Zero Hedge

Why The Left Wants The Right To 'Lower The Temperature'

Why The Left Wants The Right To 'Lower The Temperature'

Authored by Roger Kimball via American Greatness,

In the aftermath of the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk last week, does the Right need to “lower the temperature” of its rhetoric? That’s what the usual suspects on the Left are saying.

As it happens, “lowering the temperature” while simultaneously raising the intelligence of discussion was one of Charlie Kirk’s specialties. A theme of his campus “American Comeback” tour (which his widow Erika plans to continue) was dignified debate. “Prove Me Wrong” was Charlie’s mantra. He eagerly engaged with college students who disagreed—or, sometimes, merely thought they disagreed—with him about a wide range of political, social, moral, and religious issues.

If you have never seen him debate, I recommend you consult Mr. Google or one of his professional counterparts and watch Charlie in action. He was robust but also unfailingly kind, patient, and attentive to his interlocutors. The reason? He wished to persuade his audience about the rightness of his point of view, about the virtues of America, the wisdom of Christianity, and the leadership of Donald Trump. Charlie was fundamentally a teacher.

How about his opponents?

The internet is full of revelatory compilations of left-wingers denouncing their opponents as “fascists,” “Nazis,” and so on.

One series (and here is another) includes CNN’s Anderson Cooper asking Kamala Harris whether she thinks Donald Trump is “a fascist.” “Yes, I do” was her answer.

The word “fascist” had obviously been circulated by Democrat headquarters on the run-up to the 2024 election. Tim “Nimrod” Walz (remember him?) told a crowd that “No one has ever been more dangerous to this country than Donald Trump and he is a fascist to his core.”

“There needs to be blood,” we are told, which is only natural, since, as Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut said, “We’re in a war right now, so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to save the country.” New York Governor Kathy Hochul agreed. “We are at war,” she said. In his infamous speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Joe Biden said that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” “The very foundations of our republic,” forsooth! Nancy Pelosi, reflecting on Donald Trump’s border policy, said, “I don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country and maybe there will be.”

Uprisings are something that House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries can get behind. “We are going to fight this in the streets,” a sentiment echoed by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker: “Time to step out into the streets,” he said.

It is all part of the ethic summarized by Eric “Wingman” Holder, Barack Obama’s loyal attorney general. “They go low,” he said, “we kick them.”

It has long been obvious that Left has a black belt in what psychologists call “projection.”

They are masters of the art of accusing their ideological opponents of vile things of which they themselves are guilty. Their demand that we all must work to “lower the temperature” and “come together” in unity after the murder of Charlie Kirk is a subset of projection. They call their opponents “fascists” and an “extreme threat to the very foundation of the republic,” but when someone from their flock responds with violence, they blame “intemperate,” “right-wing,” MAGA rhetoric.

The tactic is not working this time. That cosmic suspiration you heard on Thursday night was the sigh of relief issued by the left when it learned that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man who killed Charlie Kirk, was white and that he came from a family of Republican Trump supporters. “You said he would be a black transsexual Trump hater, and here it turns out he is a cisgendered MAGA-supporting cracker.”

Nice try. Social media was full of that contention in the immediate aftermath of Robinson’s being identified as the shooter.

White Robinson certainly is. But he is also, as Utah Governor Spencer Cox put it, “deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.” A complete inventory of Robinson’s hatreds is still being compiled. As for the transgender motif, it turns out that his roommate (some outlets say his “partner”) is in the process of “transitioning.” Hmm. I suspect many people will, like me, agree with the commentator Scott Adams: “When the Charlie Kirk story first broke,” Adams wrote, “I unfairly leapt to the assumption the shooter was probably trans. Now, I feel terrible for making that assumption because the killer was only the boyfriend of a trans. I was way off.”

Adams added, “I am now unfairly leaping to the assumption the boyfriend is on antidepressants.”

It is curious that the last question Charlie Kirk was asked before being murdered bore on the question of transgenderism.

“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?”

Charlie replied, “Too many.”

He was then asked, “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”

Charlie replied, “Counting or not counting gang violence?”

Charlie was then assassinated.

The left is terrified by the response to the ideologically motivated murder of Charlie Kirk. They should be. In the couple of days since the shooting, his organization, Turning Point, has signed up 18,000 new chapters. There have been mass demonstrations across the country—indeed, across the world—expressing sorrow at Charlie’s death and solidarity with his humane and humanizing ideas. As has been often pointed out, unlike the destructive “demonstrations” (what the rest of us would rightly call riots) that followed the death of the career-criminal, drug-abusing, arrest-resisting George Floyd, the mass gatherings for Charlie have featured prayer, not arson.

One key lesson that emerged from the horror of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was summed up neatly by a post on X: “They don’t kill you because you’re a Nazi; they call you a Nazi so they can kill you.” More and more people are coming to understand this.

One bullet fired by a deranged leftist silenced Charlie Kirk forever. But it also awakened millions of embryonic followers. It is too soon to say for certain what the aftermath of his tragic death will be. I would not be surprised if the words “Turning Point” eventually come to be seen to name not only Charlie Kirk’s organization but also a mighty fulcrum created by his death.

*  *  *

Do you know about 5-HTP?

Boosts serotonin levels - good for mood, anti-anxiety, sleep, depression, and appetite control.

Buy 5-HTP by itself

Also in:

Mood (plus Lithium! - serious calm)

Sleep Formula (with Tryptophan, GABA, Skullcap, L-Theanine, Ashwagandha, Inositol)

Night Time Fat Burner (with Magnesium, Ashwagandha, GABA, Melatonin and Magnesium)

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 21:20

Why The Left Wants The Right To 'Lower The Temperature'

Why The Left Wants The Right To 'Lower The Temperature'

Authored by Roger Kimball via American Greatness,

In the aftermath of the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk last week, does the Right need to “lower the temperature” of its rhetoric? That’s what the usual suspects on the Left are saying.

As it happens, “lowering the temperature” while simultaneously raising the intelligence of discussion was one of Charlie Kirk’s specialties. A theme of his campus “American Comeback” tour (which his widow Erika plans to continue) was dignified debate. “Prove Me Wrong” was Charlie’s mantra. He eagerly engaged with college students who disagreed—or, sometimes, merely thought they disagreed—with him about a wide range of political, social, moral, and religious issues.

If you have never seen him debate, I recommend you consult Mr. Google or one of his professional counterparts and watch Charlie in action. He was robust but also unfailingly kind, patient, and attentive to his interlocutors. The reason? He wished to persuade his audience about the rightness of his point of view, about the virtues of America, the wisdom of Christianity, and the leadership of Donald Trump. Charlie was fundamentally a teacher.

How about his opponents?

The internet is full of revelatory compilations of left-wingers denouncing their opponents as “fascists,” “Nazis,” and so on.

One series (and here is another) includes CNN’s Anderson Cooper asking Kamala Harris whether she thinks Donald Trump is “a fascist.” “Yes, I do” was her answer.

The word “fascist” had obviously been circulated by Democrat headquarters on the run-up to the 2024 election. Tim “Nimrod” Walz (remember him?) told a crowd that “No one has ever been more dangerous to this country than Donald Trump and he is a fascist to his core.”

“There needs to be blood,” we are told, which is only natural, since, as Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut said, “We’re in a war right now, so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to save the country.” New York Governor Kathy Hochul agreed. “We are at war,” she said. In his infamous speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Joe Biden said that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” “The very foundations of our republic,” forsooth! Nancy Pelosi, reflecting on Donald Trump’s border policy, said, “I don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country and maybe there will be.”

Uprisings are something that House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries can get behind. “We are going to fight this in the streets,” a sentiment echoed by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker: “Time to step out into the streets,” he said.

It is all part of the ethic summarized by Eric “Wingman” Holder, Barack Obama’s loyal attorney general. “They go low,” he said, “we kick them.”

It has long been obvious that Left has a black belt in what psychologists call “projection.”

They are masters of the art of accusing their ideological opponents of vile things of which they themselves are guilty. Their demand that we all must work to “lower the temperature” and “come together” in unity after the murder of Charlie Kirk is a subset of projection. They call their opponents “fascists” and an “extreme threat to the very foundation of the republic,” but when someone from their flock responds with violence, they blame “intemperate,” “right-wing,” MAGA rhetoric.

The tactic is not working this time. That cosmic suspiration you heard on Thursday night was the sigh of relief issued by the left when it learned that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man who killed Charlie Kirk, was white and that he came from a family of Republican Trump supporters. “You said he would be a black transsexual Trump hater, and here it turns out he is a cisgendered MAGA-supporting cracker.”

Nice try. Social media was full of that contention in the immediate aftermath of Robinson’s being identified as the shooter.

White Robinson certainly is. But he is also, as Utah Governor Spencer Cox put it, “deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.” A complete inventory of Robinson’s hatreds is still being compiled. As for the transgender motif, it turns out that his roommate (some outlets say his “partner”) is in the process of “transitioning.” Hmm. I suspect many people will, like me, agree with the commentator Scott Adams: “When the Charlie Kirk story first broke,” Adams wrote, “I unfairly leapt to the assumption the shooter was probably trans. Now, I feel terrible for making that assumption because the killer was only the boyfriend of a trans. I was way off.”

Adams added, “I am now unfairly leaping to the assumption the boyfriend is on antidepressants.”

It is curious that the last question Charlie Kirk was asked before being murdered bore on the question of transgenderism.

“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?”

Charlie replied, “Too many.”

He was then asked, “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”

Charlie replied, “Counting or not counting gang violence?”

Charlie was then assassinated.

