Rumor that JD Vance might not run in 2028 for President...

 

Vice President JD Vance. Irish Star/AP.

JD Vance is considering skipping a presidential run in 2028. Irish Star. An anonymous source told the Daily Mail that the Vice President thinks he would have a better chance of winning in 2032 or 2036. Vance is a young man at 41, but if he doesn't run he would risk losing his window. Vance has been rumored to be on the outs in the Administration over opposition to the strikes in Iran and is considered to be the largest dove in the admin after Tulsi Gabbard has resigned. 

My Comment:

I've seen this story filtering through social media today and I have to say the reporting is incredibly thin, and it's even accessible. The original Daily Mail report is under a paywall so I can't even read it and supposedly Vance's people have denied this as a rumor. Given that it's an anonymously sourced post by the Daily Mail I'm inclined to agree. 

I also don't really think the implications of the Irish Star article are right either. Vance is more dovish than some of the other people in the White House, but it's not like he was totally opposed to things. Indeed, he thought if it was going to happen, we should go as hard and fast as possible, and, as far as I can tell, his plan won out. And Gabbard wasn't pushed out, she resigned because her husband has an aggressive cancer. I don't think the division over Iran was anywhere as large as people say. 

But I think it's at least possible that Vance could decide to not run in 2028. He's currently leading in most polls but that could change and it's undoubtable that Marco Rubio's star is rising. Indeed, if I had to choose between the two men, I honestly don't know who I would choose. Vance seems like he would be better for folks on the lower end on the economic spectrum, but you can't deny how effective Rubio has been. 

Vance also has a large and young family and who knows if he wants to keep exposing his family to the kind of chaos that is the White House. His wife is expecting their fourth child and there's always a chance that Vance could just decide to hang it up. 

I also think that Vance has some headwinds to face. Though Vance is white, his wife is Indian and he's good friends with Vivek Ramaswamy. That's not great at a time where racism against Indians is almost universal and H1B visas are one of the most toxic topics in the country. He also doesn't seem popular among women for whatever reason. He has some vulnerabilities that could lead him to conclude that it's not worth it to run now. 

Still, all of that is speculation at this point. I think this story is probably bunk and that Vance hasn't decided either way. Campaign season doesn't even start until after the 2026 midterms and a massive amount of change can happen between now and then. 

Angry young men in the Congo are raiding Ebola treatment facilities.

 

Workers carry away the coffin of an Ebola victim in Bunia Congo. AP.

Angry young men in The Congo are raiding Ebola treatment facilities as the outbreak there continues to grow. AP. The outbreak has 900 suspected cases and between 100 and 200 people have already died. Three treatment facilities have been attacked due to anger over Ebola prevention measures that prevent friends and families from interacting with the deceased. Ebola primarily spreads through contact with infected bodily fluids, and traditional funeral practices often spread the disease. The virus in this case is the Bundibugyo virus, which is a subvariant of Ebola that does not have a vaccine. However, the chances of a global pandemic, or even a large outbreak, are still low. 

My Comment:

Ebola is back in the news and it sure looks like we are going to see another major outbreak. Though we are far from the bad days of 2014 where there was an extremely large outbreak that even managed to reach the United States, it's very possible we could see something similar with this outbreak of Bundibugyo.

The good news is that Ebolaviruses usually don't spread via the air. Supposedly in lab conditions it's possible but you really need contact with infected blood or other bodily fluids. That means a global pandemic is almost impossible, though, just like the West African epidemic back in the day, we could see limited cases in the West due to air travel. 

Bundibugyo is also slightly different than the Zaire virus that caused that outbreak. It's generally less lethal, 25% to 50% compared to 60% to 90% or so for Zaire, and is also considered less virulent. The bad news is that unlike the Zaire virus, there is no vaccine for Bundibugyo. 

In a sane world there would be little chance of the virus spreading. Like I said, if you don't come into contact with an infected person's blood, there is very little chance of you actually getting the virus. But we don't have a sane world. 

These attacks on treatment facilities are a good example of that. This is about the worst thing you could do with this kind of pandemic. Not only are folks potentially exposing themselves to the virus, they are also preventing treatment for sick people. Those infected people now probably have a better chance of dying and infecting others as well. 

Why folks are doing that is beyond me. I know folks want to have a proper funeral, but when the bodies are tainted like this, you absolutely shouldn't use traditional funeral techniques like this. I just don't understand the anger here, I know if I was struck down by Ebola, the last thing I would want is to spread it to my loved ones. 

So should we be worried about this outbreak? Not really. It's very dangerous for the folks in Africa who are unwilling or unable to take precautions against the virus, but it's not likely to spread beyond that. There's very little chance of the virus making it out of Africa, and almost zero chance of it becoming a pandemic. It's notable given the human suffering involved and the fact that these attacks are going to make it worse, but that's about it. 

Movie review: Will The Mandalorian and Grogu save Star Wars?

 

The Mandalorian and Grogu poster. 

As you are almost certainly aware, Star Wars has been in trouble for awhile now. Ever since Disney bought the IP from George Lucas the general consensus is that the series is on life support, if not totally dead. Whatever goodwill was gained from the purchase was first killed by The Last Jedi, utterly annihilated by Rise of Skywalker and then The Acolyte spread the ashes across the four corners of the Earth in humiliatingly woke fashion. 

