Archimusik

@RepMariaSalazar Do they have to go back to their home country first and get in line - YES or NO? If No, then it’s amnesty and we’re not interested.

READ. THE. BILL. BEFORE. YOU. OPEN. YOUR. MOUTH. Calling the DIGNITY Act “amnesty” isn’t just wrong. It’s a deliberate distortion and it exposes just how little you know about the bill. This is enforcement first: zero tolerance for criminals, permanent border security, and hard, earned requirements to step forward and face the law, so American workers are protected, not undercut. Amnesty is the chaos you’ve defended, millions in the shadows, no control, no accountability, and a system that stopped working a long time ago. No shortcuts. No giveaways. No blanket forgiveness. That’s law and order. That’s DIGNITY.

@RepMariaSalazar If they don’t have to go back where they came from and get in line behind their countrymen who DIDN’T break the law, the answer is a hard NO!

Amnesty is a free pass. It is what exists now. With the DIGNITY Act, you come forward, you face the law, you pass background checks, you pay what you owe, and you earn your place or you get deported. Criminals? Gone. 
American workers? Protected. Our national security depends on it. Our economy demands it. Our communities need it. And yes, our faith calls us to do this the right way, with order and accountability. That’s enforcement. That’s DIGNITY. Calling this amnesty is a lie that keeps a broken system alive and Americans paying the price.

@Passengersolo @KenGardner11 A very convenient dodge on your part. I stand by what I said. The world is hardly in danger of being “plunged into despair” because we finally took out a despicably evil theocratic death-cult that should NEVER have been allowed to take over an entire country.

We've all seen the evidence. It's a rorschach test. At this point we can only listen to the narratives and decide for ourselves what seems most plausible. In the 90's I remember watching a documentary on people selling nukes on the black market after the USSR dissolved. The world has been dangerous for a long time. If this attack today plunges the world into despair. You are one of the people that should answer for promoting this path

I don't know that even a movie directed by Christopher Nolan can do full justice to this search and rescue story. Do people still actually believe that Iran stands even a scintilla of a fighting chance against our military if we decide to kick it up a few notches?

@allenanalysis Any bill that doesn’t require *every* *single* *illegal* immigrant to return to their home country and get in the back of the line is unacceptable and should be laughed out of Congress.

🚨BREAKING: 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats just co-sponsored the Dignity Act — the first serious bipartisan immigration bill in decades. What it actually does: No amnesty. No citizenship. No handouts. A pathway to legal work status for long-term undocumented immigrants who meet strict requirements — fully funded by restitution payments from immigrants themselves, requiring zero taxpayer dollars. Mike Lawler’s own words: “This is not amnesty. It’s accountability, it’s fairness, it is dignity.”

NARRATOR: It’s amnesty.

@Passengersolo @KenGardner11 If you have a scintilla of credible evidence for your claims, I’ll be glad to apologize.

@Archimusik @KenGardner11 Ill be ecstatic to stand before God next to the likes of you and MAGA and be judged

@Passengersolo @KenGardner11

@KenGardner11 If you haven't heard. The search and rescue story sounds like a movie because it is BS

@KenGardner11 I suspected you might say that! 🤪 But don’t you want it to have some kind of internal coherence? 🤣

@Archimusik It’s a movie. 😂

Interstellar. Duh.

People who romanticize business are just whack to me. Businesses exist for one reason and one reason only: to provide a product or service that the public wants at a price the public is willing to pay. They don’t exist to provide jobs for people or to decorate our landscape or provide community.

@Empty_America My replies for the last 24 hours have been chock full of these people.

Everyone wishes someone else would engage in localist business.

@KarenSm52993106 @porterstansb Nah, as soon as I saw his follow up, I got it. The trouble is that parody and sincere idiocy are often indistinguishable these days. 😱

@Archimusik @porterstansb Took you a while! 🙄

What an utterly absurd thing to say… 🙄 As if the guns are just randomly firing off throughout Chicago and they happen to hit mainly blacks.

@BillAckman @MyronMagnet @X 1000% the right choice, if you’re sure you’re up to it. “The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

I’m going to tell you a secret: There is absolutely no problem in the world for which the solution is “Give Elizabeth Warren more money.” None whatsoever.

