2025 Fantasy Football

 

My 2025 roster. 1qb 10 team 1point ppr

Just a quick non-traditional post since I have limited time tonight. Tonight was my 2nd fantasy football draft and you can see my roster above. I'm generally happy with it. Our league is an auction draft so my strategy was mostly draft the best available player. 

Though I didn't go "zero RB" on purpose, it kind of worked out that way. I got outbid on quite a few higher tier RB's so when it came to it, I got kind of desperate and went with my old standby Chuba Hubbard. He is an underrated back, but not the guy you want as your RB anchor. Same with Swift, neither back is exciting. The rest of my RB picks are more speculative. I do think Braelon Allen will be the RB1 on the Jets sooner rather than later, but the rest will probably need an injury to be useful or are on the Steelers. Yuck! 

QB is a question too. Last year I had Lamar Jackson as a solid play every week guy, but this year it looks like I will be streaming. I had wanted to get either a top 5 QB or a top 3 TE and it ended up I got Brock Bowers. I'm happy with the pick, the drop off from the top three TE's is a lot harder than it is for QB's and if Kylar Murry doesn't work out, I will have plenty of options on waivers. 

WR is obviously the strength of my team. Nico Collins is underrated, largely because he got hurt last year. But Drake London is great too, and I do think that Tetairoa McMillan will be a great pick. DJ Moore is a bit more questionable given the strength of talent at the Bears WR room, but he should at least be useful. And Pittman at least has Daniel Jones throwing to him instead of Anthony Richardson. 

Will I do well? Yahoo seems to think so, it says I will go 11-3. I think that's probably nonsense, it said I would do well in 2024 and I ended up limping into the playoffs with a 7-7 record. But I do think that my team should be good as long as the injury bug doesn't hurt me too bad. If it does, I could be in trouble, like I said, my RB backups are dependent on injuries to be useful. Half of fantasy football is riding the waiver wires and I will have to keep a close eye on any RB opportunities. 

Transgender shooter targets Catholic school, killing two children and wounding 17 others.

 

The shooters stash of weapons and magazines. New York Post.

A transgender shooter targeted a Catholic school in Minneapolis Minnesota, killing two children and wounding 17 other people. New York Post. Robin Westman was born Robert Westman but transitioned before he turned 18. He had been a student at the school he targeted, Annunciation Catholic School, and his mother had worked at the school until 2022. Unlike many recent mass shooters, Westman had an extensive manifesto and posted multiple videos that expanded on his ideology. He had written many messages on his firearms on magazines, including threats against President Trump and Elon Musk, and many left wing memes and screeds, including anti-Israel and anti-Christian statements. Westman also seemed to idolize other school shooters, and seems to have been obsessed with Adam Lanza, who killed 20 elementary students at Sandy Hook in 2012. 

My Comment:

When Audrey Hale shot up a school in 2023 I said that I expected more violence from the transgender community as resistance to their ideology increased. Unfortunately I think I was right. This shooter was transgender and it does seem to be a major reason why they committed this crime. It's also another example of violence coming from both the radical left and the anti-Israel communities. It's absolutely not a good sign for the future to say the least. 

This is one of the rare recent cases where we have a very good idea of the ideology and motives of the shooter as for some reason the manifesto and videos he produced were captured by the public before it could be removed by tech sites. This is unlike the Audrey Hale case, where the shooter produced a rather extensive manifesto but it took a series of legal fights and leaks before anyone could confirm her motive. Somehow in this case folks were able to get ahold of it right away. 

Given the materials we have seen it's pretty hard to argue that this was anything other than a radicalized leftist transgender man who attacked the school for political reasons. I know some folks are trying to do just that, but folks aren't going to buy that a male to female transgender who hated Trump, Israel, Jews and Christians is actually a right winger. 

I wrote on X this afternoon that I expect these kinds of attacks specifically from the transgender community for a major reason. Until very recently, the transgender community was the most powerful force in the United States. You could not speak out against them on mainstream websites and if you did it in your personal life you could end up ostracized or even unemployed. This led to the transgender community thinking they were invincible, they were morally correct, and that they would keep their power forever. 

This, of course, didn't happen. There has been a major backlash against the transgender community, mostly because of their behavior. Folks really didn't like it when the general public became aware of efforts to groom children into transgenderism and were very upset about adult men sharing bathrooms with little girls. In a very short period, about a year or two, the transgender community not only lost their power, they have faced withering criticism for their actions, to the point where only die hard activists and members of the community themselves, respect them. 

Given that, it's not surprising there is violence. These folks had all the power in the world and now have lost it. Given how radicalized they are is it any surprise that they are killing people over it? It does not surprise me at all. Of course this isn't helping the perception that transgender folks are violent (which is probably unfair, I don't think being transgender itself is causing the violence, it's the closed echo-chamber so many transgender people live in that's causing this), so it's going to be a feedback loop unless they right the ship and boot the radicals from their community. Will that happen? I doubt it. There are a few examples of non-radical transgender folks, with Caitlyn Jenner being an example, but most of the ones I have seen active on social media aren't that far in terms of rhetoric than Westman. It's a serious problem and I think it's one that will get worse before it gets better. 

Of course the rise and fall of the transgender project isn't the only factor here. Some of it is just fairly standard left wing beliefs. If the reaction to the fall of transgender ideology was a hammer blow to the activist class, the war between Israel and Hamas was an atomic blast. It's also clear that Westman didn't actually care about Gazans, he just hated Israel and wanted to see more dead Jews, as reported in the New York Post article I linked too. Given that, it is surprising that he targeted Catholics but I still think this is a factor. Israel's war has caused a level of derangement on the left I have a hard time understanding, let alone explaining, and this could be another manifestation of that. 

Some of this isn't political though, at least not in the left-right sense. Another major factor in Westman's ideology is the worship of school shooters. He idolized Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Charles Whitman. I haven't reviewed all of the videos he made, but it's clear that he thought that these folks were heroes. 

It's another example of why I think we handle mass shooters the wrong way. We given them huge amounts of attention and build them up into superhuman, bigger than life, villains. This is probably the worst thing you can do as it gives other people something to aspire to. Better to be a villain than a nobody, at least you get remembered that way, right? It's a horrible message to send and it's one that resonates with a lot of disgruntled people at the margins of society. 

Though many folks hate him, I do think that Joshua "Null" Moon of Kiwi Farms infamy was right about these shooters. We shouldn't build these people up, we should tear them down. They aren't heroes or villains but incredibly pathetic people that are killing folks for no reason. Adam Lanza was a creepy weirdo that lived in his mom's basement, a complete failure of a person. Audrey Hale was a deranged "femcel" that was obsessed with a woman who would never date her. And Westman was a freak who was so pathetic he though Lanza and Holmes were cool. These folks shouldn't be idolized or demonized, they should be mocked as the pathetic losers they are. 

Video of Scottish teen girl brandishing weapons goes viral.

 

Screencap of the viral video. Source unknown. 

