The Frankish Reich

I assume that's sarcasm ...

Good point. I was thinking that happened later on ...

Thanks - I appreciate the reasonable response. I really like hearing from people with insight into a field that I don't know that much about, so I tend to assume that other people think likewise. And I know something about this kind of stuff. As someone who's worked as a lawyer with law enforcement agencies in several contexts, something still bothers me about criminal law even after many, many years: we often punish bad results more harshly than evil behavior. The inexperienced truck driver? Irresponsible, yes. But way more unlucky than anything else. Most of the time drivers doing exactly the same thing (including the truckers right behind me on that very exit) don't even cause an accident. Meanwhile someone fires shots on a downtown street at someone and misses and he's charged with a trivial gun possession crime.

Her idea -- and it's correct from my experience -- is that the possession guidelines dated from a time when people actually DID get this garbage from creeps sending it through the mail. That put kind of a practical limit on the number of images you could be convicted of possessing. When it all went to the dark web, prosecutors were able to charge a count for every temp image recovered from a hard drive. So what was once in the two digits can easily be in the three digits now. Or more.

Sentencing is messy. I'm making a general point here, not anything specific about these recent nominees. There are many cases where multiple counts run about the sentence to something absurd. I know this personally from cases I've been involved in (and never on the defense side). Here's an example from a prominent case in my neck of the woods: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/2022/01/19/truck-driver-sentenced-110-years/9108405002/ Truck driver, not sufficiently experienced, from Cuba, driving on the steep descent from the Colorado mountains, onto an off ramp that (having driven it many times) is not very well designed. Barrels into other vehicles, huge crash, cars exploding, four innocent people killed. It was probably what we'd call recklessness, not intentional harm-doing. Some nonlawyers would consider it just an accident - negligence, sure, but not some kind of hardened criminal. I thought it was appropriate that he was criminally prosecuted, but I realize that's more about the horrific result than horrific behavior - with a little luck he would have flipped over his own truck and injured himself rather than killing four other people. He went to trial and was convicted on all counts. The sentencing guidelines: 110 years. It was crazy, and even law and order types like me thought "this can't be right." Ultimately the governor stepped in and commuted the sentence to something more fitting the crime: 10 years. The end result makes sense to me. It's just something to keep in mind when someone gets what seems to be an excessive sentence, or a far too lenient sentence. The guidelines are just that: guidelines. I can't tell you what someone like this truck driver should get in a perfectly fair world, but I can tell you there are gradations of creeps in all of the kinds of cases KJB passed sentences on. I've tried to avoid those cases because they are just too personally disturbing to me on many levels, but I have had some tangential involvement over the years. Judges try to do what's right. There's often a conflict between the individual case (a sad, creepy loser with no prior record), the judge's lack of total certainty about whether or not he may reoffend (often there's no evidence of a long pattern, but does this mean he just hasn't been caught before?) and the general idea that we need a strong deterrent to make anyone so inclined to go out looking for this stuff to think twice before he does it. And yes, the number of images multiplies, and each one can be a separate count. It can give a prosecutor tremendous leverage in securing a plea deal conviction, something that I think is valuable in general but that everyone should agree raises some liberty concerns when prosecutors overcharge to gain that leverage. We see this in drug cases too, where everyone seemed to reach a consensus (even Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump) that maybe the scales had tilted too far in the prosecutor's favor. Bottom line: sentencing is messy. There are some judges who are just too gullible, but almost all of them I've known are doing the best they can, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't agree with his wife's politics. And I think the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice should understand that she's not in the position of an ordinary person - there's a commitment there, a patriotic commitment to the American people that she really doesn't seem to understand. A Supreme Court Justice him or herself shouldn't be a politician. And he could've easily retired when the Repubs had the presidency and the Senate, so that argument won't work. As a Supreme Court Justice, I actually generally respect his opinions. He definitely has a judicial philosophy that is, unfortunately, a little more result-oriented than his fellow traveler Scalia (Scalia had no problem with going against the "conservatives" when he thought they had gone beyond what the constitution authorizes; Thomas is a little less confident), but still pretty grounded in solid constitutional philosophy, whether you agree or disagree with that philosophy.

