Yikes

If there is any truth to Ukrainian President Zelensky's claim that Russia will not wait to defeat Ukraine before attacking the rest of NATO,  we would have to assume that history, specifically the part of how bad an idea a war on two fronts against multiple enemies is, is not taught at Russian universities, military academies, and of course the KGB/FSB.

This is why, in my view, Putin's aggressive tactics towards the NATO border countries need to be responded to rather directly with something like "Mr. Putin, you're losing a war against Ukraine, and the help NATO has provided amounts to about 2% of our weapons systems.  You do not want to see how quickly things go badly when the other 98% start to be used.".

Slava Ukraini, and Putin delenda est!

On the light side

It was nice, but a bit disconcerting, last night when the young man at Culver's gave me my first senior discount.  Hey, 72 cents off is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick!

I also read that former NFL player Shaun Alexander and his wife Valerie are expecting their 14th child.  Call me weird, but I think Valerie's got just as much right to a spot in a Hall of Fame as her husband--and that's not disparaging Shaun's accomplishments at all.   

Is this the new style?

It appears that after cartridges used by the murderer of Charlie Kirk had messages scrawled on them, the same thing was done for cartridges used by the shooter at an ICE facility.  So either this is becoming a fashion among the far left, or maybe it suggests that there might be some coordination between some of these guys.  Might be worth looking into.

And hopefully, of course, this causes the cartridges to fail to seat properly in the firing chamber, leading to inaccuracy and jamming.  Perhaps someday, we will even have a situation where the mainstream media look at these things and say "you know, somebody might be trying to tell us something here...".

If it were possible to spin in one's grave as one's life's work was trashed by one's successors, I think my great uncle would be doing so.  It is reasonable to ask "is this for real, or is this a diversionary tactic?", but not to ignore the evidence entirely.

This will leave a mark

Judge Steven Merryday, appointed by Donald Trump, strikes down Trump's lawsuit against the New York Times, filed in Tampa.  OK, the President's home is in Florida, but we have to wonder if there was some venue shopping going on here, as the southern district is far closer to Mar-A-Lago.  

But that noted, the judge's big objection is not venue, but apparently a violation of federal law that more or less says a complaint must be concise and understandable.  Trump's attorneys apparently have pulled a trick out of Kamala Harris' hat and written a legal complaint in "word salad".  

I am getting to be a broken record here, but it seems that too often, lawyers who ought to know better are failing in basic duties to their clients.  This may not be a case where Trump gets to get these guys disbarred, but at the very least, he's entitled to a refund of his legal fees.

More on the Macron/Owens fiasco

Apparently the lawyer (s?) for French President Macron and his wife are a bit slow on the uptake about how one is to win a defamation lawsuit.  For the uninitiated, when someone has access to the press, as the Macrons doubtless have, one must prove both that the accused knew that what she was saying was a lie, and that it was done with actual malice.

In this case, by saying they are going to provide "scientific evidence" that Madame Macron is female, what they've just done is to concede that (a) one could indeed have reasonable doubt about whether Macron was born female or not, and (b) hence Owens' mental state when making the claims is of no importance.

Chalk that one up to "time to refund those billable hours, counsel", and of course my hope and prayer, for the sake of any jury that might be seated, is that the evidence is a cheek swab and not some other evidence of being born female.  "I did not need to see that.", that sort of thing. 

Again, the better way for the Macrons to retaliate against Candace Owens would have been to present the results of a cheek swab, pictures of Madame Macron while pregnant, and the like and ask "what kind of idiot would, knowing that Brigitte Macron is a mother, make up such a story?".

On that free speech vs. hate speech

Apparently many on the left are up in arms about the recent firing of Jimmy Kimmel after he claimed--after news was coming out that Charlie Kirk's murderer was living with (or romantically involved with) a trans person, had inscribed socialist writings on cartridges, etc..--that the murderer was somehow "MAGA" and a Trump supporter.

For those unclear about the matter, yes, the First Amendment does, with narrowly defined exceptions, to say just about anything.  However, what it does not do is prevent others from making decisions on whether they will associate with you based on what you say.  So if you're running a TV show based on current events, and you completely misrepresent current events, your employer just might wonder if you're up to the job.  It is worse if your interpretation of current events will offend half the prospective audience.

Again, there have been very real, very nasty fascist movements out there.  Firing Jimmy Kimmel when he spouts off nonsense is not evidence of one.

Just sayin'

Trans cyclist (and near-Olympic qualifier) tells those objecting to biological males in women's cycling to "suck a sawed off shotgun", among other things showing clearly what a paragon of class the individual is. 

Pro tip for Wolfe; there are things called "history books" that explain precisely what the real Nazis did, and you might do well to read one.  Suffice it to say that the real version went well beyond making speeches on college campuses.

Thoughts on the murder of Charlie Kirk

I've been refraining a bit to let passions--maybe--die down a bit, but maybe I've got something good to say here.  First thing is that I really don't like the term "assassination", but prefer "murder" to describe this sort of thing, because "assassination" can lend an air of respectability to a crime that left a woman a widow, their children fatherless, and all in the name of a perverse sort of politics.

Murder it is.  Regarding the claim that a hot temperature of rhetoric led to this, maybe, but we might be a little more specific.  The habit I can think of that makes things the worst--the one that inflames passions--is generally the habit of making false allegations.  They are often close to true, but in reality, they are false.

A good example is the claim that Kirk said that black women did not have the brain power to be taken seriously.  Now I am not enough of a fan of Kirk's work to comment on his whole life's statements on this (and on many issues he seems to have changed his mind), but I am smart enough to listen to what he said in that video, which was that some specific black women did not have the brain power to be taken seriously.

We might say that Kirk ought to have considered the fact that some of these women have Ivy League degrees, whatever their affirmative action status, but in context, his actual statement is nowhere near as inflammatory as many, including supposed fact checkers, claim.  It is the difference between the Aristotelian categories of "some" and "all".

And so how might we respond to this tragedy?  I would dare say by choosing our words carefully, and by pointing out the problem when peoples' words and deeds are twisted to something they never meant.

Why not speak clearly?

It is said that sometimes, diplomacy is the art of telling a man to go to Hell in such a way that he looks forward to the trip (attribution unknown).  That is, the art of saying things indirectly. 

But that noted, as I review the situation in Ukraine and Russia, I wonder if a bit more directness directed towards the Russians might be helpful.  Specifically, several treaties signed by Russia--or by the Soviet Union before it and renewed by Russia--prohibit aggressive war and the redrawing of borders by force.  So instead of politely talking about the matter, just say 

As a signatory to the United Nations Charter, Helsinki Accords, Geneva Conventions, as well as the treaties ending the Soviet Union, Russia needs to honor these treaties and immediately cease its illegal war, withdraw from all Ukrainian territory (1991 boundaries), and deliver those generals involved in long range attacks on civilian targets for trial on war crimes.

Economic sanctions against Russia, including against trading partners buying Russian oil and natural gas, will continue until this is done. NATO will also continue to provide arms to Ukraine for its defense.

More or less, if Putin wants his neo-Soviet experiment, he can deal with how we treated his Soviet ancestors.  The USSR was an evil empire; the renewal of the USSR by Putin is the same.  We ought to treat it that way.