I guess the other issue is that a story that sounds Important because of Big Numbers will sound less important with context. If it doesn't sound Important enough for the editor, it may not get published, with associated career risks.

I've wondered if they have trouble doing the math, particularly in deciding how many significant figures are needed.

'Legit' is an interesting choice of words.

I'm pretty sure I saw Trump do the first thing on TV Jan 6.

So Trump attempted to overthrow the government, and the Supreme Court collaborated with him to finish the job. Why aren't we calling this treason?

Can you say more about what the signals would be?

Probably somewhere with the Epstein file.

Could a future Democratic Congress pass laws to enable the constitutional provisions prohibiting traitors like Trump from holding office? Could they do it while he was in office?

Formerly prestigious

It strikes me that the observation that one could get out of sight of land is something that many people would be aware of and focused on. But maybe most people just wouldn't be interested?

Maybe we can convince him Puerto Rican statehood would be territorial expansion.

True. But news of OJ fleeing to Bluesky would be amusing.

I have more blame for Harris for not making that notional distinction meaningful. But blame or not, continuing to ask people to put aside the immediate deaths of their relatives as not ultimately important is not a way to expand the Democratic coalition.

It's hard to blame people whose choices were either a party who supplied weapons for the killing of their friends and relatives or a party who wanted to do it faster.

So I've come to think of the court as corrupt. Am I behind the times? Are they actually treasonous?

Hmm. He's my governor, and I left thinking he looked like himself and Vance looked like he had too much makeup.

The baked Alaska economy.