hudebnik: (Default)
OK, we all knew Trump was fond of bribery —- both giving bribes to public officials like Pam Bondi when he wanted them to not investigate his University and similar schemes, and even better, taking what appear to be bribes himself now that he’s a public official. But this Times interview lays out how mind-bogglingly, unprecedentedly, openly corrupt the Trump family’s crypto dealings are.

Yes, there have been lots of corrupt Federal officials before, but they usually tried to hide their corruption, while Trump is completely open about it: he knows that the only way he can be held accountable is through impeachment, which won’t happen as long as his party controls at least one house of Congress. And the scale is probably at least an order of magnitude beyond all previous Federal bribery scandals combined.

It raises some interesting questions: assuming Trump left office and we still had a vaguely functioning republic, how would we even begin to fix this?

(1) Overturn the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, and make clear that somebody who uses Presidential powers to commit a crime can be prosecuted for that crime. For example, the President has nearly unlimited pardon power, but granting a pardon in exchange for money would still be prosecutable as bribery. This would require either a SCOTUS decision or, better, a Constitutional amendment.

(2) Put teeth in the emoluments clause. We can’t expect the DoJ to criminally charge a sitting President, but we could impose a 100% income tax rate on the fair market value of any gift the President (or any other Federal officer) receives in violation of the emoluments clause. This could be done by act of Congress, and signed into law by one honest President.

(3) Make impeachment slightly easier —- say, a 3/5 majority in the Senate rather than a 2/3 majority. Again, this would require a Constitutional amendment. Trump’s second impeachment failed to convict by a vote of 57-43, not quite a 3/5 majority, but the margin would have been much less comfortable, and three more Republican Senators might have voted to convict if they had thought it possible to come out on the winning side.

(4) How to deal with cryptocurrency? The basic problem is that it enables anybody who wishes, anywhere in the world, to put large amounts of money directly into the President’s pocket, anonymously but verifiably if the donor wishes to prove it to the recipient in private. If you were designing a system to encourage bribery, you couldn’t do much better. And the Trumps are currently using it in several different ways, as the Times interview points out:

(a) direct gifts from the donor’s “wallet” to the recipient’s,

(b) purchases of assets from which the recipient receives a transaction fee,

(c) purchases of floating assets of which the recipient holds a lot, driving up their price, and

(d) purchases of stablecoins from the recipient, which must be backed by actual dollars so they amount to a zero-interest loan to the recipient (who can invest the money in something interest-bearing).

For all of these, the novel problem is anonymity: the public, the IRS, and law enforcement have no way of knowing who gave the President (or other public official) how much money when. If we could fix that, at least for a limited class of recipients (high-level Federal government officials), the usual mechanisms of accountability would at least have a chance to do their jobs.

Existing law requires certain categories of government officials (including the President and Vice President) to file financial disclosure forms, within 30 days of taking office and annually thereafter, identifying the sources and amounts of income, gifts, and reimbursements. In a crypto account, some income, gifts and reimbursements are likely to be truly anonymous, and you can't report what you don't know -- but you can still report the total amounts of anonymous transfers, and you can report the account numbers of any such accounts that you own, so the information can be verified. And the tax code could be amended to apply a 100% income tax rate to the total value of such anonymous receipts beyond an annual threshold.

That would work for dodges (a), (b), and (d), but not for dodge (c), the “driving up the price” trick, unless applied to every purchaser of the asset, even those with no interest in bribing public officials. Fortunately, this is the most unwieldy, inconvenient trick of the four: it costs the donor a lot of money, depending on market demand, to drive up the price of a publicly-held asset sufficiently to affect the recipient's behavior, and the recipient can't realize the gains except by selling large amounts of the asset, which pushes the price back down.
hudebnik: (Default)
I've heard bits and pieces about "the abundance agenda" in reading Ezra Klein's NY Times opinion pieces over recent months. He recently co-authored (with Derek Thompson) a book entitled Abundance (review here)on the subject, and this Atlantic article sums up the split in the Democratic party caused by this and two other similar books (Yoni Appelbaum's Stuck and Marc Dunkelman's Why Nothing Works). I haven't read any of the three books yet, but I'm intrigued.

We can all see that the current administration is intentionally destroying the Constitutional Republic and the rule of law in favor of a klepto-autocracy. The only way it's likely to stop doing that is if it loses badly in free and fair elections, and the only likely candidate to beat it is the Democratic Party. But the Democratic Party doesn't have a great reputation with the public either: it can run on "stopping the steal" and restoring the rule of law, but to seriously win, it needs to be in favor of something. What is it in favor of?

For most of my (sixty-year) life, the most consistent difference between Democrats and Republicans has been that Democrats believed government could and should work to make ordinary people's lives better, while (starting with Regan) Republicans believed government couldn't work, and shouldn't work, and that any time government threatened to make ordinary people's lives better, it must be sabotaged to prevent it from doing that. Since it's always easier to break something than to fix it, Republican governments have had an unfair advantage over Democratic ones in proving their respective points.

But even where and when Democrats are firmly in control, whether local, state, or Federal, they haven't done a great job in recent decades of demonstrating that government can work. Public projects like the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge were built a hundred years ago, on schedule and under budget, but anything a government tries to build now takes much longer, costs much more, and accomplishes much less, than initial estimates -- think of the Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan, or inter-city high-speed rail in California. Trump likes to criticize "Democrat-led hellholes" like San Francisco for their homelessness, and he's not entirely wrong: Democratic-led large cities do have more homelessness than smaller cities or than the few Republican-led large cities. Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act" (which was mostly an environmental-policy bill) promised vast increases in solar and wind power, widespread broadband Internet in rural areas, and thousands of new electric-car charging stations so one could actually travel across the country in an electric-only car without fear of getting stranded; in fact, most of the solar-and-wind and broadband projects are still going through permitting and approval, and only dozens of new electric-car charging stations were actually built by the time Trump took office and slammed the brakes on all of that in a fit of pique. By comparison, I think China builds more public transit, solar and wind generation, and so on every year than the US has built in its entire history.

I gather (from the summaries I've read) that in the 1930's and 1940's, liberals in government were successful at using it to build things to improve ordinary people's lives. In the 1960's, liberals started viewing government as the enemy, became more concerned about stopping it from making ordinary people's lives worse, and enacted lots of procedural rules to ensure that all conceivable stakeholders are heard before a shovel goes into the ground. Which is laudable, but in practice it often prevents government from accomplishing anything, even things that would clearly improve most people's lives. The Chinese government, of course, goes to the opposite extreme that Trump would like to emulate: what the President says is what will happen, and other stakeholders might as well not exist.

