The latest mind-meld between the New York Times and the right-wing podcast sphere is that Israel must have dragged President Trump into a war he didn’t want.
Jimmy Frickin’ Carter.
Latest Worthwile Reading thread: the costs of free trade, disenchantment and the obsession with equality, the war on innovation, the Venetian Arsenale and the forgotten industrial capacity of pre-industrial Europe.
Aw jeez, as if the Pres didn’t have enough on his plate now comes the government of Mauritius demanding the USA conquer Mauritius in order to return that poor island to a measly modicum of sanity: https://x.com/i/status/2029149464137453938
There is no ‘relentless pursuit of equality’. What there is is a continuous campaign to modify status differentials generated in part by community preferences. There’s also a continuous campaign to have lawyers (and of late, HR apparatichiks) second-guessing everyone else’s judgement (higher ed apparatchiks excepted), to grant plenary indulgences to favored population segments (picked by those in word-merchant occupations), and to reconfigure social norms in institutional life to please those segments.
Yikes.
A US sub torpedo strike. It’s not a huge ship, but big enough. That is some blast. At the end of the clip one can see sailors running to the tip of the bow.
Oh, jeez! Diego Garcia is in the neighborhood of Mauritius, much the same way the UAE is in the neighborhood of Kenya. But if course, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, two useless UN entities, said that the UK just HAD to “return” the archipelago to Mauritius. And Keir “Spineless” Starmer is doing so.
@Mike Plaiss:The Bibi-Made-Trump-Do-It Canard
The impression is understandable given the unambiguous statements made by Rubio and Johnson a few days ago about our attack being made now in the light of a future attack by Israel. Fine, they are walking this back now, but if what they said wasn’t true, I’m not sure what possessed them to say what they did. And if it is true, I don’t understand why people who support Israel wouldn’t be okay with saying what Rubio and Johnson did.
At any rate, if two people in such different roles misspoke in such similar ways, and they want to correct the false impression that they made, perhaps some explanation of why they made the statements they did and what was left out that gave the wrong impression is in order, given how badly they independently(?) handled their messaging.
Regardless of what was said at the time vs what is being said now and what was actually true, I really think that anyone who believes that Israel is a staunch and effective and close ally of the United States should be proud that Israel took the lead, if they actually did, and that the United States contributed. Iran is an existential threat to Israel and not an existential threat to the US. Why SHOULDN’T Israel lead? And why shouldn’t our response be to anyone who points it out, “You’re goddamned right they did and we’re proud that we did a lot of the work and are providing the leadership from now on.”
Niketas,
The idea is, we don’t want foreign powers deciding American policy.
Now, in this case, I think it’s clear that Trump has been preparing the battle space for awhile. Our policy was to attack Iran. The diplomacy wasn’t expected to bear fruit. Israel may have dictated the point the attack started, but that decision was in turn dictated by the meeting of Iran’s leadership.
Basically, the exact time of the attack was dictated by Israeli intel. But the US involvement had been decided by the US.
Those who hate Israel seized on selected facts to reinforce a narrative. They are not interested in a true understanding of events.
Quadruple star system that could fit within Jupiter’s orbit. Wow.
@Don:The idea is, we don’t want foreign powers deciding American policy.
I get that, but it just gets into quibbling about what “decide” means. I don’t think we should be defensive about the US DECIDING to follow Israel’s lead. If that happens, and it’s in the interest of the United States to do so.
Basically, the exact time of the attack was dictated by Israeli intel.
Not what Rubio or Johnson said but let that pass. They both specifically said a future action by Israel influenced the timing:
We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces…
Because Israel was determined to act with or without the U.S., our commander in chief and the administration and the officials had a very difficult decision to make….
But the US involvement had been decided by the US.
Rubio now says this is all that he meant all along, with Israel’s future action only influencing the timing, but let that pass. I don’t dispute his characterization, he’s the only one who can know if he said what he intended and what he really meant, and I wasn’t in the meetings.