@Archimusik He was being sarcastic. Poking fun at the crazies. That's hard to get across in a text . . .

@Archimusik Well, those guns are racist then. If we believe in equity, it’s important that white people start killing each other in far greater numbers. Otherwise this disparity will likely continue.

@RayLeo02 @DamianChavezArt Because when they are presented side by side, neutrally, the public overwhelmingly chooses classical architecture. So the modernists have to tilt the playing field. They can’t stand the fact that the public generally loathes modern architecture and prefers beautiful buildings.

@DamianChavezArt Why can't two styles of architecture exist simultaneously? It's not my favorite style but there are positive qualities to brutalism if done right and it was in fashion back then. Why does everything have to be some sort of grand conspiracy?

Postwar U.S. architecture didn’t shift 2 modernism by accident. It was driven by ideologues who actively despised classical architecture + *usefully idiotic* bureaucrats/politicians who bought the sales pitch about efficiency, progress, & democracy. Guys like Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (who reshaped U.S. architecture schools at Harvard and IIT Chicago) taught that the decorative was “decadent,” classical design was a pre-war relic, & trad forms had 2 be purged for a hygienic future. Le Corbusier & *CIAM* pushed tabula-rasa “Radiant City” towers that erased old streetscapes. These ideas weren’t neutral preferences. They were ideological warfare against the Western past - “dust traps,” “bourgeois relics,” "fascist" enemies against "social progress". By the 1950s, modernist dogma dominated architectural schools & the entire field. Enter the *structural* machinery that amplified & entreched this ideology after 1945: A. Housing Act 1949 (Title I Slum Clearance + Title III Public Housing): 1,000,000,000s for federal grants for eminent domain “blight” clearance. Older/Classical/Beaux arts/Art Deco areas were bulldozed. Subsidies explicitly favored “new designs, materials, techniques” & "reduced costs" - just perfect for standardized modernist superblocks & high-rises for plazas. B. The Housing Act 1954 expanded it as full “urban renewal,” enabling more commercial clearance. For NYC, Robert Moses was a key player. C. Federal Property & Administrative Services Act 1949 created the GSA (General Services Admin). It centralized federal building design with outsourcing 2 private architects under efficiency mandates. Postwar industrial materials (glass, steel, cement) fit modernism like a glove. D. Federal-Aid Highway Act 1956: 90% federal funding tore expressways through old neighborhoods, clearing land for yet more modernist redevelopment. Indirectly against older styles but still devastating. E. NYC 1961: New policies like FAR for public plazas rewarded freestanding glass/steel tower forms (i.e.,Seagram Building). Classical buildings couldn’t compete for extra floor area. F. The culprit: 1962 Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture (drafted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan for JFK). Key line: 'Design must flow from the architects 2 the Government rather than vice versa'. When modernists proclaim that architecure is free without “official style", organic,etc its just subversive stage magic. It seems like democratic pluralism & anti-authoritarian freedom (vs. Soviet/Fascist), but the field was already ideologically captured by the avant-garde. Present day,etc = modernism exclusively. Peer-review panels & GSA boards filtered out classical/deco proposals as regressive & anti-progressive. Result: Brutalist HUD HQ, Mies’s Chicago Federal Center, + hundreds more. This was instituted authoritarian modernist entrustment at work. Ideologues provided the anti-classical worldview & literally redefined 'excellence', but useful idiots - Fair Deal political leaders chasing quick housing wins, GSA bureaucrats preoccupied by cost, Cold War liberals with short man issues wanting 2 look "modern" & "democratic" supplied the funding, eminent domain, & policy power. They bought the framing: modernism = efficiency + progress + democracy. Beauty? Classical/Art Deco = regressive + old + costly + fascism. The result: American cities & federal buildings got a de facto modernist status quo for 80 years. Classical & trad styles were marginalized by a handful little policy shifts & cultural capture by leftist ideologues, enabled by incentives that made more decorative styles uncompetitive.

@WilliamWolfe It ought to be 99.5% There are essentially no valid “asylum” justifications for the vast majority of America’s immigrants.

It's so beautiful

@AskCoachKev Chips and salsa! 😩

Be honest: what's the one food you won't give up even though you know it's slowing you down? No judgment. Tell me what it is and I'll tell you how to keep it.