The Frankish Reich

VP Jar-Jar.

Thanks. I met her husband a few times during the course of national security prosecutions Nice guy and hard worker.

My experience in a quite different context with the Saudis. What I'm saying here is "let them fight their own fight" should apply equally to them as to Ukrainians? As to the Baltics, who fear that they are next in Putin's reconquista? We have legitimate U.S. interests in conflicts and conflict avoidance all over the world, and I think this fight - even a proxy battle we're involved in vs. the Houthis - shows that an isolationist America First/no involvement in foreign conflicts is simply naive and dangerous, and that everyone except JD Vance understands that.

NEVER SAW THIS COMING: WHITE HOUSE "CLARIFIES" TARIFF ON FOREIGN-FILMED MOVIES https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/white-house-clarifies-trump-movie-tariff-1236207216/ Among other productions, it appears that America's Leading Antisemite is planning to film another Christ movie abroad. Dumbest President in history? I think so.

Oops, looks like the gang that couldn't shoot straight once again missed something; most incompetent administration in history.

Saudi can defend itself and its interests, I mean, at least in theory, right?

So our current illegal aliens are just like the Redcoats sent by Order of King George. Yeah, right.

As far as geopolitical risks to the U.S.: given our energy independence/dominance, I'd say that the Russian New Imperialism is a much more serious one. I notice that oil imports (other than Venezuela) were not tariffed. Why not? If you want to encourage U.S. production and marginalize the Middle East as a threat to U.S. security, that would seem to me to be the best solution. After all, a cartel is kind of the definition of a manipulated market. But I guess Trump couldn't stomach the fear of increased prices at the pump. Off topic, Sherpa, and probably belongs in the tariffs thread: would you expect tariffs on European (and other) wine imports to impact your wine business? My guess is that they won't, and that world trade in wine and encourages the development of wine aficionados (to use a snobby term) and is ultimately good for small producers everywhere, and that something like tariffs on foreign wine will be counterproductive. Maybe it would help at the very low end, but I can't see any help for smaller or boutique U.S. wineries. Thoughts?

Well they did require due process, so they didn't make it impossible, just a little more fair. Sorry if you don't like it; maybe this isn't the country and constitution for you?

There's really no good reason why the Republican House and Republican Senate haven't proposed making certain immigration "reforms" - like this one - the law by proposing a new statute. Could you get half a dozen Dem Senators on record supporting this, or even a more robust (maybe $5,000) payment? I'm sure you could. You'd also want a new law saying that if you take the deal and leave on time your previous unauthorized stay would be pardoned if you try to come back legally. I don't oppose this in principle, but I do oppose how they want to do it. Will we ever get serious proposals rather than tweet-friendly press releases?

I agree. Just mocking the Trump/Vance line on why the U.S. doesn't have a national security interest in what happens in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

Don Novello, who played Guido on SNL, was a really funny guy. His "Lazlo Letters" were hilarious at the time, at least to me as a kid in high school. Maybe they haven't aged well. Neither have I.

Well, maybe the Los Angeles Dodgers are a private company and not collectively the President of the United States? Seems like a difference to me.

How about explaining why the Great USA, the Country of Energy Dominance, has a Dog in this fight, given that Europe should Take Care of Defending Itself against DeNazification Exercises. Or as JD Vance texted to Jeffrey Goldberg and others: it is Europe that overwhelmingly depends on the Suez/Red Sea trade, maybe they should defend commerce there.

That's just a stunning (and I'd say deliberate) misreading of the constitution. Even setting aside the citizens vs. aliens thing, it is clear that the 5th Amendment applies to things other than "a criminal defendant facing prosecution." Again, just read the 5th Amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Arresting and detaining an alien deprives him of "liberty" whether it is for a criminal or civil proceeding. That has been clearly established. Disgusting ignorance, or more likely, an attempt to convince the ignorant MAGAs of the constitutionality of arrest and detention and deportation without any due process whatsoever.

Thanks for the clarification. We need both!

Or in other words (pictures), this:

True. And usually that doesn't take much time. The law requires someone claiming citizenship to come forward with some evidence of it. That's usually easy: a certified U.S. birth certificate. Sometimes it's showing that your parents were citizens for a certain amount of time even though you were born abroad. But typically not a big deal. So the "process" isn't necessarily a lengthy trial; it's a fairly quick document inspection. The whole issue is this: the constitution requires "due process." But it doesn't define what kind of process is due. For example, under the law someone who is in the U.S. for under 2 years can be removed expeditiously, without seeing a judge. If he claims asylum, he gets an interview about the nature of that fear. If it isn't a plausible asylum claim, he's gone.

Good Lord. Will it ever end? I'd like to see the reciprocal tariffs on U.S.-produced music. That would be a nice way to kill one of the industries in which the U.S. remains dominant.

Oh, I agree. The attempt to have a shocking ending was pretty ham-handed. But still: a good film offering some good insight. I didn't read the book, but friends who have liked that too.

https://apnews.com/article/who-will-be-next-pope-a1c221a9a46edacb434341b3843393f0 Despite being a Catholic school boy, I have to admit I never figured out the whole deal with different priestly orders. But that's a big subtext (along with the liberal/conservative and Old World/New World splits). Another Jesuit? Weird that Francis was the first ever Jesuit, since they are known as unusually scholarly types and the Order has been around for four centuries. Who knows. Right now I have more faith in the secretive process to put forth a wise man than I have in our democratic process to do so.

Charles is getting a jump on that 80th birthday thing! Born: Prince Charles of Edinburgh 14 November 1948 (age 76) [Just kidding ... I assume it was the official coronation or whatever]

Sounds real ethical and practicable. Convince a group of people who are rational actors to enroll their kids in a randomized/blind controlled study. 50% chance the kid will get a placebo. Or convince rabid anti-vaxxers who think their kid will turn autistic and never go on a date or play baseball to enroll in that study and have a 50% chance of getting that poison injection. Maybe we should just continue what we've been doing for, oh, 3 or 4 generations of Americans, resulting in the near elimination of measles with no convincing evidence at all of a significant downside?

https://ballotpedia.org/Fernando_Rodriguez_Jr. Nominated by Trump, confirmed by the Senate by a unanimous (96-0) vote. Now suddenly a "Marxist"