Those who hate Israel seized on selected facts to reinforce a narrative. They are not interested in a true understanding of events.
Granted. That they seize on facts though, should never lead us into a position of denying facts based on the improper use made of them. That Rubio and Johnson made unambiguous statements easily lending themselves to that interpretation is a fact, not something that people who hate Israel made up. They needed to be more careful about what they said and how they said it.
People who hate Israel will use both what is true and what is false, but they do not change what is true and what is false.
That was nice of the US navy to hit the stern, not amidmidships; gave the sailors time to abandon ship. Wire guided torpedo or acoustic?
RE: STONEHENGE–What was it’s true purpose? ?
There are quite a few reports starting to appear on Youtube about how, when various things and issues, including archaeological sites, are reexamined using AI, startling new things are found, and new conclusions reached, which human researchers had missed.
Here is a report that an AI analysis of all of the information on Stonehenge yielded the conclusion that Stonehenge was actually and primarily a very carefully constructed machine designed to influence psychological and emotional states, to induce awe, terror and, very likely, obedience in those inside it’s influence, inside the circle.*
Linked below is a very interesting news story saying that when an AI was fed all of the data from several decades of various investigations of Stonehenge—historical, archaeological, astronomical, geological, mineralogical, and, most recently, acoustical—it’s analysis was that, when it was intact, while it may have had calendrical and astronomical uses, Stonehenge was actually a machine whose every stone was very deliberately chosen for it’s acoustic, resonant, and magnetic properties (for instance, the “altar stone,” sourced from 600 miles away in Scotland and, somehow, arduously transported to the site, and the uprights dragged to the site from 150 miles away in Wales, and chosen because they would ring at certain frequencies when struck) then, very carefully and deliberately placed, as they were, all interacting to generate various forces, patterns, frequencies of sound—including low frequency “infrasound,” felt, but not heard—which, according to recent studies of it’s effects–would have induced emotional responses, things like a deep animal panic, a feeling of dread, the feeling of being watched, the urge to flee, awe, terror, increased suggestibility and emotional vulnerability–and, then, likely obedience in whoever was inside the circle (and, I assume, was not aware of what was actually happening to them, and why).*
This contention/conclusion, of course, raises the question of who—way back then—would have had the profound knowledge of human physiology, psychology, and acoustics necessary to design and construct such a machine, and the generation’s long power and control to compel Stonehenge’s construction–starting in 3,000 B.C. and lasting over an estimated 1,500 years, as it was built, modified, and rebuilt?
Iran is an existential threat to Israel and not an existential threat to the US.
Otay.
At best, until It Is.
@Snow on Pine: when an AI was fed all of the data from several decades of various investigations of Stonehenge—historical, archaeological, astronomical, geological, mineralogical, and, most recently, acoustical—it’s analysis was that…
AI giveth and AI taketh away. I asked Grok about that analysis and it said
The paragraph presents a highly speculative claim that Stonehenge functioned as a sophisticated “machine” engineered to manipulate people psychologically through deliberately selected acoustic, resonant, and magnetic properties of its stones, ultimately inducing states like panic, dread, being watched, urge to flee, awe, terror, suggestibility, vulnerability, and obedience.
While some elements draw loosely from real research, the overall argument contains several major fallacies and unsupported leaps. Here’s a breakdown of the key problems:
Overstatement / exaggeration of acoustic properties into a deliberate “machine” for mind control
Legitimate studies (e.g., from University of Salford using scale models, and earlier work on bluestones) show that Stonehenge’s layout creates moderate acoustic effects inside the circle: roughly 4–5 dB amplification of voices, some reverberation (~0.6–1.5 seconds depending on the study), sound containment (so insiders hear better, outsiders hear less), and occasional low-frequency emphasis or modal resonances around ~10 Hz in theoretical models.
Some bluestones from Wales can produce bell-like or gong-like tones when struck (a property shared by certain dolerite rocks in their source area).