I don't lose a lot of sleep over the Trump administration demonstrating overwhelming competence at getting good things done, or even overwhelming competence at getting things-I-think-are-bad done. Very simply, Xi Jinping is better at being a dictator than Donald Trump will ever be, and he heads a system of top-down control that's already worked out a lot of the bugs over the past eighty years. But the "abundance" movement within the "liberal-ish" half of the US says "we need to demonstrate that we can make government actually work, largely through reducing procedural obstacles, simplifying and optimizing operations." Sorta what DOGE would be doing if it actually aimed to make things work better rather than just destroying them, if it took the time to understand what current systems aim to achieve and how they currently work before burning them to the ground. Al Gore's Reinventing Government initiative was a related effort; see also this look back at its successes and failures twenty years later.

At the same time, I have libertarian friends I respect who would argue that anything government does to help ordinary people is inherently susceptible to corruption, rent-seeking, and regulatory capture, and we're all better off in general if government doesn’t try to do so many things.

I'm reminded that Frank Herbert wrote a couple of SF novels (and short stories, I think) on the premise that "efficiency in government" proponents had actually succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, to the point that a Bureau of Sabotage was created to slow down the rest of the government; the protagonist is a vaguely James-Bond-ish (and quite efficient) Saboteur Extraordinaire named Jorj X. McKie.

Comments? Suggestions? Have you actually read any of the recent books on the subject?
hudebnik: (Default)
So the bad guy has captured your child or spouse or whatever and is holding a gun to its head. Fortunately, the scriptwriters have given you a gun of your own, which you're pointing at the bad guy, at close enough range that you're likely to do serious damage. The bad guy says "Drop your gun, or the kid gets it." What do you do?

If you drop your gun, the bad guy still has a gun pointed at the hostage's head, and will next demand something else from you, and something else, and something else again. You haven't actually gained anything: the hostage is still alive, but only as long as the bad guy feels like it -- which is also true if you don't drop your gun. Indeed, the hostage was keeping the bad guy alive; if he kills the hostage while you still have a gun pointed at him, he won't live very long either.

Now, what if you don't have a gun? The bad guy will instead order you to do other things that strengthen his already-strong position and weaken yours. Again, the hostage is alive as long as the bad guy feels like it, regardless of whether you go along with the demands. If you refuse and he kills the hostage, he's just given away his most valuable asset and made the playing field more level than it was, which is not in his interest. (Killing the hostage isn't in your interest either, but the bad guy, if at all rational, makes decisions based more on his own interest than on yours.)

If somebody threatens you to encourage you to make a "deal", and the deal doesn't come with the verifiable and irrevocable elimination of the threat, it's not a deal; it's a protection racket. The price will keep going up and up and up as long as the bad guy has the power to threaten you and you keep giving him what he asks for. If the price eventually gets too high, you refuse, and he makes good on his threat, you're no better off than if you had refused from the start. (Delay might be a good strategy if you have reason to believe reinforcements will arrive soon to help you, but not if you're on your own.)

This has been a public service announcement, in case you happen to be a University or a law firm or a city, state, or national government....
hudebnik: (Default)
We got back from a camping SCA event at 9:30 PM Sunday, unloaded the car but mostly just piled things in the kitchen. Monday morning I put away most of the stuff in the kitchen. Walked dogs in the park. Cleaned and oiled my use-knife. Oiled my ankle-boots. Cleaned and oiled the treenware plates we used at the event. Emptied the dishwasher. Watered plants on the porch. Started a batch of sourdough bread. Eventually [personal profile] shalmestere got out of bed and we both did some gardening: she weeded things while I picked the first two wild strawberries of the season, and adjusted the bird-net over the cherry tree. While I was trimming dead raspberry canes in the back yard, the next door neighbor said he had a mail-order box that had arrived for us over the weekend, he went and got it, and we had a good conversation about working at Google Maps. His wife works at an organization that needs data about the footprints and heights of individual buildings, so they might be a good client for the Maps Platform.

Had a dream about reading and writing music/software that depended on writing words in cursive, rotating them 180°, and reinterpreting them: for example, "lookup" becomes "dpngooy", more or less.
hudebnik: (Default)
Just returned from the Piffareschi workshop, formerly known as the Indiana Early Double Reed and Sackbut workshop. This year they added a cornettist to the faculty, so there were several cornetto students added to the roster. Also several shawm and/or dulcian and/or sackbut students who haven't come to this workshop before (one of whom is a well-known professional cornettist who wanted to get better on the shawm).

Because the group was larger and more diverse than in previous years, the organizers invited students to choose one of four "trajectories": 15th-century alta capella, 16th-century "high" wind band with treble shawm on top, 16th-century "low" wind band with bombard (aka alto shawm) on top, and "high" wind band with cornetto on top. We opted for the 15th-century alta capella, as did several of the other SCA-folk in attendance.

Some of the new students were pretty weak, but most of them were competent musicians, trying hard and learning quickly how to play a new-to-them instrument. In addition, ensembles with shawms in them traditionally play a step above notated pitch (or equivalently, at A=492), so everybody in such an ensemble (shawm or otherwise) is expected to sight-transpose up a step (or sometimes up a 5th), and that was a challenge for many of the newcomers. So some of the small ensembles were frustrating. But some of the small ensembles we were assigned to were skilled, musically sensitive, and capable of working together; the results sounded glorious, and we played a lot of amazing 15th-century music.

Most of the music was provided not only in modern editions but in facsimiles of the original 15th-16th-century notation, and students were encouraged to read from the facsimile whenever possible.

As always, a large portion of the educational program was Bob-sensei talking about basic early-double-reed technique: how to breathe, how to hold your body, how to hold your mouth, how to warm up, how to invent exercises for technical problems, etc. Almost everything he said I had heard before, but I always forget some of it from one year to the next, and I always benefit from being reminded of it. I hope to pass on some of this valuable technique stuff in classes at Pennsic (after all, there's no way to learn something like teaching it).
hudebnik: (Default)
As Stephen Vladeck at the Times points out this morning, the Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court not to rule on the underlying question of whether the 14th Amendment actually grants birthright citizenship, but "more modestly" on the more-technical question of whether a single district judge can issue a nationwide injunction against a governmental policy. Of course, this is anything but "modest": if SCOTUS rules the way the Justice Department would like, it would be an enormous win for the Trump administration, because the ruling would presumably apply to lots of other illegal and un-Constitutional things the administration wants to do.