A video of a Scottish teenaged girl has gone viral as it shows her brandishing a machete and ax. Scottish Daily Express. The girl, age 14, was charged with carrying an illegal weapon in Dundee Scotland. The video, which has gone viral on X and other social media platforms, shows the girl yelling at the man filming her saying they are "battering kids" and "you're kid bashers". Another girl said "don't punch my little sister, she's 12". The man filming said "show the knife" and the girl did. It is unclear what happened in the lead up to the incident and Scottish police have remained mum on the incident, only acknowledging her arrest. Scottish media has not covered the story extensively, due to censorship laws regarding crimes committed by children. The story has gone viral under the perception that the 14 year old was protecting herself and sister from a migrant man. 

BREAKING - Police have arrested and charged a 14-year-old girl after she was forced to brandish a knife to defend herself and her friend against a migrant who attempted to assault her near St Ann’s Lane in Dundee, Scotland. pic.twitter.com/odBjzIZugA

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) August 25, 2025

My Comment:

 This is another reason why censorship about crime is a bad thing. We only have the viral video and some pretty biased reporting to try and figure out what is going on with this incident and with that being true folks are relying on their prejudices and preconceptions to try and understand this story. 

The viral social media explanation is pretty simple. Some Muslim migrant was harassing a group of teenage girls and this girl tried to defend herself and others with weapons. There is at least some evidence to support that, though the girls words make it sound like they were getting physically assaulted, not sexually. And the man does appear to speak Arabic at the end, though, given the accents of everyone involved, it's very hard to tell. 

But is that narrative correct? We don't know and we don't really have a way to know at this point. If the source of the video comes forward, or the girls themselves, then perhaps we can find out, but right now the media isn't really able to tell us anything because the Scottish police aren't saying anything. Only right wing outlets are covering the viral nature of the video at all, like the Scottish Daily Express and The Blaze.

It's very possible that some kind of damning or mitigating evidence will come out about this case. Given the massive social media attention I am guessing that eventually the truth will be known. But by then it might not even matter. Folks have been burned by viral cases like this before, which is why I am hedging so much in covering this incident. It's very possible that the facts of the case end up being what they appear to be. But we have no idea and it could be that the girl really was the one in the wrong, or that there is no real racial angle to this story at all. 

Does it even matter at this point? If you are just reading about this story here, you might be surprised just how viral this story is on social media. It's so popular on X/Twitter that even Elon Musk has talked about it, along with just about every major right wing poster talking about it. The narrative is set now and even new evidence might not change things. 

So why did this go viral? Because it plays into the narrative that currently dominates the UK, that native born English and Scotts are 2nd class citizens in their own countries and that migrants, Muslim migrants in particular, get special treatment. If the online narrative is correct, then this is a case of a young girl getting attacked, defending herself from harassment, violence, and/or sexual assault and then getting arrested for it. And that's a narrative that is going to go viral as it's an obvious injustice. 

Of course, much of this is cultural. American laws on self defense and carrying weapons are radically different than Scotland. I carry a pocket knife every day and have done so as long as I can remember. But in Scotland you absolutely cannot carry a knife or ax like this and though they do have self defense laws, I doubt they would apply in this case. That would have happened regardless of the race of the teens or the man. Americans have latched onto this because we obviously think that is ridiculous. Folks should be able to carry a weapon if they choose to do so and everyone has a right to self defense. 

It does seem that the UK is close to a tipping point. This probably isn't the thing that will tip the UK into open civil war, but it certainly seems like it is heading in that direction. It doesn't seem to matter at all what the UK voters do, whoever they put in charge refuses to do anything about immigration and when you no longer have any influence over what the government does at some point something has to give. Given that the government doesn't seem to care at all about removing migrants, I don't see how the UK survives. 

Interesting new flag out of Scotland pic.twitter.com/82Lub4BsFT

— Angantýr (@BasedNorthmathr) August 25, 2025

Regardless of the truth of this encounter, the fact is that the narrative has already formed. Though it might end up being true, the little girl is a hero to millions now, and the man is a demon. Could that change in the future? Of course. But right now the girl has turned into a symbol of everything that is wrong with Scotland and the UK. Not everyone agrees, many people in Scotland are critical of the girl, even calling her trashy, but it will be interesting to say the least which narrative will win out. 

President Trump shifts course on China, will allow 600,000 student visas.

 

President Trump and President Xi. Fox News/Bloomberg/Getty. 

President Trump has shifted course on China, and will allow up to 600,000 student visas from the country. Fox News. Trump made the remarks today and people have speculated that it could be a signal that US-China relations are thawing after a trade war. Talks led to lower levels of tariffs after a tit for tat trade war ended this may, though Trump is still threatening tariffs on certain goods, such as magnets. There are currently 270,000 students from China enrolled at US universities. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has gone after visas for Chinese nationals that have ties to the Communist party or are in sensitive research fields. 

My Comment:

This is not a popular move by President Trump and one I don't really agree with. Though 600,000 students is a drop in the bucket it does come at a time where most folks are against immigration of any form. And it comes at a time where China and the United States are, if not outright enemies, competitors at least. 

To be fair, there could be some benefits to allowing it. If it is something that allows America to get a favorable trade deal with China then it might be worth it. It does seem like America is heading that way and it's a given that we would have to give something up in order to get what we want. Given that these students aren't a huge deal, it might just be something worth offering up, if a trade deal is upcoming. 

These foreign students would also help the economy a bit. They would at least prop up our college systems that do need foreign students to survive (at least some of them do). These students would at least buy things to survive while they were here and that would cause some economic activity. 

There is also the idea that educating these people could lead to real change in China. The idea is that they would be exposed to American ideals and beliefs and could spread those back home in China. This could lead to liberalization and could even lead to better relations with China. After all, these students would likely be elite and would have a fair amount of influence. 

Of course, all issues are trade offs and even if all of those things are true, it still might not be worth it. There would be a real fear that many of these students would be spies, either in the traditional sense, stealing government secrets, or more corporate versions that would steal research and scientific discoveries. China has a long history of both and it's not a great idea to allow them further access than they already have. 

The other issue is that they might be taking seats that Americans should have first access too. Given how lucrative these students are, it's very likely that they would be pushed to the front of the line and make American students 2nd class citizens in their own country. This is, of course, already happening, but it could absolutely get worse. And it's very possible that these colleges could change their coursework to better reflect Chinese capabilities. Remember what I said about these students influencing China? Well, that's a two way street and these students could convince Americans that their way of doing things is better. 

I also have to wonder why we would want to help China. These students will, presumably, be well trained and would be used to make China stronger. America probably doesn't benefit from a stronger China (though who knows what the future holds). Should an economic or actual war break out between China and the United States perhaps this will be like shooting ourselves in the foot. Maybe some of these students will decide to stay in the United States instead and we might get some benefit from that, but it's no sure thing. 

I also think that it goes against the mood of the country. Folks are sick and tired immigration in any form, even if it's just for a student visa. Though China is hardly the biggest contributor to this at all, it still sends the wrong message, at least among Trump voters. Many of us would rather see a complete pause on all immigration. 

Regardless though, I'm a lot less concerned about 600,000 Chinese students than many of the South American and Indian immigrants. Chinese people tend to be well behaved in general and aren't likely to enter the country illegally and illegally get a drivers license and then kill people making an illegal u-turn. These other groups of immigrants concern me a lot more than anything these Chinese students could ever. If accepting a few hundred thousand Chinese students is the price we have to pay for getting rid of many of these illegal immigrants, than so be it. But it doesn't mean I have to like it. 