"Star Wars is dead" they say, and for good reason. Disney Star Wars has been more bad than good. Sure, everyone can point to the excellent Rogue One, it's cerebral and serious TV show follow up, Andor, and the first two seasons of the Mandalorian as "Good Disney Star Wars", though there is even debate about that. And some would put the newly released cartoon Maul: Shadow Lord in that category as well. But Those three titles I mentioned before greatly overshadowed the good, to the point where a lot of folks don't care about The Mandalorian and Grogu despite it being the first Star Wars movie in seven years. Given the theater I was in was 2/3rd's empty on an opening night showing, excitement seems to be pretty low.  

Clearly Disney needed to change course and it's not surprising that they picked The Mandalorian as the template. The first two seasons were great. A space western combined with the basic premise of Japanese series Lone Wolf and Cub it immediately struck a chord with audiences, largely because of the lower stakes, the "monster of the week" format and the charming relationship between a bounty hunter and his little green alien son. 

However, it too fell into the Disney curse as the third season was not as well received. Instead of focusing on The Mandalorian himself along with Grogu, it somehow became the story of how Kara Thrace... I mean Bo-Katan Kryze, reformed the Mandalorian home world. I didn't hate it but it was a major departure from the first two seasons. It was not helped that almost two episodes of the series was buried in the otherwise dreadful Book of Boba Fett. 

Given that context it almost seems like this movie is too late. Had it been released after season 2 of the show it would have done gangbusters but now? There are rumors that this movie will flop. The real question is will anyone even care about this movie regardless of the quality?

That's not a question I am ready to answer but what I can do is say that The Mandalorian and Grogu is one of the better things Disney has done. It's obviously not at the level of Andor or Rogue One, but it might be at the same level of the first two seasons of The Mandalorian TV show. It's not a perfect movie by a long shot, but it's not offensive, it didn't fall into the woke nonsense that crippled the wider Star Wars series and it was, if nothing else, pretty fun. 

The basic plot of the movie is that the two titular characters are working for the New Republic, which replaced the Galactic Empire after Return of the Jedi, hunting down former war criminals. After a brief opening where they destroy an Imperial Warlord, the pair take a contract offered Sigourney Weaver's Colonel Ward to rescue Rotta the Hutt, who happens to be the son of Jabba the Hutt, also from Return of the Jedi. They end up fighting monsters, imperials and even enemy starships. 

It's not a super complex plot and you can pretty much guess how the story is going to go before you are through it, but it's also well done and it has a lot of fun moments in it as well. The score is well done and the puppet work for Grogu and a few other minor characters remains a major selling point. Grogu is cute little monster as always. 

This is an action movie, through and through, and as an action movie, don't expect some major plot developments for the rest of the Star Wars universe. This is a movie mostly about how the Mandalorian and Grogu are becoming an actual team and it does, refreshingly, refrain from making the stakes too high. 

Grogu is the highlight of the movie and it's good to see him grow from the rather useless prop he was in the first few episodes of the TV show into a competent sidekick himself. He's obviously not on the level of Mando, but he gets his licks in as well. It's funny that a character that is nothing more than a well designed puppet can be the core of the movie, but he is. 

What may confuse people who are casual fans at best and may not have seen any Star Wars properties since Rise of Skywalker (ugh) are the constant callbacks to other Star Wars products, mostly from Dave Filoni's cartoons and shows (the man himself makes an appearance as an X-Wing pilot). Most of the call backs are easy to miss, Zeb Orrelios works as an alien buddy even if you don't know who he is, and Embo works as a villain too, largely because of his cool design.

But the problem is that I don't know if people are going to know about Rotta the Hutt. He comes from the 2008 The Clone Wars film, which served as a pilot movie for the cartoon show, The Clone Wars. That movie was so poorly received that most people don't even remember that it's a movie, and even the fans of the Clone Wars TV show recommend skipping it (and I do as well, it was not good even if the show that followed it eventually got good). Making the third most important character of the movie a call back to an obscure on poorly received movie is certainly a choice, especially since he functioned as nothing more than a living McGuffin in that film.   

It's too bad, since I liked Rotta as a character. He's absolutely playing into the "not all X are bad" trope but it was absurdly fun to see a 1000 pound slug man as something more than a lazy and gross monster. Indeed, he's a mighty gladiator and it's hilarious to watch him fight. I didn't know I needed to see a ripped slug man beating the utter crap out of gladiators, stormtroopers and monsters, but it turns out I did. Sure, the concept of a good character from an otherwise evil species isn't anything groundbreaking, but it's at least well executed here and he's probably the funniest character in the film.

Other highlights have to include some of the fun fight scenes, with the gladiator fights being a highlight for me. And, unlike a lot of Disney Star Wars, they actually remembered that there should be space battles, well at least atmospheric ones, where starfighters are blowing each other up. The film also had some genuinely funny moments, most of them coming from Grogu. 

Most of the humor derives from him or the other tiny aliens running around doing things that are inherently funny for a 2 foot tall creature to do. It's not deep humor and it might fall flat for some people, but I liked it. I also have to say that the creature, ship and location design was very good as well. It absolutely feels like Star Wars, but also feels like what is here isn't a rehash of what came before, things have evolved a bit, still recognizable but new and different. 

A lot of folks were worried that the movie was going to be woke, and that seems to largely overblown. I think Disney finally realized that nobody wanted to see a coven of lesbian space witches or a legacy character from the Original Trilogy humiliated because they are the wrong race and gender. The closest thing to wokeness is the racially diverse starfighter squadron and Weaver's Colonel Ward and both of them are entirely forgivable and feels a lot more like 1990's style race and gender blindness than box checking. If that's the tier of wokeness these days, then it's clear the culture has changed to a much more tolerable level. For toning this down alone the film deserves praise. 