Nationwide injunctions really are a concern: both major parties have used them -- together with careful judge-and-venue-shopping -- to impede actions by Presidents of the opposite party. Related is the question of "emergency" injunctions, which when the Supreme Court takes them up as part of its "shadow docket" are usually heard and decided very quickly, possibly with no oral argument at all, and a decision issued without signed opinions. Both of these practices have become increasingly common in recent years, and they both feel like "end runs" around the proper administration of law; it would be nice to have fewer of them.

So here's a question: what constitutes a legal "emergency"? To me, it would be something that's likely to seriously harm somebody who wasn't being harmed before. If you've had a particular right for decades, and somebody tries to take it away from you, especially in a way that's likely to be irrevocable in practice, that could well be an emergency. On the other hand, if something has been happening for decades or centuries, it's hard to claim that fixing it is an "emergency". In other words, the decision whether something qualifies for the "emergency" docket should be biased in favor of the status quo ante: even if a long-standing practice does need to change, it probably doesn't need to change so fast that it can't wait for a proper judiciary proceeding.

And that's why numerous courts have accepted cases about birthright citizenship as "emergencies": the Administration's position would apply a decidedly non-obvious interpretation to the 160-year-old Fourteenth Amendment, reverse a 127-year-old Supreme Court ruling, and reverse various Federal laws written in light of that ruling, so there's a strong presumption in favor of leaving those things unchanged. But the courts accepting those cases have all been lower-level courts. Several of them have issued nationwide injunctions against the Administration's policy, presumably on grounds that the decision doesn't depend on detailed facts of an individual case but on the plain language of the 14th Amendment, which is the same no matter what state or district you live in, and the Justice Department is "modestly" asking the Supreme Court to strike down those nationwide injunctions. Ideally, in the Justice Department's view, a lower-court case would apply only to the individuals involved in that case, and would at most set a non-binding precedent within that court's geographic jurisdiction.

An additional wrinkle is that many of the plaintiffs in these cases so far have been (IIUC) not individuals whose citizenship has been denied, but "blue" states concerned about the policy's effect on their people. I don't understand all the implications of this, or what standing the states have.

Anyway, if the Supreme Court overturned nationwide injunctions for the birthright-citizenship question, several weird things would happen.

1) Thousands, and eventually millions, of US citizens would lose their citizenship because they couldn't afford to file individual cases against having their citizenship stripped, or they didn't know how to do so. (Pro bono goes only so far when there are thousands or millions of similar cases in the system at once.)

2) Perhaps more significantly, thousands and eventually millions of US citizens would lose their citizenship because they're afraid to file a legal case. Imagine that your family consists of a US-born toddler, a DREAMer older child, a parent with a legal student visa or green card, and an undocumented parent, and you put your name on a lawsuit demanding that your toddler be treated as a US citizen. You would probably win the lawsuit, but long before it can even go to court, the rest of the family will have been deported (including the DREAMer and the legal resident). Of course, ICE could have deported the family anyway, but there are millions of such families; filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration will presumably jump you to the head of the line.

3) Thousands, and eventually millions, of US citizens might remain US citizens as long as they stay in the "blue" states where injunctions are in effect, but become non-citizens (and liable to deportation) if they ever travelled to other states. As one of the lawyers pointed out at oral argument, not since the Civil War has a person's citizenship depended on what state the person was in at the moment.

4) Thousands, and eventually millions, of nearly-identical cases would make their way through the judicial system. Probably 95% of these would be settled quickly, in favor of birthright citizenship and following the 1898 Supreme Court precedent, but perhaps 5% wouldn't -- and in those 5% of cases, the administration would have gained a new power (in certain parts of the country) that it hasn't had before. Heads I win, tails we tie: I'll play that game as often as I can.

5) Ironically, that scenario (a handful of rogue judges agree with the Administration in dropping birthright citizenship) is perhaps the best case, because the conflicting rulings allow the good guys to appeal to the Supreme Court, which (even with its 6-3 Republican-appointee majority) is unlikely to disregard the plain language of the 14th Amendment and reverse all those precedents. The alternative is that every single judge who rules on this supports birthright citizenship, but only within that judge's jurisdiction, the Trump administration chooses not to appeal to the Supreme Court and nobody else has standing to do so, the case never gets to the Supreme Court, and in the interim, the Administration can keep revoking people's citizenship as stated in 1 and 2 above in any part of the US where there hasn't been a court case yet.

So those are the effects on birthright citizenship. But the Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to overturn nationwide injunctions only on that one issue: they're more likely to overturn nationwide injunctions in general, on a wide category of legal questions. Such as whether the Trump administration is obligated to obey Federal laws on how and when Federal employees can be fired; whether it's obligated to obey Congressional appropriation bills; whether it's obligated to give due process to non-US-citizens before imprisoning or deporting them; whether it can default on (or "claw back") already-approved grants to universities, libraries, museums, and other non-profit organizations; whether it can penalize and blackmail law firms without naming anything specific they've done wrong; etc. etc. In each of these areas, we could end up in a situation in which the administration is constrained by Federal law in some parts of the country and not in others.
hudebnik: (Default)
Several years ago we bought a new bathroom scale, with a digital readout customizable to your choice of pounds, kilos, or stones (!). A month or two ago it died —- not any of the high-tech internal workings, of course, but one of the plastic feet broke, and since weight is calculated by pressure on the feet, all the readings were suddenly about 25% off. (I could live with it if they were consistently 25> off, but no such luck.) I glued the foot back together, and that fix lasted for a couple of weeks before the glue joint broke and we ordered a new scale.

The new one, the latest model from the same brand, looks even more ultra-modern, being made largely of glass. If you move it, it lights up for a few seconds while waiting for you to step on it. In fact, if you walk across the bathroom floor, it lights up for a few seconds while waiting for you to step on it. I guess the idea is that it doubles as a night-light for mid-night bathroom visits.

