The rot runs deep

/


DC sandwich slinger ID’d as DOJ trial attorney, fired from position after hurling sub at federal agent

A DC man who hurled a Subway sandwich at a federal agent on the streets of the capital earlier this week has been identified as a now-former Justice Department trial attorney.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Thursday that Sean Charles Dunn, 37, who is facing a felony assault charge for the sandwich strike, has been fired from his DOJ role.

Thirty-seven-years-old: the mind boggles. On the bright side, if the current DOJ team can secure a felony conviction from a D.C. jury — no sure thing, despite this moron’s confession — he’ll be unable to keep his law license, and firms that would ordinarily rush to hire such stalwart defenders of the Deep State won’t touch him.

Here are a few more details as supplied by the Hindustan Times:

According to court records accessed by The Independent, Sean Charles Dunn is charged with confronting a group of law enforcement agents on Sunday night and yelling at Customs and Border Protection Agent Gregory Lairmore.

Dunn shouted, “F*** you!” and pointed to the ground. “You f***ing fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” he added while standing closure to Lairmore. The squad also included a detective from the Metro Transit Police and additional federal agents.

According to authorities, Dunn continued to hurl slurs at Lairmore for a few minutes before crossing the street. In the records, which referenced an Instagram video captured by an onlooker, he then returned to “forcefully” toss a “sub-style sandwich” at Lairmore.

Dunn was apprehended despite his attempt to flee. “I did it. threw a sandwich,” he confessed to the police as [he was being processed].

The man was accused of assaulting, obstructing, or resisting various US officials and employees.

So, that’s the DOJ; there have been plenty of reports of the same type of “resisters” buried in every other government agency, including the State Department, the EPA, the Department of Education, Energy, and so on. An then there’s the military: the attribution of the linked-to XTweet to a Army general is not accurate: the “recently retired Army General” actually reposted a NYT opinion piece — approvingly — written by two former long time State Department employees and National Security Council members. The general point (so to speak) is on target.)

A buyer appears in Cos Cob

/

24 Rippowam Road, current asking price of $1.595 million, is reported as pending, 139 days after starting off at $1.8 million. It’s not 579 Indian Field Road, but then, it’s also not priced at $43 million, so there’s that.

(I confess that, although I thought I knew, even if vaguely, the location of just about every street in Greenwich, Rippowam Road waa new to me. It turns out to be in that little enclave of streets at the foot of Valley Road.)

In my experience, people who resort to profanity are basically cretins with limited vocabularies and nothing of value to say

/

Ever work a summer construction job, or load houses with movers crews? Boring: “Where’s my fucking hammer, so I can fucking finish this fucking job and hit the fucking bar for some fucking beer?” “It’s probably up your ass, you fucking asshole” is a more commonly heard conversation than meditative reflections on Heidegger’s” Being and Time”. (Not that the old Nazi is worthy of much more thought than your basic carpenter would give him, but still ….)

So I’m not impressed by the Democrats new tactic for appealing to the blue collar voters by abandoning decorum and inserting earthy Anglo-Saxon expletives into their public utterances:

Schumer gives profanity-laced response to whether Dems will help extend DC police takeover

Schumer made the comment during an appearance on "The Parnas Perspective" with host Aaron Parnas. The top Democrat made it very clear that his party would do everything in its power to prevent Trump's move from going beyond the current 30-day period.

"No f‑‑‑ing way," Schumer told Parnas when asked about the extension.

"We’ll fight him tooth and nail.… He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don’t like it either."

And then, as is the case with all the disloyal opposition, he seizes on their latest, current phoney “issue”:

"This is, again, just a distraction. He’s afraid of Epstein," Schumer continued. "He’s afraid of all that, and we are not going to give up on Epstein."

This pseudo-tough guy talk was noticed and commented on by The Hill last March: Democrats embrace the f-bomb

In recent weeks, a number of newly launched Democratic hopefuls for key House and Senate seats have pledged to “unf‑‑‑ our country” or have urged their party to “drop the excuses and grow a f‑‑‑ing spine.” 

The ads are indicative of the rising temperature in American politics generally, but they also underscore the ways politicians are trying to resonate with base voters, many of whom have expressed frustration with Democratic leaders.

“I think that in the case of the Democratic candidates … the swearing reflects their sense of crisis,” said Michael Adams, a lexicography expert and author of the book “In Praise of Profanity.” 

“There’s just a point at which the usual vocabulary will not be sufficiently expressive in the moment,” Adams said. “I suspect that this is a ‘no, I really mean it,’ type of emphasis … All of the niceties, all of the conventions, all that stuff — we have to put that aside because the situation in which we find ourselves is so dire politically, culturally and historically, that we just need to act.”

Democrat Nathan Sage last week launched his campaign by decrying that farmers have been “f‑‑‑ed over” and vowing to “kick corporate Republican [Sen.] Joni Ernsts’s a‑‑” in the midterms. ” 

…. Challenging longtime Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) last month, progressive influencer Kat Abughazaleh told Democrats to “drop the excuses and grow a f‑‑‑ing spine.” 