No. I think this is what they call "whataboutism." There's corruption and corrupt family members of politicians everywhere. I am not about to defend all of that. We are talking about a Supreme Court Justice here -- one of just 9 people who decide whether a whole host of policies enacted by various Administrations should be allowed or should be shot down. Extreme partisanship on the part of a spouse is just bad form. It's not just election disputes (which, by the way, he did get involved in when the Supreme Court shot down some state challenges to the 2020 election); it's also a whole host of policies she is stridently advocating for or against that will inevitably wind up before the Court. Clarence and Ginni ought to (and do) know better. If her activism is that important to her, and if he loves her and thinks her mission in life is more important than his, well, he's of retirement age ... EDIT: by the way, you may or may not have seen that nominee KBJ said she would recuse herself from the Supreme Court's consideration of the Harvard affirmative action lawsuit because she was on the Harvard Board of Overseers at the time their affirmative action policy at issue was in place. This is a fair and honorable decision, and given the incredible leeway Supreme Court Justices get to make their own ethics calls, not one that she had to commit to now (she would've been confirmed anyway)

He's not conflicted in general, but ... his wife's political activism has crossed a line we just haven't seen crossed before, at least with a Supreme Court justice. By the way, I thought the same thing about that liberal lion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the late Stephen Reinhardt. His wife was the head of the ACLU of Los Angeles, but he didn't recuse himself from cases in which she had been involved. It's just bad form and puts an ugly cloud over the integrity of a court. It's not like we're depriving Mrs. Thomas of the right to make a living - she did (and could) continue to do just fine lobbying for discrete industries like she used to. Exhibit 1,017 of Why People Hate Washington: the politicians and Justices exempt themselves from the rules that apply to everyone else, particularly everyone else with a policy-making/deciding job.

I just think they liked the idea of something like the Washington Senators or the Washington Generals, but for obvious reasons those may have been a little too accurate. Admirals (too maritime), Colonels (too Kentucky) ... wait, how about Commanders?

There's been a lot of Tyreek Hill types, both before and after Tyreek Hill. Tavon Austin, KJ Hamler (I still like him if healthy), etc. etc. Tyreek 2.0 hunting is probably not a sound draft strategy, unless you're talking about taking a flyer on a 5th rounder ... which is exactly what Tyreek was.

He could still be that. As you suggest, there just isn't a whole lot of American football experience there ... 29 years old, but probably more like most 3rd year players in terms of football development. It's still a longshot, but even now he's a good situational pass rusher and the Commanders seem to be a good fit. Good luck, Efe, and thanks for the memories (or was it just one memory?)

$10 million per victim, with $10 million left over all for himself?

Chances that any of the listed players are actually drafted by the Bills, in any round: < 50% You might as well predict the exact score of the first Bills-Patriots meeting next year. I enjoy reading about how certain players would be a good fit, but 7 rounds of a mock draft? Really? We are officially in what the Brits call the silly season.

Somehow I had forgotten that Bud Wilkinson ever coached in the NFL. I'm old enough that I ought to remember that. Unless of course the problem is I'm too old to remember that .... It was the St. Louis Cardinals, who were pretty much the definition of a completely nondescript team back then.

Meyer was a "pure" college coach with no NFL assistant experience whatsoever. I'll admit it - he kind of fooled me, beginning with making Utah relevant. But in retrospect, yeah, he's a recruiting force only. I can't help but assume that he mastered the dark arts of promising and delivering for recruits the kinds of things coaches aren't supposed to promise and deliver. We'll continue seeing a lot of guys like Nathaniel Hackett and Doug Marrone get jobs (the guys who build mixed college/NFL assistant resumes) but I kind of think Meyer is the last time we see one of these full college guys get a head coaching job.

This IS the process. You build a core of professional, hardworking players to develop a culture of winning and accountability. Once that's in place, you supplement it with star playmakers, even those who've been accused of being divas with their previous teams. Otherwise you don't make it over that final hump.

It's about time someone brought that back!

Remember the first half of 2020 (I know, I know, that's like a year and half ago) when Russell was the favorite to win the MVP? Yes, my eyes tell me he's lost a bit - particularly that evasiveness that allowed him to extend plays - but he's not at all old by modern QB standards, and I'm guessing he has plenty left in the tank. The Broncs O line is solid, Javonte Williams is his new Marshawn, and there's some playmakers there (Albert O. at TE, Sutton, Hamler if he's healthy, Jeudy if he can hold onto the damn ball). I don't know that it all works like it did with Peyton and Brady and Stafford, but it'll be pretty damn interesting to watch.