The new scale arrived April 27, and I installed the four AAA batteries that came with it, and it worked great. (AAA batteries are an improvement, being easier to find than the 2032 watch batteries the old scale needed.)

On May 7, ten days later, the new scale refused to report a weight because its batteries were low.

Maybe it’s just that the batteries provided with the scale are crap, but maybe the scale should concentrate its efforts on weighing people rather than lighting up the floor.

Kvetch

May. 6th, 2025 11:24 am
hudebnik: (Default)
When did the phrase "Venn diagram" come to mean "intersection" in popular discourse?
hudebnik: (Default)
Some time yesterday I was trying to respond to something on Dreamwidth or Quora or something, writing my reply in one of these text-block fields of a Web form, and Chrome suddenly reloaded the window, losing what I had already typed. I was only a sentence or two in, so I typed it again, being very careful not to hit any weird keychords (pretzel-shift-option-caps-lock-escape-left-square-bracket), and it reloaded the window again, losing what I had already typed. I started typing again, and only got through a few words before it reloaded. The fourth time I didn't manage to type anything before it closed the window entirely.

I thought the problem might be an interaction with a video game in another window, so I closed the video game and re-started Chrome. It asked whether to restore the same windows, and I decided to try "yes", in case shutting down the game was enough to solve the problem, but it wasn't: same symptoms. So I re-started Chrome and answered "no", then typed a URL, and it loaded, but after a few seconds the window closed spontaneously.

OK, I know this drill. Next step is to save everything in open document windows, shut down all apps, and restart the computer. So I did that, re-started Chrome, answering "no" to restoring windows, and got the same symptom.

Admittedly, this is an old version of Chrome, but we've been using it without difficulty for a year, and we haven't recently installed or upgraded any other software. It's the latest Chrome version that runs on Catalina 10.15, which is the latest OS version that runs on this hardware. Other than that, the computer has been serving us well for many years, and I'd sorta rather not upgrade to a newer OS because this one still runs Finale, which has been deprecated and no longer runs at all on the latest MacOS. (The Finale people recommend that their users migrate to Dorico, an even-more-powerful music-notation package, but it has a lot of different metaphors to learn, and many of the things my fingers knew how to do in Finale without conscious thought seem remarkably complicated in Dorico. And we still have hundreds of data files in Finale format. But that's a different rant.)

Opened Safari to see whether it had the same problem, and it seemed to be working fine. In particular, I did a Google search on "Chrome browser crashing after a few seconds", and got the advice I had already followed -- shut down other tabs, restart Chrome, don't restore windows, restart the computer -- followed by the next logical step: uninstall and reinstall Chrome. So I did that, restarted the browser, and got the same symptom: it couldn't keep one window open for more than a few seconds, even an empty window pointing at no URL at all. The advice also recommended deleting everything in "~/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome", so I did that, restarted (the newly installed) Chrome, it asked me some unfamiliar questions because it no longer had any saved state, I opened a URL or two, and the windows kept closing of their own accord.

So I went back to Safari, had a chat with a Google support chatbot which told me to do all the things I had just done, and tried to post my question on the tech-support bulletin board. This required logging in, without the benefit of Chrome's user-and-password autofill, so I had to look up which username and password I had used on the Google support site before, but I managed that. In describing the question, there was some detail of symptoms that I wanted to check, so I opened Chrome again to see when and how it went wrong... and it didn't. It worked fine, for minutes on end. I went to bed, woke up this morning, and am typing this in a Chrome window without difficulty. Go figure.
hudebnik: (Default)
If you haven't read Time Magazine's April 22 interview with Trump, ... maybe keep it that way, your brain will hurt less and your blood pressure will be lower, but there it is.

Time provides a page of fact-checks of the President's statements in the interview. On trade and tariff issues, he makes up a bunch of numbers that are much higher than the actual numbers, equates buying more than you sell with "losing" money, describes inflation under Biden as "the highest inflation we've ever had", says we're "taking in billions of dollars in tariffs from other countries" that are actually paid mostly by US consumers, etc. He also mis-states crime trends to make Biden look worse and himself look better, overstates evidence against Kilmar Abrego-García, understates prosecutions of rioters in the George Floyd protests, describes Jan. 6 rioters repeatedly as "peaceful and patriotic", overstates the fraud and savings found by DOGE so far, alleges incorrectly that "Stacey Abrams got $2 billion on the environment... something that she knows nothing about" (in fact there was a $2 billion grant to a consortium of NPO's, of which one of the smaller member organizations had formerly employed Stacey Abrams), and alleges widespread Democratic election fraud in both 2020 and 2024.

Trump brags about companies investing in the US: "the companies, the chip companies, the car companies, the Apple. $500 billion. Apple is investing $500 billion in building plants. They never invested in this country.... We have $7 trillion of new plants, factories and other things, investment coming into the United States.... Saudi Arabia, I happen to like the people very much, and the Crown Prince and the King—I like all of them, but they've agreed to invest a trillion dollars in our economy. $1 trillion."
The only way a foreign company or country can invest in the US is with dollars, which they can acquire only by selling stuff to the US, which Trump doesn't want them to do. I'm not an economist, but I get the impression that a country's trade deficit is almost by definition equal to its investment surplus: cut one and you've cut the other.

"[Time] it seems like you are expanding the power of the presidency. Why do you think you need more power?
[Trump] Well, I don't feel I'm expanding it. I think I'm using it as it was meant to be used. [changes topic to tariffs]
[Time] ... you've taken congressional authority on trade and appropriations. You fired the heads of independent agencies. You're challenging the courts right now, as you know. You're using the levers of government to weaken private institutions like law firms and universities. Isn't this seizing power away from institutions and concentrating them inside the presidency?
[Trump] No, I think that what I'm doing is exactly what I've campaigned on. [changes topic to immigration enforcement, equating immigrants with violent criminals]"
[Time] So you're not concentrating more power in the presidency?
[Trump] I don't think so. I think I'm using it properly, and I'm also using it as per my election. You know, everything that I'm doing—this is what I talked about doing. I said that I'm going to move the criminals out. [changes topic to immigration enforcement, blaming Biden for stopping wall construction]"

"[Trump] ... I've made all the deals.
[Time] Not one has been announced yet. When are you going to announce them?
[Trump] I’ve made 200 deals.
[Time] You’ve made 200 deals?
[Trump] 100%.
[Time] Can you share with whom?
[Trump] Because the deal is a deal that I choose. View it differently: We are a department store, and we set the price. I meet with the companies, and then I set a fair price, what I consider to be a fair price, and they can pay it, or they don't have to pay it."

