WHAT'S THE POINT, GOD? So ... before the Creation, god exists all alone for some period of time (does it make sense to talk of a 'period of time' for something eternal?) & then decides one day to create the material world we now know. He creates numerous solar systems, planets, moons, empty space, etc., including one special planet (out of thousands, millions, billions?) on which he will create life. On this planet, he creates numerous forms of life, including humans, as well as all manner of bacteria, viruses, natural catastrophes, etc., that can kill all these forms of life (including humans) in most brutal & painful ways. He makes humans dependent of certain levels of food, oxygen, shelter, & clean water for survival but fails to provide enough of it so that all humans can live comfortably for the length of their lives. This in turn requires humans to often fight & kill each other over these scarce resources in order to survive. In addition to this material world, god creates heaven & hell, where a certain part of humans (their soul) will spend eternity after they die (a god-mandated phenomenon). Humans in heaven live in eternal bliss; in hell, eternal torment. God decides who goes to which place, ostensibly on the basis of how god judges the overall 'goodness' of the life each human lived, w/'goodness' possibly meaning nothing more than a true belief in god's existence. Of course, if god is truly all-knowing, he knew from the moment of creation how many, & who, would end up in hell. And even if he didn't know that (meaning he's not all-knowing), he knew billions would end up in hell because they would fail his test for getting into heaven. So, god, I ask: what exactly is the point of all this?

TACO THURSDAY So ... Trump TACO'd out & left Pete holding the bag re livestreaming execution. Jeez, NO ONE coulda seen THAT coming (least of all, Pete, it seems). I'm sure it was totally Pete's original idea & Trump had nothing to do w/it. And I'm sure all the MAGA hard asses who enthusiastically applauded the idea will now see the wisdom in Trump's appeal to civilized compassion. 'And the beat goes on' S. Bono xitter.cf/RichardClip/status/210…

LAWYER/ATTORNEY: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? Whether there is any significant difference between the 2 terms depends on who's defining the terms & for what purpose. We are all free to define the 2 terms how we please. But the important thing here is how the relevant applicable law defines them. As I understand it, applicable UPL law (which defines crimes & gives state bars some power over people who ID themselves using one or the other term) generally draws no distinction; the 2 terms are synonymous. And the fact that YOU draw some distinction here is irrelevant to the legal issues in the proceedings you'll find yourself facing if you're charged w/violating that applicable UPL law.

HEY DONALD! I'm not a press secretary but I could play one on TV. Good news; some time has just opened up on my schedule ...

Livestreaming an execution is the kind of think a Stable Genius steeped in reality-show shenanigans would think of; & think was REALLY COOL (because it shows how tough he is). But some SGs are smart enough to realize the general public may not necessarily share their enthusiasm for the macabre spectacle. Thus, they look for a shill, a fall guy, a patsy, to suggest the idea to the public, to provide needed cover in case the idea blows up into a major scandal. Smart move by the SG. As to the patsy, well ... maybe he can console himself w/a plate of steaming tacos (or something similar) ...

Margaret Hoover utterly eviscerated Sen. Thom Tillis & his current Rehabilitation Tour on this week's Firing Line. Made him look silly several times, simply by being well prepared & asking tough but fair questions, & in a smiling, polite, nonconfrontational fashion. Well done, MH ...

PUBLIC OR LIVESTREAMED EXECUTION? As I understand it, no fed statute bars this. Many (including Grok) say military regs bar it, citing reg 190-55 But 190-55 doesn't seem to expressly ban public or recorded executions. It allows 'media witnesses' but says nothing about recording the execution (a livestream is, in effect, a recording; those watching it are watching, thru electronic means, something that has already occurred, albeit only moments ago). Even if we consider an unmanned camera to be a 'witness,' it could be considered a member of 'press.' Same is true if camera has an operator. Some cite 28 CFR § 26.4(f), which states that 'no photographic, visual, or audio recording of a federal execution is permitted.' But this seems to apply only in civilian (i.e., fed district) courts. May not apply in military courts. SCOTUS hasn't addressed issue of whether livestreaming, public, recording, etc., execution is CUP under 8A. But 'punishment' seems to refer to what is directly done to Defendant. Whether execution is recorded or viewed by millions (either live or recorded) doesn't change what is done to D. Arguably, recording the execution (or even allowing public to watch live) is not part of the 'punishment' for 8A purposes, & thus cannot be CUP. Same punishment is imposed regardless of whether there's a camera in the observation room. Whether this SHOULD be done as a matter of morality is a policy issue, not a legal one. In sum, there may be no legal basis to stop it. And Nadal, the only person w/legal standing to raise these issues, may not want to stop it, for propagainda reasons ...