What is strange to me is how uneven the CGI is in this movie. Some of it is breathtakingly good, especially the starfighter scenes in the beginning where they are flying into the sunset. But the opening scene where the Mandalorian steals a mini walker and rides it down a cliff looks shockingly bad and would have been embarrassing in the TV show, let alone the 1st movie in the Star Wars series for seven years. The Hutts in the film occasionally look bad too, but they are wisely mostly left in gloomy locations which helps them play a bit better.

Acting is also another weak point. Sigourney Weaver seemed to be phoning it in, though given how little she has to do (she's basically Mando's boss) that's not a surprise. Pedro Pascal is ok, but he too doesn't have too much to do in terms of actual acting, almost all of his scenes are action scenes, and I am guessing most of that was a body double. If you go into this film expecting to see acting on par with something in Andor, or even the Original Trilogy, you will be disappointed, but it's also not on the same level as some of the bad acting in Star Wars films we have seen before. I'd put it on par with what you see in the TV show though. 

My last major criticism is pacing. The films opening and first two acts are extremely fast paced and rarely give you a chance to breath. There's only a few quiet non-action scenes and the film could slow down a bit. But then in the third act there is a section where the pace crawls to an absolute stop. Grogu basically plays Minecraft in the swamp for what feels like a third of the film, though realistically it was probably 10 minutes or so. Either way, the pacing is absolutely off and it's my biggest criticism of the film.  

There are a few other nit-picky things that I didn't care for. I do have a problem with the fact that of the dozens of enemies the pair face, only a few of them are actual threats. Stormtroopers continue the tradition set in Return of the Jedi where they are more of comic relief than an actual threat and it's not like the majority of the battle droids in the third act are any better. The same could be said with the starfighter battles as only one ship on the hero's side is shot down, and that was at least partially on purpose. At least the monsters, the giant battle droids and Embo give Mando a fight. This is a huge problem with Disney Star Wars and I do think they need to bring back some mook tier villains that actually pose a threat to the heroes. 

The other nit-picky thing is that I genuinely don't like Pedro Pascal. You only catch a glimpse of him in this movie. There is a brief period in this movie, (which isn't a spoiler because it was spoiled in the trailers) where he is without his helmet and my honest reaction was "ugh, this guy, again". Pascal is an annoying person politically and he's very much overexposed and if you have difficulty separating art from the artist you are forgiven if you want to skip this movie, though, to be fair, the advantage of Mando almost always wearing his helmet is that you forget he's even playing him. 

So what's the final verdict for me? This was not a perfect movie by any stretch. But given the extraordinarily low expectations I had for it, I was presently surprised. It felt like an hour and a half version of season 1 episode of the TV Show, and that's actually fairly high praise. I probably put it right on the line between "actually pretty good" and "mediocre" with the scale tipping to the former, not the latter, mostly because I genuinely enjoyed the space fights and big chungus gladiator Rotta. 

It's probably the 2nd best Disney Star Wars movie, after Rogue One of course, and I put it above all three of the sequels by a large margin. I might even put it ahead of the two weaker Prequel movies, The Phantom Menace and The Clone Wars, as those two films had even bigger problems with pacing. I guess that means I put it in the upper mid tier then as far as Star Wars movies go, and I will probably watch it again when it comes onto Disney Plus. 

Would I recommend it? That really depends. I think general audiences might like it as a dumb popcorn movie, though they might be a little lost. Fans of The Mandalorian and Star Wars in general should see it as a decent addition to the canon, though not without flaws. But I also don't think it will be good enough to win back the former fans that Disney lost with the absolute crap they put out since the bought the IP. I'd say see it if you are curious or are a genuine fan of The Mandalorian TV show, but either skip it or catch it on Disney Plus in a few months if you aren't. 

Will it be enough to save Star Wars? I honestly don't know. I didn't see it with anyone else and didn't stick around to listen to what other people are saying. The critics were tepid in their support of it, but the Rotten Tomatoes score for viewers was a lot higher. Good word of moth might be enough to save the film, but I still think there are just too many former fans that gave up on Star Wars for good after the sequels and The Acolyte for it to be a big success. 

Either way though, I do think it's a positive direction for the Star Wars series to go in. I had been saying for awhile that the series needed a lower stakes romp that had as little to do with the sequels as it could and this film does that. And it was genuinely refreshing to see a movie with almost zero wokeness. Perhaps Disney will really be able to turn Star Wars around, especially if the next movie, Ryan Gosling's Starfighter, is well received as well. 

Controversial anti-Trump Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has lost his primary race.

 

Thomas Massie. New York Post. 

Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie has lost the primary race for Kentucky's 4th district. New York Post. In what turned out to be the most expensive Republican primary race in US history, Massie faced challenger Ed Gallrein, a former Navy Seal and farmer. Gallrien won the race comfortably according to the Associated Press, with an almost 10 point lead when the race was called. Massie was a seven term incumbent but had angered President Donald Trump and many of his supporters for many reasons. Massie voted against key legislation, including the One Beautiful Bill act, which accomplished many of Trump's legislative priorities. Massie often clashed with Trump over spending, often voting with Democrats to stop legislation he did not like. But Massie also angered Jewish groups for not supporting Israel, leading to massive spending from Jewish groups. Massie's defeat comes on the heels of Senator Bill Cassidy losing his seat in Louisiana and President Trump endorsing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over incumbent John Cornyn.  

My Comment:

President Donald Trump continues to assert his authority over the Republican Party. Massie came at the king and missed and now he's out on the street, or at least he will be after the midterms. But this is a lot bigger than a single primary in a safe Republican seat in Kentucky. It's a major victory in the battle for the ideological center of the Republican Party. 