2.5 million people sign petition calling for leniency for Harjinder Singh, the illegal alien that caused three deaths in Florida.

 

A photo of the accident. Fox News/police photo. 

2.5 million people have signed a petition calling for leniency for Harjinder Singh, the illegal alien that caused three deaths in Florida after he made an illegal u-turn. Fox News. The Singh case set off a firestorm on social media with people outraged that he was able to drive a commercial truck despite being in the country illegally. Singh fled Florida for California but was extradited back to face six charges of vehicular homicide and manslaughter. Despite that, the petition says the charges are to severe for what he did, calling it a "tragic accident". The petition was signed "Collective Punjabi Youth".

The petition, which is still up as of this writing, can be found here.

My Comment:

I know I have already extensively covered this case, but it is clear that the outrage over it isn't going away. And this petition is going to add considerable fuel to the fire. Indeed, I can't think of a worse thing to make this case even more divisive then a petition signed by 2.5 million people, as of this post. It's like folks from India are trying to inflame prejudice against themselves. 

To be sure, we should note that many of these signatures could be fake. There have been reports that the petition has been "botted" with fake posters boosting the numbers, either due to Indian supporters of Singh making bots, or for folks trying to gin up more outrage. But even still, there are a ton of legitimate signatures on this petition. 

Much of this is cultural. India has very different expectations of what happens when you kill someone due to negligence. From what I understand if this case would have happened in India, Singh would have faced only 2 years in prison. If he is convicted in Florida though, he would face between 7 and 42 years depending on how harsh the judge wants to be. It's a 7 year sentence for each count, and he could be convicted of six counts of manslaughter and vehicular homicide. There is a huge difference in expectation in terms of punishment when comparing these crimes in India and Florida. 

India also has massively different respect of traffic laws. Traffic laws are a joke in India and it's pretty much an "anything goes" country in terms of how people drive. Traffic deaths are extremely common and the main reason they aren't worse than they are now is because there is so much traffic and population that it's difficult to travel at speeds high enough to actually kill people. Crossing three lanes of traffic to make a u-turn would not be a big deal in India, even if it did cause a death. 

The folks signing this petition might also perceive, correctly I might add, that anti-Indian prejudice has increased dramatically in the past few years. The reasons for this are varied and have a lot to do with how members of both the Indian diaspora and Indians in India have behaved in person and online, but it's obviously true that the perception of Indians has changed for the worse. Of course this petition is going to inflame that even further, but it could explain why these folks could possibly defend this petition. 

As for me, I am disgusted by this. The fact that life is cheap in India and that a person can cause three deaths and get away with a slap in the wrist is a problem, not a solution, and we absolutely should not be giving leniency for a man that not only caused three deaths, but did so while operating a truck illegally. Not to mention being in the country illegally. I have zero sympathy for Singh and would not be upset if he got the full 42 year sentence plus any other charges the state wants to give him for fleeing to California. 

I just keep thinking about if this happened to someone I knew or cared about (or it happened to me personally). I would be outraged if a huge number of people were trying to get a lesser sentence for a man who killed someone I cared about. Sure, we have seen this before, with many of the Black Lives Matter homicides of the reaction to Luigi Mangione, but having millions of people say that your loved one's lives don't matter at all, and that the guy that took them away from you should get away with a slap on the wrist? That's radicalizing... I know it's wrong to judge people for the actions of a few people, but it's still horrible that folks can downplay what Singh did. 

The good news is that this petition is going to accomplish next to nothing, other than angering Americans. Singh hasn't even been convicted yet, let alone sentenced, and Governor Ron DeSantis would be committing political suicide if he were to order a lesser sentence. Change.org petitions are always next to useless and the only thing they really do is get publicity. In this case the publicity they are getting is so negative, I am amazed that the petition is still up. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has paused worker visas for truck drivers after fatal accident in Florida.

 

Harjinder Singh, who has been accused of homicide, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Fox News/Getty.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has paused worker visas for truck drivers after a fatal accident in Florida caused by an illegal alien caused three deaths. Fox News. Rubio cited public safety and competition with American citizens for jobs. Though Rubio didn't cite the case directly, the move was probably inspired by the case of Harjinder Singh, who was an illegal alien who got a California drivers license despite being in the country illegally and failing an English language and sign recognition test. Singh made an illegal u-turn on a Florida highway which caused the deaths of three people. 

Effective immediately we are pausing all issuance of worker visas for commercial truck drivers.

The increasing number of foreign drivers operating large tractor-trailer trucks on U.S. roads is endangering American lives and undercutting the livelihoods of American truckers.

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) August 21, 2025

My Comment:

I covered the Harjinder Singh case earlier this week, so I won't recap the case all that much, other than the revelations of Singh failing his trucking tests is new. The man had no business driving a truck in the United States and the three deaths he caused were entirely preventable. 

I do welcome this move from Rubio. It's insane that a career as important as trucking is being taken by non-citizens. Though I think illegal aliens getting the job is more important, it makes little sense for those jobs to be going to foreigners. 

We don't really have a shortage of truckers in this country. A lot of folks would be willing to work as a trucker if the conditions were better and the wages are higher. Those folks are currently doing other things because they are getting undercut from drivers from other countries. Stopping folks getting new work visas for the job will force trucking companies to improve conditions and hire folks from this country. 

It's hardly a problem just for trucking. Every job in America is affected by work visas. Indeed, the other big story today is that the Trump administration is going to be reviewing all 55 million visas in the country. Many of those visas are for folks here for tourism, but many of them are here for work. This has depressed the wages for everyone and is a major reason why so many young folks aren't getting jobs despite having college degrees. And it will remain a problem even if illegal immigration is fixed. 

I will say that it is nice how reactive the Trump administration was. The Singh story went viral this weekend and by Thursday we have a major policy change to deal with the problem. Folks have been saying "you can just do things" and they are right. This is how government should work, when a problem crops up, they just take action and hopefully that deals with it. 

Of course this isn't a panacea. There are still a lot of drivers, legal or not, that are on the roads that really shouldn't be. Simply banning new ones from coming to the country won't fix the ones that are here. At least these visas are going to be reviewed now so hopefully many of these bad drivers will be removed. 

To be fair, there are a lot of immigrant drivers that are decent enough at their jobs. I don't want all of them to lose their jobs as some of them are just as competent as American drivers (and there are more than a few American truck drivers that are terrible). But there is no reason we have to tolerate the kind of driver that makes a u-turn on a busy highway.  

Finally, I do have to mention that I have been very impressed by Rubio as Secretary of State. I was skeptical of him and never really forgave him for running against Trump in 2016. But he's been great at Secretary of State and I am truly impressed, to the point where I wouldn't have any reservations voting for him for President in 2028 or 2032. 

Israel begins assault on Gaza City.

 

A Merkeva Mk 4 main battle tank. Zachi Evenor.

Israel has begun the first stage of their assault on Gaza City. NBC News. 60,000 reservists have been called up and 20,000 have had their service extended to man the assault. The IDF has warned civilians to evacuate Gaza City for safter locations in the south of the Gaza Strip. The move has led to criticism from multiple angles, though the United States has not been critical of the move. Hamas said the attack would lead to civilian casualties. The attack comes after Hamas agreed to a cease fire proposal that would see some of the hostages released in exchange for a 60 day cease fire. 