These are interesting and possibly intentional for ritual ambiance (chanting, music, exclusivity), but they are subtle — comparable to a modestly reverberant room, not a precision-engineered infrasound weapon.
The paragraph escalates this into a coordinated system generating specific infrasound patterns to produce a long list of extreme emotional/physiological effects. No peer-reviewed acoustic study supports anything close to this level of control or intent.
Misrepresentation of infrasound effects and their presence at Stonehenge
Infrasound (<20 Hz) can cause unease, anxiety, or a sense of pressure in high-intensity, prolonged exposure settings (e.g., certain wind turbines, artillery tests, or lab experiments).
However, natural levels that reliably induce "deep animal panic," "terror," "urge to flee," or "obedience" typically require much higher amplitudes than anything documented at Stonehenge.
Some papers mention possible low-frequency modal behavior or wind-induced humming, but measured / modeled infrasound at the site is weak and not engineered to produce the dramatic psychological warfare-like effects claimed. Linking it to "recent studies" of infrasound effects is a classic cherry-picking + exaggeration move — the cited effects exist in extreme conditions, not in a Neolithic stone circle.
Magnetic properties claim is baseless / pseudoscientific
No credible archaeological or geophysical study shows the stones were chosen or arranged for magnetic properties, or that the monument generates meaningful magnetic fields or forces capable of influencing human behavior.
Any weak magnetic variations around Stonehenge are typical geological noise (from iron minerals in rocks or soil). Claims of "magnetic anomalies" tied to deliberate placement usually come from fringe sources, not mainstream research.
This element is pure invention in the paragraph.
Transportation distances used as proof of special selection
The Altar Stone was recently (2024) traced to northeast Scotland (~750 km away), not Wales as once thought — that's an extraordinary journey for the Neolithic period and still under study.
The sarsen stones came from ~25–30 km away, and bluestones from Wales (~225 km).
These distances demonstrate impressive organization and cultural significance, but they do not prove the stones were picked specifically for acoustic/resonant/magnetic qualities.
For bluestones, some researchers speculate the ringing property may have been noticed and valued (a plausible but unproven secondary factor), but the dominant theories involve cultural/ritual connections to Wales, healing associations, or prestige.
Using heroic transport as "evidence" for exotic physical properties is post hoc rationalization.
Overall logical structure: conspiracy-style leap from modest evidence to extreme conclusion
This is a classic example of affirming the consequent + cum hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning:
Some stones ring ? they were chosen to ring.
Some low frequencies may exist ? they were engineered to induce panic/terror/obedience.
Stones came from far away ? must be for these special forces, not other reasons.
The paragraph chains weak / partial truths into an unfalsifiable narrative of a prehistoric psy-op device, without any direct evidence of intent, mechanism, or scale.
In short, the paragraph takes real (but modest and context-limited) findings about Stonehenge acoustics, mixes in one accurate recent fact (Altar Stone origin), discards all mainstream archaeological interpretation, and inflates everything into an evidence-free claim of a deliberate emotional-manipulation machine. It's entertaining speculation in the ancient-aliens / lost-technology genre, but archaeologically and scientifically it's deeply fallacious.
P.S. I believe that I’ve seen articles mentioning that the DOW has been studying/developing such acoustic weapons.
Niketas Choniates–
So, from now on, is it going to be “spy vs. spy”, i.e. AI vs AI?
Boy, GROK sure likes to tred down the well trodden path doesn’t it, and gets quite snippy at any deviations from that path.
Your instantaneous response with a GROK analysis suggests that you didn’t take the time to even look and evaluate the 15 or so minute report in question which, I suggest, should have been done before deploying GROK, whose conclusions may or may not be correct, as you suggest the AI referenced in the report may or may not have been correct.
Re: Video
At first glance I thought that was Robert Redford from his “Three Days of the Condor” period.
Unicorns can do anything.