Massie was an ideologue to be sure. He often voted against popular bills like the OBB act because he had some kind of issue with the spending levels. He absolutely cared more about whatever pet issue he had of the day than actually scoring victories for his party. 

President Trump is the exact opposite. Trump is absolutely not an ideologue. He's a deal maker and what he actually wants is to win. In this way, Trump is a much smarter man than Massie ever could be and it's been the main inter-party war since Trump walked down the steps. Trump and MAGA are the pragmatists, they want real wins and want the party to be something other than the Washington Generals to the Democrats. Massie couldn't care less about that and instead wanted to make perfect the enemy of good. 

Personally, I despised Massie but not so much for being an ideologue. Rand Paul is one as well, and I certainly don't hate him. But Massie lost all credibility with me with his Jeffrey Epstein stunts. Massie pedaled conspiracy theories and nonsense about Epstein and even indicated that Trump himself might be a pedophile, or at least a pedophile supporter. And his efforts to hurt Trump with these insane remarks also backfired when he was unable to deliver a single person that the justice department could go after. 

I've researched Epstein since 2015 and it's been very clear for awhile now that Epstein was a fixer, who also happened to be a pimp. His role in human trafficking was a lot more limited than folks realize and Massie either didn't know this or didn't care. There was never going to be any further charges in the Epstein case as most of the players were dead, much of the evidence was lost because of his mishandled 1st arrest under the Bush Administration. 

But Massie, again, made perfect the enemy of good. It wasn't enough that a lot of people that weren't prosecuted were at least convicted in the court of public opinion, he wanted everyone who had anything to do with Epstein, even some that were totally innocent, to go to prison, presumably without the protections of due process. It was all insanity and I am glad he got punished for it. 

Israel was also a major factor in this as well. The antisemitic right generally latches onto anyone who is remotely critical of Israel and Massie was certainly that. However, they don't actually have all that much power and apparently, they don't actually vote either. Massie was laser focused on Israel and even said that his opponent was busy at APIAC headquarters so he couldn't concede to him. It just goes to show that a few loud voices on X don't actually amount to anything. 

Speaking of those voices, they have been absolutely insufferable and I am glad they are eating crow. Some of them are saying they will vote for Democrats or Libertarians in the midterms, but I am not scared because, like I said above, they don't actually vote. I'm going to enjoy a nice beer tonight thinking about that. 

As for President Trump, it's pretty clear he's cleaning house. Bill Cassidy is out, Thomas Massie is out and John Cornyn is next. And the Post mentioned that even Lauren Boebert could be next. And it shows a level of confidence that gives lie to the media narrative that the GOP is going to get wiped out in 2026. Indeed, if that was the case, I don't see Trump purging his enemies. Had the VRA Surpreme Court ruling gone a different way, along with the Virginia redistricting, perhaps things would be different, but is sure seems like Trump is confident that he will keep the House and the Senate in 2026. Could that be hubris? Sure, we all know the midterms are bad for incumbency rule, but I think it's a lot more likely than most folks think. 

Livestreamer "Chud the Builder" charged with attempted murder. Here's why his claims of self-defense will likely not work.

 

The aftermath of the shooting. USA Today.

Dalton Eatherly, better know by his online handle, "Chud the Builder", has been arrested for an incident that left both him and another person wounded. USA Today. Eatherly is a controversial streamer known for getting into confrontations with black people for views. He did so again outside of a courthouse in Clarksville Tennessee. He made a racist statement to a black man and then was attacked by the man, leading to Eatherly shooting both the man and himself. Eatherly is claiming self defense. The incident was the 2nd incident in a week involving Eatherly, after he was arrested after being kicked out of a local restaurant. 

My Comment:

This case has blown up on social media and for good reason. Eatherly is a joke of a person and the kind of streamer that thrives on causing drama. He's also a Nick Fuentes fan, probably because he's chasing clout. And there is some spirted debate online as to his actions and if this shooting was legally justified. There's actually a lot to discuss here. 

The exact incident was that the black man that Eatherly shot, warned him to not use any racial language or there would be a fight. What exactly was said is unclear, but given Eatherly's Chud the Builder account on X, it's pretty clear it was something racist. The black man then punched Eatherly (sucker punched was the word I have seen used) and Eatherly responded by opening fire, wounding both himself and the black man.

Eatherly and his fans do not seem to understand the concept of self-defense. Under Tennessee law, you do have the right to fight back if someone threatens your life. However, there is a really big exception to that and that is the fact that you can't provoke the fight in the first place. Eatherly has very clearly done so when used racially charged language against the black man, even after he was warned not to. In this case, Eatherly was using "fighting words", basically consenting to a fight. Had he simply attempted to walk away he might be able to claim self defense then, but I haven't seen any evidence that he has done so. And, given the facts of the case as we know them, I don't see how anyone can argue that he wasn't the one to provoke the incident. 

Eatherly's supporters say that this is a 1st amendment issue, but it absolutely isn't. The content of the speech isn't the issue here, it's how it was delivered. Eatherly was picking a fight, not making some kind of grand political statement. Sure, the black man should not have responded with violence to Eatherly's words, but you can't pick a fight with someone and then claim self defense. That's not how the law works in Tennessee, and indeed in most states. And it's not like Eatherly was charged for his words. He was charged because he shot someone, so there is no 1st amendment issue in the first place. 

Even worse is Eatherly's social media. His X account is still up and there's a lot of stuff on there that is going to be a nightmare for his defense attorney. He had many tweets where he was saying that he was going to end up shooting someone. That's going to be even more damning for any jury as the prosecutors are going to be able to present this as a premeditated crime. Eatherly's words imply that he was out looking for trouble and wanted to use self defense laws as a way to commit murder of a black person because he hates them. And it's really hard to argue otherwise. 