In other words, simply by imposing tariffs, he has made 200 deals. This is a guy whose name is on a book entitled "The Art of the Deal". "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

"[Time] Let me quote from the ruling. “The order properly requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.” Are you facilitating a release?
[Trump] I leave that to my lawyers. I give them no instructions. They feel that the order said something very much different from what you're saying. But I leave that to my lawyers. If they want—and that would be the Attorney General of the United States and the people that represent the country. I don't make that decision.
[Time] Have you asked President Bukele to return him?
[Trump] I haven’t, uh, he said he wouldn’t. ... But I haven’t asked him positively, but he said he wouldn’t.
[Time] But if you haven't asked him, then how are you facilitating his release?
[Trump] Well, because I haven't been asked to ask him by my attorneys. Nobody asked me to ask him that question, except you.
...
[Time] Mr. President, whatever he might have done, whoever he might be affiliated with, doesn’t he deserve his day in court? Nazi saboteurs who came on our shores at Montauk during World War II had their day in court. Al Qaeda terrorists had their day in court.
[Trump] I really give that to my lawyers to determine, that’s why I have them. That’s not my determination. It's something that, frankly, bringing him back and retrying him wouldn't bother me, but I leave that up to my lawyer. You could bring him back and retry him—
[Time] That’s exactly right. You could fix this simply by bringing him back and going through the legal process—
[Trump] But I leave that decision to the lawyers. At this moment, they just don’t want to do that. They say we’re in total compliance with the Supreme Court."

"[Time] Some Republicans are considering raising taxes on millionaires in the package you're planning to pass that would extend your 2017 tax cuts. Do you support that idea?
[Trump] ... I actually love the concept, but I don't want it to be used against me politically, because I've seen people lose elections for less, especially with the fake news. ... I would not mind personally paying more. But the concept is something that may not be acceptable to the public."
hudebnik: (Default)
On March 31 (less than a month ago), I wrote

"we've come this far in only ten weeks. What's left for the Trump administration to do in the next 3-3/4 years?

Once you realize that you can disappear legal immigrants without evidence, charges, or legal proceedings, the obvious next step is to disappear US citizens."

And right on schedule, the Trump administration has apparently deported a US citizen to Honduras without even a hearing.

Some details: the citizen in question is a 2-year-old girl, born in the US to a Honduran mother; I don't know the father's citizenship/immigration status. The mother, the 2-year-old daughter, and a Honduran older daughter were taken into ICE detention and the administration decided to deport them. The father petitioned to stop the proceedings, at least insofar as the 2-year-old was concerned, on grounds that she's a US citizen and can't be deported. ICE allowed him a 1-minute phone call with the mother, which wasn't enough to resolve anything or reach any agreement about the 2-year-old. The father's petition was heard by a Trump-appointed Federal judge in Louisiana, by which time the deportation plane was apparently already in the air to Honduras. The Justice Department told the judge that the mother had requested that her daughter go with her, but the judge was unable to verify that. The judge tried to call the mother and was told that she had already been released in Honduras, so ICE had no way to reach her. The judge has set a hearing for May 16 to find out whether the US government actually "deported a US citizen with no meaningful process".

There are a lot of complexities here. It's not clear whether the father and mother are estranged, or whether ICE simply caught her and not him, or whether he's a citizen or legal immigrant. Ordinarily when parents are estranged, it's legally problematic for one of them to take their child across state lines without the other's permission, not to mention going to another country without permission; these things are normally resolved by custody rulings from a judge. It's not clear whether she wanted to take the child with her to Honduras, and whether the father and mother really disagreed about this. It is clear that they were deported under "expedited removal" rules before a judge could even weigh in on the case.

Let's imagine a simpler case as a Gedankenexperiment: father and mother are both undocumented immigrants, they've both been caught by ICE, which wants to deport them both at the same time to the same place, but they have a US-born 2-year-old. What are the possible outcomes?

  1. The child is taken away from her parents; they're deported and she's placed with friends, relatives, or a child-protective agency.

  2. Mother, father, and child are all deported, one of them in violation of US law (and possibly the US Constitution).

  3. Mother, father, and child are all allowed to stay in the US, two of them in violation of US law.

  4. Mother, father, and child are all allowed to stay in the US legally.


During the first Trump administration, the preferred solution was a variant of #1: separate children from their parents, deport the parents, and don't bother even keeping records of which child belongs to which parents so they can potentially be reunited someday, on the theory that causing as much suffering as possible will discourage other people from coming to the US illegally. (And they didn't try particularly hard to place the children, instead keeping them in ICE detention for weeks and months.)

The new answer appears to be #2: it doesn't inflict quite as much suffering, but it serves as a test case for Trump's long-standing desire to overturn the part of the 14th Amendment that specifies birthright citizenship. If he does that successfully, suddenly there are millions more people he can deport.

Of course, I'm a bleeding-heart liberal who measures the outcomes by how much they harm or help people. By that ranking, #1 is clearly the worst -- it inflicts a lot of suffering on three specific people. #2 is less bad: the family are still together, but they presumably left Honduras for good reasons, and now they're back there against their will. #3 is slightly less bad still: the family are still together, where they've chosen to live, but they're still living "underground", afraid to report crimes or complain about working conditions, wondering every day when ICE will knock at the door again. And their presence causes generalized harm to American workers, who have trouble competing for jobs against illegal immigrants who are guaranteed not to try to unionize or complain about working conditions. (Their presence probably does not cause a generalized harm through crime rates, since undocumented immigrants statistically commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens.) Least bad is #4: the family are together, where they've chosen to live, they're not "underground" so they're not competing unfairly with citizens for jobs, and they can go back and visit their relatives in Honduras without fear that they won't be allowed back into the US. My ranking, coincidentally, is the exact opposite of the Trump administration's priorities.

