The Frankish Reich

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 ....

No. It is literally words that put some of these guys in deportation proceedings. Hurtful words.

We always know when it's a bad week for Trump when we see a rise in the irrelevant threads the Trumpies bump.

Yeah, "The crime rate of illegal immigrants is 100%." That would include, of course, Elon Musk (student visa violator), Melania (who filled out national security need for light porn models) and all sorts of other visa overstayers, student visa holders who started businesses, etc, etc.

I don't like Gavin Newsom. I think he's a phony and an intellectual lightweight. But I'm impressed by his political chops. Almost Bill Clinton-esque when he sees an opportunity. This little turnabout is fair play thing is pretty damn clever: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/12/gavin-newsom-trump-mental-fitness "He is not the same person that I dealt with just four years ago, and he's incapable of even a train of thought," Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, told Fox LA. "He's lost it."

The battle is over. Wokethink won. The right is now beating the left at its own game. In waging its war against the universities, the administration is using civil-rights law on behalf of Jewish students, arguing that chants can make Jewish students feel unsafe, and that pro-Palestinian op-eds about Gaza in campus newspapers do so much harm to American foreign policy that their authors must be deported. The American right protested at the woke left when it sought to censor ideas by equating words with violence and prescribed swift punishment for wrongthink. Now, not so much. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/06/10/does-america-now-have-a-woke-right We now get to worry about hurting the feelings of straight white males. Even the right's favorite masseur-provacateur is having fun with the newest form of closed-mindedness: The most prominent accuser has been James Lindsay, an intellectual gadfly first of the left and lately of the right. He first came to prominence for the “grievance studies affair”, in which he and two co-authors submitted parody articles of leftist drivel, some of which successfully passed peer review. He recently conducted a similar prank by getting the thinly disguised introduction to Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” published in a minor Christian publication (by substituting the words “Christian right” for “communism” and “liberalism” for “bourgeoisie”). Congratulations, Trumpies! You won the battle and lost the war.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/11/magazine/pope-leo-xiv-ancestry-family-tree.html Descended from ... well, basically every type of person. Slaveholders. Black slaves. Spaniards. Bastard child of a extramarital affair. French Canadians. What it means to be American.

Yes, the WSJ is doing the best reporting on this now. On the opinion side of that same newspaper, this also strikes me as accurate: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/china-trade-talks-donald-trump-tariffs-f730f437?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Developing an alternative supply will take years and require cooperation with allies because the U.S. can’t produce and process all the rare earths it needs. Japan has pitched a rare-earths alliance as part of tariff negotiations, and the Administration would be wise to expand such a partnership with other allies. This gets to the larger problem with Mr. Trump’s tariff strategy—that is, he doesn’t have one. His latest walk-back shows he can’t bully China as he tried to do in his first term. China has leverage of its own. A smarter trade strategy would be to work with allies as a united front to counter China’s predatory trade practices. Instead, Mr. Trump has used tariffs as an economic scatter-gun against friends as well as foes. This increases China’s leverage, and, like this week’s trade truce, that’s nothing to cheer about.

Well, I guess you're not the brightest knife.