My Comment:

This attack was announced two weeks ago but it took Israel some time to gather and prepare forces to actually launch the attack. It seems like they are finally ready and fighting has begun in Gaza City. It obviously takes some time to launch a heavy attack on a major city. The Israelis must think they are ready because they have finally launched. 

I said when I wrote about this attack when it was announced, that the attack may be justified militarily, but it would be horrible optics and I stand by that. If Hamas is to be defeated they do need to take Gaza City. They really don't have a choice if that is their goal, and by all accounts it is. 

But the optics? Terrible. Already there is a refugee crisis in Gaza and this is going to make it much worse. Gaza City has over 500,000 people, though I don't know how many of those are still in the city. They will have to go other parts of the country and it's going to be tough to feed that many people. 

Even worse, Hamas has accepted a ceasefire proposal. It shows that Israel isn't interested in another ceasefire after the last one fell apart. That shows they are determined to win the war militarily, which will not be popular among Israel's critics. I think it's a bad move personally, why not take the cease fire and get some of the hostages back? You can always re-start the war later and it at least looks like you are trying to give peace a chance. 

Instead, Israel has chosen war yet again. Like I said, militarily it makes sense. You don't want Hamas to come back after this war given how back the October 7th attacks were. There is a logical reason to not choose peace if you are Israel. I don't really disagree with the decision to attack. 

But man, this is not going to be popular. Folks are already apoplectic about Israel and if this attack on Gaza goes poorly in terms of civilian casualties it is not going to be a good look. I don't really believe reports that Israel is targeting civilians but civilians will die in urban combat, that's just a fact of life.

Will the attack be successful? I am guessing it will be. Hamas had very little in terms of fighting power left. Israel has a large force of professional soldiers, armor, air support and a huge technology advantage. That being said, it doesn't take much manpower to defend a ruble-strewn city. I still expect Israel to win this fight though, albeit with some casualties. 

Legal immigrants will now be screened for anti-Americanism.

 

A woman with an US flag at a naturalization event. AP. 

Legal immigrants will now be screened for anti-Americanism. AP. US immigration officers will now be able to screen applicants for green cards and other immigration benefits for anti-American or antisemitic views. It is unclear how those terms will be defined. Officers will still ultimately have discretion in who they accept into the country. It comes after other executive orders that factor in positive attributes and social media behavior. Experts predictably disagree about the legality of the move.  

My Comment:

This is a positive development. It has never made a lick of sense to let people that hate America become American citizens or even enter the country. Vetting them for this seems like another of those things where you go "wait, we weren't doing this already?"

Letting these folks in has had predictable results. Many of the leaders of the various riots and demonstrations, especially the anti-Israel ones, are led by folks that could have been screened out before they ever came into the country. We have enough people in this country that already hate it that were born and raised here, we don't need to import any new ones. 

Of course it's very possible for folks to lie to an immigration officer. The social media check will root some of those folks out, but some of them will be smart enough to either not post on social media or wipe their accounts long before they enter the country. So this isn't a panacea. It's still a positive step, but it's not going to solve the issue. 

The big question is to what exactly anti-Americanism means? Antisemitism is pretty easy to define, though some would argue simply being anti-Israel is not proof of antisemitism. But being anti-America is harder to define. Does it mean being critical of one of the two political parties or the President? Because in that case I could be rejected for being disgusted by the Democrats and greatly disliking the presidency of Joe Biden.   

That decision will come down to the individual officer and that is where some folks could slip through the cracks either way. We might have a few good people that don't make the cut because they were falsely accused of being anti-America and a few bad ones could slip through the cracks. 

Either way, this is a better system than the previous one where we just let in everyone and anyone. There was some screening but not for this kind of activity and beliefs. If we are going to let folks come into the country at all (and not doing so is a discussion we should be having) we should absolutely make sure they aren't folks that hate us. 

Trump's attempts to end the Russia-Ukraine war continue with high stakes meeting with Zelensky.

 

Trump and a suited Zelensky share a smile in the White House. ABC News/Reuters.

President Trump's efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war continued with a high stakes meeting with Zelensky in the White House. ABC News. Both Trump and Zelensky reported progress in the talks and they avoided the blow-up the last time Zelensky was in the White House. Zelensky also wore a suit, which was a sticking point during the last meeting. Trump also said that a trilateral meeting between Trump, Zelensky and Vladimir Putin of Russia was being planned. Trump also said that security guarantees for Ukraine, that fall well short of NATO membership, were on the table for Ukraine if they end the war. Trump also moved away from efforts to get a ceasefire in place, claiming that both Ukraine and Russia are opposed to it. 

My Comment:

I'm not sure how likely a peace deal is. There are a lot of potential stumbling blocks that could derail the whole thing and I think both Zelensky and Putin have major reasons to not choose peace. The good news is that the peace process has not yet derailed and there is at least a chance for a diplomatic solution. That seemed very unlikely earlier in the month. 

The stumbling blocks are Zelensky's demands and the battlefield situation. Zelensky risks losing power if he makes a deal. There are a lot hardline Banderites (ie Nazis) that won't accept a peace deal and if Zelensky does make a deal it's very likely he would face assassination or a coup by those elements of his government. Zelensky kept them around because they fight (Azov is one of the most powerful and well equipped military units left in Ukraine) and because he is afraid of them, but if he had been smart he would have purged those elements when he came into power. 

The battlefield situation makes me wonder if Putin might give up on a deal too. Though the breakthrough north of Porkrovsk has been blunted it came at an extreme cost and led to other breakthroughs as Ukraine desperately tries to plug holes in their line. Doing so just opens up other opportunities for Russia and it's still extremely possible that Russia will manage a general breakthrough, which would pretty much end the need for a peace deal. However, that process could take months or years to accomplish. 

But it does seem like Putin's offer to Ukraine is fairly generous. If western media reports are correct than Putin just wants what is left of Luhansk and Donetsk while keeping Crimea and the territory they have conquered in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. In exchange Ukraine would get security guarantees and the return of territory captured in Northern Ukraine in the Kharkov and Sumy regions. This offer seems so generous that it makes me suspect that Russia might not even be serious about it, but if it is legit, Ukraine should pounce on it. They won't get a better deal at this point of the war... 

The sticking point there might be Ukraine ceding the unconquered territory in Donetsk and Luhansk. Giving up territory that hasn't actually been taken is going to be hard to agree with. Ending the war would be worth it, but supposedly Ukraine's constitution prevents that. Of course, Russia's constitution says that they can't give up the unconquered territory in all four regions, but they are making a compromise and Ukraine would be smart to go with it. 

The one thing that scares me is the security guarantees for Ukraine. I don't want American soldiers fighting in Ukraine if the war starts up in a decade or two. From what it sounds the guarantees would be less than what we would see if Ukraine were to join NATO, but any scenario where we have to join a war between Ukraine and Russia is not a good one. Of course it sounds like Europe would be footing much of the bill but I don't know if I want any kind of security guarantee for Ukraine. 

I do think that the suggested scenario where Trump and Putin were ready for Zelensky to torpedo these talks appears to be wrong. Zelensky seems to be more reasonable this time around and the fact that he wore a suit shows that he was at least serious about the talks. It does seem like there is a serious effort for peace. 