Options 3 and 4 do raise real moral-hazard questions: if it's US policy to allow people to stay either quasi-legally or fully-legally by having an "anchor baby", the policy encourages people to do exactly that, which really does feel like "cheating" or "cutting the line", as well as being a terrible reason to have a child. But what if it were US policy to allow (law-abiding) people to stay legally regardless of whether they had an "anchor baby"? What if we simply didn't have a category of "illegal immigrant" (as we didn't until 1875)? Then the moral-hazard argument about "anchor babies" disappears.
hudebnik: (Default)
One of the persistent mysteries of Trump 2.0 is why a would-be autocrat is simultaneously concentrating power in himself and dismantling most of the government agencies that would enable him to wield power. In particular, I've been wondering about the announcements in the past few weeks that large numbers of State Department offices, embassies, consulates, etc. are being shut down, their staff laid off.

The other day I was engaged in one of my usual debates with a Person Who Is Wrong And Isn't Actually There (this makes it easier to state the other side's arguments and eviscerate them), talking about immigration.

"But they're cutting the line! Why don't they follow the rules and apply to immigrate legally like everyone else?"

"And which application process would that be? There are five main ways to legally immigrate to the US: employer sponsorship, family sponsorship, refugee status, asylum, and the diversity lottery, and Trump (both 1.0 and 2.0) is trying hard to shut down at least four of the five. Employer sponsorship requires you to have a job offer from a US employer before you come to the US. Family sponsorship requires you to have a close relative already living legally in the US for at least a year or so before you come to the US. Refugee status requires years of paperwork and background checks in your home country before you come to the US. For asylum, you enter the US at a border crossing, immediately turn yourself in to a border guard, and request asylum, they listen to your claim, and maybe they give you an appointment for a hearing (or maybe they kick yo out immediately). And the diversity lottery really is a lottery: your chances of getting in that way are minuscule."

"But they shouldn't come to the US to try to get in; they should apply in their home countries --"

[click]

If you shut down all the US embassies and consulates in a particular country or region, you won't get immigration applications from people living in that country or region. This week's plans for State Department reorganization don't mention the entire continent of Africa, which might mean they intend to have no embassies or consulates anywhere in Africa. (Presumably Saudi Arabia, Israel, and some other relatively-wealthy Middle Eastern countries don't count as "Africa".)

I'm not sure of some of the facts here; if I'm wrong, please correct me.

feet

Apr. 22nd, 2025 07:13 am
hudebnik: (Default)
Thirty years ago or so a chiropractor X-rayed my hips and informed me I had a 6mm leg-length difference, which he said wasn't enough to see with the naked eye but was enough to put my pelvis at an angle and my spine into a slight S-curve, so he prescribed a heel insert. Which I used for a few years, and I think it helped with back pain, but over the years I lost the habit (particularly when wearing sandals), and then forgot which heel it went in. I've looked in a bunch of my old shoes for inserts, and found one pair in which the left shoe has a full-length after-market insole and the right shoe doesn't, so I'm guessing it was the left heel. So on my way home yesterday I stopped at a dollar store (they're really going to suffer from Trump's tariffs, since almost everything on the shelves is made in China!) and got some gel heel pads a few mm thick. I put one in the left heel of each of two pairs of shoes that I wear commonly; we'll see what difference it makes.
hudebnik: (Default)
I took an hour out of my work day on Friday to join in a family Zoom call with my uncle Will, who had scheduled his death for later that afternoon. He appeared mentally sharp, with the same dry humor as ever, but (whether because of Parkinson's or because of medications) his face didn't move, no expression at all, except when he was actually talking. My cousin and half-brother were there in person, as were his four-month-old grandson, his first wife (whom I hadn't seen in fifty years or so), and presumably an offscreen nurse to manage the assisted-suicide process. My other uncle, my sister-in-law, my brother, and I joined by Zoom from our respective homes. It was good to see all these people, and the prevailing mood was one of tender humor.

After the Zoom call ended, my brother reported by e-mail that Will took his pill, went to bed in the living room facing the window with a spectacular view of Mt. Hood, fell asleep, and stopped breathing two or three hours later.

Saturday we went to another protest march in Manhattan. This one's theme was "declaration of interdepence", with specific emphases on due process for immigrants and environmental protection. I re-used my sign from the last march, which said on one side "The Bill of Rights is not limited to citizens" and on the other "WASTE + FRAUD + ABUSE = DOGE", while [personal profile] shalmestere made a new sign about clean air, clean water, and clean energy. We stood around for an hour and a half in front of the Central Library before starting to walk, ending up at the corner of Central Park. No incidents that I noticed, no counter-protesters even, and we got gestures of support from the tourists passing by on buses and the drivers crossing our path. There was one guy, right at the end of the march, who used his bullhorn to exhort everyone to not patronize the horse-carriages of Central Park -- a legitimate issue to discuss, but not the main focus of the day, and he was unnecessarily insulting about it. Anyway, we took a subway back to Penn Station, and an LIRR to Queens, and walked home with our protest signs. One lady on the street asked what the signs were about, so I showed her mine, and she explained "Actually, the Bill of Rights is limited to citizens."
"It doesn't say so; it uses the word 'person', not 'citizen'."
"Trust me, I've read the Constitution, and even studied it. The whole Constitution is only for citizens."
"But the authors of the Constitution knew the word 'citizen', and used it in other places; they didn't use it in the Bill of Rights. Everyone deserves due process."
"You want to give due process to murderers and rapists who aren't even in the country legally in the first place?"
"Absolutely, because if they haven't had due process, we don't know that they are murderers and rapists."
Anyway, she got angrier and angrier, accusing "you people" of putting the interests of murderers and rapists and terrorists ahead of real Americans and the victims of murder, rape, and terrorism. We walked away.

Then spent the rest of the afternoon recuperating from the physical stress of standing or walking-slowly on pavement for several hours. It was a gorgeous day, high in the low 80's (and three days earlier I was wearing a winter parka!), with blue skies and light breezes.
hudebnik: (Default)
This whole dream appears to be a scene left on the cutting-room floor of Star Wars: a New Hope; the viewpoint character seems to be Luke. We (Luke, Han, Leia, and Chewie) had escaped from Vader, Tarkin, et al but were now on foot in a small fishing village. We found a small red convertible sports car, Han said "so that's where I parked this thing!", we all got in, he started the engine, and we started driving. In the cobblestone town square we saw Vader, Tarkin, and the mayor standing and talking, with a silver ball about 2' diameter on the ground behind Vader. Restraining the temptation to run over them, we drove past and the silver ball started beeping and bouncing at us: we had been recognized, and slammed on the accelerator. But within seconds they had a tanglefoot field pointed at us, and the car slowed to a halt. So much for our escape.
hudebnik: (teacher-mode)
Many people have already remarked on the bizarre variation in Trump tariff rates between one nation and another, and various reporters have discussed the "formula" that the Trump administration seems to have used to determine most of those rates. (Russia, North Korea, and Iran are mysteriously all at the 10% level.) It's not completely nonsensical: indeed, if there were a homework problem about tariffs in an Algebra I textbook written for twelve-year-olds who knew nothing about economics, this might be the answer in the back of the book.