And that's why I am angry about this case. Eatherly was angry that there are black people out there that would cause violence just because they hear the n-word or other racial slurs, but how is he any different than that? He wanted to kill someone for no less stupid of a reason. Indeed, he's doing a lot to confirm the prejudices of those that hate white people as he is an actual racist that wanted to hurt black people. 

I also think that this goes to the issue with modern clout culture where folks like Chud the Builder and Johnny Somali can go out and humiliate people for no other reason than views. There's zero reason for this kind of content to be viewed or made and I don't really understand why it exists in the first place. Who wants to watch some moron make everyone else's life miserable? Indeed, it's kind of surprising that these kinds of streams don't end up in violence more often. 

Regardless, I can't see any scenario where this case doesn't end with a conviction or a plea deal. Eatherly ruined any chances of that with his X comments and the fact that if you use fighting words on someone and they take a swing at you it's not going to be self defense if you shoot them. And the jury is absolutely going to hate him, nobody likes these kinds of streamers and everyone is going to think that he was the one that caused this situation in the first place. 

Vladimir Putin says Ukraine War is likely to end soon

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin. Fox News/AFP. 

Vladimir Putin has said that the Ukraine War is likely coming to and end. Fox News. The statement came after a three day ceasefire was announced and a 1000 for 1000 prisoner exchange. The ceasefire mostly held, though both sides accuse the others of violating it. Russia celebrated Victory Day, marking their defeat of Nazi Germany, though celebrations were scaled back. Putin said he wanted former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to lead the negotiations. The war has largely devolved into a stalemate, with little in the way of territorial gains this year. 

My Comment:

Putin's comments here are strange. There is nothing on the battlefield that suggests either side will achieve a major battlefield breakthrough. Ukraine's recent gains have been overstated, largely because of how the conflict works with traditional front lines being rare and large "grey zones" being contested by small groups of soldiers are the norm. But it's undeniable that the war has ground to a halt in terms of territory being taken. 

It's possible that Russia has some major offensive planned but given how this conflict works, it seems pretty unlikely. Massing troops, tanks and vehicles in a modern conflict is a sure way to draw drone fire and if either side was doing so we would know about it given how many casualties they would take even before the offensive has begun. 

What seems more likely is that Putin might be considering making a deal. I don't think it has too much to do with the battlefield at all though. Instead it's about domestic pressure as the Russian people may be getting tired of the war. Russia has been willing to bear the burden of the conflict so far, but with the battlefield frozen folks might either want a breakthrough or a ceasefire. 

And it's very important to note that Russia's geopolitical situation has absolutely changed. Venezuela was a major Russian ally, but now has entirely switched sides, to the point where President Trump was floating the idea of making it the 51'st state (which isn't going to happen). Venezuela wasn't an important ally, but it was an ally and now they are absolutely not. 

But it's the Iran war that has likely disrupted things for Russia. Iran was a key ally and had been supplying Russia with arms, most notably drones. Russia replaced much of these sales, but it's also clear that Russia cannot rely on Iran as an ally. Russia didn't really need either of these allies, or Syria for that matter, but it absolutely is a factor. 

And I would also say that both conflicts were entirely one sided and might have sapped Russia's confidence that if the war did spiral out of control they could still beat NATO. While Europe remains a paper tiger, the United States demonstrated they are a lot bigger threat than Russia may have realized before, especially when demonstrating new technology. Indeed, that may have been what the recent UFO release could have been about, some of the sightings are undoubtably US military technology that hasn't been disclosed. 

With all that being said, I don't think a peace deal is likely in the short term. Neither side has budged at all from their war goals. Russia still wants the territory they haven't actually conquered yet and Ukraine still demands all of the territory Russia has conquered. With neither side willing to budge, I don't see how any kind of peace deal could happen. 

I still think that unless Ukraine has some kind of major collapse (which is very possible) the most likely end to the war is a negotiated settlement. I am guessing that Russia will have to give up the territory they claim but haven't captured and would have to exchange some land they conquered in the north, while Ukraine would have to give up their claims on the Donbas and Crimea. How we ever get both sides to agree to that is beyond me...  

Virginia Democrats propose replacing the entire Virginia Supreme Court after they ruled against their gerrymandered map.

 

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger. New York Times.

Democrats in Virginia have proposed replacing the entire Virginia Supreme Court after they ruled against their gerrymandered map.  New York Times. Democrats in the state are described as "desperate" after the Virginia Supreme Court overturned their latest gerrymandered map that would give Democrats four new house seats. The scheme would require lowering the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 54 or younger, which is the age of the youngest member of the court. A new Court could be installed then and they would then rule that the current maps were unconstitutional for the same reason why the gerrymandered districts were. The vote to amend the constitution requires a notice to be placed at courthouses and neither redistricting move did so. However, such a scheme is seen as an extreme longshot, as they only have until May 12th to change the maps in Virginia without it affecting the election. With the Supreme Court of the United States unlikely to intervene, Virginia's current maps will likely remain in place for 2026.

My Comment:

The Virginia gerrymander will go down as one of the biggest own goals in history. The Democrats spent $70 million on the vote, which barely passed at 51%, and considerable political capital on it. Indeed, Governor Spanberger bet her political future on the vote and at this point she's essentially a lame duck. 

I do understand why the Democrats are so desperate. They have pretty convincingly screwed themselves over. Conventional wisdom says that the Democrats are going to win the House in 2026 but the path is extremely narrow. Indeed, some projections have the Republicans at 217 seats that are at least "lean" Republican. If that's the case then they would only have to win one more House district they need to keep control of the house. 