So how likely is a deal? I have no idea. The pundits are divided but that tells more about them then it does for the possibilities of peace, pro-Trump people think this is a breakthrough and anti-Trump people don't. I think it's more likely than not that peace probably won't happen through diplomacy. I just think Putin is too close to a breakthrough to give up now. But Trump has proven me wrong before and I absolutely hope he does so again. 

Truck driver in the country illegally causes three deaths in preventable traffic accident. Why did he have a CDL in the first place?

 

A view of the accident. New York Post/police photo. 

An illegal immigrant truck driver has caused three preventable deaths in Florida after making an illegal turn. New York Post. The driver used an official use only to turn on a highway. A minivan was unable to stop in time and crashed into the trailer at high speed, with the driver critically injured and the two passengers killed instantly. The driver eventually died from their wounds. The driver of the truck, Harjinder Singh, is an illegal immigrant that crossed the border in 2018. He was somehow able to get a CDL in California despite his immigration status. Singh had little reaction to the crash, footage from his truck shows. The state of Florida has charged Singh with three counts of Vehicular Homicide. 

The alleged semi-truck driver who killed three people while making a U-turn at an “Official Use Only” turn on the Florida Turnpike is an ILLEGAL MIGRANT who was granted a commercial driver’s license by the State of California.
pic.twitter.com/Ky7w9hsojX

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) August 17, 2025

 My Comment:

This incident, which would otherwise be a minor local story, went viral for what should be obvious reasons. It touches on some of the biggest live wires in the United States today, illegal immigration and migration from India in general. I have a personal connection to the case as I work in a related industry and I have often wondered if everyone driving a truck was here legally. 

To be clear, Mr. Singh should absolutely not have been able to get a CDL. You have to be a legal resident of the United States to drive a truck legally, so how did he get a CDL? Well, it must have involved some kind of fraud. 

Unfortunately, fraud in California's driver schools is pretty rampant. There have been several major cases of fraud in their schools and it's very likely that this incident is another case of it. These companies target Indians specifically, partially because of nepotism (they are often run by legal Indian immigrants) and because Indian truck driver accept conditions that many American born drivers would not. I am guessing there will be a crack down on these driving schools, perhaps even involving ICE raids. California is a big factor in this as the state refuses to crack down on anything related to immigration so I am guessing that the federal government will have to get involved if something is going to change. 

In a way they already have. Trump issued an executive order that replaced an Obama era order that loosened up the rules on drivers speaking and understanding English. Under Trump's order many of the truck drivers that can barely speak English or not at all, have been taken of the road. Though not all illegal immigrants have trouble with English, and some Americans are not native English speakers, I am guessing the majority of folks grounded by the order are illegal immigrants. I know that I have personally had to not use my phone as a translation device nearly as much after Trump put that order into place. Singh, being presumably Indian (because he's obviously Sikh and that's where they come from), might not have been caught this way as he may have had English language proficiency. 

I do wonder if there were cultural considerations at play. I have met many Indian truck drivers and while many of them are fine, many other ones are pretty bad at their jobs. To be fair, there are a lot of bad truck drivers of every race and ethnicity. But I do wonder if they are simply doing what they do in India, which is pretty infamous for weak traffic laws and an "anything goes" attitude towards driving. Some of that is simply due to how many people there are, but much of it is simply cultural. Which means that if these truck drivers assimilate they will eventually do better at driving. And a competent driving school should be able to break any bad habits they got from their home country and fail them if they can't adapt, but that isn't what happened here. 

Regardless, they shouldn't get that chance if they are here illegally. There is zero reason why Mr. Singh was able to driver a truck. He was taking a job away from an American citizen, or, at the very least, someone in the country illegally. Someone who is willing to do that might not care about breaking traffic laws either as he already broke the law about crossing the border or getting a license legally. Without knowing more about him, I don't know if he was simply incompetent or if he just didn't care. Given his lack of reaction to causing three deaths, I would say it was the 2nd. 

Some of this is due to a competence crisis in the trucking industry in general. Though often touted as an easy way to make a living, trucking doesn't seem to be that good to me. The money can be good, but the conditions are pretty terrible. At its best you are away from home, sometimes weeks at a time. But truckers also have to deal with awful traffic, nanny state monitoring of their driving (getting filmed is standard), a total lack of parking and places to sleep, and general poor condition. Plus there is the perception that it's a doomed job as folks think that self-driving trucks will replace all truck drivers (which I find unlikely, airplanes are mostly automated now but still need pilots). 

It's these factors that are driving a lot of competent people from the industry and it leads to drivers of the quality of Mr. Singh here. When you drive the smart people out you are left with the guys that think making a U-turn on a highway or reversing down a busy street are smart things to do. I think if you improve the conditions of truck driving you might see competent folks flocking to it again, but what we are doing now is not sustainable. 

As for the accident itself, Singh was obviously at fault. This incident shows exactly why you can't use those "official use only" turn arounds. A huge semi-truck will block all the lanes, leaving nowhere for the cars on the highway to go. Even if the driver of the mini-van was paying close attention they would have had difficulty not crashing into the trailer, and doing so at highway speed is a death sentence. The scary part of this is that it could have been any one of us, I don't see how anyone could have avoided hitting that trailer. 

Louisiana sues children video game Roblox for failing to protect children from groomers.

 

Roblox logo. 

The State of Louisiana is suing the creators of the video game Roblox for failing to protect children from groomers. ABC News. The lawsuit says that Roblox failed to protect children an has allowed the site to become a haven for criminals targeting children for abuse. The state claims that the game prioritizes growth, revenue and profit over child safety. Roblox has been linked to several crimes, including a case where a 13 year old girl was raped and kidnapped after meeting a criminal on the site. Roblox is extremely popular, with 111 million users and has some protections, but predators have been able to bypass them. 

YouTube personality and vigilante, Schlep. The Independent/YouTube screenshot. 

The lawsuit comes as Roblox is mired in another controversy involving an internet vigilante named Schlep. The Independent. Schlep had received a cease and desist letter after his videos exposed several predators. Schlep was banned from Roblox for being a vigilante, causing a major backlash against Roblox. Schlep claims his actions were personal as he himself was a victim of grooming on the platform. 

🚨 BREAKING: Today I’m suing Roblox - the #1 gaming site for children and teens – and a breeding ground for sex predators.

Due to Roblox’s lack of safety protocols, it endangers the safety of the children of Louisiana. Roblox is overrun with harmful content and child predators… pic.twitter.com/p98Sq8vvMb

— Attorney General Liz Murrill (@AGLizMurrill) August 14, 2025

My Comment:

I am surprised it took this long for this issue to explode. I only know two things about Roblox, and that is that it's an extremely popular gaming platform that is popular among young children, and the game is absolutely riddled with pedophiles. Schlep's experiences on the website are not uncommon and there are a lot of examples of children getting hurt because of poor moderation. 

Of course, Roblux is hardly the only website that is targeted in this way. Places like Discord or even Facebook have the same problems. But the problem with Roblux is how they are both ignoring the problem and then attacking the people that are exposing it. 

