The Frankish Reich

Can't see the forest for the trees crowd: the Annex actually finds that some of the emails implicating Hillary were most likely manufactured, presumably by Russian state actors. Proof of Russian meddling. Right there.

What happened to 1500% ? Is that still in play? Because I definitely expected pharm companies to pay me to take their drugs. FAIL!

Can you get an exemption for bone spurs? And to Lawrence Taylor: are you allowed to use Performance Enhancing Cocaine when taking the test?

A bit off topic but worth remembering when we hear that "murders/homicides are down" - we are now much, much better at treating gunshot wounds, so fortunately fewer victims die. That's why the more telling stat is number of shootings/stabbings, etc. I hope this case proves the point.

Seriously, did she get the name from some kind of joke Influencer Name Bot?

I'm just saying that even a greatly diminished Von at 36 may have more left in the tank than Bosa at 30.

My crystal ball says I shouldn't be shocked in Von Miller produces more than Bosa.

It's still an NFL films product even if it runs on HBO. And so they're sticking with the classic style.

I was walking out of court recently watching a father berate his son (apparently the kid just took a plea to a minor offense) about getting his life together. The kid was maybe 20. Obviously not in college, not doing anything useful. Dad: You live at home with me for a few years. You start working at UPS. You get your CDL. You'll be able to put away $20K a year with no living expenses. By the time you're 25 you'll have a down payment for a house and you'll be set up for a good life. (I got the sense that the dad had done something like this himself.) Kid wasn't really listening. I like the idea of tracking/vocational training as long as we leave a route open for the late bloomers. The 14 year old kid tracked into more vocational training who still gets a diploma and later can restart at community college, etc, if he wants to be a teacher or an accountant or something that isn't a traditional trade.

I have to confess I didn't make it through that first episode. Really boring TV. But from a football standpoint, boring is good! Good team, no big controversies, entering another season with the expectation of winning and maybe getting over the hump. Good, but ... boring.

No. Prices skyrocketed, people started seeking out alternatives. I have a niece who just went to Vegas with her boyfriend. Mid-20s. They were legitimately shocked by the prices for everything. Didn't enjoy the experience at all. Won't be going back anytime soon. My take: Vegas casinos got greedy with the post-pandemic rush to get out and do things. That's now worn off. And going back to bargain-style vacations probably isn't an option since the unions have also cashed in, raising the baseline salary for everyone. Gen Z has a lot of kids who are more lifestyle conservative. They don't want to waste money. We should applaud that!

Yes. Yes I did.

Yep, another shocker. Online gambling has negatively impacted Vegas. I wonder why the big Vegas casino owners lobbied so hard against it. Young people don't want to play slots like 80 year old hamsters with cigarette in hand and oxygen tank parked next to the machine. Poor Gen Z. They're really missing out.

Skipping Dershowitz shows the purpose of these "hearings."

Thanks. I missed your response here when you posted it. I've mentioned that I'm a fan of school choice. But I worry about profiteering schools jumping in to get a chunk of that money without really raising standards or improving education. Studies so far are difficult to interpret since it's hard to separate selection effects (the best performing charter schools tend to get the children of the most involved parents) from actual teaching effectiveness. I do know that most of what we're doing today in most places just isn't working. Do you think we need to do more "tracking" in schools? Separate out the serious/committed students from the ones who really aren't even trying?

Texas decision: I have no problem with this law.

Ouch! Bringing your A game today.

Don’t hate on the sweater vest under tweed jacket look. It is very appealing to all women of a certain age and even some women of a certain younger age. It easily adds 20 points to my projected IQ. Add in some yammering about case law and they literally melt.

I guess you've never heard the old adage: "When you tax [tariff] something you get less of it [imports]." Shocking.

LOL, but true. With veterans who are fully familiar with a system - particularly at "skill" positions - I wonder whether full participation in practice is self-defeating.

Nobody "red pilled" Arnie. He is proud of getting his plan to take some of the raw politics out of redistricting in California, and he is disappointed that whatever progress was made is about to be undone all over the country.

It really isn't too hard to recognize when one party or the other makes a move that is just far beyond what was previously considered acceptable. Here's a few from recent memory: - Obama's DACA program. He had said he lacked authority under the constitution to create it. Then he created it. - Trump's "Muslim Ban." - Biden's student loan forgiveness program - Trump's wholesale firing - without cause - of a large number of members of federal boards and commissions - Texas' unprecedented mid-decade expressly political redistricting, not done in response to anything like new census numbers This is what I mean. Don't conflate incremental opportunistic policies with wholesale changes that go beyond what we have all believed to be acceptable uses of raw political power. There really is a difference in kind, not of just degree here.

Yep, that's what needs to happen. Mutually assured destruction.

It's not so much the gerrymandered districts; it's the attempt to force through a quick/unprecedented redistricting in response to Trump's call to do so for purely partisan reasons. There is nothing to stop this from happening all around the country, including attempts to draw districts that result in two incumbents in one district. That happens sometimes, but due to population declines, etc., and not in response to a brazen/calculated attempt to rig the entire process. Sure, you can say this has always happened to a lesser degree and with lip service paid to things like shared community ties or Supreme Court-mandated racial concerns, but this is a step beyond. And as we've seen many times already, once one side gets away with it the floodgates are opened. Whatever one thinks of the Texas Dems, no one on either side should applaud this attempt to even further politicize redistricting. It is the ultimate "the congressman chooses his voters instead of the voters choosing their congressman." It's shameful and it ought to be called out as such.