Given the crazy new rule forbidding linking out to other sites, you can find me at

An outfit called "SunlightHub" has decided to build a list of supporters of Israel in the Greater Boston area. I was sad not to be included, so I wrote them a letter: -- To Whom It May Concern I recently learned that you are building an online list of “notable people in the Greater Boston area” who have “worked with and/or supported the State of Israel”—including politicians, professors, employees of the Israeli consulate, and even those who have just “appeared at an event where . . . Israeli flags are present.” As the Antonin Scalia Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, a member of the Harvard Faculty for Israel, and a faculty coadvisor to the Harvard Law School Alliance for Israel, I am mortified not to be thought “notable” enough to be included. Perhaps I shouldn’t seek to be in any club that would have me as a member. But the State of Israel, which provides a home and a refuge to millions of ordinary people, is now fighting a deeply moral defensive war on multiple fronts against enemies devoted to its destruction—and taking far more interest in the lives of the civilians outside its borders than their own governments have. If your goal is “to show who has supported the State of Israel,” I would certainly wish for my name to be counted among them. I hope your list is updated to include me without delay. Sincerely, Stephen E. Sachs Antonin Scalia Professor of Law

The President of the United States is taking his threats against the Iranian people to new extremes. Targeting civilians en masse would be a clear violation of the law of armed conflict as laid out in the Geneva Conventions, as well as the Pentagon's Law of War Manual. This kind of focus on civilians is exactly what we accuse our adversaries of doing and what our military trains to avoid. It’s built into the rigorous drilling and routines that our military are trained on from their first weeks. If they are today or have been asked to do things that violate the law and their training, it puts them in very real legal jeopardy. I know that our service members up and down the chain of command know their duty and the law to refuse illegal orders. Even as the Commander-in-Chief tells the world otherwise. It’s moments like these that are why we made the video to service members last year. And I hope and believe our troops — especially those in command — will have the moral clarity to push back if they are given clearly illegal orders.

This is what true heroism looks like. This video will go down in history.

I read Amnesty’s report. The findings are serious. The organization still isn’t. Amnesty has finally published a detailed account of the atrocities of Oct. 7. It confirms that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups carried out deliberate mass murder, torture, hostage taking and sexual violence. It goes further than any previous Amnesty document and classifies these actions as crimes against humanity, including extermination. The evidence is overwhelming and the legal conclusion is correct. None of this restores Amnesty’s credibility. The report opens by returning to Amnesty’s political narrative about Israel before it even describes a single Hamas crime. That choice signals priority. Shape the reader first. Cushion the findings. Reframe the context. This is not what a neutral fact-finding body does when documenting one of the worst mass atrocities against civilians in the region in decades. The most important finding, extermination, appears deep inside the text (pp. 18–19 and 151) instead of standing at the forefront of the Executive Summary. To my knowledge, this is the first time Amnesty has ever accused a Palestinian armed group of a crime against humanity of extermination. Amnesty knows how significant this is. It also knows how politically inconvenient it is for a movement that spent two years casting doubt on survivor testimony and minimizing the scale of the violence. Burying the central crime reveals Amnesty’s discomfort with stating it plainly. Amnesty also acknowledges that its own evidence collection was severely limited. It lacked access to most survivors of sexual violence. Witnesses were reluctant to speak to an organization that had already cast doubt on them. These limitations only highlight how irresponsible Amnesty was when it spent two years questioning survivor accounts. The problem is Amnesty’s double standard, not the survivors who refused to engage with an organization that had belittled their testimonies for nearly two years. Survivors, therapists and first responders have been consistent since the earliest days. Amnesty was not. It demanded verification. It treated reports with suspicion. It amplified doubt. And now it uses its own investigative failures as a way to narrow and hedge its own findings. The report further acknowledges that Hamas leadership intended attacks on civilians and hostages. The patterns are explicit. Coordinated killings. Systematic abductions. Messaging from senior figures. Yet Amnesty cushions these findings with language designed to preserve a political narrative of spontaneity and chaos. The evidence contradicts that narrative, but the organization cannot let it go. Phrases like “Israel’s prolonged occupation,” “apartheid” and “blockade” function as contextual mitigation for the perpetrators. The structure of the report tells the rest of the story. Political framing dominates the front. The most damning material is placed later. On p. 8 of the Executive Summary, before recounting a single Hamas crime, Amnesty repeats its own 2024 conclusion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This ensures that supporters can cite the opening while ignoring the findings that follow. That is advocacy. That is intentional. Even in the conclusion, a section that could have been dedicated exclusively to accountability for Oct. 7, Amnesty has to pivot back to its accusations against Israel and calls for pressure, sanctions and international action. The report becomes a pretext to restate its general political program. A credible human rights body separates findings from advocacy. Amnesty blends them. Amnesty did not suddenly become rigorous. It was cornered. The evidence was too strong, the testimonies too many, the footage too clear. It may have finally documented some of these atrocities, but it did nothing to repair its credibility. amnestyusa.org/wp-content/up…

