Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Mehdi Hasan

@mehdirhasan.bsky.social

The thing that shocks me most is that all of this incriminating stuff was sitting at the DOJ for 4 years and Biden & Garland were not cynical or ruthless enough to use it against Trump & Musk in the run up to 2024.

If only they were the evil ‘weaponizers of government’ that MAGA claimed they were!

January 31, 2026 at 12:12 PM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Matt Pearce

@mattdpearce.com

I struggle to inhabit the mental reality of the working truck driver who makes late-night deliveries and carries a knife, realizing the moment he needs it finally arrives when a former famous football guy suddenly violently accosts him with extreme opinions about the hotel’s cooking oil.

October 5, 2025 at 8:11 PM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

shauna

@goldengateblond.bsky.social

this (from the brilliant @everywhereist.bsky.social) puts into words the big black tangle of frustration i have whenever i get the same question

Sigh. Here we go. A lot of people who aren't in America want to know why Americans aren't protesting *squints* every single minute of the day.
Let's break this down, shall we? Keep in mind, l have a shit ton of work to do, but I'm completely willing to take like five minutes and explain this.
REPLYING TO: montrealforreal
So why aren't you in the streets every single minute of the day. Oh right, you can't miss your Netflix shows.

theeverywhereist o 3h
1/ First and foremost: Americans are protesting.
Sorry if you don't see it. Sorry if the news isn't covering it. But people everywhere are rallying, speaking out in town halls, trying to get a hold of politicians who LITERALLY ARE AVOIDING THEM, calling, and doing whatever else they fucking can. Maybe the bigger question is why isn't that getting any coverage?

theeverywhereist o 3h
2/ America doesn't have a lot of social services, and Trump is gutting even more. So the ways in which a lot of us are being active and protesting this fucking administration might not be in a way that is visible to you. It's donating to our local foodbanks, LGBTQ+ organizations, local women's shelters, abortion funds, and other groups that we know are being hit hard by cuts to federal funding and support. Sorry that's not sufficient for you but we're in fucking triage mode here.

theeverywhereist o 3h
..•
3/ Our police are militarized. I don't know how to explain this any clearer: our police are armed to the fucking hilt. Riot gear. Armored cars.
Arsenals. I live in a blue city in a blue county in a blue state and the Seattle police force sent more officers to the JANUARY SIXTH RIOTS THAN ANY OTHER PD. Our police forces overwhelmingly support Trump. Oh, and his supporters have weapons, too. We're still protesting but it is fraught as hell. And if someone is scared to? I'm gonna respect that.

theeverywhereist a 3h
4/ Our health care is tied to employment. This is true for almost everyone I know. And yes, getting sick (even minorly) in this country can bankrupt you. I had major surgery a few years ago, and the adjusted price for it was like $200k if I didn't have insurance. So people cannot take time off of their jobs or they will literally lose their insurance. And people don't have support like daycare or family to help them if they've got kids. Hell, we don't even have mandatory parental leave. 5/12

theeverywhereist @ 3h
5/ Our country is fucking huge. Do you know how long it would take me to get to a protest in DC? More than 5 hours. BY PLANE. If I flew out with a week's notice (unlikely for a protest) | would pay about $700. l'd have to stay at a hotel because I don't fucking live in DC. So we're talking thousands of dollars and days off work to go protest in the capitol. But let's say that someone did do that. There would be a big issue, and that would be ...

6/ The president has fucking militarized DC.
Oh, and also, he doesn't give a shit. Protest works when your elected officials are beholden to their constituents. These ones are not. They don't fucking care. 7/12

theeverywhereist @ 3h
7/ The broken system is designed to protect itself. The electoral college is really fucking stupid, but you know what it's great at?
Protecting itself. Ditto for gerrymandering. The amazing thing about these systems is that they are excellent at being bulletproof. And they've been in place for hundreds of fucking years. It's not supposed to be reflective of the interests of the people - so why would the interests of the people be able to change it?
8/12

theeverywhereist @ 3h
8/ Lobbying is legal in America. And SuperPACs mean elections can be bought. At the end of the day, elected officials are beholden to the people who pay their bills, not their constituents. Thanks to SuperPACs, if you have money, you can essentially give endless amounts of it to a politicians campaign (see:
Elon, who had a SuperPAC that consisted of only him, that donated a quarter of a billion dollars to Trump in the weeks before the election).

9/ The country is really big. I know I said it, but I'm saying it again. It takes me 7 hours to visit family. By plane. If I drive for three hours north, do you know what state I'm in? I AM IN THE SAME STATE I WAS IN. And this is
advantageous to Trump, because if people are spread out, it's hard for them to assemble in large groups. So, yeah, it's going to look really fragmented to you. I have no solution for that.
Maybe if I drive south for three hours NO I AM STILL IN THE SAME STATE.

theeverywhereist o 3h
I get that you are fucking angry. I'm livid. This shit is terrifying. Every week my goal is to try to support my community in some small way. I try to have some small form of resistance, even if it's just buying school supplies for the local shelter that is in need. It's small shit but whatever. It's something.
And yeah, sometimes I watch fucking TV.
Because it helps me stay sane. And if you're sad and exhausted all the time, you're useless in a fight. 11/12

theeverywhereist o 2h
P.S. - I want to say something else. None of this is an excuse to do nothing. But it's because I know how hard people are fighting that I feel like I need to explain what's going on. No one is happy about this. And it must be fucking hell to watch from outside because it's hell to watch from the inside.
But please don't alienate Americans by thinking we all want this. That's how authoritarianism really takes hold.