9th overall pick this year is the biggest part of the return for the Seahawks. In a year that kind of looks like the 2014 QB draft (EJ Manuel in case you forgot). If this works for the Broncs, the next 1st rounder will be like getting a high 2nd. Shelby Harris: really solid player. He'll be missed by the Broncos. Noah Fant: uber talented, but quite frankly was outplayed by Albert O. (don't make me try to spell it), who looks really good at TE. Drew Lock: like trading EJ Manuel c. 2016. There's still a slight chance he'll be a late bloomer, but there's a far better chance he's completely out of football by 2023.

Exactly. Did not take a meaningful snap all season. There's some real Teddy Bridgewater money waiting for you, Mitch!

Pacta sunt servanda.

No, I'm not (is anyone?) advocating for a military intervention. But what we've seen is the classic formula for war - a war that, according to Putin himself, won't be limited to eastern Ukraine, or even the whole of Ukraine. And the classic formula is this: an aggressive regime coupled with ineffective deterrence. What negative consequences did Putin suffer from the taking of Crimea? (I'll wait while everyone looks that one up because I'm coming up with a big "None.") Putin may be a dictator, but he's a dictator propped up by a lot of corrupt oligarchs living in places like London and Miami and New York. We can make life very difficult for them, both financially and in other ways. If it doesn't happen now, I fully expect the Baltics to be next.

Re: the Baltics. There's something very similar about China (somehow the new villain of the right wing, with a more tepid response from the left) and Russia (vice versa). Both dictatorships are paranoid about countries/regions showing that economic success and democratization are fully compatible. Hong Kong and Taiwan prove that with respect to core China, so they must be suppressed. For people who haven't been paying attention, take a look at Estonia. A remarkable success story - in some respects, they're building a whole new style of libertarian government coupled with economic freedom. Putin says they're really Russian, and depending on what that means, maybe they are. But if they are, they are a symbol of how a Russian people can overcome their past and actually become a leader in innovation in government and economy. Those are dangerous thoughts when you're a dictator; they could spread soon enough to your own people ("hey, if Estonia can have those kinds of freedoms and experience an economic boom, why not us?").

I don't even recognize who these Republican would-be presidents are anymore. Obviously a recent interview because we have the newly emaciated Pompeo on camera. Why, in this current situation, would you ever say "I have enormous respect" for Putin? Pompeo was Sec of State - he knows that words matter. Somehow these proto-candidates think that there's something wrong with simply saying that Putin's territorial ambitions threaten world peace and security.

Putin is now working on his second phase of his justification for war (or, if you prefer, annexing part or all of Ukraine and thus leading to at least a limited war, and maybe a much more serious war). Post-Crimea: This clearly violated the post-Soviet Minsk Agreement, in which nuclear weapons stationed by the Soviets in non-Russian republics (Ukraine, Kazhakstan, Belarus) were "repatriated" to the Russian Federation in exchange for (among other things) Russian recognition of new international boundaries, including the Ukraine-Russian border. Putin claimed the Ukrainian democracy movement (that is, movement away from being a Russian puppet state to being a functioning democracy) was in essence a "revolution," such that the agreement with the pre-revolution Ukrainian state was null and avoid. Therefore, Russia no longer needs to recognize those 1994 borders. Now: Putin is moving into the second phase of that theory in action. Eastern Ukraine (we're not sure how much yet) is now considered historically and culturally "Russia" and he intends to annex it under Russian law. Of course, if Ukraine resists with military force, he'll have his casus belli and may use that to overthrow the entire Ukrainian government by force. I have some friends from the Baltic states, and they know very well that they're next. Not to sound, umm, uncaring, but ... Eastern Ukraine alone really isn't that big a deal. But we've seen that Putin's bizarre dream of reconstituting the Soviet Empire comes with a long timeline. He's coming close to annexing (ostensibly by choice) Belarus and maybe Kazakhstan, and by taking a large swath of Ukraine (by might). As Biden said about something very different about a dozen years ago, "this is a big effin' deal." How the US, Europe, and the rest of the world respond now may very well dictate how far Putin takes those Soviet dreams of his in the next few years.