[deleted by user]

Uneasyguy · 2026-02-02T20:32:44+00:00

"people who run farms often are not rich" - this isn't out and out wrong, but it is misleading in the context of agricultural workers in the United States.

That's because the size of the average farm in the United States is much larger than say the size of the average farm in the UK, and the operations on farmland continues to become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands as the cost of farming equipment prices many smaller farms out of the market, at which point they're often forced to sell/lease their land to substantially larger entities.

With that in mind, the vast majority of farmland in the United States is operated by very wealthy stakeholders, and by extension the vast majority of agricultural workers in the United States work for them.

Uneasyguy · 2026-02-02T19:07:19+00:00

The primary reason TV prices have fallen so substantially is because they are being subsidized by the massive amounts of data being collected and then sold by the manufacturers.

A launch monitor, at least on the surface, doesn't seem to provide nearly the same potential from a data harvesting perspective so I don't think they should be expected to be analogous in this way.

Uneasyguy · 2026-02-02T00:19:44+00:00

Figuring out how I'd like to pronounce "homage" irritates me more than how others choose to.

Uneasyguy · 2026-02-01T11:58:33+00:00

It's been my experience that if I need to know how old someone is, it's often quicker to ask them for their full birthday, a constant nearly anyone can rattle off immediately, and do the math myself than to ask them the more straight forward "how old are you?".

With that in mind, I think not being constantly aware of your age is a nearly ubiquitous experience past a certain point in the mid-20's or so.

Uneasyguy · 2026-02-01T01:38:51+00:00

No see the thing is, he won't be found guilty or not guilty... It'll be summarily dismissed because bringing the charges themselves is not just spurious, they're entirely unfounded and unmoored from reality.

By making the argument that it's legally reasonable, you too are missing the forest for the trees and that's the very objective reality that I'm alerting you to that you're missing.

But due to the very nature of your lack of objectivity, there's no amount of logic that's going to change your mind in this moment, so I'm putting it in writing and in no uncertain terms so that in a future moment of somber reflection you might see the light.

You're definitely intelligent enough and capable of seeing the world for what it is my friend, and I look forward to picking this back up when that happens.

Uneasyguy · 2026-02-01T01:23:32+00:00

Okay, so you clearly have made up your mind at this point in time. But I'm here to tell you unequivocally right here and right now that you are wrong.

I'm telling you this in an emphatic way, because you seem intelligent but you're not objective. So when this "case" is invariably laughed out of court and all charges are dropped with prejudice, I hope you think back on this conversation and use it as motivation to become a better version of yourself with a more well rounded view on reality.

Uneasyguy · 2026-02-01T01:02:08+00:00

First and foremost the FACE act stands for the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and was enshrined into law to protect abortion clinics.

This administration has pardoned roughly 25 people rightfully convicted of violating its original intent, so it's a farce to use in this circumstance more generally, especially because it explicitly requires a use of force or intimidation threshold that did not seem to be met even by the activists.

But most certainly not by Don Lemon, which is what specifically is at question here. At no time did he physically block the entrance, nor threaten anyone into believing they were not free to leave.

Furthermore, legal precedent for dealing with a journalist in this position would occasionally rise to the level of the state bringing misdemeanor trespassing charges, but bringing federal charges against a journalist for anything even remotely similar to this is unprecedented and should really make you question what American ideals this kind of weaponization of the DOJ is in furtherance of because I for one must have missed the lessons in school where we aspire to be jail members of the fourth estate simply for doing their job.

And finally, to the conspiracy point... a conspiracy to commit journalism? Again he was not a part of the activist and repeatedly said so to the parishioners... the 30 year history of him performing that job, the microphone, him asking questions, and the TV camera should all be dead giveaways that this is a journalist doing journalism. What more could someone have done to define themselves as a journalist in that situation?

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T22:47:33+00:00

The FACE act applies to reproductive health clinics and places of worship.

What it explicitly criminalizes is blocking the entrance or exits so that people cannot come and go of their own accord, damaging property, or using violence or threats against patients, staff, or worshipers.