August 26, 2025 at 2:29 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Acyn

@acyn.bsky.social

Pritzker: To the members of the press who are assembled here today and listening across the country, I am asking for your courage to tell it like it is. This is not a time to pretend here that there are two sides to this story.

August 25, 2025 at 8:55 PM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

George Hahn

@georgehahn.com

Fact.

Adam Parkhomenko @adamparkhomenko.bsky.social · Aug 12

Every Republican man is just Lindsey Graham now.

Congrats, fellas.

August 13, 2025 at 2:16 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Walter Chaw

@mangiotto.bsky.social

Dems confused about why they're polling lower than GOPs? Think of it this way: one side is vile, rabid vermin - the other side let them in the house, feeds them, doesn't discipline them, dotes on them, responds to their needs, often takes their side in territorial disputes, asks you for $5.00 often.

July 27, 2025 at 1:50 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Eric Alper

@thatericalper.com

31 years ago today, Foo Fighters released their self-titled debut album. Dave Grohl wrote and recorded the entire album himself, apart from a guest guitar spot by Greg Dulli, and recorded the album just for fun as a cathartic experience to recover from the death of Kurt Cobain.

July 4, 2025 at 9:30 PM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Brian Tyler Cohen

@briantylercohen.bsky.social

This you, Gym?

July 3, 2025 at 2:20 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Mueller, She Wrote

@muellershewrote.com

Newsom’s social media team is killing it. (This isn’t an old picture. It’s from right now. I asked.) 😂😂😂😂

June 14, 2025 at 11:09 PM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

CNN

@cnn.com

In the face of steep funding cuts for climate and weather research and forecasting, scientists have found a new way of engaging the public: livestreamed presentations.

Climate and weather scientists are joining the anti-Trump resistance in the most ‘scientist-iest’ way | CNN

In the face of steep funding cuts for climate and weather research and forecasting, scientists have found a new way of engaging the public.

www.cnn.com

May 28, 2025 at 1:42 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

In The Ancient Libraries of Popehat

@kenwhite.bsky.social

Ionosphere Declines Offer Of Horse

www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/s...

SpaceX Loses Control of Starship, Adding to Spacecraft’s Mixed Record

www.nytimes.com

May 28, 2025 at 1:48 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Anne Muntean

@annemuntean.bsky.social

Move fast and break things.

"Starship experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly," SpaceX posted to X.

www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-...

SpaceX loses contact with its Starship on 9th test flight after last 2 went down in flames

After back-to-back Starship upper stage failures, SpaceX on Tuesday again launched the world's most powerful rocket, but faced new problems.

www.cbsnews.com

May 28, 2025 at 1:48 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

George Conway ⚖️🇺🇸

@gtconway.bsky.social

I know some of you may do this anyway, but I nonetheless urge you NOT to send items like these to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, 601 D St. NW, Washington, DC 20530. Please do NOT do that. Thank you.

May 9, 2025 at 12:21 AM

Jen Sangastiano

@jensang.bsky.social

“The truth is these are not very bright guys...and things got out of hand.”

April 12, 2025 at 6:21 PM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Kara Swisher

@karaswisher.bsky.social

I heart @brooke — telling a suicide bomber who blew up the economy due for no reason that he is brilliant is peak beta chode for Ackman.

April 9, 2025 at 7:25 PM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Catherine Rampell

@crampell.bsky.social

Whomst among us has not accidentally called HR McMaster on occasion www.cbsnews.com/news/h-r-mcm...

H.R. McMaster receives accidental call from President Trump

Sources say former White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster was surprised to hear President Trump's voice on the phone.

www.cbsnews.com

April 10, 2025 at 2:01 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Krassensteins

@krassenstein.bsky.social

April 6, 2025 at 2:16 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

The Tennessee Holler

@thetnholler.bsky.social

🐦

April 5, 2025 at 2:31 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

@aoc.bsky.social

ChatGPT ass presidency

Philipp Heimberger @heimbergecon.bsky.social · Apr 3

Incredible. The Trump administration calculated "tariff rates" by taking the US trade deficit with the respective country and dividing it by the country's exports to the US. And then the tariff rate of the US is often just set by cutting that made-up "tariff rate" in half.

April 4, 2025 at 8:28 PM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Kara Jane Adams

@ghostinexile.bsky.social

The question of if a country could fuck itself harder than the UK did with Brexit has today been answered.