Occam’s Razor is of no use if you choose not to use it.
See P. T. Barnum.
@Snow on Pine: GROK, whose conclusions may or may not be correct, as you suggest the AI referenced in the report may or may not have been correct.
Your selective demand for rigor is noted. When somebody tells you their AI told you what you want to hear, AI is good evidence and able to pick up on what human researchers missed, and when somebody else tells you their AI told you the opposite of what you want to hear, all of sudden they are expected to do a bunch of due diligence and we need to be cautious about how we use AI because it could be wrong. Very convenient.
On AI
After the six week or so trial of AI review of my security cameras I give AI a B+. Most of the time it ids my blue Weimaraner as a black, brown or gray dog. All reasonable for the different lighting. On the other hand, she has been identified as a brown Great Dane, a brown deer, twice was a black bear and most recently a brown moose and a gray donkey.
On affordability
AI is driving the cost memory and hard drives through the roof. The 16gb Raspberry Pi 5 I bought last October for $117 is now $220 due to ram cost. Anything using memory is or will soon be price impacted.
I go through a lot of 8 TB drives. They are up from $134 to $188 since December. Western Digital says their production for 2026 is all sold and they fast selling 2027 and 2028 production.
On torpedo type
Probably acoustic.
Excerpts from local torpedo testing US code
§ 334.1190 Hood Canal and Dabob Bay, Wash.; naval non-explosive torpedo testing area.
…
(b) Dabob Bay in the vicinity of Quilcene
…
(2) The regulations.
(i) Propeller-driven or other noise-generating craft shall not work their screws or otherwise generate other than incidental noise in the area during periods of actual testing, which will be indicated by flashing red beacons at strategic locations, and all craft shall keep well clear of vessels engaged in such testing.
…
Not what Rubio or Johnson said but let that pass. They both specifically said a future action by Israel influenced the timing:
That “future action” appears to be the attack on the the Islamic leadership. Israeli into realized they were going to be together and this drove the timing of the attack. Ergo it was Israeli intel that decided the timing.
It’s hard to remember that Trump was such a pretty boy. Odd to listen to him from 1980, too, and compare his accent and style of speech to the present man’s. His accent was faintly New York but more buttoned down. He was far more restrained and urbane.
I thought it was another hockey player.
I am waiting for my SECOND Amazon delivery of the day. From no service here in Hooterville to twice a day.
R.I.P Legendary football coach Lou Holtz has passed away **Updated**
Wendy K Laubach on March 4, 2026 at 4:12 pm:
“Odd to listen to him from 1980, too, and compare his accent and style of speech to the present man’s. His accent was faintly New York but more buttoned down. He was far more restrained and urbane.”
I listened again and agree — he seems to be well spoken and coherent in his thinking and commentary resulting from that thought pattern. This is in contrast to what he often says today – more jumbled or scattered or short phrasings, sometimes not continuing on topic, etc.
As a 34 year old business man in 1980, he probably did not have any meaningful contacts in the defense establishment so he might have been off the mark on what could be done realistically from a military perspective. But his general view does seem insightful from a “love of country” strategic outlook. Something of a carryover from the patriotism of the 1950’s or of his military HS??
In the ensuing decades he became a more public person, a TV personality, and a political one, so he may have purposefully changed his speaking style to resonant with his ideas about the quality of his listening audience. He seems more awkward if/when he is reading something off of a teleprompter vs. his “rally voice” being more “him”.
So is his change in speaking pattern over this time span a real result of age or experience, or an act for his various audiences?
@Chases Eagles: AI is driving the cost memory and hard drives through the roof.
Ditto.
I bought a 2 TB SSD last September for $129. It’s $365 today. Almost 3x more.
Ouch.
