Turning it over to their contractors.
    As soon as you demonstrate the viability of a technology, others will reverse engineer it and make generic or competitors.
    DARPA has limited terms for program managers. With a few bil, 220 people, an institution that doesn't really owe anyone that much. You might as well do something great with it. If it was a permanent post, you would probably build a small beurocratic empire with the money. ‘Term limits.’
    Match and tailor the appropriate amount of funding. Overfunding can be as detrimental as underfunding. Encourage a situation where you're not producing a patronage network. A reaccuring budget is worse than one-off funding. Demonstrations of viabilities. Autonomy and ability to liase between departments. Can fix vaious communication gaps that naturally exist.
    The pay at DARPA is much lower than private sector, so the people who will go there don't necesarily want just to make money. Maybe they want to advance technology. The reputation of excellence. A tour of duty at DARPA. A positive credential to say they worked at DARPA. Opposite of saying they worked at MIT or Google.
    Politically precarious. Growing restrictions on it for decades. Political and military leaders may fail to understand why it works at all. Or they might understand only that it works but not why, and may form it in ways that blunt it, to serve their own priorities.
    NASA and military have a stake with factories etc in every state. You have to talk to them to reduce funding.
    Is DARPA ‘the last tree standing in the forest'? - Samo.
    Because it built reputation, people were actually proud of it.
    DARPA is enabling the big budgets of other organizations to continue.
    The profit motive, you must always inflate costs to justify more funding, if you work for the government.
    Governments can't fire their employees easily.
    Come into government, and complete a competing body that does the same thing as a big body but cheaper. There's a political cost but you have to overcome that with a political benefit. ‘We don’t need (old) agency. I'm going to cut (old) agency.' Especially if it's staffed with political enemies.
    We've come to view job creation as an end in iteself, and this is fairly destructive.
    Government officials tend to try to make themselves unfireable.
    We could have a higher quality civil service. Can fire half the civil servants and pay the other half double, and it'd be more efficient.
    Government could create more options of agencies to use. Between two options we'll usually chose the best.
    Reduce the budget for medicaid and instead let the consumer spend that amount (20k or 50k) on what they want. Because then the consumer thing would work.
    Retire large defense conglomerates.
    NASA spending incubated SpaceX.
  • Supreme Court strikes NY law (as unconstitutional) that required permits for concealed guns

    Before, New Yorkers had to show they had self-defense needs to get the permit.

    NY mayor not happy, nor Biden. It affects 40 states, Biden said.

    NY can still require people get licenses on condition of things like background checks and mental health records, said an analyst. They can also limit guns in places like overcroweded places, courts, maybe trains.

    Getting a gun is the same as before in NY. You still have to go through the same process to get a license. What is different is that anyone who has that license can concealed carry.

  • Texas abortion law

    "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgements of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgements, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery." - Chief Justice Roberts

    Currently, the Texas law is the strictest in the States, banning abortion after 6 weeks, when 90% of abortions happen. The Supreme Court (Conservative majority) said OK, 5-4, this is a weird new thing, we don't understand it yet, weird procedural question, but abortion providers haven't given us enough reason to tell Texan judges not to enforce it.

    R V Wade (1973) said 24 weeks. Are Women's rights being violated now, since abortions after 6 weeks are not being done. The Constitutionality won't be worked out, people say, until there's a real case brought forward (a lawsuit by a Texan--perhaps one of their anti-abortion groups like Right to Life) to be tried.

    The Texas law is enforced in a unique way, which is why Conservatives on the Supreme Court said they didn't have the power to intervene here. State officials don't enforce it. Individual Texans sue both providers and anyone who aids and abets an abortion. Doctors said they would comply by not doing abortions after 6 weeks.

    A civil avenue for any individual to sue anyone else for violating a certain law.

    Americans to a considerable but not overwhelming degree would favor laws against abortions in the 3rd trimester (80% according to Gallup) and a slight majority (60%) would favor laws for the 2nd trimester.

    Texas poll found 50% of Texas support making abortion illegal after 6 weeks. 67% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats said they supported these bills.

    (This story has been going on for a few months now.)