Whatever Trump intended when he talked of Iran 'taking out' LA & SD, I have little to no doubt that he intended to include SF rather than SD ...

Had they not died when they did, the following could still be alive: James Dean (95) Elvis (91) Marilyn Monroe (100) Hendrix (84) Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Gayle Sayers (83) MLK (97) RFK, Rock Hudson (101) Buddy Holly (90) Mama Cass, John Lennon (85) Natalie Wood (87) Roberto Clemente (92) Thurman Munson (79) Frank Zappa (86) 'Ain't life peculiar?' W. S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

DIESEL TAX RELIEF MAGA world giddy about Trump's 'brilliant' election eve tactic of signing tax relief on diesel. To be clear, we must forgo needed tax revenues (thus increasing the national debt further above what Trump has increased it already), in order to grant diesel users some partial marginal relief on the increase in price that is the direct & easily-foreseeable result of Trump's incredibly stupid policies. And this is what now passes for 'winning' in MAGA world ...

THE RUBIO SHRUG TELL Rubio has a serious 'tell' of doing a slight shoulder shrug whenever he says something he knows, in his heart, is problematic (i.e., a flat lie, an irrelevant diversion, a nonresponsive answer, etc.). I wish someone more tech savvy than I would compile such moves into a sequence; would be fun to watch ....

Also, when 'bad things' happen in cars, usually only a handful of people are directly hurt. Car 'bad things' don't crash economies, ruin businesses, destroy careers & reps, flood fields, cause large blackouts, crash planes, etc.

REFLECTING POOL CASE DISMISSAL From the court's order: "But in this case, Mr. Hearn faces an additional—and practically unprecedented— type and degree of risk should the Court dismiss this case without prejudice. ... [T]he government has conceded that its prosecution of Mr. Hearn was meritless and cannot identify any potential evidence or avenue of investigation that would allow it to reinstitute the case in good faith. Despite the existence of substantial evidence that Mr. Hearn committed no crime, the President of the United States himself has repeatedly and publicly criticized the government’s decision to dismiss the case and pushed it to recharge Mr. Hearn. Notwithstanding the compelling evidence cited by the Office of the United States Attorney attributing the damage to the Reflecting Pool to the misfeasance of the contractor, President Trump has repeatedly declared that vandals (including Mr. Hearn) were responsible. He has made his opinion that the government should not have moved to dismiss this case abundantly clear, calling that decision “terrible” and “stupid,” ridiculing United States Attorney Pirro for having “choked” and “folded like an umbrella,” and adding that those who disagree with his assessment need to “go back to Law School.” The President has stated that United States Attorney Pirro – his appointee – should reconsider her “hastily made decision” to drop the prosecution. Most concerningly, he has suggested a political basis for his requests, maintaining that that the government should reinstitute this criminal prosecution “especially since” Mr. Hearn has donated to ActBlue, a Democratic Party-affiliated ... fundraising platform, and is represented by Mr. Eisen. And the President has indicated that he has not decided whether to fire the United States Attorney regarding her decision not to pursue this case. ... Although the prosecutors assigned to this case have deemed it meritless, the President of the United States has repeatedly disparaged them and pressured them to change course. Mr. Hearn thus finds himself differently situated than any of the other defendants who have had their cases dismissed in Superior Court: while the prosecutors admit that the evidence indicates that he committed no crime, the President’s statements create a risk that Mr. Hearn will be prosecuted nonetheless, either because the current United States Attorney and her assistants will eventually yield to his public pressure campaign or because the President will replace them with prosecutors more likely to carry out his wishes. Additionally, Mr. Hearn would have to await the decision as to whether the government revives a criminal case against him knowing that should he engage in political activity, his conduct could be viewed by the President as a reason to reinstate the prosecution.... The Court agrees with the defense that in securing the Indictment against Mr. Hearn, the government shot first and asked questions later. Nothing about the grand jury process would prevent it from giving in to the President’s pressure and doing so again. Dismissal without prejudice thus would endanger Mr. Hearn in a manner that few, if any, Superior Court defendants have faced. Should the Court dismiss this case in a fashion that allows the government to reinitiate prosecution in the future, the Court would be exposing him to the risk that, due to pressure from the President of the United States apparently motivated at least in part by Mr. Hearn’s political views, he would again be charged with a crime that prosecutors have determined he did not commit. These risks must weigh heavily in the assessment of whether to dismiss this case without prejudice." Looking forward to similar orders in cases involving Comey, et al.

Since we're renaming all kinds of things, the unfinished DC reflecting pool should now be called The Trawmp (Trump Swamp).

CORNELL RAPE CASE These seem to be the crucial legal terms under NY crim law: Consent defined: any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor’s conduct “Mentally incapacitated” means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without his consent. “Physically helpless” means that a person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.