The left is terrified by the response to the ideologically motivated murder of Charlie Kirk. They should be. In the couple of days since the shooting, his organization, Turning Point, has signed up 18,000 new chapters. There have been mass demonstrations across the country—indeed, across the world—expressing sorrow at Charlie’s death and solidarity with his humane and humanizing ideas. As has been often pointed out, unlike the destructive “demonstrations” (what the rest of us would rightly call riots) that followed the death of the career-criminal, drug-abusing, arrest-resisting George Floyd, the mass gatherings for Charlie have featured prayer, not arson.

One key lesson that emerged from the horror of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was summed up neatly by a post on X: “They don’t kill you because you’re a Nazi; they call you a Nazi so they can kill you.” More and more people are coming to understand this.

One bullet fired by a deranged leftist silenced Charlie Kirk forever. But it also awakened millions of embryonic followers. It is too soon to say for certain what the aftermath of his tragic death will be. I would not be surprised if the words “Turning Point” eventually come to be seen to name not only Charlie Kirk’s organization but also a mighty fulcrum created by his death.

*  *  *

Do you know about 5-HTP?

Boosts serotonin levels - good for mood, anti-anxiety, sleep, depression, and appetite control.

Buy 5-HTP by itself

Also in:

Mood (plus Lithium! - serious calm)

Sleep Formula (with Tryptophan, GABA, Skullcap, L-Theanine, Ashwagandha, Inositol)

Night Time Fat Burner (with Magnesium, Ashwagandha, GABA, Melatonin and Magnesium)

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 21:20

Appeals Court Rules Trump Can't Fire Cook, As Miran Wins Fed Confirmation By 1 Vote Margin

Appeals Court Rules Trump Can't Fire Cook, As Miran Wins Fed Confirmation By 1 Vote Margin

A US appeals court issued an 11th ruling, blocking President Trump from removing mortgage-challenged Fed Governor Lisa Cook from her post while her lawsuit challenging the dismissal proceeds. In a win for the embattled economist, an appeals court in Washington on Monday affirmed that Cook can continue working for now. The ruling means that she can attend the Fed’s highly anticipated Sept. 16-17 meeting to vote on whether to lower interest rates. Still, Trump will immediately ask the Supreme Court to step in, at which point all bets are off. 

On Sept 9, US District Judge Jia Cobb - and a sister of the same sorority in which Cook was formerly a member - ruled that Cook could remain on the job as her case proceeded, saying that Trump’s attempt to oust her likely violated the law. The appeals court decision allows that ruling to stand for now.

Last month, Cook sued Trump after the president moved to oust her over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she denies even though she has yet to give a clear reason why she listed two primary residences. The lawsuit has emerged as a major flash-point in the growing clash between the White House and the Fed, which has resisted Trump’s demands to lower interest rates.

What is somewhat ironic in this whole situation, is that Trump is pursuing the person seen as one of the biggest doves on the FOMC during the Biden admin. As Rabobank's Benjamin Picton wrote this morning, "Bloomberg Economics lists Cook amongst the most dovish Fed Governors on its spectrometer, which seems to run counter to the idea that Trump wants to stack the FOMC with doves."

So what is really going on here? Could it be, Picton asks, that the President is convinced that Fed Governors’ determinations of the appropriateness of monetary policy are not a purely technocratic process and actually exhibit some malleability dependent on who happens to be occupying the White House?

If he is right, this former super dove may well vote for a rate hike on Wednesday (even as Bowman and Waller vote for a 50bps rate cut), in the process confirming what Trump may have set out to demonstrate all along: that the Fed is anything but independent, may very well be vindictive, and is certainly not impartial depending on who is in the White House. 

In somewhat offsetting news, and hitting at almost the same time as the Cook update, the Senate confirmed Trump’s economic adviser Stephen Miran, to a post on the Fed Board, clearing his presence at the Wednesday meeting. 

In a 48-47 vote along party lines, the Senate voted to approve Miran’s nomination, setting him up to walk into the Fed’s Washington offices Tuesday morning, just in time for a crucial FOMC meeting scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday. Republicans had fast-tracked approval of Miran’s nomination with Trump pressuring the central bank to cut interest rates. 

Investors and economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect Fed officials to lower rates by a quarter percentage point on Wednesday, although there i a roughly 10% chance of  a 50bps rate cut, which by the way is what we got exactly a year ago, when inflation was far hotter, and when the economy was decidedly stronger, especially following last week's record negative jobs revision. 

“I think you have a big cut,” Trump told reporters on Sunday on his way back to Washington. “It’s perfect for cutting.”

Miran had to sit through his second grueling hearing this year, facing Democrats who ripped his temporary leave of absence from the White House as ridiculous and a threat to the independence of the central bank, especially after Trump moved to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook and bragged to reporters he would soon have “a majority” on the Fed board.

“Every claim he makes and every vote he takes will be tainted with the suspicion that he isn’t an honest broker, but instead is Donald Trump’s puppet,” Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said at his hearing.

Ironically, it was the same Senator who exactly one year ago, said that the "Fed must cut by 75bps on Sept 18" and then Powell proceeded to cut by 50bps two days later, confirming he was Warren's - and Biden's - puppet.

Miran, who has chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told senators he would take an unpaid leave of absence to join the Fed, with no clarity yet on how long he might remain. Trump could nominate him for a full 14-year term to begin in February, or he could choose someone else. Miran could also stay on indefinitely if Trump chooses no one to fill the new term.

One thing is certain: Miran will vote for a 25bps rate cut, and may even vote 50, and he won't be alone since both Waller and Bowman may do the same. Which means that on Wednesday history may be made when we get a four-way vote split: uber doves voting for a 50bps rate cut, Powell and the "moderates" voting for 25bps. Then you have the hard-line pro-Biden supporters (sorry guys, hate to break it to you, but the Fed - which until recently was tasked with enabling a green agenda and social "equity" - has never been and never will be independent) like Goolsbee and Hammack, who may vote to keep rates unchanged, and there is the Lisa Cook wildcard, who may decided to go scorched earth and to vote for a 25bps rate hike. 

In such a circus outcome, all bets will truly be off. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 20:55

Appeals Court Rules Trump Can't Fire Cook, As Miran Wins Fed Confirmation By 1 Vote Margin

Appeals Court Rules Trump Can't Fire Cook, As Miran Wins Fed Confirmation By 1 Vote Margin

A US appeals court issued an 11th ruling, blocking President Trump from removing mortgage-challenged Fed Governor Lisa Cook from her post while her lawsuit challenging the dismissal proceeds. In a win for the embattled economist, an appeals court in Washington on Monday affirmed that Cook can continue working for now. The ruling means that she can attend the Fed’s highly anticipated Sept. 16-17 meeting to vote on whether to lower interest rates. Still, Trump will immediately ask the Supreme Court to step in, at which point all bets are off. 

On Sept 9, US District Judge Jia Cobb - and a sister of the same sorority in which Cook was formerly a member - ruled that Cook could remain on the job as her case proceeded, saying that Trump’s attempt to oust her likely violated the law. The appeals court decision allows that ruling to stand for now.

Last month, Cook sued Trump after the president moved to oust her over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she denies even though she has yet to give a clear reason why she listed two primary residences. The lawsuit has emerged as a major flash-point in the growing clash between the White House and the Fed, which has resisted Trump’s demands to lower interest rates.

What is somewhat ironic in this whole situation, is that Trump is pursuing the person seen as one of the biggest doves on the FOMC during the Biden admin. As Rabobank's Benjamin Picton wrote this morning, "Bloomberg Economics lists Cook amongst the most dovish Fed Governors on its spectrometer, which seems to run counter to the idea that Trump wants to stack the FOMC with doves."

So what is really going on here? Could it be, Picton asks, that the President is convinced that Fed Governors’ determinations of the appropriateness of monetary policy are not a purely technocratic process and actually exhibit some malleability dependent on who happens to be occupying the White House?

If he is right, this former super dove may well vote for a rate hike on Wednesday (even as Bowman and Waller vote for a 50bps rate cut), in the process confirming what Trump may have set out to demonstrate all along: that the Fed is anything but independent, may very well be vindictive, and is certainly not impartial depending on who is in the White House. 

In somewhat offsetting news, and hitting at almost the same time as the Cook update, the Senate confirmed Trump’s economic adviser Stephen Miran, to a post on the Fed Board, clearing his presence at the Wednesday meeting. 

In a 48-47 vote along party lines, the Senate voted to approve Miran’s nomination, setting him up to walk into the Fed’s Washington offices Tuesday morning, just in time for a crucial FOMC meeting scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday. Republicans had fast-tracked approval of Miran’s nomination with Trump pressuring the central bank to cut interest rates. 

Investors and economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect Fed officials to lower rates by a quarter percentage point on Wednesday, although there i a roughly 10% chance of  a 50bps rate cut, which by the way is what we got exactly a year ago, when inflation was far hotter, and when the economy was decidedly stronger, especially following last week's record negative jobs revision. 

“I think you have a big cut,” Trump told reporters on Sunday on his way back to Washington. “It’s perfect for cutting.”

Miran had to sit through his second grueling hearing this year, facing Democrats who ripped his temporary leave of absence from the White House as ridiculous and a threat to the independence of the central bank, especially after Trump moved to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook and bragged to reporters he would soon have “a majority” on the Fed board.

“Every claim he makes and every vote he takes will be tainted with the suspicion that he isn’t an honest broker, but instead is Donald Trump’s puppet,” Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said at his hearing.

Ironically, it was the same Senator who exactly one year ago, said that the "Fed must cut by 75bps on Sept 18" and then Powell proceeded to cut by 50bps two days later, confirming he was Warren's - and Biden's - puppet.

Miran, who has chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told senators he would take an unpaid leave of absence to join the Fed, with no clarity yet on how long he might remain. Trump could nominate him for a full 14-year term to begin in February, or he could choose someone else. Miran could also stay on indefinitely if Trump chooses no one to fill the new term.