Question 15: Your country annually sells $X worth of goods to the country next door, and buys $Y worth of goods from that country. If X < Y, this situation is called a "trade deficit". What level of tariffs would you need to impose on imports to make the trade deficit disappear?

Solution: let T be the tariff rate; the trade deficit is Y - X, the revenue from tariffs is T * Y, so equating the two and dividing both sides by Y, we get T = (Y-X)/Y.

Yes, it really is that simple and stupid.

For example, according to this Times article, the US bought $228M worth of goods from Lesotho last year, while selling it only $7M. (228-7)/228 = .97, so the formula suggests a tariff rate of 97% to balance things out. Trump says he's "being kind" to other countries by setting his tariff rates at only half this level, which is why he's imposing a tariff on Lesotho of "only" 50%. (The Times article also points out that the people of Lesotho don't buy much from the US, or from any country except South Africa, because most of them are desperately poor, and what they sell to the US is mostly diamonds, which can't be mined in the US because the US doesn't have naturally-occurring diamonds.)

Of course, there are lots of real-world issues that don't fit into this Algebra I question, most obviously

  • how much of the tariff is actually paid by importers, retailers, and customers in this country rather than by the other country

  • how much the tariff's existence changes the levels of imports and exports.


The Trump administration's formula acknowledges these -- sorta. It inserts two constant factors into the equation, one to represent what fraction of the tariff actually comes from Americans and one to represent how much imports decrease as a result of the tariff. In reality, it's not clear that either of those is actually a constant factor: both of them are likely to be superlinear, perhaps quadratic, in the size of the tariff. Anyway, it doesn't matter because whoever came up with the formula arbitrarily assigned one of them the value 4 and the other the value 1/4, so they cancel one another out and we can ignore both of them.

Another real-world issue that doesn't fit into the Algebra I question is how the other country will respond to your imposition of a tariff: will it reduce its own tariffs and trade barriers to get you to drop yours, will it increase its own tariffs and trade barriers in retaliation for you raising yours, etc.? Trump is usually very interested in forcing other people to bend to his will, but in this case he doesn't seem to care much what other countries do in response: he's going to take matters into his own hands and zero out all the trade deficits at the stroke of a pen.

A fourth real-world issue is the distinction between goods and services: for example, the US has a substantial trade deficit with the EU if you only look at goods, while it has a substantial trade surplus with the EU if you only look at services; combining the two, there's still a trade deficit, but much smaller than the goods-only deficit than the administration seems to have used.

Fifth, trade numbers between countries can fluctuate wildly from one year to the next: if one airliner or fighter-jet is delivered in December rather than January, that can make an appreciable difference. It would make more sense to use average figures over, say, five or ten years to do these computations.

And the elephant in the room: all of this is based simply on cash flows. The most common (populist) argument in favor of tariffs and trade barriers is that they'll encourage a particular domestic industry and its workers by protecting them from foreign competition. Of course, this effect only works if the tariffs are expected to stay in place for long enough (several years) for manufacturers to build factories and move their production, and long-term predictability isn't Trump's style. At the same time, a populist argument against tariffs and trade barriers, particularly on parts and raw materials, is that they'll hurt domestic industry and its workers by making their inputs more expensive, and they'll hurt consumers by making everything more expensive. These effects are more immediate than the positive effect on the protected industry, and they apply to every part of the domestic economy except the industry you're trying to protect. The formula takes no consideration of these effects (positive or negative) on domestic industry or consumers, only on how much cash is entering or leaving the country.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the great nations of Europe made trade policy based on a theory called "mercantilism", which measured a nation's greatness by how much gold and silver were within its borders, so selling more and buying less from other countries is always good. Adam Smith pointed out in 1776, in Wealth of Nations, that this is bonkers: in reality trade benefits both parties (or they wouldn't have done it). If you have the choice among buying something cheaply from a neighbor, making it more expensively at home, or not having it at all, you and your people may be best off buying it from your neighbor (especially since this makes your neighbor cash-rich and more able to buy other things from you). A few decades later, David Ricardo elaborated on this with the "theory of comparative advantage": to oversimplify, if your country (for reasons of natural resources, expertise, etc.) can produce commodity A more efficiently than commodity B, while a neighboring country is better at producing commodity B than commodity A, both countries are better off if you produce A and trade it to your neighbor for B. And no real economist or trade-policy expert in over 200 years has believed in mercantilism.

But Trump does. He measures everything in cash, including America's "greatness", so his tariff policy treats tariffs purely as a source of cash revenue, with no concern for any other effects they might have. See today's XKCD for another illustration of how silly this is.

So based on an economic theory that was thoroughly discredited 250 years ago, by ignoring everything we know about the behavior of actual human beings, companies, and nations, and by measuring only one year's exchange of physical goods for cash rather than any broader measures, he's come up with a policy that serves only to demonstrate his ability to tank the national and world economies and cause mass suffering.
hudebnik: (Default)
So my mother just moved into the "independent living" tier of a senior-living complex, which necessitated triaging a lot of Stuff. In particular, I came home with a shoebox full of slides, since I own a slide-digitizer. Fortunately, my brother and mother had already whittled down the slides massively to only the ones that contain people (the vast majority are scenery, which was beautiful at the time but nobody's likely to care about now or ever again).

So last night I started feeding slides through the digitizer, starting with the oldest-looking ones. These were taken by my maternal grandfather during WWII, and they're clearly distinguished by being in steel frames, many of them with glass on the front or back to protect the film. My digitizer was Not Happy with the steel frames, which are noticeably thicker and more unyielding than the cardboard slide-frames I grew up with, but I got through them all, as well as a few cardboard-framed slides he took in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Lots of pictures (mostly B&W, but a few with hints of color) of my mother's elder sisters, and a few of my mother, wearing fetching dresses, aprons, and bonnets or hair-ribbons, playing mostly in a depressing-looking paved courtyard, which I assume was part of my grandfather's family's hotel in Germany. What was their life like?