April 2, 2025 at 9:03 PM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

The Full Monty

@montyseaford.bsky.social

🤦‍♂️

Amy Hoy @amyhoy.bsky.social · Apr 3

guess where they got their weird trade deficit math from?

i went to the pit for y'all and brought back the screenshots with alt text

chatgpt log:

What would be an easy way to calculate the tariffs that should be imposed on other countries so that the US is on even-playing fields when it comes to trade deficit? Set minimum at 10%.
Reasoned about trade tariffs and deficits for 10 seconds v
A straightforward (if naïve) method is to set the tariff rate for each trading partner equal to the percentage share of the trade deficit relative to that country's total imports-always no less than 10%. In formula form:
Tariff Rate (%) = max(10, (Trade Deficit ÷ Total Imports) *
100)
For example, if the US runs a $20 billion deficit on $100 billion worth of imports from a country, the calculated rate is (20/100)×100 = 20%. If the deficit were only 5%, you'd still impose a 10% floor.
This method ignores the intricate dynamics of international trade-such as elasticities, retaliatory measures, and supply chain nuances-but it provides a blunt, proportional rule to "level the playing field." One might implement it in Python like so:

[code]

Gemini answer:

Okay, let's break down the idea of using tariffs to achieve an "even playing field" defined as eliminating the US trade deficit.
While the goal of balancing trade is understandable, devising an "easy way" to calculate tariffs to achieve this is extremely complex, and most economists would argue it's not feasible or desirable for several reasons.
However, let's outline a highly simplified conceptual approach based only on the numbers, ignoring the vast real-world complexities and consequences:
Simplified (and Problematic) Calculation Idea:
1. Identify the Bilateral Deficit: Determine the trade deficit the US has with a specific country (Country X).
Deficit_X = Value of Imports from X - Value of
• Exports to X
2. Target Reduction: The goal is to reduce imports from Country X (or increase their cost to US buyers) by the amount of the deficit, so that the value effectively balances out.
3. Calculate Required Tariff (Ignoring Economics):
• If you assume, very unrealistically, that a tariff directly reduces the value of imports by a corresponding percentage (which it doesn't
- it increases the price), you could try:
Required Reduction % = Deficit_X / Value of
• Imports from X

Claude:

What would be an easy way to calculate the tariffs that should be imposed on other countries so that the US is on even-playing fields when it comes to trade deficit? Set minimum at 10%.
To calculate tariffs that could theoretically level the playing field for trade deficits, I'd suggest a straightforward approach based on the trade imbalance percentage:
1. Calculate the bilateral trade deficit with each trading partner: Trade Deficit - US Imports from Country - US
Exports to Country
2. Express this as a percentage of total bilateral trade: Deficit Percentage - (Trade Deficit / Total Bilateral Trade) × 100
3. Apply a tariff rate that corresponds to this percentage, with
your minimum 10% floor: Tariff Rate = max(Deficit
Percentage, 10%)
This creates a proportional response where countries with larger trade surpluses with the US would face higher tariffs.
For example:
• If Country A has a 25% trade surplus with the US (meaning the US has a 25% deficit), apply a 25% tariff
• If Country B has a 5% trade surplus with the US, apply the minimum 10% tariff
This method is relatively simple to calculate and directly ties tariff levels to trade imbalances. However, I should note that economists generally caution that trade deficits alone don't necessarily indicate unfair trade practices, and tariffs can have complex economic consequences including increased consumer prices and potential retaliation.
Would you like me to elaborate on any part of this approach or discuss potential refinements to make it more sophisticated?

Grok:

the deficit. The deficit as a percentage of total trade is
$295B/$582B = 50.69%. Using the formula Tariff% = 10% +
(Deficit% × Scaling Factor), we choose a scaling factor of 50 for illustration:
• Tariff = 10% + (50.69% × 50) = 10% + 25.345% = 35.345%, rounded to 35.3%.
This means a 35.3% tariff on Chinese goods could be proposed to offset the imbalance, aiming to reduce imports and encourage domestic production or exports.
Extending to Other Countries
To provide a broader view, here's a table of top US trading partners with 2024 deficits, using data from The Motley Fool and similar calculations (assuming scaling factor of 50 for consistency):

[data table headings]
Country

Deficit
(USD
Billion)

Total
Trade
(USD
Billion)
Deficit %

Calculate d Tariff %

China
-295
582
50.69%
35.3%

Mexico
-172
840
20.48%
20.2%

Vietnam
-123
(Data incomplet e, estimate)
~30%
25.0%

Ireland
-87
(Data incomplet e, estimate)
~25%
22.5%

Germany
-85
(Data incomplete estimate)
~20%
20.0%

April 3, 2025 at 2:07 AM

Reposted by Jen Sangastiano

Vulture

@vulture.com

Jean-Claude Van Damme has been accused of sleeping with women he knew were sex trafficked, according to the Romanian Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime.

Jean-Claude Van Damme Accused of Sleeping With Trafficked Women

Jean-Claude Van Damme has been accused of sleeping with women he knew were sex trafficked, according to the Romanian Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime.

www.vulture.com

April 3, 2025 at 2:10 AM