One thing is certain: Miran will vote for a 25bps rate cut, and may even vote 50, and he won't be alone since both Waller and Bowman may do the same. Which means that on Wednesday history may be made when we get a four-way vote split: uber doves voting for a 50bps rate cut, Powell and the "moderates" voting for 25bps. Then you have the hard-line pro-Biden supporters (sorry guys, hate to break it to you, but the Fed - which until recently was tasked with enabling a green agenda and social "equity" - has never been and never will be independent) like Goolsbee and Hammack, who may vote to keep rates unchanged, and there is the Lisa Cook wildcard, who may decided to go scorched earth and to vote for a 25bps rate hike. 

In such a circus outcome, all bets will truly be off. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 20:55

Another Shutdown 'Looming' As GOP, Democrats Clash Over Stopgap Funding Bill

Another Shutdown 'Looming' As GOP, Democrats Clash Over Stopgap Funding Bill

With just over two weeks until yet another episode of government funding distraction theatre, Congress is bracing for a high-stakes showdown that could once again bring the federal government to the brink of a shutdown.

House Republicans this week plan to introduce a short-term measure, known as a continuing resolution, that would keep the government open until Nov. 20 while appropriators attempt to negotiate a broader deal on fiscal year 2026 spending. GOP leaders are framing the bill as a “clean” extension, free of partisan add-ons.

But the proposal pointedly excludes provisions Democrats are demanding, particularly on health care. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) have said they will not support a stopgap that fails to address issues such as Medicaid cuts or Affordable Care Act premium subsidies.

“If Republicans follow Donald Trump’s orders to not even bother dealing with Democrats, they will be single handedly putting our country on the path towards a shutdown,” a Schumer spokesperson told Punchbowl News.

Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader John Thune (R-SD), say they have no intention of adding health-care policy to a seven-week extension. “This is about buying time, not rewriting law,” Thune said last week.

House Dynamics

The first hurdle lies in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is under pressure to release the bill text soon, with Republicans traditionally granting 72 hours for review. With Democrats unlikely to support the measure, Johnson can afford to lose no more than two GOP votes. And since Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie is expected to oppose the measure, Johnson is left with almost no margin for error.

Johnson is expected to argue that failing to pass a GOP-only bill would weaken Republicans’ leverage in the negotiations. But conservatives remain wary, fearing the Senate could eventually force through a bipartisan long-term deal more favorable to Democrats.

Senate Timetable

Should the House pass the bill, the Senate could begin work later in the week. Without unanimous consent, processing the measure could consume several days, potentially cutting into the chamber’s planned recess for Rosh Hashanah. Schumer and Jeffries are preparing to filibuster the GOP bill, raising the risk of a shutdown if neither side budges.

Both parties appear confident in their positions. Republicans argue Democrats are overreaching; Democrats counter that Republicans are refusing to negotiate. Historically, Republicans have absorbed more political blame in shutdown fights.

Security Questions

Amid the funding standoff, security for lawmakers has emerged as another point of tension. The White House has requested $58 million for executive and judicial branch security, with the Trump administration indicating support for extending additional protection to lawmakers. Democrats, still unsettled by recent threats, held a call Sunday with U.S. Capitol Police Chief Michael Sullivan to discuss extending the $5,000-per-month member security allowance, set to expire at the end of September.

With only 15 days remaining before current funding lapses, the chances of a shutdown are rising. Democrats are signaling unity behind their leadership, while Republicans are struggling to maintain cohesion in the House. Unless one side concedes, the standoff

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 20:30

Another Shutdown 'Looming' As GOP, Democrats Clash Over Stopgap Funding Bill

Another Shutdown 'Looming' As GOP, Democrats Clash Over Stopgap Funding Bill

With just over two weeks until yet another episode of government funding distraction theatre, Congress is bracing for a high-stakes showdown that could once again bring the federal government to the brink of a shutdown.

House Republicans this week plan to introduce a short-term measure, known as a continuing resolution, that would keep the government open until Nov. 20 while appropriators attempt to negotiate a broader deal on fiscal year 2026 spending. GOP leaders are framing the bill as a “clean” extension, free of partisan add-ons.

But the proposal pointedly excludes provisions Democrats are demanding, particularly on health care. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) have said they will not support a stopgap that fails to address issues such as Medicaid cuts or Affordable Care Act premium subsidies.

“If Republicans follow Donald Trump’s orders to not even bother dealing with Democrats, they will be single handedly putting our country on the path towards a shutdown,” a Schumer spokesperson told Punchbowl News.

Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader John Thune (R-SD), say they have no intention of adding health-care policy to a seven-week extension. “This is about buying time, not rewriting law,” Thune said last week.

House Dynamics

The first hurdle lies in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is under pressure to release the bill text soon, with Republicans traditionally granting 72 hours for review. With Democrats unlikely to support the measure, Johnson can afford to lose no more than two GOP votes. And since Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie is expected to oppose the measure, Johnson is left with almost no margin for error.

Johnson is expected to argue that failing to pass a GOP-only bill would weaken Republicans’ leverage in the negotiations. But conservatives remain wary, fearing the Senate could eventually force through a bipartisan long-term deal more favorable to Democrats.

Senate Timetable

Should the House pass the bill, the Senate could begin work later in the week. Without unanimous consent, processing the measure could consume several days, potentially cutting into the chamber’s planned recess for Rosh Hashanah. Schumer and Jeffries are preparing to filibuster the GOP bill, raising the risk of a shutdown if neither side budges.

Both parties appear confident in their positions. Republicans argue Democrats are overreaching; Democrats counter that Republicans are refusing to negotiate. Historically, Republicans have absorbed more political blame in shutdown fights.

Security Questions

Amid the funding standoff, security for lawmakers has emerged as another point of tension. The White House has requested $58 million for executive and judicial branch security, with the Trump administration indicating support for extending additional protection to lawmakers. Democrats, still unsettled by recent threats, held a call Sunday with U.S. Capitol Police Chief Michael Sullivan to discuss extending the $5,000-per-month member security allowance, set to expire at the end of September.

With only 15 days remaining before current funding lapses, the chances of a shutdown are rising. Democrats are signaling unity behind their leadership, while Republicans are struggling to maintain cohesion in the House. Unless one side concedes, the standoff

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 20:30

Which Fields Of Study Are (Not) Leading To Jobs?

Which Fields Of Study Are (Not) Leading To Jobs?

Even highly educated graduates are finding it difficult to secure work in today's challenging economic climate. This means that it is increasingly important that young people acquire skills through education that align with labor market demands.

A new OECD report, Education at a Glance, explores this issue in depth.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the infographic below, the report finds that while tertiary education generally leads to higher employment rates, outcomes tend to vary by field of study. In 2024, IT graduates had the highest average employment rate across OECD countries at 90 percent, followed by those in engineering, manufacturing and construction at 89 percent. Meanwhile, graduates in arts and humanities, social sciences and journalism had the lowest rates at 84 percent. The data covers employment among adults aged 25 to 64.

Which Fields of Study Are (Not) Leading to Jobs? | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Although the differences may seem small, analysts note the pattern is consistent across countries.

For instance, in the United Kingdom, Mexico, Germany and Australia, unemployment rates for graduates in health and welfare hovered around just one-two percent, indicating that there is currently a strong demand. STEM graduates also had similarly low unemployment.

In contrast, in Greece, business, administration and law graduates saw slightly better employment outcomes than those in arts or STEM fields, reflecting local market conditions.

The report underscores that having any sort of tertiary education tends to improve job prospects. But it also highlights a persistent opportunity gap, as in all countries studied, students from disadvantaged backgrounds were far less likely to reach higher levels of education than those from more advantaged backgrounds. Analysts argue that improving access to education across different socio-economic backgrounds is critical, not only to strengthen social mobility and reduce inequality but also to increase the pool of skilled workers at a time of skills shortage across multiple sectors.

Still, the data shown in the infographic above comes with a caveat.

Although the research was conducted as recently as last year, the employment landscape, particularly in the tech industry, is evolving rapidly due to the widespread adoption of AI. This shift is especially affecting those just entering the workforce. For example, as companies increasingly rely on AI coding assistants, the demand for roles such as junior software engineers is decreasing. And although new technologies have historically eventually created new types of jobs, today’s graduates are being caught in a transitional period, facing fewer immediate openings as the market adapts.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 20:05

Which Fields Of Study Are (Not) Leading To Jobs?

Which Fields Of Study Are (Not) Leading To Jobs?

Even highly educated graduates are finding it difficult to secure work in today's challenging economic climate. This means that it is increasingly important that young people acquire skills through education that align with labor market demands.

A new OECD report, Education at a Glance, explores this issue in depth.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the infographic below, the report finds that while tertiary education generally leads to higher employment rates, outcomes tend to vary by field of study. In 2024, IT graduates had the highest average employment rate across OECD countries at 90 percent, followed by those in engineering, manufacturing and construction at 89 percent. Meanwhile, graduates in arts and humanities, social sciences and journalism had the lowest rates at 84 percent. The data covers employment among adults aged 25 to 64.

Which Fields of Study Are (Not) Leading to Jobs? | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Although the differences may seem small, analysts note the pattern is consistent across countries.

For instance, in the United Kingdom, Mexico, Germany and Australia, unemployment rates for graduates in health and welfare hovered around just one-two percent, indicating that there is currently a strong demand. STEM graduates also had similarly low unemployment.

In contrast, in Greece, business, administration and law graduates saw slightly better employment outcomes than those in arts or STEM fields, reflecting local market conditions.