…. Profanity, once seen as taboo in politics, has been increasingly common to hear from lawmakers and candidates on both sides of the aisle over the last few years, in line with a broader societal uptick in the acceptance of profanity across the last few decades. 

…. But especially when it comes to carefully planned campaign launches or ads, experts say the use of such language likely has a considered political purpose as candidates work to connect with voters vexed by politics — and as some Democrats fret internally that the party has fallen out of touch with the majority. 

“The linguistic choices that professional politicians make are extremely tightly crafted,” said Ben Bergen, a professor of cognitive science at University of California San Diego and the author of a book about swearing. 

“It would surprise me if, for many of them, they were sort of stumbling into accidentally using profanity. The use is probably, in most cases, something that’s strategic.”

…. “There are known consequences to how people judge you when you swear, and some of those might not be desirable for a politician: like, you’re judged to be more out of control, possibly less intelligent, possibly less well educated,” Bergen said. 

“But then there are things that might be useful, judgments that folks might have about you that you might want: like, people who swear are judged to be more truthful, more genuine, more accessible, funnier, more passionate.” 

But Demcorats [sic] will also want to avoid retooling their language in a way that comes across as performative or an obvious strategic move, especially when trying to reach young people. ‘[They] can’t just go out there and throw f-bombs and hope it’s gonna land. It’s gotta be authentic,’ [Democratic strategist Fred Hicks] said. 

“Authentic”, but “carefully crafted” authenticity — Uh huh. About as authentic as Elizabeth Warren chugging firewater straight from the can.

It’s also not just congressional hopefuls that are tapping into the language. 

Ken Martin, newly elected chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), took heat online for telling tech billionaire Elon Musk last month to “go to hell.” He then doubled down in a post on social platform X, responding, “I said what I said.” The DNC itself also proudly touted Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s (D-Ill.) labeling of Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last month as “a f‑‑‑ing liar.”

During a rally for federal workers in February, first-term Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) exemplified how some in her party are using the language to convey the urgency of the moment, saying: “I don’t swear in public very well, but we have to f‑‑‑ Trump.” She told The Oregonian afterward that “my only wish, frankly, is that I had said the line with more conviction.”

“I think particularly younger Democrats have realized that the majority of voters, including their own voters, have regarded them as being asleep at the wheel and engaging in sort of somnolent, uninspiring messaging,” Democratic strategist Jon Reinish said.

“This reads to me as a quick attempt to show that there is some energy and a pulse, to maybe capture some younger voters who are so incredibly disappointed and disaffected,” Reinish said. “A quick way to show that there’s a spark of life.”

How empty is the Democrats’ cupboard of alternatives? Consider this:

Jeffries teases ‘blueprint for a better America’ that ‘isn’t about Donald Trump’

On April 30th, a 101 days into the Trump administration and 101 days of Democrats screaming their opposition to everything he was doing, yet proposing no alternative plan except bringing Maryland Man back to the US to continue his life of crime and wringing their hands with mediat-attention-grabbing but ephemeral “issues” like “Signalgate”, the price of eggs, or Qatar’s royal family’s donation of a 747 to serve as a temporary replacement for Air Force One, Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised something new and different:

“Over these next 100 days, House Democrats are going to lay out a blueprint for a better America. And you will see a vision for this country’s future that isn’t about Donald Trump. It’s all about you,” Jeffries said. “How can we make your life better? How can we put more money in your pocket? How can we lower your costs?”

One hundred and one days have elapsed since that promise; no blueprint, no alternative initiatives put forward, just more wailing and hair-tearing and now, as Schumer promises, an all-out push to revive the Epstein story, this time recast with Republican players instead of the Democrats who were involved. That’s a goddamned shame.

Blogging again

/

There’s very little real estate news to report during this, the usual August vacation lull, and commenting on the political scene has become frustrating, because it’s essentially the same story, endlessly repeated. I burned out, temporarily, but what the heck, why stop now? So let’s get going.

And there’s this to consider:

Schumer is no one to judge what is or is not safe, especially after sharing pics of himself grilling raw hamburgers with cheese on them. 

It was really all over them by the time they were halfway through WW I, but England's in the end stage now (Updated)

/

There have been horror stories coming out of England every day for years, so many that I’ve pretty much stopped following them, but Ed Driscoll has posted a tiny handful from just the past few days, and the headlines offer a quick update on what our former cousins across the ocean were up to last week:

OH, TO BE IN ENGLAND:

● Vigilante Tube passengers face arrest over ‘assault’ of naked man on the Tube after they took law into their hands when he dropped his trousers on packed carriage.

—The London Daily Mail today.

● Police tell shopkeeper to take down sign calling thieves ‘scumbags.’

—The London Times, Friday.

● Anti-abortion campaigner faces third police investigation for silent prayer.

—The London Telegraph, Saturday.

● Every single ‘Palestine Action supporter’ at central London protest released after police make over 500 arrests.

—GB News, Thursday.