I actually think that this is more likely than the media likes to report. Indeed, the only real issue holding down the Republicans is the Iran conflict and though the conflict drags on without a resolution, I can't imagine it won't be anything but a memory by November. Democrats probably know this, which is why they tried this gerrymander in the first place. 

However, I do have to think that the effort to gerrymander itself has done a lot of damage to the Democrats in general. The maps were so blatantly partisan that even folks supporting the Republican gerrymanders thought it was crazy. The maps were made to dilute the votes of the folks in Western Virginia by forcing tentacle-like districts extending from Washington DC, all the way to the borders with West Virginia. 

This particular plot though, is even more beyond the pale and it's insane to me that it leaked that they were even considering this. Indeed, I almost think the New York Times report was put out to put a kibosh on this effort. Not only does the plan have an almost zero percent chance of working, actually doing it would enrage just about everyone. It would be the most naked partisan powergrab in recent history and would permanently tarnish the Democratic Party. Given that fact and the fact that they only have two days to get new maps in play, I don't think any of this is going to happen. 

I have been wanting to write a post about the vibe shift in the Republican Party, and this is as good as any. Republicans have been stacking up the wins this week and the political headwinds they have been facing seem to have evaporated. Even the groypers/America First/woke right have been put into their place with Vivek Ramaswamy beating Casey Pustch in Ohio. It just seems like a lot of the hope and optimism that was seen on the right during the first year of Trump's term has returned now in his second year. 

Department of Justice sues the city of Denver over gun laws.

 

File photo of a Bushmaster AR-15. Fox News/Getty.

The Department of Justice has sued the city of Denver over gun laws. Fox News. Denver has had a law that banned magazines larger than 15 rounds since 1989. The ban affects most AR-15's which have 20 or 30 round magazines as standard capacity.  Denver argues that those weapons are "assault weapons" but the DOJ filing says that assault weapon is a political term, not a legal one. They also argue that AR-15's are in common use and thus are protected by the 2nd amendment and Supreme Court rulings including DC v Heller and NYSRPA v Bruen. Denver has vowed to fight the lawsuit. 

The DOJ filed a similar lawsuit against the State of Colorado as well, which has a similar magazine ban. The Hill. The law is extremely similar to Denver's law and is being fought on the same grounds. 

My Comment:

The NYSRPA v Bruen case set a pretty clear standard. When a gun is in common use, it cannot be banned. AR-15's are the most popular rifles in America today and they are mostly only sold with 20 to 30 round magazines. There also isn't a historical precedent, the Bruen test, for any laws that restrict the right to own these weapons or restrict magazine size. 

However, the lower courts have fairly consistently ruled in favor of these gun bans even though these laws clearly fail the standard set my Bruen. There is starting to be some cases where it is going the other direction, DC's magazine ban was struck down and the New Jersey ban could be struck down by the 3rd Circuit Court. If this case against Denver and Colorado succeeds it will be another court sticking down a magazine/assault weapons ban. 

The split is the important factor. The Supreme Court does not like to issue rulings on cases that have agreement and until very recently the lower courts absolutely said these bans were legal. But if there are three cases going the other way, SCOTUS could be forced to make a ruling. This is the DOJ forcing the issue. 

The conventional view is that SCOTUS would slap down these kind of assault weapons bans. The court is 6-3 conservative and there are at least four justices that are very strong on gun rights. My fear is that the court would either punt again, like they have with other recent cases, or, somehow, the two wishy-washy conservative justices, Roberts and Barrett, could join with the liberal justices in a 5-4 ruling, which is the absolute worse case scenario. And it's very possible that even with a SCOTUS ruling, that the lower courts will continue to ignore the court and keep these unconstitutional  laws. However, that's the pessimistic take, and I think the more likely outcome is that the case will be brought to the Supreme Court and the law will be overturned. 

I do have to say that I am happy that the Trump administration has changed course on gun rights. A lot of people, myself included, were upset that he wasn't doing these kinds of things in the first year of his 2nd term. Trump's always been a bit shaky on gun rights, so folks were disappointed to say the least. 

But the last few weeks? Something has obviously changed. First there was the new ATF rules where 34 Biden era rules were revoked, including things like pistol brace regulations, FFL restrictions and expanded background checks, which was widely praised by the gun rights community. Now there is this major lawsuit against these laws in Colorado. 

Why the big change? I am guessing it has to do with the midterms. The GOP's chances in the midterms are better than the media thinks, especially after the SCOTUS ruling on racially drawn congressional districts, but Trump does need to shore up support. Throwing a bone to the gun rights community is a zero cost way to do that, as some of those folks were saying they weren't going to show up because Trump wasn't acting on gun rights. Now though? They should be happy. 

I know I am. I know I didn't expect much from Trump on gun rights in his 2nd term. Indeed, I though at best that he wouldn't do much of anything on the issue at all, just like his first term. I mostly voted for him for immigration and foreign policy, not gun rights, with the hope that JD Vance would at least temper Trump's weaker instincts on this issue. Instead it looks like we are getting restored gun rights as a bonus that more than justifies my vote for Republicans. 

The New York Times has been sued for discrimination against a white male.

 

File photo of the New York Times. New York Post/AFP.

The New York Times is being sued for discrimination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after they hired a less qualified multiracial woman over a qualified white male. New York Post. The role was for an assistant to the real estate editor and the white male candidate had relevant experience in the field. However, the paper went with a candidate that had no relevant experience in real estate, which was a requirement for the job. The incident occurred while the paper was pushing for DEI in their newsrooms and said that too many white males were in leadership. The Times says that race and gender had no role in the hiring and that they conducted it on merit. 