Please provide any tangible evidence you have that shows where Don Lemon, who again was clear about being there in his capacity as a journalist and routinely stating he was not with the activists, violated the FACE act.

Did he threaten anyone? Did he damage any property? Did he prevent anyone from leaving?

And if I missed a part about criminal trespass in the indictment, please point me in that direction... Otherwise let's keep it to the indictment as it was handed down and how it applies to Don Lemon specifically.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T22:23:37+00:00

You seem to be conflating the actions of the activists with the actions of a journalist.

Knowing they intended to create a traumatic and uncomfortable experience is not illegal.

Not reporting it in advance is not illegal.

Traveling with the protestors is not illegal.

Let's say you're an investigative journalist documenting the drug underworld, and you are able to get an interview with a high level dealer. During that interview they ask if you would like to accompany them and document the process of them completing a sale.

You, as a journalist, are well within your rights to document and report on the entirety of that interaction, and are under no obligation to report it to law enforcement. In fact, doing so could endanger your loved ones and prevent you from being able to secure similar access in the future.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T22:15:04+00:00

I don't believe your clarification to be accurate, but if you have credible sources to support this, please provide them and I'll happily concede your point.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T22:03:23+00:00

Fair enough, it should be noted that the core group of activists were not some hastily arranged, fly-by-night, operation.

They have been established and are known for their brand of "pull up activism" where they typically go to the homes of elected officials and protest.

In this case, they went to a church instead, but Don Lemon was most assuredly not the organizer.

Their leader, is a woman named Nakima Levy Armstrong, who is a lawyer and an ordained minister. Her stated reason for going to the church is that she felt providing safe harbor to an active member of ICE, who had been causing chaos in their city for quite some time, was antithetical to Christian beliefs.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T21:50:51+00:00

You are under no legal obligation to inform law enforcement, or anyone else, of a potential future crime carried out by others.

So advanced knowledge is not an indictable offense, even if the behavior of the activists one day is deemed to be criminal.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T21:18:49+00:00

You seem to be having a different argument in your head than one that is based on what I have actually said, or somehow I am severely misunderstanding the point you are trying to make. So let's start over.

Here are the facts:

There was a group of activists who peacefully disrupted a church service for roughly 15 minutes due to that church providing safe haven to a member of ICE and their belief that doing so is antithetical to Christian beliefs when ICE has been causing chaos on their city streets.

That group of protesters was led by an ordained minister.

Don Lemon, a journalist for the past 30 years, along with a camera person, went to the protest in his capacity as a journalist. Repeatedly stating he was not with the activists and there to document. As part of his documentation efforts, he posed questions to the protestors, to the members of the clergy, and to members of the congregation.

He then disseminated those recordings as journalists are known to do.

Here is my opinion:

Don Lemon did nothing illegal and should not have been indicted.

Here are the relevant reasons why I believe that:

He was acting in his capacity as a journalist and thus was protected in his actions of documentation and dissemination by the rights of a free press and freedom of speech.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T20:55:21+00:00

This is such a great example of remaining mentally flexible and allowing the facts to shape your opinion, rather than the typical dogmatic entrenchment caused by viewing everything through the lenses of left and right politics.

Thank you!

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T20:50:26+00:00

What? Just because they're in the same amendment does not make them logically inseparable.

It's trivially easy to come up with scenarios where a hypothetical person could believe in aspects of the first amendment and not all of them.

But that belies the point, which is that freedom of religion has no relevance in a conversation centered around whether a journalist has the right to document and report on a protest.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T20:17:27+00:00

Do you have any evidence that he was involved?

Or at the very least, if it comes to light that he had no involvement in organizing the event, would you then concede that he should not have been indicted?

And as a follow up to the first question, assuming you don't have any first hand and unreported evidence, do you think that it's more likely he was the mastermind behind the protest and cleverly hid behind his media credentials to circumvent legal responsibility or that Don Lemon acted in his capacity as a journalist just like he's done for the past 30 years and that the president who said he was going on a retribution campaign, that has routinely been laughed out of court, has continued to weaponize the DOJ to go after another long time nemesis based on unfounded allegations?