UPDATE FROM AMERICA’S PAPER OF RECORD:

Oh, the humanity! Taxpayers will no longer pay for other people’s candy, Twinkies or Dr. Pepper

/

First they took away Red Food Dye No.3, I remained silent, becuae I don’t like Fruit Loops anyway; then they came for my Ding Dongs …

As reported by something else we will no longer subsidize, NPR Radio:

RFK Jr.'s SNAP changes have people worried about losing benefits altogether

June 11, 20256:49 PM ET

Heard [Not by this blogger] on All Things Considered

Over 20 states are trying to bar people from using food assistance to buy candy and soda, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he'll expand the ban. Some recipients fear they may lose aid altogether.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

More states are planning to stop people from using food assistance to buy soda and candy. Yesterday, the Trump administration added Utah, Idaho and Arkansas to the quickly growing list of states allowed to implement this policy. This on top of the proposed budget cuts to the program, the largest in history. NPR's Katia Riddle talked to one family about how this might affect their lives.

KATIA RIDDLE, BYLINE: Meet Solomon Church , 10-year-old nutritionist. He's standing in the cereal aisle at the grocery store. He lives in a rural Oregon town called The Dalles. Solomon points to the sugar content on the side of one box.

SOLOMON CHURCH: Six grams and has protein, nine.

RIDDLE: Protein, he explains, is the most important ingredient - and vitamins.

SOLOMON: 'Cause if you get something that doesn't have vitamins, your body doesn't grow.

RIDDLE: Solomon is here with his mom, T Church. The family gets about $450 in benefits a month from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The administration says this ban on soda and candy will help reduce chronic disease and improve nutrition. T says, nutrition is important in their family, but so is being able to give her kids choices and being able to buy some special treats.

T CHURCH: And so for some kids, it's, like, the most meaningful way that they feel love and connection. And so being able to give them something that doesn't, like, negatively impact our budget [she means someone else pays for] is amazing.

RIDDLE: She's a single mom to five kids. [A single breeder who chose to have five children she can’t support — cue the violins] Her oldest are in high school. T says, for them, soda and energy drinks have a special role.

CHURCH: I think it's kind of social currency for our teenagers.

RIDDLE: T's oldest daughter, Olivia Church, wasn't at the store, but on a phone call, she says her mom is right. At her school, some kids arrive in the morning with $7 Starbucks drinks. She can't afford that, but because of SNAP, she can afford Red Bull. She says walking into the first period with one in her hand helps her feel normal.

OLIVIA CHURCH: You know, I would never be able to be a part of that social pyramid if we didn't have the SNAP benefits.

Having detailed the pending eviction of high schooler Olivia’s from her “social pyramid”[? That sounds very much like a term Olivia learned in her high school critical contemporary issues class], NPR’s paid weeper turns to another chimera:

RIDDLE: The administration argues taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing unhealthy food and beverages, but paying for energy drinks is a minor problem compared to another obstacle this family could be facing. As part of the effort to cut the program, the current bill imposes work requirements. T Church would have to work 20 hours a week to keep her benefits.

CHURCH: As a sole provider, there's no - yeah, there's no way that - if the requirement was 20 hours a week, that would drastically negatively impact our family.

RIDDLE: This rule would apply to families with kids over the age of 7. One of her sons needs a lot of special care. It's possible she could qualify for a disability exemption, but that's unclear. [“unclear” — did the reporter make any effort to investigate that, or did she just throw in the possibility to increase her audience’s “shock and dismay”? It’s NPR, so you know the answer to that one.]

CHURCH: Because even though chronologically, he's 11, social, emotionally, he's more like 6.

RIDDLE: T says SNAP benefits are critical to getting through this time in their life.

CHURCH: And it's not that I don't want to work. It's not that I'm unable. It's - we live in such a rural community and his needs are so significant, and care out here for a child like him is virtually impossible.

RIDDLE: There are more than 40 million people on SNAP. Experts say as many as 1 in 4 recipients could be affected. It's possible some states would end the program altogether rather than try to make up for the cuts. T says she thinks efforts to curtail SNAP don't take into account the fundamental purpose for programs such as this one.

CHURCH: It seems like they were created to be able to care for members of our community.

RIDDLE: Caring for people, says T Church, by making sure everyone has enough food. Katia Riddle, NPR News, The Dalles, Oregon.

Here’s another story about the cruelty and heartlessness of the current administration as told in her own words by one of the victims:

I am so dumbfounded right now. There are people who genuinely think that people who use EBTs don’t deserve sodas, candy, or desserts. You’re gonna tell me that my daughter doesn’t deserve a popsicle? You’re gonna tell me that I don’t deserve to get brownies? You’re gonna tell me I can’t have a fucking Dr. Pepper with my dinner? And all I’m hearing is ‘be grateful’… Get off of your throne of entitlement and take a look around you guys. Everyone is one bad day away from being homeless or even needing government assistance. Do you guys not see how that makes you look? Your lack of empathy and understanding is outstandingly atrocious.