1789, 1945, 2026: three debt crisis Like many other countries, France has faced previous public debt crises. Three major episodes stand out: 1789, 1945 and now 2026. The first lesson from this long history is that there are several w…

1789, 1945, 2026: three debt crisis thomaspiketty.wordpress.com/2026/04/14/1...

1789, 1945, 2026: three debt crisis Like many other countries, France has faced previous public debt crises. Three major episodes stand out: 1789, 1945 and now 2026. The first lesson from this long history is that there are several w…

1789, 1945, 2026: three debt crisis thomaspiketty.wordpress.com/2026/04/14/1...

What is not being done is any recourse to the one document that provides for situations where a president needs prompt removal from office: the constitution of the United States. The checks and balances are already there, ready to be used. But they are ignored, as if these provisions did not exist. The United States may as well not have a written constitution. For what is now happening is not because of any inherent strength of the presidency in the United States political system. It is happening because the legislative and judicial branches are letting it happen. The constitutional tools are there to fix this, but those who can use these tools are refusing to use them. And the international legal order offers no constraint. Although it is important in principle to recognise that what Trump is threatening is in breach of international laws, nobody expects these laws to make any practical difference. There will be no sanctions on Trump or the United States for the threat to destroy an entire civilisation. Many world leaders also are just waiting for the problem to somehow go away.

Why President Trump’s threat of genocide matters

He may avoid immediate constitutional and legal sanctions, but this threat should not be forgotten

New by me, at @prospectmagazine.co.uk

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

Impossible to disagree with a single word that Ben Rhodes (Obama era NSC official) is saying here:

The Art of the Deal.

Spiked for the right wingers

"In Bruges"

Well, it got one nomination but didn't win. Absolutely perfect acting.

This is absolutely fantastic.

ht: @maddenifico.bsky.social

Ironically, the Germans were really slow to catch onto tanks - the A7V was pretty poor compared to, say, the Renault FT.
Papperger mightn't have a clue, but Breuer should tell him otherwise.

"Hurray for the Blackshirts" vibes, there

If anyone is in Providence tomorrow and has a bit of spare time, I am doing a lunchtime book talk at Brown. Please come along.

He's talking about correlation.

He's implying or inferring causation, because her presence is correlated with all the "suspicious" events.

That is his meaning, in plain English.

"That wasn't the prosecutor's statement."

BBC report on opening day of trial. ⬇️

Care to read the bit under the image for me? Slowly now, so as not to tax your levels of English comprehension...

But immunoassays are definitive, right, and anyone claiming otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist"?

I'll repeat the question: is everyone who dares to question your worldview a Conspiracy Theorist? 🤭

So the babies died, then?

You didn't address the issue that further testing wasn't done (of course!)

It's stating that correlation - Letby's presence at "suspicious" events - equals, infers or implies causation.
Correlation is statistical, is it not?
It's saying her presence cannot be by chance - the prosecutor referred to her as the "common denominator."

Well, have a question.

Why did they not avail of the services of the Warwick Professor of statistics?

Well, I asked AI to fact check your assertion that immunoassays were definitive, not indicative, as to exogenous insulin administration...the results didn't surprise me.

I strongly suggest you acquaint youself...

May well have been...ya think?

Yawn.

No, they spent 10 months working out explanations, with expert in same, Dr Evans.

Really?
But they were called in by the doctors to investigate Letby, based on Brearey and Jayaram's suspicions, as voiced in subsequent interviews. Hence, the internal fight to get her removed, which is what Thirlwall is all about.

No individual mentioned?

Oh dear, ad hominem.

Lost the argument, have we?

I'll go with the Prof of Stats in UCL and my own judgement on that one, thanks.

Guess I must be a "conspiracy theorist" for daring to disagree with you? 🤭

So, her presence circumstantially proves...what?

She was around when "suspicious" deaths occurred, so she must have been doing something?

This is identical to the Lucia de Berk case, isn't it?

But most murders are unquestionably murders. Therefore, one's presence at the scene, forensically proven, is evidence. Correlation is causation.

Whereas, these cases are not unquestionably murders, and Letby's presence is proof of nothing, as she was where she was contracted to work.

And I'm a computer scientist with a maths and engineering background, who can see at a glance that that chart, shown to the jury, is a complete crock of shit.
If that's the standard of evidence in an 18 month trial costing millions, you have to wonder what else passes muster.

Which is where I came in: that chart is a complete crock.
If that passes evidentiary standards, you'd have to wonder how subterranean they are?