LightNews LightNews
inlamansterms.bsky.social
@inlamansterms.bsky.social
9 followers 27 following 10 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
inlamansterms.bsky.social
Paging @bryancurtis.bsky.social Perhaps some of your co-workers would want these if not you
kimmasters.bsky.social Kim Masters @kimmasters.bsky.social · 7d
My mom saved a ton of Premiere magazines from my years there. I have no idea what to do with them. They’re heavy!
December 23, 2025 at 4:52 AM
inlamansterms.bsky.social
@stevengodfrey.bsky.social If possible on a future SW, would be interested to know why Bobby over Chip.
December 22, 2025 at 7:56 PM
inlamansterms.bsky.social
@stevengodfrey.bsky.social You’re right about Brohm hire being 2nd attempt. 2 different ADs as I recall. I’m a Hog fan who asked the question about search. I’m good with Sumrall, Silverfield, etc. Think most sane fans understand big name isn’t likely and just want a good coach (ideally a FFC).
November 7, 2025 at 1:01 PM
inlamansterms.bsky.social
@itsajwillingham.bsky.social How did you miss the Back to The Future/Doc Brown reference with your Gigawatt definition in the solar story? 2025 is the 40th anniversary (maybe that’s why) with screeenings tonight.
October 31, 2025 at 11:06 AM
inlamansterms.bsky.social
@stevengodfrey.bsky.social Look at AD Hunter Yuracheck as one who pushed back on big salaries. Belief is it cost him Lane and then E Drink. Fans got mad at Pittman when he hired Sexton to negotiate a new deal.
October 29, 2025 at 1:17 PM
Reposted
scavendish.bsky.social
David Drobny — the NashSevereWx founder — with an absolutely crucial read on the Texas Hill Country floods.

www.facebook.com/share/p/16xT...
July 9, 2025 at 11:59 PM
Reposted
newseye.bsky.social
The cover of this week’s Economist.
The headline says “Only 1361 days to go” The picture in black and white with a cream background is of a badly injured bald eagle. Its legs are in bandages with strapping around its neck and on its head. Some of its feathers are lying on the ground, detached painfully from its body.
April 24, 2025 at 2:15 PM
Reposted
ianbremmer.com
whether or not you’re a fan of zelensky, the usa trying to force an election in a foreign democracy during wartime–when it can’t be held safely and securely–against most ukrainians’ wishes (including much of zelensky’s opposition) and in violation of the ukrainian constitution is unacceptable.
February 19, 2025 at 3:10 PM
Reposted
crampell.bsky.social
Farmers who signed contracts w USDA under IRA programs paid upfront to build fencing, plant new crops, install renewable energy systems w guarantees that feds would issue grants/loan guarantees to cover at least part of their costs.
Trump has frozen that money