The report underscores that having any sort of tertiary education tends to improve job prospects. But it also highlights a persistent opportunity gap, as in all countries studied, students from disadvantaged backgrounds were far less likely to reach higher levels of education than those from more advantaged backgrounds. Analysts argue that improving access to education across different socio-economic backgrounds is critical, not only to strengthen social mobility and reduce inequality but also to increase the pool of skilled workers at a time of skills shortage across multiple sectors.

Still, the data shown in the infographic above comes with a caveat.

Although the research was conducted as recently as last year, the employment landscape, particularly in the tech industry, is evolving rapidly due to the widespread adoption of AI. This shift is especially affecting those just entering the workforce. For example, as companies increasingly rely on AI coding assistants, the demand for roles such as junior software engineers is decreasing. And although new technologies have historically eventually created new types of jobs, today’s graduates are being caught in a transitional period, facing fewer immediate openings as the market adapts.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 20:05

Bob Vylan Gig Canceled After Front Man Celebrated Charlie Kirk's Death On Stage

Bob Vylan Gig Canceled After Front Man Celebrated Charlie Kirk's Death On Stage

Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times,

English punk rap duo Bob Vylan have had their next major gig canceled in Holland after their front man celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death on stage.

On Sept. 10, Charlie Kirk, 31, a father of two and the most prominent American political figure to be assassinated in nearly six decades, was fatally shot in the neck while speaking at a Utah college campus.

Bob Vylan’s performance at Amsterdam’s Club Paradiso on Saturday went viral when the band’s front man ranted about Kirk.

Despite video of the outburst being shared on social media, front man Bobby Vylan, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, has denied he was celebrating Kirk’s death.

At the same concert, he also ranted about “fascists” and “zionists,” saying, “Get out there, go find them, and meet them in the streets.”

He also led a chant with the crowd of “Death, death to the IDF,” referring to the Israel Defense Forces.

The band members, who also led chants of “death to the IDF” at the world-famous English music festival Glastonbury in June, are the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by Avon and Somerset Police.

013, which is the biggest pop venue in the Netherlands, posted a statement on Sunday saying the band had been canceled over “controversial remarks the artist made last night during a show at Paradiso in Amsterdam.”

It said that despite the controversy that arose after their performance at Glastonbury, 013 had at the time still decided to allow Bob Vylan to perform in Tilburg.

“However, the statements Bob Vylan made last night at Paradiso clearly cross a line for us. We strongly reject the trivializing of political murder and the call to ‘go out and find people in the streets,’” the venue said, adding that the new statements “go too far” and “no longer fall within the boundaries of what we can provide a stage for.”

Robinson-Foster claimed in a video response on X that he was not actually celebrating Kirk’s death.

“At no point during yesterday’s show was Charlie Kirk’s death celebrated,” he said.

The United States already revoked visas for members of Britain’s Bob Vylan punk-rap duo after their Glastonbury chants.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announced in a June 30 post on X, “The [State Department] has revoked the U.S. visas for the members of the Bob Vylan band in light of their hateful tirade at Glastonbury, including leading the crowd in death chants. Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country.”

When Landau was alerted to the band’s latest comments, he wrote on X on Sunday, “Rest assured that the Department of State has revoked his visa so at least he will not be engaging in his grotesque diatribes on American soil.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 19:40

AI Can Code Faster Than Humans, But Speed Comes With Far-Reaching Risks

AI Can Code Faster Than Humans, But Speed Comes With Far-Reaching Risks

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times,

Artificial intelligence-generated code has become a daily fixture for developers across the technological spectrum. These digital tools have made writing lengthy code much easier. However, experts say this trade-off comes with new security risks and a continued need for human oversight.

Developers say artificial intelligence (AI) slashes a lot of the grunt work in writing code, but seasoned developers are spotting flaws at an alarming rate.

The security testing company Veracode published research in July—gathered from more than 100 large language model (LLM) AI tools—that showed while AI generates working code at astonishing speed, it’s also rife with cyberattack potential.

The report noted 45 percent of code samples failed security tests and introduced vulnerabilities outlined by the cybersecurity nonprofit, the Open Worldwide Application Security Project.

Veracode researchers called the study’s findings a “wake-up call for developers, security leaders, and anyone relying on AI to move faster.”

Some experts say the high number of security flaws isn’t shocking given AI’s current limitations with coding.

“I’m surprised the percentage isn’t higher. AI-generated code, even when it works, tends to have a lot of logical flaws that simply reflect a lack of context and thoughtfulness,” Kirk Sigmon, programmer and partner at intellectual property law firm Banner Witcoff, told The Epoch Times.

Cybersecurity researcher and former mission operator for the Iris Lunar Rover, Harshvardhan Chunawala, compared AI code writing to home building. He said it’s like having AI draft a quick blueprint for a house, but the blueprint might include doors that don’t lock, windows that don’t fit, or wiring that’s unsafe.

And with AI’s advance into critical digital infrastructure, he said the system isn’t just making “blueprints” anymore, but ordering materials and beginning construction before a foundation inspection has taken place.

“A human architect still has to check every detail before the ‘house’ is safe to live in,” Chunawala said.

Sigmon has extensive coding experience with AI and its subset, machine learning. He used a recent example to highlight the limitations of AI-generated code.

“I was helping a friend program a space-themed website one night, and I tried to see if an LLM could give me some quick and easy code for CSS3-friendly panoramic stars for the website background,” he said.

Sigmon noted the results were underwhelming and demonstrated AI’s current limitations.

“The model’s output did indeed comprise code that tried to generate stars, but it lumped all of them in the upper-right corner of the browser and, instead of making them twinkle nicely, made them strobe like some sort of impromptu rave,” he said.

“It knew to draw stars in a background and knew they should twinkle, but had no bigger-picture context on why I’d want that, much less how it could look aesthetically pleasing.”

Sigmon said AI-generated code is also creating lazy habits that will have an impact on the industry’s future.

“Code quality has gotten way, way worse overall. One of the more concerning issues is on the academic side. If students can use AI models to generate their homework projects, then they don’t tend to learn good coding practices,” he said.

Hallucinating Code

Sigmon said he learned to code the way many old-school programmers did: through trial and error.

“The ready availability of lazy, AI-generated code means that new graduates are entering the workforce and also generating bad [or] unreliable code, which means that lots of programs are simply becoming worse,” he said.

Consequently, many modern codebases are largely incomprehensible or not very useful anymore, according to Sigmon.

“I used to be able to pick up any other coder’s work and roughly understand their intent … Nowadays, lots of it just gives me a crippling headache,” he said.

A person holds a telephone displaying OpenAI s ChatGPT artificial intelligence logo in Brittany, France ,on Feb. 26 2025. Vincent Feuray/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images

A fellow coder and former web content manager who asked only to be referred to by his first name, James, agreed with Sigmon.

“You need to be really careful with your edits. You just can’t trust AI code,” James told The Epoch Times. He said coders need to be careful because the more complex a project gets, the worse AI’s “hallucinations” will be.

When AI perceives a pattern or object that either doesn’t exist or is imperceptible to human observers, it can create outputs that are either illogical or just plain wrong. This pattern is often referred to as a “hallucination,” and James said it can be an infuriating part of dealing with AI-generated code.

“You can get pretty far down the line [in code] before realizing there’s a mistake and AI was just hallucinating,” he said.

AI hallucinations have already made headlines for the problems they can create in the workplace. A 2024 study observed LLMs had a “hallucination” rate between 69 percent and 88 percent, based on responses to specific legal queries.

Stanford RegLab and the Institute for Human-Centered AI researchers found that LLM performance “deteriorates when dealing with more complex tasks that require a nuanced understanding of legal issues or interpretation of legal texts.”

In a recent side-by-side comparison of some of the largest LLM products—Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT—Claude was found to have the lowest “hallucination” rate, at around 17 percent.

Throwing another wrench into the equation, James said AI sometimes doubles down on its mistakes, or even defends them.

“This happened while I was developing a role-playing combat app. What I wanted was just to grab the name from the first file, and it [AI] kept losing that, and it kept trying to take other data from the same file,” James said.

When James pointed out the mistake, he said the AI tool “refused to let it go.” It’s an issue he’s encountered with several different AI tools in the LLM category.

Changing the Vibe

Chunawala said AI has been a game-changer for code writing.

“The single biggest change for us computer scientists has been speed. Where developers once spent hours setting up the skeleton of a program or writing repetitive test cases, AI can now draft those in minutes,” Chunawala told The Epoch Times.

However, he said this newfound speed comes with a significant challenge: trust.

“AI often generates code that looks flawless at first glance, yet when you examine it closely, you discover gaps in logic, outdated methods, or subtle flaws that can compromise security,” Chunawala said.

Cybersecurity expert, Nick Nikiforakis, told The Epoch Times that AI is good at writing “boilerplate” code.

“It is not difficult to write; it is repetitive, and yet it is something that is required. AI excels in producing that kind of code, which can be used with minimal modifications, assuming the prompt included all the right specifications,” Nikiforakis said.

He believes the verdict is still out on whether the average developer can create code with fewer bugs than its AI-generated counterpart. That said, Nikiforakis thinks “vibe coding” could create a dangerous scenario.

Coined by AI researcher Andrej Karpathy, “vibe coding” is a software development method that uses LLM tools to generate code from natural language prompts, with the developer focusing on goals, feedback, and experimentation versus reviewing or editing the AI code itself.

Vibe coding has become synonymous with the idea that a human developer can just trust AI to get it right while staying focused on the bigger picture.

Nikiforakis says that’s problematic.

“If you have people who don’t write software for a living, and never dreamed of trying before AI, then their only gauge on whether a piece of software is good is its functionality,” he said.

“Unfortunately, this is a case of ‘you don’t know what you don’t know,’ and therefore these users would not be able to recognize a vulnerability that finds its way into their production software.”