Banning Schlep was not a good idea. He may have broken the terms of service but the optics of a guy that was exposing the predators on the platform is extremely bad. I generally think that vigilantes like this can do harm as well, there was that case where a man tried to pick up an 18 year old adult woman and was attacked like he was a pedophile, but these folks were actual pedophiles. Very few people are going to be at all sympathetic with the folks that banned Schlep. 

Will Louisiana win the lawsuit? I think it's possible. From what I understand much of Roblox is unmoderated and there are even reports of folks using the in game currency as a currency for trading illegal content. And it does seem that the leadership of Roblox is pretty actively allowing pedophiles to operate pretty openly. I don't really know what defense they would have for their behavior. 

Though I do think that Roblox is not a safe game for children right now, this does bump up some other recent free speech controversies and I am afraid that this will be used as an example. A lot of websites are rolling out ID verification systems, ostensibly to protect children. However, the laws that mandate this, like the law in UK, were obviously designed to have a chilling effect on free speech. I feel that this case could absolutely be used in the United States to get laws passed that would essentially end the open internet for anyone who isn't smart enough to install a VPN. 

It also bumps up against the other major free speech controversy, payment processors pressuring video game outlets like Steam and Itch.io to remove games they disagreed with. Visa and Mastercard had a real problem with folks playing video games, but did not have a problem with Roblox despite it being a massive hive of actual pedophiles trying to groom children. It just shows that it was never about protecting people, it was just an effort to censor speech they didn't like. 

Ultimately, I think the real problem is parents. Like I said, the problems with Roblox were well known on the internet, to the point where I knew about it and I don't have kids or play the game. Roblox does have parental controls but I don't know how many parents actually use them. Many parents just don't pay attention to what their kids are doing online and this whole situation is a real reason why that's a problem.  

Tariffs are bringing in enough revenue to have an impact on the national debt.

 

President Trump. Fortune.

A new report from the Committee for a Responsible Budget (CFRB) says that the revenues from tariffs is impactful enough that it could reduce national debt. Fortune. The revenue gained is roughly the equivalent of a 1/5th military budget cut or a new payroll tax. Roughly $25 billion was collected in July, a huge increase from last year. The tariffs, if sustained at the current rate, could bring in $1.3 trillion in new money that could be used to pay down debt. Tariffs are now 2.7% of federal income and that number could rise up to 5%. If tariffs are kept permanent they could reduce the debt by $2.8 trillion over 10 years. However, tariffs revenue does not make up for high spending and debt commitments and may have other downsides. 

The CRFB report is here. 

My Comment:

I'm generally pretty bullish on tariffs. They obviously bring in a lot of revenue and the damage they cause is generally overstated. Tariff costs aren't always paid by the consumer, many companies are eating the cost so their products still get bought. And even when they are paid by the consumer, the higher prices generally lead to folks buying American products when possible, which is good for the economy. Believe it or not, tariffs tend to either be inflation neutral or even deflationary in nature (which can be a problem if taken too far). Tariffs also strengthen the dollar, making our money worth more. 

I do have to say that I think that it's optimistic that the CFRB thinks this money will go to paying down the debt. Both Trump and Congress are floating the idea that folks should get a refund check from this money and I have mixed feelings on that. I know the theory is that folks will spend that money, thus helping the economy, but the money really should just go to paying the debt down first. 

Washington really does have a spending problem and I am sure the folks in Congress are salivating at the thought of spending all this new income. If it's not rebate checks, it will be something else that they want to spend their money on. With a GOP congress there would at least be some resistance to new spending but if the Democrats take the House in 2026 (which I don't think they will) they will almost certainly spend the money on nonsense instead of the debt. 

There is also quite a bit of uncertainty with the tariffs. Trump is sometimes mercurial when it comes to his policies (his critics call him TACO, Trump always chickens out) and though it is exaggerated there is some truth to it. Trump has used tariffs as both a threat and a reward to countries when they do things he doesn't like. Both scenarios could significantly raise or lower the revenue gained by tariffs. 

And though the economy is strong now, it might not remain so due to instability and the ever present threat of AI. A lot of folks are losing jobs to AI right now and it's possible that reducing tariffs will be used as a way to prop up the economy if it really starts to take a hit. After all, tariffs were a big thing in Trump's first term, before the pandemic put a kibosh on it. 

Regardless, I do think that paying down the debt is an important thing. Tariffs are part of the solution, but it really does hurt that we are spending so much money. Much of that money is wasted on stupid things (like the Ukraine war) and if something isn't done we will end with a major debt crisis. Tariffs aren't a panacea but it's at least evidence that, one party at least, cares about reversing the debt and paying it down. 

Ukraine's Zelensky says he would not give up Donbas in exchange for peace.

 

Map showing the estimated front lines. BBC/ISW.

President Zelensky of Ukraine has said that he would not give up the contested Donbas region in exchange for peace. BBC. Zelensky made the statements ahead of a high stakes meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska this Friday. It is believed that Russia would demand complete control over Donbas, which Russia currently controls much of the two Oblasts that make up the region. Russia controls almost all (or all of) Luhansk and controls 70% of Donetsk. Zelensky said that he could not give up any territory in the region due to many defenses being stationed there and it would invite a 2nd war. The meeting between Trump and Putin comes as Russia is making slow but steady advances across much of the front. 

My Comment:

As expected, Ukraine is going to be the stumbling block between any peace deal between Russia and the United States. Zelensky's complaints here are not realistic and if there is any chance of the war ending, it's going to involve Ukraine losing quite a bit of pre-war territory. 

Does he have a point about Ukraine's defenses being in Donetsk? Of course. That has been the main focus of the war since it first broke out in 2014. Ukraine has spent a decade building up the defenses there and Russia has been attempting to degrade them since they joined the war officially. After Donetsk, the only barriers to a Russian advance would be natural ones. 

Does that mean that Zelensky is right to demand this? I've got mixed feelings. I do think that ending the war should absolutely a priority for everyone involved, and giving up some minor territory is fine if it means ending it. But it's kind of silly for Russia to demand that they receive territory they haven't actually conquered yet. They could trade some of the territory they took in northern and eastern Ukraine in exchange, but to expect them to get the whole territory without having conquered it is kind of dumb. 

Regardless, Zelensky's other excuses for not giving up territory are just as dumb. Using the constitution as an excuse is ridiculous as it could absolutely be changed easily. And Russia's constitution says the same thing, they claim both Donbas, but the other southeastern Oblasts as well as Crimea. It's not an excuse. 

Like I said in the last post, I think that both Trump and Putin know that Zelensky is going to be stubborn here. I still think that Trump and Putin will make some kind of deal, Zelensky will say no, and Trump will use that as an excuse to cut support for Ukraine. I fully admit that might just be wishcasting on my part, but I am thinking it will be true. 

Of course, Ukraine will lose the war regardless. They are taking extreme casualties to the point where they can't really hold the line anymore. I have seen reports of Russian special forces operating well behind the front lines, causing all kinds of chaos. That is due to a lack of soldiers and weapons, as Russia had not been able to do this earlier in the war. 

Ukraine is also losing territory at a pretty good clip. Russia hasn't had a major breakthrough but they are having widespread advances across the line. The northern front, near Sumy, has stabilized, but that's because Ukraine rushed units there, leaving them short handed at other fronts, which has opened things up for Russia even more. 