www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/...
Farmers on the hook for millions after Trump freezes USDA funds
The White House had repeatedly said the funding freeze would not affect benefits that go directly to individuals.
www.washingtonpost.com
February 13, 2025 at 3:50 AM
Reposted
dell.bsky.social
“…you must be aware that it is not a
crime for anyone — whether WIRED journalists, X posters, or otherwise — to identify individuals openly conducting government work that is of the utmost public concern.”
February 4, 2025 Edward R. Martin, Jr. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Patrick Henry Building 601 D Street NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Transmitted via email Re: Threats to prosecute critics of DOGE Dear Interim U.S. Attorney for D.C. Edward R. Martin, Jr.: We write to raise serious concerns about your recent public statements threatening to prosecute those who "target" or "impede" Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) within the Executive Office of the President. We request that you publicly commit to abide by the First Amendment, which your office is sworn to uphold and Musk himself claims to champion, in any DOGE-related investigations or prosecutions you may pursue. On Monday, you tweeted a letter to Musk asking him to use the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to protect DOGE staff and their work and directing him to refer "any questionable conduct or details that [Musk] find[s] or notice[s]" to your office.' In the letter, you assert that "actions in any way that impact [DOGE's] work may break numerous laws," and that you commit to the pursuit of "all legal action against anyone who impedes [Musk's) work or threatens [Musk's] people." You also state that you will "protect DOGE and other workers no matter what," citing past protests in Washington, D.C., which you refer to as riots. As you know, DOGE, or the United States DOGE Service as it is formally known, is a government entity established within the Executive Office of the President; by executive order, DOGE is supposed to access only "unclassified agency records." The day before your letter, WIRED reported about and named six young engineers working for DOGE — Akash Bobba, Edward Coristine, Luke Farritor, Gautier Cole Killian, Gavin Kliger, and Ethan Shaotran. The experience and qualifications of public employees is of significant public interest. Following this news report, a user on X — the social media platform owned by Mr. Musk — made a post also naming th… X has since suspended the account of the user who posted the names. As an experienced attorney holding such an important public position, you must be aware that it is not a crime for anyone — whether WIRED journalists, X posters, or otherwise — to identify individuals openly conducting government work that is of the utmost public concern. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects the right to publish newsworthy information that the publisher lawfully obtains, including names far more sensitive than those of government personnel.' Musk himself has publicly touted DOGE's engineers while citing "media reports" regarding them. Nor is it a crime to harshly criticize government employees and officials, even if transparency and criticism "impede" their work? Moreover, while certain true threats are unprotected and may be criminally punished, they are limited to serious expression[s]' conveying that a speaker means to 'commit an act of unlawful violence."$ Hyperbolic speech, even using threatening language, is entitled to full First Amendment protection.' You must also surely be aware that the First Amendment protects Americans' right to peaceably assemble, especially to protest government actions.' The First Amendment severely constrains the government's ability to limit protests in public forums, such as the public streets of Washington, D.C." The government also cannot ban or restrict future protests based on unlawful conduct alleged to have occurred at past protests. 2 Threatening to prosecute First Amendment speech and activity is not only at odds with the U.S. Constitution, it is also entirely inconsistent with Musk's own stated principles and the right of the American people to know what the government is up to. Musk describes himself as a free speech absolutist and has proposed a massive declassification of government records, opining that all government records should be public by default. '3 Just three months ago, Musk publicly posted… government employees with whom he disagrees on X.' If it is Musk's intention for the U.S. Attorney's Office to censor the press and public from identifying and discussing those conducting DOGE's work on his behalf, that would be incredibly hypocritical. It is also vital that the U.S. Attorney's Office maintain the highest ethical standards and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for the Washington, D.C. Bar, of which you are a member, states: "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous."Is Under Rule 3.8, prosecutors are additionally prohibited from filing in court or maintaining a charge "that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause."l6 The same rule provides that "[i]n exercising discretion to investigate or to prosecute," prosecutors shall not "improperly favor or invidiously discriminate against any person."17 Threatening to file frivolous charges against Americans and vaguely insinuating that wide swaths of constitutionally-protected speech and activity could invite criminal investigations and prosecutions may already violate these and other rules of professional conduct. Actually doing so almost certainly would. Additionally, publicly offering the Office of the U.S. Attorney's services to Musk in the context of his asserting that protected expression is a criminal act is unbecoming of your public office and your duties as a public servant. Your oath is to the U.S. Constitution - including the First Amendment - not to President Donald Trump, Musk, or DOGE's desire to operate in secrecy and without criticism. We request that you immediately (a) identify the specific "targeting" of DOGE staff your letter to Musk was referring to and what specific laws you contend it violated, (b) publicly commit to not investigate or prosecute journalists or others for reporting on or publish… Common Cause Courage Foundation Defending Rights & Dissent Demand Progress Education Fund Democracy Matters First Amendment Coalition First Amendment Foundation Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Freedom of the Press Foundation Government Information Watch GovTrack.us Greenpeace USA Muslims for Just Futures Partnership for Civil Justice Fund PEN America Project On Government Oversight Radio Television Digital News Association Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Revolving Door Project RootsAction.org Social Security Works Society of Environmental Journalists Society of Professional Journalists The Authors Guild The Freedom BLOC Whistleblower & Source Protection Program (WHISPeR) at ExposeFacts Woodhull Freedom Foundation CC: All House, All Senate Senate Majority Leader John Thune Speaker of the House Mike Johnson House Majority Leader Steve Scalise Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin 4
February 6, 2025 at 3:42 AM
Reposted
davidgilbert.bsky.social
Meet Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, a teenage DOGE engineer, who has access to sensitive federal data

• Runs Tesla.Sexy, a company operating a Russian website

• Worked at startup that hired convicted hackers

• Someone using his Telegram handle solicited a cyberattack

www.wired.com/story/edward...
DOGE Teen Owns ‘Tesla.Sexy LLC’ and Worked at Startup That Has Hired Convicted Hackers
Experts question whether Edward Coristine, a DOGE staffer who has gone by “Big Balls” online, would pass the background check typically required for access to sensitive US government systems.
www.wired.com
February 6, 2025 at 9:43 AM
Reposted
brendannyhan.bsky.social
Equates "advocating for the United States" with "advancing legally dubious / unconstitutional / illegal arguments made by the President"
narosenblum.bsky.social Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · Feb 6
This is an absolutely remarkable memo — and a betrayal of both the Constitution and the American political tradition. In the US, by *explicit contrast* with interwar fascist governments, the state is not supposed to be an extension of the personality of the chief executive.
Office of the Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 February 5, 2025 MEMORANDUM FOR ALL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES FROM: SUBJECT: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERAL POLICY REGARDING ZEALOUS ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES' "[E]xecutive Power." More broadly, attorneys are expected to zealously advance, protect, and defend their client's interests. Department of Justice attorneys have signed up for a job that requires zealously advocating for the United States. The responsibilities of Department of Justice attorneys include not only aggressively enforcing criminal and civil laws enacted by Congress, but also vigorously defending presidential policies and actions against legal challenges on behalf of the United States. The discretion afforded Department attorneys entrusted with those responsibilities does not include latitude to substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election. When Department of Justice attorneys, for example, refuse to advance good-faith arguments by declining to appear in court or sign briefs, it undermines the constitutional order and deprives the President of the benefit of his lawyers. It is therefore the policy of the Department of Justice that any attorney who because of their personal political views or judgments declines to sign a brief or appear in court, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the Department's mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination, consistent with applicable law. ' This guidance is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
February 6, 2025 at 3:45 PM