Undated file photo showing a "virus" warning and binary codes on a computer screen. Peter Byrne/PA

Nikiforakis said if vibe-coded software becomes popular, it'll be a “recipe for disaster.”

Chunawala said AI code should be taken seriously from a security standpoint.

“Research has shown that roughly 40 to 45 percent of AI-generated applications contain vulnerabilities. In other words, almost half of the software created with AI could give attackers an opening,” he said.

Chunawala emphasized that these security vulnerabilities are not abstract. He called them “very real risks” and gave examples such as failing to sanitize user input, which can allow malicious commands to sneak in.

Another security risk with AI-generated code is the reliance on outdated “libraries” that hackers already know how to exploit.

“This happens because AI is trained on vast amounts of public code, and much of that public code already contains mistakes,” Chunawala said.

“The model doesn’t distinguish between best practice and bad practice; it reproduces both. Without thorough human review and guardrails, these weak spots go straight into production systems,” he added.

But therein lies another problem: Human coders and software developers are losing jobs to AI at an accelerating pace.

Research from the Federal Reserve of St. Louis indicates job postings for software developers have been declining since 2022.

James is part of the tech workforce that has been struggling to find steady work since he was laid off with the rest of his department in February. When he looked for jobs four years ago, James said employers were practically “throwing money” at him.

Now, he said, the job market is flooded with talented developers looking for work.

“Part of it is the efficiency of AI. We can do what we did before, but we can do it much faster. You don’t need extra people. Maybe you used to need two or three developers, but now you only need one,“ James said, emphasizing that competition for jobs in his field is ”through the roof.”

“In an ideal world, you would need a team to review anything AI builds. But these decisions aren’t typically made by the people who understand the technology,” he said.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 18:00

Energy Secretary Wright Says U.S. Will Expand Uranium Reserve As Nuclear Enters "Rapid Growth" Phase

Energy Secretary Wright Says U.S. Will Expand Uranium Reserve As Nuclear Enters "Rapid Growth" Phase

Just moments after we noted UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing a US-UK nuclear deal on Monday ahead of Donald Trump’s state visit, aiming to show "a golden age of nuclear", and about 3 weeks after we inconspicuously pointed out that Centrus Energy was getting extremely cozy with the Trump administration, the Trump administration’s top energy official today said the US should expand its strategic uranium reserve to reduce reliance on Russia and bolster confidence in nuclear power.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, speaking in Vienna at the IAEA conference, noted Russia supplies about a quarter of the enriched uranium for America’s 94 reactors, which generate a fifth of US electricity. Cutting that supply “could endanger about 5% of electricity” without alternatives, according to Bloomberg.

“We’re moving to a place — and we’re not there yet — to no longer use Russian enriched uranium,” Wright said. He added, “We hope to see rapid growth in uranium consumption in the US from both large reactors and small modular reactors. The size of that right buffer would grow with time. We need a lot of domestic uranium and enrichment capacity.”

Bloomberg writes that a uranium reserve was first proposed in 2020 with $150 million requested, though Congress approved half. Biden later supported the plan, and in 2022 the Energy Department began purchases from US miners. Still, US companies hold only 14 months of uranium on average, compared with 2.5 years in the EU and 12 years in China, according to IAEA data.

The US is “furiously at work” rebuilding nuclear-fuel supply chains, Wright said, noting Biden signed a law in 2024 requiring utilities to stop using Russian uranium by 2028. Russia later restricted exports in retaliation.

The US has just two enrichment facilities: Urenco Ltd. in New Mexico for traditional reactors, and Centrus Energy in Ohio, which recently began producing higher-enriched fuel for advanced reactors. A White House order in May aims to speed their deployment, with the first models expected to test next year.

Wright also urged private investment, citing Peter Thiel’s General Matter Corp. as an example: “That’s key for efficiency and innovation and pace. That’s how you drive progress.”

As we noted weeks ago, readers of ZeroHedge are well aware that we believe Centrus Energy could be the next obvious candidate for the U.S. government to cozy up to and acquire a stake(similar to how the Trump admin recently did with rare earth company MP Materials and of course Intel, both of which we correctly predicted ahead of time, here and here). 

Just weeks ago Centrus announced it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) and POSCO International to explore potential investment in expanding its enrichment plant in Piketon, Ohio.

The signing ceremony drew high-level attention, with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Korea’s Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jung-kwan both in attendance. The deal underscores a growing U.S.–Korea partnership in civilian nuclear energy — and highlights the demand for secure, non-Russian sources of uranium enrichment.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 17:40

Energy Secretary Wright Says U.S. Will Expand Uranium Reserve As Nuclear Enters "Rapid Growth" Phase

Energy Secretary Wright Says U.S. Will Expand Uranium Reserve As Nuclear Enters "Rapid Growth" Phase

Just moments after we noted UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing a US-UK nuclear deal on Monday ahead of Donald Trump’s state visit, aiming to show "a golden age of nuclear", and about 3 weeks after we inconspicuously pointed out that Centrus Energy was getting extremely cozy with the Trump administration, the Trump administration’s top energy official today said the US should expand its strategic uranium reserve to reduce reliance on Russia and bolster confidence in nuclear power.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, speaking in Vienna at the IAEA conference, noted Russia supplies about a quarter of the enriched uranium for America’s 94 reactors, which generate a fifth of US electricity. Cutting that supply “could endanger about 5% of electricity” without alternatives, according to Bloomberg.

“We’re moving to a place — and we’re not there yet — to no longer use Russian enriched uranium,” Wright said. He added, “We hope to see rapid growth in uranium consumption in the US from both large reactors and small modular reactors. The size of that right buffer would grow with time. We need a lot of domestic uranium and enrichment capacity.”

Bloomberg writes that a uranium reserve was first proposed in 2020 with $150 million requested, though Congress approved half. Biden later supported the plan, and in 2022 the Energy Department began purchases from US miners. Still, US companies hold only 14 months of uranium on average, compared with 2.5 years in the EU and 12 years in China, according to IAEA data.

The US is “furiously at work” rebuilding nuclear-fuel supply chains, Wright said, noting Biden signed a law in 2024 requiring utilities to stop using Russian uranium by 2028. Russia later restricted exports in retaliation.

The US has just two enrichment facilities: Urenco Ltd. in New Mexico for traditional reactors, and Centrus Energy in Ohio, which recently began producing higher-enriched fuel for advanced reactors. A White House order in May aims to speed their deployment, with the first models expected to test next year.

Wright also urged private investment, citing Peter Thiel’s General Matter Corp. as an example: “That’s key for efficiency and innovation and pace. That’s how you drive progress.”

As we noted weeks ago, readers of ZeroHedge are well aware that we believe Centrus Energy could be the next obvious candidate for the U.S. government to cozy up to and acquire a stake(similar to how the Trump admin recently did with rare earth company MP Materials and of course Intel, both of which we correctly predicted ahead of time, here and here). 

Just weeks ago Centrus announced it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) and POSCO International to explore potential investment in expanding its enrichment plant in Piketon, Ohio.

The signing ceremony drew high-level attention, with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Korea’s Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jung-kwan both in attendance. The deal underscores a growing U.S.–Korea partnership in civilian nuclear energy — and highlights the demand for secure, non-Russian sources of uranium enrichment.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 17:40

With Supreme Court Set To Return, What To Expect In Trump Cases

With Supreme Court Set To Return, What To Expect In Trump Cases

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

Months of litigation related to Trump administration policies have made it likely the Supreme Court justices will wrestle with limits on executive power in their upcoming term.

Months after President Donald Trump took office, his policy on birthright citizenship prompted the Supreme Court to issue a landmark ruling on judicial authority and the nation’s separation of powers. The ruling opposed lower courts’ imposition of so-called nationwide injunctions, which block a policy on a nationwide basis.

The justices did not, however, resolve underlying constitutional arguments surrounding birthright citizenship.

That issue and other Trump policies could return to the Supreme Court, which has used its emergency docket to offer more tentative decisions on blocks by lower courts.

If and when the justices give those issues more thorough consideration, it could result in landmark decisions on constitutional law. The Supreme Court’s new term is expected to start in October when the justices return for oral arguments.

Tariffs

The ability to impose tariffs is a power typically understood as reserved for Congress under the Constitution. It’s unclear, though, whether Congress effectively delegated that power to the president in a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear arguments in November over that issue.

An appeals court said in August that Congress didn’t delegate that power, but delayed its ruling until October. The eventual decision could have major economic consequences, altering the balance of trade and revenue inflows for the United States. In August, the United States reported a record $31 billion in revenue under tariffs that Trump implemented.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that the Trump administration has backup plans in place in case the court rules against it.

Similar to some of Trump’s immigration cases, this issue raises questions about courts intervening in sensitive, ongoing diplomatic negotiations.

Immigration

The 14th Amendment has been interpreted in recent decades to allow birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. However, after ruling on the preliminary issue of nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court could reconsider that interpretation and one of its 19th-century precedents.

The Trump administration’s eventual appeal will likely force the Supreme Court to confront competing interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

Other cases could revisit how far Trump’s authority extends as the chief executive of the nation’s laws. A series of legal disputes has developed over the way that Trump views his authority to deport individuals under laws passed by Congress. One of those is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to remove certain individuals during an invasion.

Federal agents detain a man after his hearing in immigration court at the Ted Weiss Federal Building in New York on July 9, 2025. The Supreme Court may consider the issue of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment in its upcoming term. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Trump invoked this law to deport suspected members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang. While the Supreme Court has addressed whether the detainees received adequate due process, the justices have yet to rule on whether gang members perpetrated the type of invasion that would allow deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. Many lower courts have ruled that Trump invalidly invoked the law, with a recent appeals court ruling teeing up a potential Supreme Court challenge.