“He was far more restrained and urbane” [Trump in the 1980s]
When he wanted to be. I have seen an interview of him by Larry King from that time. King asked him about foreign policy and he goes into an unhinged rant: EVERYBODY’S LAUGHING AT US etc, you could see the “all caps” while he was bellowing. Yet as is so often the case with Trump underneath it he was making some very shrewd and pointed remarks about US policy that have frankly influenced my thoughts on it quite a bit.
On the torpedo. I’d say (as a former naval officer) it was almost certainly a wire-guided one against a surface ship.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
The Bibi-Made-Trump-Do-It Canard
https://archive.fo/k5HGf
Worthwhile for this turn of phrase alone.
Jimmy Frickin’ Carter.
Latest Worthwile Reading thread: the costs of free trade, disenchantment and the obsession with equality, the war on innovation, the Venetian Arsenale and the forgotten industrial capacity of pre-industrial Europe.
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/76224.html
Aw jeez, as if the Pres didn’t have enough on his plate now comes the government of Mauritius demanding the USA conquer Mauritius in order to return that poor island to a measly modicum of sanity: https://x.com/i/status/2029149464137453938
There is no ‘relentless pursuit of equality’. What there is is a continuous campaign to modify status differentials generated in part by community preferences. There’s also a continuous campaign to have lawyers (and of late, HR apparatichiks) second-guessing everyone else’s judgement (higher ed apparatchiks excepted), to grant plenary indulgences to favored population segments (picked by those in word-merchant occupations), and to reconfigure social norms in institutional life to please those segments.
Yikes.
A US sub torpedo strike. It’s not a huge ship, but big enough. That is some blast. At the end of the clip one can see sailors running to the tip of the bow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4GjzYSaCVg&t=20s
Oh, jeez! Diego Garcia is in the neighborhood of Mauritius, much the same way the UAE is in the neighborhood of Kenya. But if course, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, two useless UN entities, said that the UK just HAD to “return” the archipelago to Mauritius. And Keir “Spineless” Starmer is doing so.
@Mike Plaiss:The Bibi-Made-Trump-Do-It Canard
The impression is understandable given the unambiguous statements made by Rubio and Johnson a few days ago about our attack being made now in the light of a future attack by Israel. Fine, they are walking this back now, but if what they said wasn’t true, I’m not sure what possessed them to say what they did. And if it is true, I don’t understand why people who support Israel wouldn’t be okay with saying what Rubio and Johnson did.
At any rate, if two people in such different roles misspoke in such similar ways, and they want to correct the false impression that they made, perhaps some explanation of why they made the statements they did and what was left out that gave the wrong impression is in order, given how badly they independently(?) handled their messaging.
Regardless of what was said at the time vs what is being said now and what was actually true, I really think that anyone who believes that Israel is a staunch and effective and close ally of the United States should be proud that Israel took the lead, if they actually did, and that the United States contributed. Iran is an existential threat to Israel and not an existential threat to the US. Why SHOULDN’T Israel lead? And why shouldn’t our response be to anyone who points it out, “You’re goddamned right they did and we’re proud that we did a lot of the work and are providing the leadership from now on.”
Niketas,
The idea is, we don’t want foreign powers deciding American policy.
Now, in this case, I think it’s clear that Trump has been preparing the battle space for awhile. Our policy was to attack Iran. The diplomacy wasn’t expected to bear fruit. Israel may have dictated the point the attack started, but that decision was in turn dictated by the meeting of Iran’s leadership.
Basically, the exact time of the attack was dictated by Israeli intel. But the US involvement had been decided by the US.
Those who hate Israel seized on selected facts to reinforce a narrative. They are not interested in a true understanding of events.
Just a fun thing to think about.
https://phys.org/news/2026-03-compact-quadruple-star-area-size.html
Quadruple star system that could fit within Jupiter’s orbit. Wow.
@Don:The idea is, we don’t want foreign powers deciding American policy.
I get that, but it just gets into quibbling about what “decide” means. I don’t think we should be defensive about the US DECIDING to follow Israel’s lead. If that happens, and it’s in the interest of the United States to do so.