I see that being the course of the war if a deal isn't made. Russia making steady advances, Ukraine rushing troops to the current worst area but weakening the rest of the front and Russia taking advantage of that. Ukraine will continue to lose large amounts of troops and territory until, finally, something breaks. That's probably how the war will end... 

Trump nationalizes Washington DC law enforcement to deal with crime.

 

FBI and ICE agents arresting a man. USA Today/Getty.

President Trump announced that he was taking over law enforcement in Washington DC. USA Today. Trump described the city as being overrun by criminals, drug users and the homeless and that it would no longer be tolerated. Trump used the 1973 Home Rule act that allows the President to take over law enforcement for 48 hours, which can be extended to 30 days, or longer with congressional action. Trump will also deploy the National Guard to assist with law enforcement. Trump has cited several high profile attacks, including the most recent attack against DOGE staffer Edward Coristine, the murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers in May and the stabbing of a Rand Paul staffer in 2023. Democratic critics say that the crackdown is unnecessary as crime has dropped a bit since its peak. Trump has also threatened to do similar things in other Democrat controlled cities. 

My Comment:

I do think this is long overdue. Crime has been out of control in Washington DC for as long as I remember and it's a national embarrassment that our capitol is such a mess. Given that, I am not surprised that Trump is doing this. I think the attack on Edward Coristine was the last straw and it was one that personally angered Trump and many of his friends in the White House. Coristine is a popular figure in the White House and is a media figure as well. 

The main argument against the crackdown is that crime is supposedly down. As someone who knows quite a bit about crime statistics reporting, I am obligated to remind you that outside of homicide data, most crime statistics are nonsense. Any police department that is using analytics is vulnerable to people downgrading crimes and failing to report them so their numbers look better. Not to mention that a lot of crimes never get reported given the perception that police are either useless or racist. Both perceptions have gained prominence in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd riots and the abandoning of traditional policing as a response. 

Of course, homicide data is pretty much impossible to fudge and it does show that the murder rate is going down. Does that mean much? I am guessing it's just a regression to the mean. The murder rate was out of control since the summer of Floyd and peaked in 2023, with 274 murders that year. This year they have had 99, which is an improvement, largely because the crime wave burned itself out a bit. Such out of control crime isn't sustainable given that the majority of folks being killed are criminals themselves. I think it has more to do with that than anything the Washington DC police are doing. 

Regardless, the perception isn't just that crime is out of control, it's the perception that the government won't do anything about it. This crackdown is an effort to look like something is being done, which is an improvement over letting criminals out on no bail. There is also a major loss of face in having a member of the Administration beaten up for no reason and that's not something that will be allowed to stand. I think that even if the crime rate is going down (and that's no sure thing) this is justified because it at least shows that crime will be dealt with, which should have a deterrence effect. 

There really isn't any question as to if this is legal or not, but the real question is how effective it will be. I do think that we should see a drop in crime as federal resources are going to be poured into the city. The main problem is that it's a temporary solution. Trump has 30 days without congressional approval and if that doesn't come then the feds are going to go back home. A lot of criminals will probably be swept up in the crackdown, but most will keep their heads low and will be able to weather the storm. 

What is needed is a permanent solution. We know that the race-based policing that the Democrats have implemented do not work. I mentioned in the DOGE attack post that instead of keeping the race-based policing we should go back to either or both broken windows policing and community oriented policing. Broken windows means going after smaller crimes to solve and prevent bigger ones while community relations means just that, working with the community to solve crimes. I don't think the crackdown is sustainable unless it is somehow made indefinite (which I doubt) or Democrats finally say goodbye to race based policing. 

President Trump and President Putin will meet in Alaska in an effort to end the Ukraine War.

 

Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. BBC/Getty.

President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia will meet in Alaska in an attempt to end the Ukraine War. BBC. The talks come after three failed meetings between Russia and Ukraine, which have not had much in the way of progress. Trump has made ending wars a priority of his 2nd term, but peace between Ukraine and Russia has eluded him. Trump was expected to launch sanctions on Russia on August 8th due to "frustration" Trump had with Putin, but a breakthrough happened that led to the meeting. It is unclear if Zelensky, President of Ukraine, would be invited to the meeting, though it seems unlikely. Trump has proposed a deal where Putin would keep Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk in exchange for other territory Russia has conquered, most notably, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, along with other minor territorial conquests. 

My Comment:

Very interesting. It seems like there has some kind of breakthrough in Russia-United States relations. Keep in mind Trump was about to enforce sanctions on Russia, and even did so against India for dealing with Russia. But apparently there was some kind of deal made during US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff's visit to Moscow last week. 

What am I expecting from this meeting? I am guessing that the deal proposed by Trump would be accepted or rejected, with acceptance more likely than rejection. Meetings at this level don't usually happen unless some kind of deal is already expected, and I am guessing that something important has happened. 

The deal is one that is dramatically better than Ukraine has any right to. They have already lost the war and any deal where they keep any territory at all and where Zelensky avoids war crime trials and execution is a good deal for them. Losing only the two provinces that were giving them all the problems in the first place would be a huge deal for them. 

It's not that great of a deal for Putin. Giving back Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be a major problem for Russia as they would lose their land corridor to Crimea, which is not something they would like to give up. It's possible they would keep some of the land they took in that region to keep the land bridge. I am guessing that any deal that would be made would have some kind of exception for a land bridge. 

Either way though, I fully expect Ukraine to veto this, or any other, peace deal. Ukraine has never dropped the idea that they are going to get back all the territory Russia has taken. Not just the land Russia has conquered in this war, but Crimea as well. That idea is insane, I don't know if all of NATO could get back Crimea at this point, but the idea that Ukraine would do so is a joke. 

And it's no like Zelensky can even make this agreement. Sure, there is something in their constitution that says they can't get rid of territory, but that's not the problem. The problem is that he has a lot of Banderite Nazis in his government and if he ends the war or gives up territorial claims, they will overthrow him and kill him. And that's assuming Europe doesn't get him first. 

Though Zelensky's days might be numbered regardless. There are already rumors that he will be replaced by someone more competent and more able to make a deal. Supposedly, Valerii Zaluzhnyi is being groomed for the role. And if Zelensky decides he doesn't want a deal? Then maybe Zaluzhnyi replaces him. 

Regardless, I think the whole thing is a way for Trump to finally wash his hands of Ukraine. I am guessing some kind of agreement will be made with Russia, Ukraine will reject it. Zelensky will look unreasonable (especially if the deal mentioned is legit) and that will free Trump to drop him, end aid and then normalize relations with Russia. Perhaps that is wishcasting on my part, but I just don't see Ukraine not fighting to the bitter end and the 2nd best thing to ending the war would be ending our involvement with it and normalizing relations with Russia. 

Israel appears to be preparing for an all out assault to conquer the rest of Gaza.

 

Israeli armor near the border. NBC News/AFP/Getty. 

Israel appears to be preparing for an all out assault to conquer the rest of Gaza. NBC News. Commercial satellite photos show troops massing near the border, which indicates a large ground attack. Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he intends to take all of Gaza, though he said he would hand it over to Arab partners after Hamas has been removed. The move comes as tensions between Israel and the United States are high over Israel's conduct of the war. President Trump and Netanyahu got into a shouting match over an argument over if people are starving in Gaza or not. Trump is reportedly upset by reports of starving as the United States has administered the Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF) and would face some of the responsibility. The rumors of an attack have also angered many other countries and has led to domestic criticism due to fears the remaining hostages could be executed or die in battle. 