See, my maternal grandparents lived in New York in the 1930's, but travelled to Germany to visit his family (so they could meet the then-two girls), and were trapped there when the war broke out. My German-born grandfather was drafted into the Army of the Third Reich despite being a naturalized US citizen; the alternative seemed to involve his wife and daughters being locked up for the duration. He had some leaves to see his family, producing two more daughters, including my mother.

When the war ended, they weren't out of the woods. He was no longer fighting in a war, but was now held at an allied P.O.W. camp named Dachau (which you may have heard of from its earlier incarnation as an extermination camp), trying to prove that he wasn't guilty of war crimes. My grandmother went to work as a secretary for the Allied occupation forces (she was born in Ontario, and English was her first language) while waiting about a year for his case to go through. Eventually he was acquitted and released, but by fighting in the German army he had lost his US citizenship. His wife and daughters got on a boat back to New York City, where various relatives took them in, while he stayed with his family and tried to get an immigration visa back to the US to join his wife and four daughters. That took another year or two, after which they had a fifth daughter.

My grandfather died of emphysema when I was five, so I don't have many memories of him -- mostly lying on the recliner, coughing and shouting at everyone. My mother never knew him without war PTSD, so her memories of him aren't all that positive either. But I have a little more sympathy for him now.

Next up: hundreds of (cardboard-framed, easier-to-scan) slides mostly of my childhood. My mother still has a box or two of print photos, and a bag of documents (e.g. her identification papers from the Allied occupation, Britische Zone, and a bunch of letters between her parents), and I'm not dealing with those any time soon. On a previous visit I brought home a bug of [personal profile] hudebnik Juvenilia: her diaries from my infancy and childhood, pictures I drew, lots of stories I dictated for my mother to type, a few school term papers and book reports, stuff like that. It was entertaining re-reading some of this, but I don't know what else to do with it.
hudebnik: (Default)
we sat next to a guy on the train who asked what the signs were about, so we told him.

He assured me that while a few people would lose their jobs in the short run, everything would settle down soon and in the long run it would be good for everyone.

I disagreed politely, pointing out that the cuts are so deep, and in so many agencies, that pretty much every American will be affected by them, soon and with no expiration date. And that the cuts are being made with an axe, not a scalpel. I'm all in favor of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, but if you were really trying to do that, you would hire people who know about accounting and government procurement, and who would study what the agencies do before issuing prescriptions for how to fix them. But they don't have time to do that kind of serious investigation: they have to break things as fast as possible, without understanding them, because the longer they take, the more likely somebody is to stop them. Instead, they have a bunch of 20-year-old kids who are good at computer programming but don't know anything else making decisions about shutting down entire government agencies, and they've been given access to your entire financial history, your SSN and birthdate and tax returns etc, without even passing a security background check; I assume they've made copies of all that on their home computers so they can sell it later. He agreed that it would be best to have government fixed by people who know what they're doing.

And then I asked what business he was in. He talked about his efforts to get a mistaken DUI stricken from his record so he can get back his CDL and return to his job driving trucks so he can retire with full benefits before he's 70. Apparently a lawyer he hired to help with this lied to him in order to extract more legal fees from him, and never really pressed his case, but he's still out $30K, and several years of seniority, for the attempt. He was on his way to a job fair, and I wished him luck.

As he got off the train, he said "Y'all seem to be really nice people. You're clearly left-wingers, and I'm not, but it's been nice talking to you." I replied "Yes, we need to talk across these divides, or we'll have two countries rather than one."
hudebnik: (Default)
So DJT took office promising to deport millions of "dangerous criminal" illegal aliens, and demanded a certain number of deportations per day. ICE had trouble finding that many dangerous criminal illegal aliens, so they decided to deport a lot of illegal aliens who hadn't committed any crimes. That still wasn't enough to meet quota, so they started deporting legal temporary residents (people here on tourist, student, refugee, or asylum status) who hadn't committed any crimes. That still wasn't enough, so they started deporting legal permanent residents (people with green cards) who hadn't committed any crimes.

These people are being detained and deported for a variety of reasons: (a) they once led a protest against Israeli policy in Gaza, (b) they once wrote a column in a student newspaper criticizing Israeli policy in Gaza, (c) they have an in-law they met once or twice who, ten years ago, was a member of Hamas, (d) they went home to Lebanon to visit relatives, (e) they applied again for a visa (successfully) after it was rejected the first time, or (f) they have tattoos and therefore are obviously members of Tren de Aragua, which despite its appearance as a profit-driven protection-market gang is really a front for a Venezuelan-government invasion of the United States that's so secret the defense department doesn't know it's happened.

Most of these detentions and deportations seem to happen with no legal process whatsoever: somebody high up in the State Department decides unilaterally that you're a menace to society, so your immigration papers are cancelled without notice or appeal, you're picked up on the street by masked plainclothes ICE officers, and you're sent to some prison where US law doesn't apply, to be held without charges, indefinitely, without your friends, family, or lawyer even knowing where you are.

That's review so far: we all know that. But we've come this far in only ten weeks. What's left for the Trump administration to do in the next 3-3/4 years?

Once you realize that you can disappear legal immigrants without evidence, charges, or legal proceedings, the obvious next step is to disappear US citizens. All you have to do is tell ICE that somebody made a false statement on a naturalization application, or is using a counterfeit passport or birth certificate, and that person is gone without a trace. I'm sure DJT has a long list of US citizens he wishes would just disappear....
hudebnik: (Default)
We were about to get married all over again, to fix the mistakes of the first time, and we were making a whole bunch of new mistakes. Scheduled to get married on Monday, after spending Saturday and Sunday out of town at an SCA or LBC event, and it had just occurred to me on Friday to get some couples counseling through my employer, so (without an appointment) I showed up at the counselor's office on Friday to see what we could schedule. A gay-male couple that I knew were already there, about to have their session. It occurred to me to ask [personal profile] shalmestere whether we had the site reserved for the wedding three days hence. And that's all I remember.

Diagnosis: pretty obviously, anxiety over being underprepared and underplanned.

Profile

hudebnik: (Default)
hudebnik

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
4 5 67 8910
1112131415 1617
18192021222324
2526 27 28 293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 9th, 2025 11:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios