Ukraine hits Russia's oil ports...

 

A sanctioned Russian oil tanker. Kees Torn via Flickr. 

Ukraine has struck Russia's key oil exporting infrastructure and two sanction oil tankers. CBS News. Primorsk, a major Baltic Sea port, was hit by drones from Ukraine and has hit two tankers near the Black Sea port Novorossiysk as well. This is causing a disruption of oil exports for Russia, which is making billions of dollars off of higher oil prices due to disruption from the Iran War. The Ukraine conflict has largely been a stalemate for months with most of the violence coming in tit-for-tat drone strikes. 

My Comment:

It's been awhile since I have covered the Russia-Ukraine war, and for good reason. There has been an almost total lack of coverage on the conflict ever since the conflict with Iran broke out. Many of the neutral and pro-Russia accounts that I read have totally moved on to the Iran war, many of them beclowning themselves in the process. Even pro-Ukraine accounts have been highlighting Ukraine's accomplishments in the Iran War, which, to be fair, have been a help. Ukraine actually has been a decent ally in the Iran conflict. 

Of course, there actual facts on the battlefield suggest the war has fallen into a doldrums. Sure, both Ukraine and Russia are taking territory and the war has a lot of tit-for-tat drone strikes but there hasn't been any major offensives from either side. Some of this is due to it being mud season, but it's clear that not much has changed in the conflict since the Iran war broke out. 

My general assessment for the war still remains an eventual Russian victory. This is attritional warfare, and it's messy and horrible and it's less about taking back territory and more about destroying weapons, vehicles and people. Indeed, given the state of movement in the battlefield, it seems as though Ukraine is settling into the same style of warfare, which is surprising given they can't possibly win such a conflict given their lack of economy, manpower and weapons compared to Russia. 

However, these strikes are probably important given that they are making a bad situation worse. Obviously, gas and oil prices are very high due to the Iran conflict. But it's not the only reason they are high, blowing up oil tanks and tankers in Russia is going to contribute to the problem. It's not going to be the main factor of course, but it's not helping things. 

I generally think that this is an act of desperation by Ukraine as Russia is making bank from the oil prices going up and that is being used to fund the conflict. I do think these strikes are damaging and are helping to offset the money Russia is making off of oil. It's also hurting everyone else who is already in an energy crunch due to the Iran conflict. 

Supreme Court tosses Louisiana gerrymander and limits the use of the Voting Rights Act.

 

The Louisiana district gerrymandered in favor of Black voters. New York Post.

The Supreme Court tosses Louisiana gerrymander and limits the use of the Voting Rights Act in drawing congressional districts, which will likely lead to major gains for Republicans in Congress. New York Post. Louisiana added a 2nd majority black district that sent an additional Democrat to Congress. However, voters sued saying their 14th amendment rights were violated because the map was based on race and not other factors. The six conservative justices agreed and said that Louisiana had redraw its maps. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan blasted the ruling, saying it "gutted" section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans appear to agree and plans are already being made to redistrict the Southern States. However, it might not be enough to affect the outcome of the 2026 midterms given that many states have already begun the primary process. 

My Comment:

It is unfortunate that this ruling came so late in the election cycle. If it had happened in 2025 there would be basically no chance that the Democrats could win in 2026. But the timing is pretty terrible. There are a lot of states, like Texas, North Carolina and Mississippi, that aren't going to be able to redistrict because the primary process has already started. And Alabama's maps are frozen due to another court case. Louisiana and Florida should be able to redistrict but it might not go much beyond that. 

How many new seats the Republicans can pick up from this is questionable. Most analysis I have seen is that the Republicans could gain 2-4 seats, with Florida being the most likely to gain seats. Like I said, there are just too many Southern states that won't have time to redistrict. At best this would make up for the Virginia redistricting. 

But a lot is going to ride on how that court case turns out. The maps are now on hold and the consensus is that the Democrats will either lose the case outright or be delayed enough that the current seats will stay in use through the midterms. It's very possible that four seats that were going to be lost in Virginia will be dramatically safter, giving the Republicans 6-8 seats that they were going to lose otherwise. 

Is that enough to keep the House? I am not sure. Midterms are usually brutal for the party in control of the White House. It's one of the more consistent things in American Politics and it would not be shocking if the Democrats won in 2026 even with the optimistic 6-8 seat gain that this ruling and the failure of the Virginia gerrymander.

Republicans are facing headwinds as well. The Iran War is genuinely unpopular and so are the high gas prices from it. I still think that a peace deal is going to be in place long before any votes are cast in the midterms, but the longer the war goes without a peace deal, or worse, the return to active combat, the more damage is done. 

But I also don't see a blue wave like the Democrats want. I think the Senate is safe while the House might see the kind of slim lead for Democrats the Republican currently "enjoy". The Democrats are still historically unpopular and they have made no effort to change their policies that turn off voters, like support for transgender people and other woke nonsense. They also have a huge deficit in money. Consensus is that the Democrats have an 80% chance to gain the House but I am more bullish, and say it's a 60-40 proposition, not good for Republicans, but not hopeless either, contingent on the Virginia gerrymander not surviving and the Iran conflict ending soon. 

Long term though? It's going to get rough for Democrats. I am guessing most of the black majority districts in the South are going to be removed by 2028 at the latest. And it's possible that some of the Democrats' maps in blue states will be changed due to lawsuits too. 

And the 2030 census is likely going to be an absolute bloodbath for Democrats. The combination of voters fleeing from blue states like New Yor and California and the effects of Trump getting rid of illegal aliens in blue states is going to result in a lot of house seats and electoral college votes going to the Republicans. It's very possible that the Democrats could be in the wilderness for a long time in the most optimistic outcome. 

 

Former FBI director James Comey has been arrested for a threat to President Donald Trump.

 

Former FBI Director James Comey. Fox News/Getty. 

Former FBI director James Comey has been arrested for a threat to President Donald Trump. Fox News. Comey posted on his Instagram account a picture of shells arranged to read "8647". The case hinges on the interpretation of that post. "86" is slang that means to remove or kill and "47" is a reference to Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States. Comey argues that his usage was of the "remove" meaning of 86 while the government argues his meaning is clear. Comey had removed the post and apologized claiming that he didn't know the other interpretation of the term. Comey's post came after two attempted assassinations of President Trump, but before the latest shooting at the White House Correspondents' dinner.  

My Comment:

I'm of two minds of this. On the one hand, it's going to extraordinarily difficult to prove that Comey actually meant the "kill' interpretation of 86. You have to prove intent and that is going to be extremely hard to do so. 

But I also think that Comey knew exactly what he was saying. I know the media is saying that "86" has never always meant "kill" but I have literally never heard it used in any other way. It's to the point where it feels like gaslighting. And it's not like there is a whole lot of difference between the two meanings, and least in intent. 

The context is that the same folks that are calling for violence against President Trump are also using the 8647 phrase, to an absurd degree. It's possible that Comey was just ignorant, but I don't see how anyone with a social media account would interpret it in any other way. 

But can it be proven in court? I really don't think so. The whole post seems like it was designed to get as close as possible to the line of a real threat without crossing it. He's got the defense of ignorance and arguing that he wasn't smart enough to know the implications of his post. He can also say that he was drawing attention to someone else's work and that he was just documenting it, which is a strong defense. I don't think for a moment that Comey's arguments are actually accurate, I think for sure he knew what he was doing was wrong.

But legally? I don't think it matters. The legal standard is that Comey posted this knowingly and willfully as a threat and that it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't mean it in another way. Unless there is some kind of smoking gun where Comey had admitted that he absolutely meant it as a threat, I don't see how a jury will convict. 

So why pursue charges anyways? Some of it is due to Comey being a scumbag that skated other charges on a technicality. The powers that be want another shot at taking him down and a long shot is better than no shot as all. 

But mostly I think this is a message to folks making similar statements on social media that aren't at all ambiguous. That message is that if you make a threat against the President, even if you are being cheeky with it, you are getting charged. Even if you are someone like James Comey, a former FBI director, you will get charged. I do think that they believe that Comey's actions are illegal, but sending the message that nobody can threaten the President without consequences.  

Melania and Donald Trump call for Jimmy Kimmel to be fired again

 

Melania Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. New York Post/AFP. 

First Lady Melania Trump issued a rare public statement calling for the firing of ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel. New York Post. Melania and Donald Trump called for the firing after an exceptionally ill timed joke made by Kimmel. Kimmel said “Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.” in a parody of the Whitehouse Correspondent's Dinner before the event happened. Of course, an assassination attempt on President Trump and other members of the White House occurred at the event. Melania Trump accused Kimmel of hiding behind ABC and called for the network to fire him. Kimmel was previously suspended for lying about the Charlie Kirk assassination, falsely claiming that Tyler Robinson was a Republican. 

My Comment:

Most media reports are absolutely downplaying the original incident that almost got Jimmy Kimmel fired in the first place. I absolutely think he should have been fired for that and if he gets fired now I would not be upset. His lies were incredibly damaging as there are still people that believe that Tyler Robinson was a Republican and not the LGBT activist he was. Robinson killed Kirk because he was angry that Kirk wasn't fully on board with transgender ideology and he was dating a male to female transgender person. 

Kimmel did serious damage with his statement that Robinson was conservative. And the worst part is that news had broken that day, well before Kimmel taped the show, Robinson's real motive. This wasn't a joke, it was a deliberate lie that Kimmel and his team absolutely shouldn't have done. 

This current controversy though? It seems a lot less serious. It was a bad joke for sure, you shouldn't be implying that a woman would be happy that her husband died under any circumstances. But if you do it to a woman who was married to a man that had multiple assassination plots against him and one that he was not only injured in but legitimately only survived due to what can only be described as divine intervention, you are going to make everyone mad. 

But it was just a joke and I am not really comfortable firing people over jokes, even when they are in extraordinarily bad taste. I will also say that Kimmel made the joke before the event and had no idea what was going to happen with the attempted assassin. If this was all Kimmel did I would not really support him getting fired. 

If Kimmel does get fired for this, it would be imperfect justice. I absolutely believe that he has no business surviving the original Charlie Kirk assassination controversy, but this current one is dramatically less serious. He should get fired for being a liar, not for being a crappy comedian that insulted the President and First Lady. 

I do feel for Melania Trump here. She has an absolute right to be disgusted by what Kimmel said. It's pretty clear she was traumatized by the attack and it some ways it was worse than Butler for her specifically. Not only was her husband in danger this time, but she was herself, along with a lot of people she knows and cares about. I don't blame her for being upset. 

As for Kimmel himself, I don't know if this will end up with him being fired. It really depends on how angry people get about this. He almost got fired the last time, mostly because ABC affiliates revolted and advertisers pulled out. Will that happen again? I am not sure. Like I said, this case isn't as serious as the last controversy and I don't know how sustained the anger will be for a failed assassination attempt that nobody died at. 

But I do think that Kimmel could be at risk. Late night TV is a joke now anyways and this is the 2nd incident in 7 months. ABC has to be thinking that the continued controversy with Kimmel isn't really worth it. If there is a groundswell of anger over Kimmel or yet another incident, Kimmel might be gone. 

Argentina renews claim to Falkland Islands over the UK.

 

Argentine President Javier Milei at a ceremony honoring war dead from the Falkland Islands war. Time/Getty.

Argentina has renewed claims of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands as opposed to the United Kingdom. Time. Argentina and the UK fought a major war over the Islands, which the Argentines call he Maldives, but the war ended with a UK victory. America is officially neutral in the dispute but a leaked memo claims that the US may reassess that due to the fact that the UK was unwilling or unable to assist in the Iran War. The UK, under Keir Starmer, reasserted their own sovereignty over the Falklands. 

My Comment:

To be clear, I don't see a second round of the Falkland Islands war. Indeed, Milei opposes the idea and wants to gain control of the Islands through diplomatic means. This isn't really a change and the only possible difference is that the White House might be moving away from neutrality on the issue. 

A war is extremely unlikely in the short to mid term. The Royal Navy, though a shell of it's former self, still has a couple of aircraft carriers and a major submarine fleet. They are very short on escorting frigates and destroyers, and the ones they have are often not deployable, but they still have a lot of combat power. 

If Argentina had invested in their own military, they might have had a chance to win an actual war against the UK, given how weak the Royal Navy is right now. But Argentina is also weaker than they were during the Falklands War. They never really rebuilt their forces and all they have are some old destroyers and a bunch of corvettes. They have some modern F-16 fighters but I just don't see them beating the Royal Navy's carriers, and the considerable forces deployed to the Islands. 

I mention the weakness of the Royal Navy because it's a major reason why the United States and United Kingdom are on the rocks right now. Much has been made about the unwillingness of the UK to help with Iran conflict but the fact of the matter is that they were barely able to deploy the destroyer HMS Dragon to help protect their own assets in the region. They had a carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales, but they did not have the destroyers and frigates and submarines available to actually protect it. There was some discussion of them pairing up with the French so that their ship would have been protected, but instead they did nothing. 

Given those circumstances, the United States is understandably angered at the UK. They not only refused to help, they were unable to do so. So in response the United States might be reevaluating their relationship with the UK. 

But I also think that the United States realizes that there isn't much of a point of being allies with a country that is so dysfunctional that it can afford an aircraft carrier but can't even deploy it without help. And I also think that they don't really believe that the UK has much of a future. Indeed, I have been saying that for years, very few countries in Europe are going to survive in their current state given the awful state of their economy, the absolute incompetence of their leadership and the massive damage and instability that immigration is causing. 

Argentina has none of that. Indeed, they seem like a country that has not only turned things around, but has a bright future. Milei seems like a competent leader and the country has none of the problems with immigration that the rest of the world has. 

Regardless, I don't see the actual control over the Falklands changing any time soon. The people there absolutely want to remain with the UK and unless that changes I don't see how Argentina can claim the territory without it being unjust. And as long as the Royal Navy has some inertia and Argentina doesn't start seriously investing in their military, I can't see anything changing.