Basically, the exact time of the attack was dictated by Israeli intel.
Not what Rubio or Johnson said but let that pass. They both specifically said a future action by Israel influenced the timing:
But the US involvement had been decided by the US.
Rubio now says this is all that he meant all along, with Israel’s future action only influencing the timing, but let that pass. I don’t dispute his characterization, he’s the only one who can know if he said what he intended and what he really meant, and I wasn’t in the meetings.
Those who hate Israel seized on selected facts to reinforce a narrative. They are not interested in a true understanding of events.
Granted. That they seize on facts though, should never lead us into a position of denying facts based on the improper use made of them. That Rubio and Johnson made unambiguous statements easily lending themselves to that interpretation is a fact, not something that people who hate Israel made up. They needed to be more careful about what they said and how they said it.
People who hate Israel will use both what is true and what is false, but they do not change what is true and what is false.
That was nice of the US navy to hit the stern, not amidmidships; gave the sailors time to abandon ship. Wire guided torpedo or acoustic?
RE: STONEHENGE–What was it’s true purpose? ?
There are quite a few reports starting to appear on Youtube about how, when various things and issues, including archaeological sites, are reexamined using AI, startling new things are found, and new conclusions reached, which human researchers had missed.
Here is a report that an AI analysis of all of the information on Stonehenge yielded the conclusion that Stonehenge was actually and primarily a very carefully constructed machine designed to influence psychological and emotional states, to induce awe, terror and, very likely, obedience in those inside it’s influence, inside the circle.*
Linked below is a very interesting news story saying that when an AI was fed all of the data from several decades of various investigations of Stonehenge—historical, archaeological, astronomical, geological, mineralogical, and, most recently, acoustical—it’s analysis was that, when it was intact, while it may have had calendrical and astronomical uses, Stonehenge was actually a machine whose every stone was very deliberately chosen for it’s acoustic, resonant, and magnetic properties (for instance, the “altar stone,” sourced from 600 miles away in Scotland and, somehow, arduously transported to the site, and the uprights dragged to the site from 150 miles away in Wales, and chosen because they would ring at certain frequencies when struck) then, very carefully and deliberately placed, as they were, all interacting to generate various forces, patterns, frequencies of sound—including low frequency “infrasound,” felt, but not heard—which, according to recent studies of it’s effects–would have induced emotional responses, things like a deep animal panic, a feeling of dread, the feeling of being watched, the urge to flee, awe, terror, increased suggestibility and emotional vulnerability–and, then, likely obedience in whoever was inside the circle (and, I assume, was not aware of what was actually happening to them, and why).*
This contention/conclusion, of course, raises the question of who—way back then—would have had the profound knowledge of human physiology, psychology, and acoustics necessary to design and construct such a machine, and the generation’s long power and control to compel Stonehenge’s construction–starting in 3,000 B.C. and lasting over an estimated 1,500 years, as it was built, modified, and rebuilt?
* See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PquZ4pgZo_I
Otay.
At best, until It Is.
@Snow on Pine: when an AI was fed all of the data from several decades of various investigations of Stonehenge—historical, archaeological, astronomical, geological, mineralogical, and, most recently, acoustical—it’s analysis was that…
AI giveth and AI taketh away. I asked Grok about that analysis and it said
P.S. I believe that I’ve seen articles mentioning that the DOW has been studying/developing such acoustic weapons.
Niketas Choniates–
So, from now on, is it going to be “spy vs. spy”, i.e. AI vs AI?
Boy, GROK sure likes to tred down the well trodden path doesn’t it, and gets quite snippy at any deviations from that path.
Your instantaneous response with a GROK analysis suggests that you didn’t take the time to even look and evaluate the 15 or so minute report in question which, I suggest, should have been done before deploying GROK, whose conclusions may or may not be correct, as you suggest the AI referenced in the report may or may not have been correct.
Re: Video
At first glance I thought that was Robert Redford from his “Three Days of the Condor” period.