Other immigration-related cases could also return, such as the administration’s attempt to deport people to “third countries” or those other than their home nations.

That question popped up more recently in yet another case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was returned to the United States after an order from a district court judge. Other cases could revisit Trump’s attempt to remove temporary protected status or parole for migrants who would otherwise be subject to deportation.

Spending

In an attempt to reduce excess spending, the Trump administration has attempted to freeze or cut disbursements related to gender, foreign aid, and a wide variety of other issues. And despite months of litigation over cuts, the court system seems far from resolving the legality.

That’s in part because the Supreme Court keeps sending the cases back to lower courts with rulings more about the judges’ authority than Trump’s. In at least two cases, the Supreme Court has agreed with the administration’s argument that challenges to Trump’s spending cuts should have been brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rather than a regular district court.

The Supreme Court indicated as much in April when it allowed Trump to freeze millions of dollars’ worth of education-related grants. It later reaffirmed that position in an August decision that focused on health grants. That decision, however, was limited, and the justices sharply disagreed over which aspects of a district court’s block on Trump should be removed.

Besides the question of jurisdiction, debate has emerged over how much discretion Trump has in canceling outlays of those funds.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon (R) and Education Department budget analyst Hillary Perkins testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 3, 2025. In April, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to freeze millions in education-related grants, and the justices will continue to weigh cases on presidential spending powers. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Federal Officials

Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook has again raised the prospect that the justices could rule on the president’s ability to remove high-ranking federal officials. While the Supreme Court has allowed many of Trump’s firings to proceed, they’ve yet to issue a full-throated explanation of his authority to do so.

The litigation could ultimately prompt the Supreme Court to revisit a precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which was decided in 1935 and has been cited by multiple lower courts in their support of fired federal officials. That decision and others limited the president’s ability to fire officials depending on how much executive authority those officials exercised.

Trump’s victories have signaled that those judges may be misinterpreting Humphrey’s and the Constitution by not giving the president more deference.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell speaks alongside Board Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman (L), Board Governor Lisa Cook (2nd R), and Board Governor Adriana Kugler (R) during a meeting at the Federal Reserve Board building in Washington on June 25, 2025. Trump’s firing of Cook has renewed speculation that the Supreme Court could weigh in on the president’s power to remove high-ranking federal officials. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

In May, the Supreme Court indicated that members of the Federal Reserve Board, like Cook, could enjoy more protection than heads of other agencies. A majority of the justices had allowed Trump to fire the heads of two labor boards and disputed the officials’ attempts to compare their agencies to the Federal Reserve.

According to the majority, the “Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”

Cook’s firing also included a more detailed explanation from Trump as to why he fired her, raising the prospect that the Supreme Court could judge what is an appropriate cause of termination.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 17:20

With Supreme Court Set To Return, What To Expect In Trump Cases

With Supreme Court Set To Return, What To Expect In Trump Cases

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

Months of litigation related to Trump administration policies have made it likely the Supreme Court justices will wrestle with limits on executive power in their upcoming term.

Months after President Donald Trump took office, his policy on birthright citizenship prompted the Supreme Court to issue a landmark ruling on judicial authority and the nation’s separation of powers. The ruling opposed lower courts’ imposition of so-called nationwide injunctions, which block a policy on a nationwide basis.

The justices did not, however, resolve underlying constitutional arguments surrounding birthright citizenship.

That issue and other Trump policies could return to the Supreme Court, which has used its emergency docket to offer more tentative decisions on blocks by lower courts.

If and when the justices give those issues more thorough consideration, it could result in landmark decisions on constitutional law. The Supreme Court’s new term is expected to start in October when the justices return for oral arguments.

Tariffs

The ability to impose tariffs is a power typically understood as reserved for Congress under the Constitution. It’s unclear, though, whether Congress effectively delegated that power to the president in a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear arguments in November over that issue.

An appeals court said in August that Congress didn’t delegate that power, but delayed its ruling until October. The eventual decision could have major economic consequences, altering the balance of trade and revenue inflows for the United States. In August, the United States reported a record $31 billion in revenue under tariffs that Trump implemented.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that the Trump administration has backup plans in place in case the court rules against it.

Similar to some of Trump’s immigration cases, this issue raises questions about courts intervening in sensitive, ongoing diplomatic negotiations.

Immigration

The 14th Amendment has been interpreted in recent decades to allow birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. However, after ruling on the preliminary issue of nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court could reconsider that interpretation and one of its 19th-century precedents.

The Trump administration’s eventual appeal will likely force the Supreme Court to confront competing interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

Other cases could revisit how far Trump’s authority extends as the chief executive of the nation’s laws. A series of legal disputes has developed over the way that Trump views his authority to deport individuals under laws passed by Congress. One of those is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to remove certain individuals during an invasion.

Federal agents detain a man after his hearing in immigration court at the Ted Weiss Federal Building in New York on July 9, 2025. The Supreme Court may consider the issue of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment in its upcoming term. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Trump invoked this law to deport suspected members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang. While the Supreme Court has addressed whether the detainees received adequate due process, the justices have yet to rule on whether gang members perpetrated the type of invasion that would allow deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. Many lower courts have ruled that Trump invalidly invoked the law, with a recent appeals court ruling teeing up a potential Supreme Court challenge.

Other immigration-related cases could also return, such as the administration’s attempt to deport people to “third countries” or those other than their home nations.

That question popped up more recently in yet another case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was returned to the United States after an order from a district court judge. Other cases could revisit Trump’s attempt to remove temporary protected status or parole for migrants who would otherwise be subject to deportation.

Spending

In an attempt to reduce excess spending, the Trump administration has attempted to freeze or cut disbursements related to gender, foreign aid, and a wide variety of other issues. And despite months of litigation over cuts, the court system seems far from resolving the legality.

That’s in part because the Supreme Court keeps sending the cases back to lower courts with rulings more about the judges’ authority than Trump’s. In at least two cases, the Supreme Court has agreed with the administration’s argument that challenges to Trump’s spending cuts should have been brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rather than a regular district court.

The Supreme Court indicated as much in April when it allowed Trump to freeze millions of dollars’ worth of education-related grants. It later reaffirmed that position in an August decision that focused on health grants. That decision, however, was limited, and the justices sharply disagreed over which aspects of a district court’s block on Trump should be removed.

Besides the question of jurisdiction, debate has emerged over how much discretion Trump has in canceling outlays of those funds.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon (R) and Education Department budget analyst Hillary Perkins testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 3, 2025. In April, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to freeze millions in education-related grants, and the justices will continue to weigh cases on presidential spending powers. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Federal Officials

Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook has again raised the prospect that the justices could rule on the president’s ability to remove high-ranking federal officials. While the Supreme Court has allowed many of Trump’s firings to proceed, they’ve yet to issue a full-throated explanation of his authority to do so.

The litigation could ultimately prompt the Supreme Court to revisit a precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which was decided in 1935 and has been cited by multiple lower courts in their support of fired federal officials. That decision and others limited the president’s ability to fire officials depending on how much executive authority those officials exercised.

Trump’s victories have signaled that those judges may be misinterpreting Humphrey’s and the Constitution by not giving the president more deference.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell speaks alongside Board Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman (L), Board Governor Lisa Cook (2nd R), and Board Governor Adriana Kugler (R) during a meeting at the Federal Reserve Board building in Washington on June 25, 2025. Trump’s firing of Cook has renewed speculation that the Supreme Court could weigh in on the president’s power to remove high-ranking federal officials. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

In May, the Supreme Court indicated that members of the Federal Reserve Board, like Cook, could enjoy more protection than heads of other agencies. A majority of the justices had allowed Trump to fire the heads of two labor boards and disputed the officials’ attempts to compare their agencies to the Federal Reserve.

According to the majority, the “Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”

Cook’s firing also included a more detailed explanation from Trump as to why he fired her, raising the prospect that the Supreme Court could judge what is an appropriate cause of termination.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 17:20

Most NFL Home Teams Pay Homage To Charlie Kirk After Assassination

Most NFL Home Teams Pay Homage To Charlie Kirk After Assassination

Most NFL home teams paid tribute or held a moment of silence for conservative influencer Charlie Kirk this week, who was assassinated last week.

Starting on Sept. 11 during the “Thursday Night Football” game between the Green Bay Packers and Washington Commanders, Green Bay and the league itself held a moment of silence for Kirk, who was shot and killed a day prior.

“There have been a variety of moments of silence and tributes in-stadium and on-air in all games or a game immediately following events that rise to a national level,” the NFL said in a statement to multiple media outlets last week, referring to the league’s moment of silence held during the Packers’ home game.

“Clubs also often hold moments following a tragic event that affects their community.

“There have been moments following school shootings or an attack on a house of worship such as the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018. There also have been moments following major international incidents such as Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and weather-related incidents such as major hurricanes and fires.”

As Jack Phillips reports for The Epoch Times, according to a statement from the White House on Sunday, the New York Jets, Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, Miami Dolphins, Tennessee Titans, Kansas City Chiefs, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Arizona Cardinals held moments of silence for or provided a special recognition of Kirk on Sunday.

An Epoch Times review of game footage and videos that were uploaded to social media showed that the Tennessee Titans included a photo of Kirk with his family on the jumbotron for a moment of silence on Sunday in the team’s home game against the Los Angeles Rams.

At the Chiefs game, a moment of silence was held for the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, for victims of a shooting in Colorado, and for Kirk.

The Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees baseball teams also paid tribute, while NASCAR and the UFC leagues did the same, the White House said.

“These tributes reflect the widespread admiration for Kirk’s dedication to inspiring the next generation of American Patriots,” the White House said in the statement.