My Comment:

A good test to see if this is discrimination would be to flip the races and genders. If a multiracial woman was not hired for a job she was easily qualified for, but a less qualified white man was hired instead it would absolutely raise some eyebrows. But if it happened at a employer that just said that there were too many women/non-white supervisors? There is zero question that their would be a similar case filed by the EEOC. 

This case seems fairly open and shut. The woman that was hired had experience as a journalist but none in the real estate field. And she made it to the final round, along with a Black Male, a White Woman and an Asian Woman, while the white male didn't even get that far, despite being very qualified for the role. 

The problem with the case is that the New York Times DEI policy was for management, and this wasn't a management position. They could argue that the two things were separate and that their lower ranking jobs were color-blind. Unless there is a smoking gun where someone at the times was saying "don't hire white guys" it might be hard to prove the case. 

But I doubt this will go to trial. My guess is that the New York Times will quickly settle the case. Even if there isn't a smoking gun, it does seem clear that they were discriminating against the male and it's very possible a jury would rule against them. 

The bigger threat though is discovery. No big company wants discovery as it threatens to expose other problems they have and it could very well lead to a smoking gun. Plus, they don't want their DEI practices to become public as it is obviously bad publicity. Though the Times obviously has a left wing bias, they don't want regular readers to think that they hate white people. A settlement will prevent any of that from happening. 

I am happy that the EEOC is filing this lawsuit though. Hiring should be done on merit and if that means that a company ends up entirely white or without any whites whatsoever then so be it. Doing otherwise is discrimination, even if leftists don't want to believe it. 

Regardless, I do think there is systemic discrimination against white males in modern businesses, and it's not like it is even hidden. The New York Times was saying there were "too many" white mangers and that's pretty obvious discrimination. And the Times is hardly the only one doing this, though in many cases it's less about DEI and more about hiring an H1B instead of an American of any color. 

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is being courted to leave the Democratic Party.

 

Senator John Fetterman. Politico. 

Senator John Fetterman is being courted by Republicans to leave the Democratic Party. Politico. Reports suggest President Trump promised to support Fetterman with an endorsement and money for the 2028 campaign. Fetterman also is friends with Republicans in the Senate, including Dave McCormick and Katie Britt and often spends more time with Republicans than Democrats. Fetterman has a mixed voting record despite mostly voting for Democrat bills, but his support for Israel and frequent criticism of the Democrats and support for President Trump have left him on the outs. For his party, Fetterman says he will remain a Democrat and that he would be a "shitty Republican". 

My Comment:

It's really crazy how much the parties have switched when it comes to John Fetterman. Back in 2022 when he beat Dr. Oz he was one of the more hated Democrats in the Republican Party. The general consensus was that Fetterman was a brain damaged idiot who only one because Dr. Oz was a terrible candidate. His dressed down looks, wearing hoodies and not suits, was seen as insulting. Democrats instead were jubilant that they picked up a senate seat in a swing state and loved him. 

Fast forward four years and everything has flipped. Fetterman has quickly become the Republican's favorite Democrat while Democrats see him as a Democrat in Name Only. Democrats absolutely hate him now and he's the only Democrat that I know that has a higher approval rating with Republicans than his own party.

Indeed, Democrats are so unhappy with Fetterman that none of the Congress members in the state have endorsed him and there's an active effort to primary him in 2028. It's an effort that has a very good chance of success given how on the outs Fetterman is in the party. This is not the old generation of Democrats, it's a party that has purged all the Blue Dog Democrats and no longer tolerates anyone that isn't 100% on board. 

Should the switch happen, I don't think we could expect that Fetterman would suddenly become a right wing Republican. I would see him more like Senators Susan Colins and Lisa Murkowski, centrists that occasionally vote for the Democrats priorities when it comes to their own special interests. Republicans would not be getting a pro-life, pro-gun guy that would vote for them on every issue, but they would be gaining another seat and would get support on other issues, like immigration. 

I do think there is a place for someone like Fetterman in the party. The Republicans are the "big tent" party now (which is why we have been seeing so much internal sniping right now, it's all these factions trying to fight for supremacy with the groyper faction losing out) and he would join people like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard as more left wing Republicans. 

The only problem I see is that is Fetterman the best Republicans can do in Pennsylvania? There is an argument to be made that Fetterman is better in the party he is for Republicans. We occasionally get votes for him and when he gets replaced by some left wing nutjob, it's possible that Republicans could get someone more reliably Republican after Fetterman loses in 2028. And he will lose in 2028 without Republican support, his own party won't vote for him in the primary and even if he goes independent, I can't see him winning. 

Still, all of this is academic at this point. Fetterman himself says he is not going to change parties and even though the offer is on the table, he might not take it. Fetterman also knows that going independent or switching parties is a recipe for disaster as it risks alienating both parties. The original party will view you as a traitor and the new party might not trust you and will view you as an interloper. Right now, I don't think Fetterman changing parties is too likely, but we will probably have to revisit the conversation again in 2028. 

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. 

President Trump safe after shots fired at the White House Correspondence Dinner.

 

Agents draw weapons after the shots rang out. New York Post/AFP.

President Donald Trump is safe after an apparent assassination attempt at the White House Correspondence Dinner. New York Post. Trump was attending the dinner for the first time and an opening speech had already occurred. A man opened fire with a firearm, striking an agent who was saved by his bullet proof vest. The shooter had tried to get past the metal detectors at the event at a full sprint, but was stopped. CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that he heard around six shots. Another witness said the suspect had assembled an unusual long gun. Trump was not the only high ranking official at the dinner, as Vice President JD Vance, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Health and Human Service Director RFK Jr. were all in attendance. No motive has been released for the attack.