My Comment:

As I was writing this the news broke that Israel's security cabinet has approved this military operation, which seems to confirm an attack is coming. That kinda refutes any argument that this is not going to happen, and soon. Perhaps as soon as tomorrow. 

I've got mixed feelings about all of this. I think this is the right move militarily but an absolutely boneheaded one in terms of optics. It appears that Israel wants the war in Gaza to end and to do so they will finally pull out all the stops. They intend to take over the entire Gaza strip and then give it to peacekeepers, presumably. 

I think there is an argument for doing this, of course. The Israel-Palestinian conflict has gone on for decades and finally destroying Hamas would finally end the conflict. I think Israel can pull off such an attack and it seems pretty clear that Hamas does not have much left in terms of weapons or fighters. I would not expect it to happen without heavy casualties on the Israeli side. 

I don't think such an attack would fail. Israel has heavy weapons, air support and skilled infantry. Hamas has none of those things left and the only real advantage they have is their network of tunnels and fortifications, which may have been damaged or destroyed in Israeli air strikes and raids. It would be a tough fight, just because all of the civilians would be in the way. And I doubt there would be much distinction between fighters and civilians. 

Assuming it works, I don't know what would happen next. Israel says they don't want to keep the territory and would want Arab peacekeepers, which is a possibility I guess. I don't know if there is an Arab nation that would sign up for that, it seems like a dangerous and thankless task and I doubt simply destroying Hamas would end the conflict. Israel would be a winner though, they would be outsourcing the war. 

Of course, politically this seems like a terrible idea. This is going to drive the anti-Israel camp insane, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if there is violence. They are already pretty unhinged and this will possibly push them over the edge. And it's not like this will be a lightning operation, this will take weeks, if not months (maybe even years) and all that time these folks are going to go nuts. That does not bode well for the future to say the least. 

Critically, they risk losing Donald Trump and the United States. I have written many times now that the Trump-Netanyahu relationship is pretty fractured. Though some of Trump's critics accuse him of putting Israel first (they call him Zion Don) it's clear to me at least that Trump is pretty frustrated with Netanyahu and his warmongering ways. I don't think this attack will help things. 

Who was right about Gazans starving? I am not sure. The one thing Hamas is good at is propaganda so I am at least skeptical of the reports. And it's not like I trust our intel services to tell the truth. On the other hand, Hamas supposedly steals a lot of the aid and prevents it from going to where it belongs. I don't think Israel is directly starving people, and it's kind of ridiculous to demand that they feed their enemies. Starvation has been a weapon in warfare for a long time and it does encourage folks to surrender. Yes, it's cruel, but is it less cruel than extending a war forever like the Gaza conflict has done? 

It's an academic argument though, what is more important is if it is happening or not. I am guessing there are serious food problems but not to the point of starvation. Hamas has much of the blame as they are the ones stealing the food. 

Regardless, Israel will get blamed regardless, and I do think there is room for criticism here. Finally destroying Hamas is a good goal, but I am kind of sick of this issue sucking up all of the attention. To be fair, it might be helpful in the midterms next year if Israel is still a major issue, but I am more concerned about anti-Israel people losing their minds and causing violence. Plus, at this point I just want the war to end, and I don't think a major offensive will be a better solution than a peace deal. 

Ghislaine Maxwell says President Trump never did anything improper in her presence.

 

Ghislaine Maxwell mugshot. Government photo. 

Ghislaine Maxwell says President Trump never did anything improper in her presence. ABC News. Maxwell, who was Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend and was convicted of sex trafficking, made the comments to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. A recording was made of the interview and the Trump administration is considering releasing it. Maxwell has been moved to a less secure prison and is appealing her conviction to the Supreme Court. Trump said he didn't have personal knowledge of the move and what happened during the meeting, but he said he wants documents to be released, as long as they don't harm innocent people. 

My Comment:

This is even more evidence that Trump's involvement with the Epstein scandal is benign. To review, Trump banned Epstein from Mar-A-Lago back in 2007, long before any of Jeffrey Epstein's criminality was known. They had a falling out even before that and Trump hadn't had any contact with Epstein since 2004. And Trump kicked Epstein out of his club for harassing a member's daughter.

President Trump also helped with the investigations against Jeffrey Epstein. Trump was helpful to the police and may have helped Epstein get his first conviction. He also was a willing interview subject for some of Epstein's victims. And there have been no credible releases of information from any of the Epstein trials or documents that implicates Trump in any way. 

Of course none of this will matter to the folks that are still pushing this story. Folks do seem to have moved on but there are a lot of folks out there that still insist that Trump is protecting himself. In a way that might be true, Trump knows from bitter experience that merely being associated with Epstein is damaging and he doesn't want anyone else innocent to have to go through the same thing. But given that Trump has already released many documents and even helped put Epstein away, the idea that he is covering for anything is ridiculous. 

I am guessing their objection will be that Maxwell was bribed with the better prison that she was transferred to. There might be some truth to that, cooperation with the government often has perks, but that doesn't mean she is lying here. Indeed, I figured that if a lie was coming it would be against Trump, do to extreme pressure against her to make something up. But I doubt that a Deputy Attorney General would risk his career to get Maxwell to lie about Trump if Trump was truly guilty and, like I said, all the evidence shows that Trump was never involved in the scandal. 

The Epstein scandal was never really about Trump though, it was about a powerful man who had powerful friends that got away with his crimes because of those friends. Was he running a blackmail operation? We won't ever know, because local police and the FBI botched the original investigation. Epstein was able to destroy much of the evidence long before the FBI raided his place, so if he was blackmailing people, we probably won't ever know it. We do know that Epstein was a pimp and he's been credibly accused of trafficking someone to Prince Andrew, at the very least. And there are a few other people that they could have gotten convictions on, but unfortunately, Bill Richardson, Jean-Luc Brunel and Marvin Minsky are all dead. And even then, conviction was no sure thing. 

It does raise the question why the Deputy Attorney General is even talking to Maxwell. Like I said, most of the players in this scandal are dead, other than Prince Andrew, and I can't ever see him making a perp walk. Perhaps if Maxwell would testify against him, along with surviving witness Johanna Sjoberg, they could get an arrest, but even then, I don't see how a conviction would happen, and not just because he's a Prince. The evidence of wrongdoing isn't super strong now that Virginia Giuffre is dead and even then, we might be well past the point of the Statute of Limitations running out. Indeed, Maxwell is the only person that has been convicted in the case and I don't know if I want to make a deal with her, given that after Epstein she was the 2nd worst person involved in this case. 

I do think that this entire thing was an own-goal by the Trump administration. Trump didn't have to release anything and if he had done that some people might have been annoyed but the story wouldn't still be in the news. Instead, they hyped it up, failed to deliver and then kept the story in the news for a lot longer than it should be. Indeed, though I do think that this interview, when released, will continue to exonerate Trump, it has the added effect of bringing the story back into the news. And it's not like Maxwell will be listened to regardless. Folks just hate Trump and that's the only reason this is still a story.