Coming soon: OPERATION HUSKY FARMBOY OPERATION THROBBING MEMBER OPERATION STRAPPING MANSERVANT OPERATION MORNING WOOD

The hostage release today - and the credit Trump is getting and taking! - is a reminder of just how bad the Democrats are at politics. Not only did Biden refuse to force this deal on Netanyahu and thereby help Harris defeat Trump, but most people aren’t even aware that Biden got way more Israeli hostages (over 100) released from captivity with his Nov 2023 ceasefire than Trump did with his. But that ceasefire has been memory-holed, including by many Dems. The Democrats are often their own worst enemies, on politics, on messaging, on almost everything.

CNN’s Christine Amanpour: “The Israeli hostages have probably been treated better than the average Gazan because they are the pawns & chips that Hamas had.” Evyatar David was quite literally forced to dig his own grave. Absolutely unacceptable from CNN.

A reminder that if you are on twitter you should get off. techdirt.com/2025/09/15/stop…

Why the change of heart? @NancyMace

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy need not, and must not, have any deal forced upon him by any outside nation that does not guarantee the security and the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people, the people who elected him with over 73% of the popular vote, in an election that was recognized as free and fair by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), where I served as a Commissioner and Congressional Appointee. Russia has never held such elections. President Zelenskyy, and all negotiators, need to know this: There is an outcome-determinative number of Members of the United States Congress, from both parties and in both Chambers, who are ready, willing, and able to do whatever it takes to prevent Communist Dictator Vladimir Putin from being rewarded for his illegal invasion, raping, kidnapping, torturing and murdering of the Ukrainian people, including so many women and children. We will use every lever and every vote at our disposal, regardless of the personal or political consequences. This matter is that time-sensitive and it is that existential. It is legacy-defining. We all want an immediate end to this brutal Russian invasion and killing. For a peace agreement to be fair and lasting, it must be done in a way that holds the Russian invaders accountable, protects the dignity of the Ukrainian victims, and provides for fair and equitable cost-sharing amongst all European nations. To do otherwise would be to encourage future invasions and to perpetuate future heartache and bloodshed. This is about Peace Through Strength. This is about Patriotic Common Sense. And Patriotic Common Sense is what America must always stand for.

In its simplest terms, the apparent demise of #USAID is the result of the world's richest man ending a program that helps millions of poor people. You don't need a Ph.D. in moral theology to see why this is an evil. You can just read Jesus's parables on the rich and the poor.

I think that Republicans are going to find that while "no trans people in women's sports" was a politically winning issue, "the passport office will seize trans Americans' documents and refuse to issue them a passport under any gender" is not.

H1B visas should come with a $75k a year tariff. If it’s really about lack of candidates, companies will happily $75k. If not, it proves H1Bs are all about cheap labor held hostage by their immigration status.

Like all robber barons, Musk accomplishes both the great and the terrible at a scale far beyond what typical humans achieve.

Rootclaim is thrilled to announce the world's first $1 million debate on a pivotal question: Did the COVID mRNA vaccines save more lives than they killed? Our opponent, Mr. Steven Kirsch—a prominent vaccine critic—asserts that these vaccines saved few, if any, lives and caused millions of deaths globally. While we disagree with his conclusions, we commend Mr. Kirsch for taking a personal risk and attempting to back his public statements on this important issue. Debate Details: • After two years of negotiations, the agreement was signed, including the identities of the two judges. • One million dollars have been deposited in escrow, and there is no going back. • The debate will be in writing and video, starting before year's end. • Texts will be shared publicly to allow anyone to weigh in, ensuring both sides present their best case. • Videos will be released after the winner is declared to preserve the judges' anonymity. We invite experts with relevant knowledge to contribute. Please comment or contact us if you'd like to assist, or tag others who might be interested.

This is important enough that I voted, though I assume it's a sham

Hey, fun story! I live on a small island in Maine. Post-election, a writer-friend & I decided to start a little islander group to share emotional support, info & resources. She posted about the 1st meeting on NextDoor. Easy peasy. There was nothing in the ad beyond "hey, things might get tough, let's get through this together." IMMEDIATELY, MAGAs sailed in to scream, mock, & threaten us. For a support group.

After watching the racism dial turn further and further on this site, I decided to try and publicly make as definitive a case as I could. We're so far past the point of no return that I'm out of excuses for myself. Been a good 15 year run. Bye! theatlantic.com/technology/a…