The AP has live updates for this story.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump DROPS SECURITY FOOTAGE appearing to show tonight’s shooting breaking out at the WHCA dinner

Glad the Secret Service got the scumbag and everyone is SAFE 👏🏻 pic.twitter.com/uuZ8YGbzYP

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 26, 2026

 

My Comment:

This marks the fourth major assassination attempt against Donald Trump since his political life began. There was the illegal alien that tried to disarm a cop in 2016 in Las Vegas, the Butler assassination attempt, the Florida Golf course assassination attempt and now this. There were other attempts as well, but these were the major ones and the ones that at least had a plausible chance of succeeding. I do believe that this incident means that Trump has faced more threats to his life than any other American President. 

This was extraordinarily concerning, not just because of the attack against Trump, but the fact that most of the Presidential Line of Succession was there too, at the very least the top three. Trump, Vance and Mike Johnson were all there and if this assassin wasn't stopped when he was, we might have been swearing in Chuck Grassley as President... And it wasn't just Republicans at this dinner, at the very least Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats leader in Congress, and Senator John Fetterman were there as well. 

The suspect has been identified online but it's too early to tell what his motivation is. President Trump said it he was likely a "lone wolf nutjob" and that's probably accurate. He's been identified as Cole Allen, a 31 year old teacher from California but no motive has been released. Trump said it was unlikely that it was related to the Iran conflict but as of right now, it is a possibility. 

I did listen to Trump's press conference and I have to say, it seemed like this affected him pretty deeply. He praised the folks that protected him and said that it's a risk of his job. Trump was his usual braggadocios self, but I did notice that his voice cracked a little when he was talking about his wife Melania's reaction to the shooting. Trump remained fairly calm during the shooting but it's also clear that he understands just how dangerous his job is, and mentioned that race car drivers and bull riders have a lower chance of death than an American President. 

The political implications of this are yet to be seen, but I do think that the press realizes that this was an attack on them as well. I don't think that means they will suddenly start giving Trump a fair shake, but they might indeed tone down the rhetoric a bit. Indeed, Wolf Blitzer was put in physical danger in this incident so maybe things will change? Same with the Democrats in the audience, Trump and his team might have been the targets but they were in the line of fire too. 

One thing that I don't think will change is the rhetoric coming from the far left in this country. The leadership of the Democrats is condemning this attack, but the message from Reddit and BlueSky appears to be that "this was staged and Trump deserves it anyways". I just don't think those folks have any shame anymore, and little connection to reality, and if Trump getting shot on stage in Butler didn't change anything, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk didn't change anything, I don't know why this would either...

President Trump has rescheduled Marijuana making it legal for medical purposes

 

File photo of a marijuana plant. NPR/Getty.

President Trump has rescheduled marijuana making it legal for medical purposes federally and allowing medical research. NPR. The drug has been moved from Schedule I, which includes drugs like heroin and LSD, to Schedule III, which includes drugs like Codeine and steroids. Schedule I drugs are ones that the government have ruled have no medical purposes, but Schedule III drugs are recognized to have legitimate medical uses. The change will not legalize private use but will allow patients to use FDA approved drugs and state regulated ones as well, while other forms of the drug will remain Schedule I. Medical marijuana companies and companies are big winners in the change as they will be able to operate more openly. Anti-marijuana groups may attempt to block the rescheduling of the drug. 

My Comment:

I am not sure what the reaction to this will be. Obviously anti-pot groups are going to be upset and there are a lot of people that believe that marijuana has no medicinal use. Those people are not going to be happy. But pro-pot people? I am not sure they will be happy either as this doesn't go far enough for them. 

I don't really think this will be blocked though. The anti-pot people are a minority and this seems like an easy thing that Trump can do. I don't know on what basis they can challenge this. My guess is these anti-drug groups are going to file lawsuits but those lawsuits will absolutely fail. 

As for pro-pot groups, they are absolutely going to want to go further than this, they want full legalization and simply rescheduling some of the forms of marijuana for medical use only is not going to be enough for them. They want pot to be as easy to buy as alcohol and obviously this doesn't go that far. 

So is this the right move? I think so. I don't know if I support full legalization but I do think it's worth it at the very least to study pot to see if it can actually help sick people. I do think there is pretty good evidence that it can help people with glaucoma and cancer patients so I have zero problem with those people having better access to these drugs. 

It does seem like this will be the first step for full legalization of pot. 24 states, plus Washington DC, have legalized recreational use while 40 have medical marijuana laws in force. My state, Wisconsin, has essentially a full ban, but even here cracks are forming. 

Is that going to be a good thing? I am not sure. Obviously, legalizing pot has been an economic boon for states that have legalized it. Indeed, folks in Wisconsin often drive north to Menominee Michigan just for pot, helping the economy of that town quite a bit. Millions in tax dollars are collected as well. 

There are downsides as well. Folks don't like seeing people high on weed while out in public. And a lot of people drive while high, which is obviously dangerous. I also think that the younger generation's switch from alcohol to pot is a major reason why they have so many problems forming friendships and relationships. Pot makes you satisfied with doing nothing while booze acts as a social lubricant and gets people to loosen up. 

Regardless, I do think that this half-measure is probably the right way to do this. The people that could benefit medically will at least get a chance to try and more research can be done. We will, at least in states where it isn't fully legal, avoid the downsides of the drug and the folks that need help will get it. I think that's a positive development.