The Frankish Reich

I'm holed up at home today with people working on the house so I can honestly say that it appears no one - Fox News included - is paying more than the most minimal attention to this Trumped-up Army Celebration. Fox just cut to the Mall - skimpiest "crowd" ever. Poor birthday boy will have to lie about the numbers.

See, I knew the miasma theory was back. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5429732/ancient-miasma-theory-may-help-explain-health-secretary-robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-vaccine-moves

So you Mass Deportation advocates: tell me how this is supposed to work. Stephen Miller (he controls the autopen that is the remnants of Trump's brain) mandates 3,000 deportations a day. Local ICE bosses say, well, then we gotta go where the illegal aliens are rather than waiting for criminals to drop into our lap. Targets worksites: construction, agriculture, hotel maids, whatever. Old school republicans complain: we can't stay in business if you deport our workers! Trump says "I hear you." No more targeting our great hotels or farmers or construction companies. Just get the criminals. Maybe jingoistic vote-for-me things like "mass deportation" don't really translate into governance? Who'd have thunk it?

Exactly.

Oops, it turns out good old fashioned American business need some good old fashioned illegal workers. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/trump-pauses-immigration-arrests-at-farms-hotels-and-restaurants-7a8bc353?mod=hp_lead_pos3

It's all just virtue signaling of one kind or another. Somehow I was born without the gene that makes me want to do this. I've thought the same thing as I go through the exurban southwest and see Trump signs and Trump flags. There are no heathens left there to convert.

Make sure to take a pic of Scott Bessent's house. Charleston is nice, but it is kind of the classic "from extraordinary wealth to abject poverty within one mile" place.

That Kristi Noem gets around!

My guess is that the Trump administration saw a chance to do what many have privately (and publicly) wanted to do for a long time: neutralize any Iran threat. Russia could've made this difficult, but they're a bit preoccupied right now. (Ukraine war surrender monkeys: think about what would've happened if we'd allowed them to overrun Ukraine in a month.) Hezbollah in Lebanon and whatever Iranian proxy in Syria can't get to Israel now. Houthis in Yemen are a pest but nothing more. Other Islamic world opposition muted because of Saudi hatred of Iran. Hence, the green light - explicit or implicit - for Israel to go ahead. Way, way too soon to tell if this is a good idea. But that's why I'm guessing it happened, and why it happened now.

Exactly. Maybe we should've thought of this before inking Cook's rookie deal. Seriously, though, if this is allowed by the CBA, why wouldn't a team do it? And if it is allowed by the CBA, congrats to the Bengals for hiring a lawyer smart enough to figure that out.

So, that's my (B) or (C). Right on cue: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/in-twist-u-s-diplomacy-served-as-cover-for-israeli-surprise-attack-c79b2206?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_4 The headline is a little misleading (remember, in almost all newspapers, the article author doesn't write the headline), but nonetheless the article suggests more of (C).

OK, so which one is it: A. Israel undertook the Iran mission unilaterally, even though the US opposed it (at this time). Israel provided the US only advance notice with the US promising it would not obstruct Israel's actions. B. Israel undertook the Iran mission with US approval, although the US stated it would not provide any support for the operation. C. Israel and the US partially coordinated; the US-Iran negotiations were in good faith, and the US gave Israel its tacit approval for taking unilateral action when Iran refused to sign a deal. D. Israel and the US fully coordinated, with a plan to use negotiations (conducted in bad faith) to delay the inevitable Israeli operation and to provide some diplomatic/legal cover (i.e., to show that all peaceful means of shutting down Iran's nuclear weapons program had failed)

Justice Breyer's brother. A highly regarded judge. This is no weird ass decision coming from a crackpot judge.

10/7/23: Hamas says peace process? Sorry, we'll decide when that happens. 6/12/23: Israel says U.S.-Iran deal? Sorry, we'll decide when that happens.

He's trying to sell a book. And from what I see, not doing that well.

Jake Tapper then: underplaying Biden's decline Jake Tapper now: overplaying Biden's decline

A Quinnipiac poll. Sorry, I don't spend my time putting together dossiers on anonymous posters on football blogs. I understand that for some it may be quite an enriching activity.

Yes, and of course the logic (a fascinating course; maybe Harvard Extension offers it online?) goes like this: - Harvard's code of conduct bans harassment and bullying - Calling for the elimination or forced movement of a people isn't necessarily harassment or bullying unless it is directed to a specific person - Hence, calling for genocide doesn't necessarily violate the code. Wow. That was fun. Shall we do it again?

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls-issues-2084497 Negative on every issue, including immigration. Look, it's not surprising. People are pretty simple. Bad crap happened under your watch? Then you're not doing a good job. People like @JDHillFan would have us think that because George Floyd protest/riots in 2020 were Democratic coded they doomed Biden's presidential run.

Hmm? You guys thought Elise Stefanik was the most brilliant examiner ever. That's where this whole nonsense started.

Perhaps you'd like to read Elise Stefanik's proudest moment, as reproduced on her own website. https://stefanik.house.gov/2023/12/icymi-during-questions-from-stefanik-presidents-of-harvard-upenn-mit-refuse-to-condemn-calls-for-genocide-of-jews#:~:text=bullying and harassment%3F-,Yes or no%3F,violates Harvard Code of Conduct. Note the misleading headline she gives it: the university presidents "refuse to condemn calls for genocide." They did nothing of the sort. They refused to say that a call for genocide, not directed at an individual, would necessarily violate their universities' codes of conduct. And that is because free speech is, well, free speech. Except of course to the Woke Right and the Woke Left. Here's your heroine expressing the Woke Right sentiment perfectly: "Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of antisemitism?" Translation: it made them feel bad. Wokism. From the right.

Umm, the only "misrepresentation" came from you. Chanting things like "from the river to the sea" is definitely not a threat to Jewish students at Harvard or Columbia any more than chanting "trans women are men" is a death threat to trans students.

Yes, it is my observation, and early polling suggests I'm right.

I'm pointing out that a method of analysis - that some types of speech are akin to actual violence - is now so ingrained that it is being used by the right as well as the left. The appropriate response to stultifying left orthodoxy in higher education is not to try to try to impose stultifying right orthodoxy. But that's what's happening, because this is all about settling scores and not about intellectual freedom.

Yeah, it's not like Tarheel with his ultra-productive salesman gig has time to count the posts of some other guy on PPP or anything like that ....