“We commend these organizations for honoring a figure who championed the values that unite us all, and we join the nation in celebrating his legacy.”

Two more NFL games will be played this week.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are visiting the Houston Texans, and the Los Angeles Chargers are heading to Las Vegas to play the Raiders on Monday night.

Kirk founded Turning Point USA to bring more young, conservative evangelical Christians into politics as effective influencers, and he was a confidant of President Donald Trump, leading to a flood of tributes that included a vigil Sunday night at the Kennedy Center in Washington. Kirk, a 31-year-old father of two, became prominent in part through his speaking tours and debates on college campuses. He was shot on Wednesday while speaking at Utah Valley University.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 17:00

Most NFL Home Teams Pay Homage To Charlie Kirk After Assassination

Most NFL Home Teams Pay Homage To Charlie Kirk After Assassination

Most NFL home teams paid tribute or held a moment of silence for conservative influencer Charlie Kirk this week, who was assassinated last week.

Starting on Sept. 11 during the “Thursday Night Football” game between the Green Bay Packers and Washington Commanders, Green Bay and the league itself held a moment of silence for Kirk, who was shot and killed a day prior.

“There have been a variety of moments of silence and tributes in-stadium and on-air in all games or a game immediately following events that rise to a national level,” the NFL said in a statement to multiple media outlets last week, referring to the league’s moment of silence held during the Packers’ home game.

“Clubs also often hold moments following a tragic event that affects their community.

“There have been moments following school shootings or an attack on a house of worship such as the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018. There also have been moments following major international incidents such as Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and weather-related incidents such as major hurricanes and fires.”

As Jack Phillips reports for The Epoch Times, according to a statement from the White House on Sunday, the New York Jets, Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, Miami Dolphins, Tennessee Titans, Kansas City Chiefs, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Arizona Cardinals held moments of silence for or provided a special recognition of Kirk on Sunday.

An Epoch Times review of game footage and videos that were uploaded to social media showed that the Tennessee Titans included a photo of Kirk with his family on the jumbotron for a moment of silence on Sunday in the team’s home game against the Los Angeles Rams.

At the Chiefs game, a moment of silence was held for the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, for victims of a shooting in Colorado, and for Kirk.

The Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees baseball teams also paid tribute, while NASCAR and the UFC leagues did the same, the White House said.

“These tributes reflect the widespread admiration for Kirk’s dedication to inspiring the next generation of American Patriots,” the White House said in the statement.

“We commend these organizations for honoring a figure who championed the values that unite us all, and we join the nation in celebrating his legacy.”

Two more NFL games will be played this week.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are visiting the Houston Texans, and the Los Angeles Chargers are heading to Las Vegas to play the Raiders on Monday night.

Kirk founded Turning Point USA to bring more young, conservative evangelical Christians into politics as effective influencers, and he was a confidant of President Donald Trump, leading to a flood of tributes that included a vigil Sunday night at the Kennedy Center in Washington. Kirk, a 31-year-old father of two, became prominent in part through his speaking tours and debates on college campuses. He was shot on Wednesday while speaking at Utah Valley University.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 17:00

Welcome To Clusterf**k Nation!

Welcome To Clusterf**k Nation!

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Dressed To Kill

"You currently have one side willing to talk and extend a microphone to anyone, and one side that shoots to kill when they do."

- Aimee Terese on X

When Brian De Palma’s movie, Dressed to Kill, came out in 1980, this was a different country.

Like Hitchcock’s Psycho before it (1960), both films depicted men seeking to become women who are murderously deranged by their wishful fantasies.

Now, our country has become murderously deranged by the same fantasy writ large.

These derangements are acted out now by a segment of the population that calls itself “the trans community.” This is just another manipulation of language, of course, by the same organized agencies working to turn our national life upside-down and inside-out. You call them “Globalists” or “Marxists” or “gnostic anarchists,” but who-or-whatever actually directs this action remains an abiding mystery of our time. (The runner-up abiding mystery is how the news media was hijacked to go along with all that.)

You have learned the past ten years how fragile reality can become in a society under stress. But then there is the reality of things as they actually exist, and the group’s perception of reality, which is not the same. The group’s perception of reality requires a consensus, an agreement, that certain things of this world are so. If the agreement is sturdy, and comports with how things actually exist, then you have a high-functioning society.

If the agreement is flimsy and doesn’t comport with how things actually are, you get Clusterfuck Nation, a society tortured by various compounded derangements.

It is hard to account for exactly how this happened to us, but the most visible manifestations of it these days come out of the political Left, the party that once defended the interests of the working-class, the laborers in their tough, uncomfortable lives seeking fair treatment from the comfortable class that employed and managed them.

At least, that’s how things resolved for a while in our industrial society, the classes coexisting in a fruitful, balanced tension. That all peaked in the early 1960s.

Political relations between business and labor grew increasingly irrelevant after that as industry got moved out of our country, so the party of the working-class had to find something else to give its attention to. By the early 1960s, the Democratic Party had already rebranded itself as the party of the civil rights (having been previously the party of Jim Crow and the KKK). It was not an altogether cynical or insincere transformation. It was driven by a dynamic imperative: to prove that America, the self-styled Leader of the Free World after two great and ruinous world wars, was a fair and righteous country, deserving its post-war leadership role. And that imperative rode the tailwind of Franklin Roosevelt’s “progressive” legacy.

Increasingly, though, after the 1960s, the civil rights crusade lost its mojo. It disappointed the zealous. Try as it might, the effort did not lead to a nirvana of racial harmony. In fact, the miserable black underclass seemed to only grow larger and more dysfunctional, the cities they lived in (increasingly run by them) more broken.

The band-aid for that failure was multiculturalism. By the 1980s, the consensus about reality was fracturing, especially about standards of behavior. Too many “people of color” were “justice involved” — they committed crimes. It was an embarrassment to “progressives” (liberal Democrats). Multiculturalism’s premise was that a society could have different standards of behavior and different values for different groups. Henceforth, there was no need for a broad agreement about what sort of behavior was okay and what was not okay — no need for a common culture that applied to everyone.

From there, the Democratic party had to assiduously recruit and sort out all the various multi-cultures in America, and pretend to manage and justify their special needs in order to continue functioning as a national political party. In the 1970s, it was all about feminism, the entry of women into the managerial class, the board rooms, the law firms, the professoriate. Then it was all about gay rights, Stonewall and all that followed. That movement was badly derailed in the 1980s by AIDS, which killed many of its activists and made the group’s sexual activities look less than entirely wholesome.

After about 1985, the liberals had to write off Black men. Too many were crackheads and no accounts. All they had left was the likes of Al Sharpton (of Tawana Brawley infamy) and a few hundred millionaire sports stars. So, the Dems rallied over the plight of Black women. . . who were soon joined by the indigenous people (formerly “Indians”). . . the Pacific Islanders. . . . By the early 21st century, the Democrats had run out of oppressed ethnicities to recruit under the multicultural umbrella. All that remained were the “homeless” (formerly “bums,” “junkies,” and “the mentally ill”).

Actually, the mentally ill had gotten a multicultural jump-start in the 1970s when patients in hospitals for the insane were re-branded as an “oppressed minority.” Thus, the hospitals were all emptied out and closed down and the patients released to “freedom” on the streets with vague promises of “community-based treatment” to follow — it never did, of course. After several major Middle East wars starting with Desert Storm in the 90s, more and more damaged military vets joined the ranks of the homeless. It has apparently never occurred to anyone that re-establishing hospitals for the insane might be necessary.

And so it has gone, from one “marginalized” and “oppressed minority” after another until all that liberalism (and their official org, the Democratic Party) had left in the 2020s was the tiniest subculture in the country: people who fantasized about becoming the opposite sex. That group was much encouraged by the medical establishment so narcissistically enchanted by their surgical skills and manipulations of hormonal chemistry (and the money it generated) that they recruited ever more subjects for their experiments.

The doctors and their therapist partners, in turn, egged-on the teachers, professors, and school administrators to recruit “patients” for “treatment” of the new condition called “gender dysphoria.”

The cheerleaders of the political Left coalesced behind all of that, promoted the hell out of it, went as far as inviting “drag queens” (men portraying women as monsters) into the third-grade classrooms.

And that is how deranged humans like the characters in Dressed to Kill and Psycho became the role models for the Democratic Party.

*  *  *

Do you know about 5-HTP?

Boosts serotonin levels - good for mood, anti-anxiety, sleep, depression, and appetite control.

Buy 5-HTP by itself

Also in:

Mood (plus Lithium! - serious calm)

Sleep Formula (with Tryptophan, GABA, Skullcap, L-Theanine, Ashwagandha, Inositol)

Night Time Fat Burner (with Magnesium, Ashwagandha, GABA, Melatonin and Magnesium)

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 16:40

Welcome To Clusterf**k Nation!

Welcome To Clusterf**k Nation!

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Dressed To Kill

"You currently have one side willing to talk and extend a microphone to anyone, and one side that shoots to kill when they do."

- Aimee Terese on X

When Brian De Palma’s movie, Dressed to Kill, came out in 1980, this was a different country.

Like Hitchcock’s Psycho before it (1960), both films depicted men seeking to become women who are murderously deranged by their wishful fantasies.

Now, our country has become murderously deranged by the same fantasy writ large.

These derangements are acted out now by a segment of the population that calls itself “the trans community.” This is just another manipulation of language, of course, by the same organized agencies working to turn our national life upside-down and inside-out. You call them “Globalists” or “Marxists” or “gnostic anarchists,” but who-or-whatever actually directs this action remains an abiding mystery of our time. (The runner-up abiding mystery is how the news media was hijacked to go along with all that.)

