chasfh

I actually signed up for NordPass as a replacement, but obviously they made it for the mobile-only generation, because it works fine on mobile, but it is practically unusable on laptop, which is where I do all my heavy lifting. So I'm sticking with LastPass for the time being. That's fine, they do not store anyone's master passwords so no breach can reveal that, and the nature of the passwords is that they exist encrypted on the user's machine and even if that's breached, they are useless without knowledge of the master. So I feel reasonably confident that I'm gonna be OK.

I think it counts. Stern is a major legacy media vehicle by now.

That checks out with the map.

I'm OK, you're OK.

The company you keep.

I read about people's preferences for seasons in the Washington Post and this is a pretty good map: What it basically shows is which season people tend to look forward to more, spring or fall. A lot has to do with the local climate, obvs: if you live in the cold north, you are more likely to look forward to spring; in very warm or hot climes, more likely to look forward to fall. This is apparently based on Google searches. Now, this isn't a map, but I found this really interesting: you are more likely to prefer the season your birthday falls within!

The do have good rapport and I was not at all suggesting Hinch doesn't like Benetti—but you can be annoyed with people you like. 😁

Can you imagine a better way to get the youngs flocking to MLB than highlighting players’ charitable endeavors and talking about their parents?

A.J. Hinch is a great interview in the right hands. This was a very relistenable first episode. Dan and Jason are different kinds of cops. Dan is the all-business-all-the-time cop. Jason is the joke-around-and-ask-offbeat-questions cop. It’s a good mix unless Jason goes way off the reservation with something. Here’s a good example of that: I loved the part where Jason asked Hinch what kinds of life situations A.J. would call a personal pinch-hitter in to help him with. Just a really oddball and borderline dumb question, and you can tell A.J. was a bit annoyed by it, and he replies, half-jokingly, “Sometimes I love you, Jason, and then sometimes I love you a little less.”

They are waiting for Trump to become president before they can finally rule 6-3 that presidents have no immunity.

Did people really think Comey was on our side?

I don’t think it would be a bad thing at all for Biden to have an extensive interview with a major legacy media vehicle like the Times, provided he nails it, and I think the administration would like to do so. It’s a risk, though, and it could go upside down in unexpected and uncontrollable ways that wouldn’t apply to prior presidents, which may be why they’re avoiding putting Biden out there in the first place. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them try it, though. Just not now because the topic is too hot.

I find it hard to believe that there are substantial pockets of Michigan that prefer soda over pop. I find it even harder to believe that Chicago is firmly soda country. I can tell you from first-hand experience: it ain’t.

Can you imagine what this court is going to be like when Democrats control the White House and both sides of Congress? It will be practically open war.

Future Hall of Famer alert here at Wrigley Field.

I mean, yeah, we already knew this, but seeing it laid out in print like this really punches us in the gut. https://www.vox.com/scotus/24134882/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity-calendar-delay How the Court games its calendar to benefit litigants on the right By handling requests from Republican litigants with alacrity, while dragging their feet when a Democrat (or someone prosecuting a Republican) seeks Supreme Court review, the justices can and have handed big victories to right-wing causes while simultaneously sabotaging liberals. Before the Trump case reached the Supreme Court, this penchant for manipulative scheduling was most apparent in immigration cases. During the Trump administration, lower courts often handed down decisions blocking the former president’s immigration policies, and the Court (often over the dissent of several justices appointed by Democrats) moved quite swiftly to put Trump’s policies back in place. In Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary (2019), for example, after a lower court blocked a Trump administration policy locking many migrants out of the asylum process, the Court reinstated this policy about two weeks after the administration asked it to do so. Similarly, in Wolf v. Cook County (2020), the Court reinstated a Trump administration policy targeting low-income immigrants just eight days after Trump’s lawyers sought relief from the justices. Once Biden came into office, however, the Court hit the brakes. In August 2021, for example, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — a Trump appointee who is known for handing down poorly reasoned decisions implementing right-wing policy preferences — ordered the federal government to reinstate a Trump-era immigration policy known as “Remain in Mexico.” Though the Supreme Court eventually reversed Kacsmaryk’s decision, it sat on the case for more than 10 months, effectively letting Kacsmaryk dictate the nation’s border policy for that whole time. Similarly, after another Trump-appointed judge struck down a Biden administration memo laying out enforcement priorities for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Court waited about 11 months before finally intervening and restoring the administration’s longstanding power to set priorities for law enforcement agencies. The point is that, even in cases where the justices ultimately conclude that a conservative litigant should not prevail, they frequently hand that litigant a significant victory by sitting on the case and allowing a Republican policy to remain in effect for sometimes more than a year. (Given the slow pace of most litigation, this might not be particularly remarkable — except for the stark difference in how the Court has treated suits against Trump and Biden’s policies.) The Court’s ability to set its own calendar allows it to manipulate US policy without actually endorsing lower court decisions that cannot be defended on the merits. The Court’s behavior in the Trump immunity case is a close cousin to this tactic. Again, it is difficult to imagine even this Supreme Court ruling that presidents may commit crimes with impunity. But the Court does not need to explicitly declare that Trump is above the law to place him above the law. All it has to do is string out his immunity claim for as long as possible. —Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent

Let him. He'll get crushed, and we will enjoy watching it.

The Chicago-For-The-People's mayor Brandon Johnson about to whore himself out for the Bears' new stadium. Mayor Brandon Johnson, who took office less than a year ago after vowing to end decades of disinvestment on Chicago’s West and South sides, enthusiastically endorsed the project, calling the renderings of the futuristic oval-shaped stadium with a translucent roof “miraculous.” “Today’s announcement is bigger than football,” said Johnson, touting the team’s investment in the city as a vote of confidence in the city’s future and his leadership. “This is a true public investment.” The cash grab tab is going to come to almost exactly $900 for every man, woman, and child in the city, including those on the disinvested south and west sides.

And not in da butt

but antisemitism

Right , I forgot that. Even worse: he went to arbitration without doing boo for us.

Uppity justices get whacked in Trumpworld.

Yes, but they also know he would never abuse it to jail or murder opponents and such. That's the beauty part for them.

I don't know why you'd want that. That's weird and creepy.

She should have released the hostages and accepted the ceasefire when she had the chance, I guess.