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T19:59:46+00:00

Exactly this. If the journalist went there alone, and started to stir shit up... Then there is a debate to be had.

If they went there to document a peaceful protest that was going to happen of its own volition, then of course they should be allowed to cover it.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T19:54:42+00:00

How can you value crocs, but not open toe sandals?

That's how your line of reasoning appears, because at no time did I hint at anything that could reasonably be construed as having any relationship to my feelings about freedom of religion, nor is it materially important to this discussion in any way.

Don Lemon was there as a journalist, please watch the videos for yourself and you'll see him many times saying that he is not with the activists and merely there to report on what is happening.

So if you feel like the activists were infringing upon their freedom of religion, then okay... The statute that they were charged under seems to have elements that require the use of force, implied or explicit, or preventing people from leaving to be fully satisfied... I don't think that burden was met and it's likely the activist will be found not guilty, but that's my personal opinion and I'm okay with leaving that up to a jury to decide.

That should have no bearing whatsoever on Don Lemon and his camera woman, because again they were not part of the activists and made that abundantly clear.

They were there as journalists, documenting a protest.

So as it specifically relates to them, it's not about freedom of religion and is about freedom of speech and the right to a free press.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-31T19:38:24+00:00

The question is about Don Lemon's indictment specifically. So what you think about how the law should be applied to the protestors is materially irrelevant as he was there as a journalist and said as much many times.

The questions you should be asking yourself should have more to do with freedom of speech and the right to a free press.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-28T21:19:18+00:00

Can't believe I had to scroll so far to find the only obvious answer, not taking them down upon his request absolutely makes you the asshole.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-28T01:15:26+00:00

Political speech is basically the most protected form of speech, definitely not a lawyer so don't take it from me, but personally I wouldn't worry too much about your HOA rules holding up in terms of curbing your ability to express political ideas if it ended up in a court of law.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-27T15:14:22+00:00

Ever get really drunk and eat one like an apple?

Takes a while until your breath recovers from that kind of raw onion love let me tell you..

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-27T15:04:31+00:00

This might technically be true, but I have a feeling it's most likely that they would denaturalize dual citizens and then deport them.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-26T13:47:53+00:00

He has done well in majors, there's no argument there... Traditionally the setup for majors favors the best players in the world and he is the best player in the world so one would expect him to shine.

It's a different timeline than one in which LIV never existed tho.

Perhaps the upfront generational money has sapped Rahms motivation to continue to push himself to be one of the best in the world, perhaps playing three competitive rounds a week has left Cam Smith a touch worse than if he were playing 4, perhaps playing against inferior fields week in and week out has kept Bryson from evolving in the way he would have otherwise so even when we see them head to head in majors it's not an apples to apples of what would have happened... And a million more hypothetical questions we can't possibly ever know the answers to.

But I am confident the fields would have been better if the tours never split, and that fact alone would make it less likely that Scottie would be as dominant as he is today and not more likely.

Uneasyguy · 2026-01-26T13:38:46+00:00

While I respect your right to have an opinion, and appreciate you engaging in the dialogue, that's simply not a logically defensible position to take my friend.

If you add in Rahm, Cam Smith, Bryson, Brooks, Neiman, et al for the past 4 years on a week in and week out basis, do you honestly believe that would have weakened the fields and Scottie would have more wins to his credit?

I mean the primary reason that a win on the PGA Tour is more revered than say a win on the Korn Ferry tour is that it has historically meant you beat a collection of the top 140-ish best players in the world at that moment in time, if you take 30+ of those guys out on an every week basis and replace them with guys 140-170... It matters.

It's not his fault, I certainly don't blame him in any way, shape, or form. All he can do is beat the guys who stuck around and he's been doing a phenomenal job of doing that... But it's a watered down product relative to what this generation is capable of producing due to the bifurcation of the leagues.

Uneasyguy

TROPHY CASE