You have learned the past ten years how fragile reality can become in a society under stress. But then there is the reality of things as they actually exist, and the group’s perception of reality, which is not the same. The group’s perception of reality requires a consensus, an agreement, that certain things of this world are so. If the agreement is sturdy, and comports with how things actually exist, then you have a high-functioning society.

If the agreement is flimsy and doesn’t comport with how things actually are, you get Clusterfuck Nation, a society tortured by various compounded derangements.

It is hard to account for exactly how this happened to us, but the most visible manifestations of it these days come out of the political Left, the party that once defended the interests of the working-class, the laborers in their tough, uncomfortable lives seeking fair treatment from the comfortable class that employed and managed them.

At least, that’s how things resolved for a while in our industrial society, the classes coexisting in a fruitful, balanced tension. That all peaked in the early 1960s.

Political relations between business and labor grew increasingly irrelevant after that as industry got moved out of our country, so the party of the working-class had to find something else to give its attention to. By the early 1960s, the Democratic Party had already rebranded itself as the party of the civil rights (having been previously the party of Jim Crow and the KKK). It was not an altogether cynical or insincere transformation. It was driven by a dynamic imperative: to prove that America, the self-styled Leader of the Free World after two great and ruinous world wars, was a fair and righteous country, deserving its post-war leadership role. And that imperative rode the tailwind of Franklin Roosevelt’s “progressive” legacy.

Increasingly, though, after the 1960s, the civil rights crusade lost its mojo. It disappointed the zealous. Try as it might, the effort did not lead to a nirvana of racial harmony. In fact, the miserable black underclass seemed to only grow larger and more dysfunctional, the cities they lived in (increasingly run by them) more broken.

The band-aid for that failure was multiculturalism. By the 1980s, the consensus about reality was fracturing, especially about standards of behavior. Too many “people of color” were “justice involved” — they committed crimes. It was an embarrassment to “progressives” (liberal Democrats). Multiculturalism’s premise was that a society could have different standards of behavior and different values for different groups. Henceforth, there was no need for a broad agreement about what sort of behavior was okay and what was not okay — no need for a common culture that applied to everyone.

From there, the Democratic party had to assiduously recruit and sort out all the various multi-cultures in America, and pretend to manage and justify their special needs in order to continue functioning as a national political party. In the 1970s, it was all about feminism, the entry of women into the managerial class, the board rooms, the law firms, the professoriate. Then it was all about gay rights, Stonewall and all that followed. That movement was badly derailed in the 1980s by AIDS, which killed many of its activists and made the group’s sexual activities look less than entirely wholesome.

After about 1985, the liberals had to write off Black men. Too many were crackheads and no accounts. All they had left was the likes of Al Sharpton (of Tawana Brawley infamy) and a few hundred millionaire sports stars. So, the Dems rallied over the plight of Black women. . . who were soon joined by the indigenous people (formerly “Indians”). . . the Pacific Islanders. . . . By the early 21st century, the Democrats had run out of oppressed ethnicities to recruit under the multicultural umbrella. All that remained were the “homeless” (formerly “bums,” “junkies,” and “the mentally ill”).

Actually, the mentally ill had gotten a multicultural jump-start in the 1970s when patients in hospitals for the insane were re-branded as an “oppressed minority.” Thus, the hospitals were all emptied out and closed down and the patients released to “freedom” on the streets with vague promises of “community-based treatment” to follow — it never did, of course. After several major Middle East wars starting with Desert Storm in the 90s, more and more damaged military vets joined the ranks of the homeless. It has apparently never occurred to anyone that re-establishing hospitals for the insane might be necessary.

And so it has gone, from one “marginalized” and “oppressed minority” after another until all that liberalism (and their official org, the Democratic Party) had left in the 2020s was the tiniest subculture in the country: people who fantasized about becoming the opposite sex. That group was much encouraged by the medical establishment so narcissistically enchanted by their surgical skills and manipulations of hormonal chemistry (and the money it generated) that they recruited ever more subjects for their experiments.

The doctors and their therapist partners, in turn, egged-on the teachers, professors, and school administrators to recruit “patients” for “treatment” of the new condition called “gender dysphoria.”

The cheerleaders of the political Left coalesced behind all of that, promoted the hell out of it, went as far as inviting “drag queens” (men portraying women as monsters) into the third-grade classrooms.

And that is how deranged humans like the characters in Dressed to Kill and Psycho became the role models for the Democratic Party.

*  *  *

Do you know about 5-HTP?

Boosts serotonin levels - good for mood, anti-anxiety, sleep, depression, and appetite control.

Buy 5-HTP by itself

Also in:

Mood (plus Lithium! - serious calm)

Sleep Formula (with Tryptophan, GABA, Skullcap, L-Theanine, Ashwagandha, Inositol)

Night Time Fat Burner (with Magnesium, Ashwagandha, GABA, Melatonin and Magnesium)

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 16:40

Microsoft Deal Rewrite Could Save OpenAI $50 Billion Amid Record AI Data Center Spend 

Microsoft Deal Rewrite Could Save OpenAI $50 Billion Amid Record AI Data Center Spend 

The Information recently reported that ChatGPT-maker OpenAI has informed shareholders that it expects to reduce the percentage of revenue paid to Microsoft from about 20% today to just 8% by 2030. The shift could save the chatbot startup tens of billions of dollars over the next half-decade as it struggles with soaring compute costs and an accelerating buildout of data centers.

Under the proposed terms being discussed in an amended OpenAI–Microsoft collaboration deal, the outlet reports a potential seismic shift in how much OpenAI will pay Microsoft. This change could help offset record-breaking computing costs and save the startup $50 billion:

As part of their original partnership agreement, Microsoft is entitled to 20% of the startup's revenue through 2030. But OpenAI has projected to share roughly 8% of its revenue with commercial partners—namely, Microsoft—by the end of the decade from just under 20% this year. The difference between those figures adds up to over $50 billion in additional revenue OpenAI would keep for itself through 2030, which it needs because it has projected record-breaking expenses for computing power before that year.

The companies are also negotiating what will happen when OpenAI achieves so-called artificial general intelligence, or AI that's as intelligent as a human. The companies' existing contract stipulates that Microsoft will lose exclusive access to OpenAI's technology once the startup demonstrates that its technology can surpass certain financial milestones, but Microsoft has been angling for the AGI clause to be modified or removed from the contract.

The two companies are also negotiating how much OpenAI will spend to rent servers from Microsoft, according to another person briefed on the discussions.

. . . 

It's not clear why OpenAI is projecting sharing less than 20% of its revenue with Microsoft, given the earlier terms, but some OpenAI leaders want Microsoft to exempt future OpenAI products that haven't been released yet from the existing revenue-sharing agreement, such as PhD-level agents that cost $20,000 a month.

. . .

While many aspects of the deal are still up in the air, some aspects of the agreement have been largely worked out, say people close to the discussions. Namely, OpenAI's nonprofit and Microsoft will each get around one-third of the new company, which is currently allowing its employees to sell shares at a $500 billion valuation, one of the people said.

Over the past several weeks, teams from OpenAI and Microsoft have met to negotiate revenue-sharing and other restructuring details. Any cut in OpenAI's payout to Microsoft would offer relief to a startup burning through cash on AI infrastructure like a drunken sailor. For now, the nonprofit-governed company remains a money pit with no end in sight.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 15:25

Microsoft Deal Rewrite Could Save OpenAI $50 Billion Amid Record AI Data Center Spend 

Microsoft Deal Rewrite Could Save OpenAI $50 Billion Amid Record AI Data Center Spend 

The Information recently reported that ChatGPT-maker OpenAI has informed shareholders that it expects to reduce the percentage of revenue paid to Microsoft from about 20% today to just 8% by 2030. The shift could save the chatbot startup tens of billions of dollars over the next half-decade as it struggles with soaring compute costs and an accelerating buildout of data centers.

Under the proposed terms being discussed in an amended OpenAI–Microsoft collaboration deal, the outlet reports a potential seismic shift in how much OpenAI will pay Microsoft. This change could help offset record-breaking computing costs and save the startup $50 billion:

As part of their original partnership agreement, Microsoft is entitled to 20% of the startup's revenue through 2030. But OpenAI has projected to share roughly 8% of its revenue with commercial partners—namely, Microsoft—by the end of the decade from just under 20% this year. The difference between those figures adds up to over $50 billion in additional revenue OpenAI would keep for itself through 2030, which it needs because it has projected record-breaking expenses for computing power before that year.

The companies are also negotiating what will happen when OpenAI achieves so-called artificial general intelligence, or AI that's as intelligent as a human. The companies' existing contract stipulates that Microsoft will lose exclusive access to OpenAI's technology once the startup demonstrates that its technology can surpass certain financial milestones, but Microsoft has been angling for the AGI clause to be modified or removed from the contract.

The two companies are also negotiating how much OpenAI will spend to rent servers from Microsoft, according to another person briefed on the discussions.

. . . 

It's not clear why OpenAI is projecting sharing less than 20% of its revenue with Microsoft, given the earlier terms, but some OpenAI leaders want Microsoft to exempt future OpenAI products that haven't been released yet from the existing revenue-sharing agreement, such as PhD-level agents that cost $20,000 a month.

. . .

While many aspects of the deal are still up in the air, some aspects of the agreement have been largely worked out, say people close to the discussions. Namely, OpenAI's nonprofit and Microsoft will each get around one-third of the new company, which is currently allowing its employees to sell shares at a $500 billion valuation, one of the people said.

Over the past several weeks, teams from OpenAI and Microsoft have met to negotiate revenue-sharing and other restructuring details. Any cut in OpenAI's payout to Microsoft would offer relief to a startup burning through cash on AI infrastructure like a drunken sailor. For now, the nonprofit-governed company remains a money pit with no end in sight.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/15/2025 - 15:25

Pages