Unicorns can do anything.
Occam’s Razor is of no use if you choose not to use it.
See P. T. Barnum.
@Snow on Pine: GROK, whose conclusions may or may not be correct, as you suggest the AI referenced in the report may or may not have been correct.
Your selective demand for rigor is noted. When somebody tells you their AI told you what you want to hear, AI is good evidence and able to pick up on what human researchers missed, and when somebody else tells you their AI told you the opposite of what you want to hear, all of sudden they are expected to do a bunch of due diligence and we need to be cautious about how we use AI because it could be wrong. Very convenient.
On AI
After the six week or so trial of AI review of my security cameras I give AI a B+. Most of the time it ids my blue Weimaraner as a black, brown or gray dog. All reasonable for the different lighting. On the other hand, she has been identified as a brown Great Dane, a brown deer, twice was a black bear and most recently a brown moose and a gray donkey.
On affordability
AI is driving the cost memory and hard drives through the roof. The 16gb Raspberry Pi 5 I bought last October for $117 is now $220 due to ram cost. Anything using memory is or will soon be price impacted.
I go through a lot of 8 TB drives. They are up from $134 to $188 since December. Western Digital says their production for 2026 is all sold and they fast selling 2027 and 2028 production.
On torpedo type
Probably acoustic.
Excerpts from local torpedo testing US code
§ 334.1190 Hood Canal and Dabob Bay, Wash.; naval non-explosive torpedo testing area.
…
(b) Dabob Bay in the vicinity of Quilcene
…
(2) The regulations.
(i) Propeller-driven or other noise-generating craft shall not work their screws or otherwise generate other than incidental noise in the area during periods of actual testing, which will be indicated by flashing red beacons at strategic locations, and all craft shall keep well clear of vessels engaged in such testing.
…
Not what Rubio or Johnson said but let that pass. They both specifically said a future action by Israel influenced the timing:
That “future action” appears to be the attack on the the Islamic leadership. Israeli into realized they were going to be together and this drove the timing of the attack. Ergo it was Israeli intel that decided the timing.
It’s hard to remember that Trump was such a pretty boy. Odd to listen to him from 1980, too, and compare his accent and style of speech to the present man’s. His accent was faintly New York but more buttoned down. He was far more restrained and urbane.
I thought it was another hockey player.
I am waiting for my SECOND Amazon delivery of the day. From no service here in Hooterville to twice a day.
R.I.P Legendary football coach Lou Holtz has passed away **Updated**
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2026/03/legendary-football-coach-lou-holtz-rip.html
Wendy K Laubach on March 4, 2026 at 4:12 pm:
“Odd to listen to him from 1980, too, and compare his accent and style of speech to the present man’s. His accent was faintly New York but more buttoned down. He was far more restrained and urbane.”
I listened again and agree — he seems to be well spoken and coherent in his thinking and commentary resulting from that thought pattern. This is in contrast to what he often says today – more jumbled or scattered or short phrasings, sometimes not continuing on topic, etc.
As a 34 year old business man in 1980, he probably did not have any meaningful contacts in the defense establishment so he might have been off the mark on what could be done realistically from a military perspective. But his general view does seem insightful from a “love of country” strategic outlook. Something of a carryover from the patriotism of the 1950’s or of his military HS??
In the ensuing decades he became a more public person, a TV personality, and a political one, so he may have purposefully changed his speaking style to resonant with his ideas about the quality of his listening audience. He seems more awkward if/when he is reading something off of a teleprompter vs. his “rally voice” being more “him”.
So is his change in speaking pattern over this time span a real result of age or experience, or an act for his various audiences?
@Chases Eagles: AI is driving the cost memory and hard drives through the roof.
Ditto.
I bought a 2 TB SSD last September for $129. It’s $365 today. Almost 3x more.
Ouch.
“He was far more restrained and urbane” [Trump in the 1980s]
When he wanted to be. I have seen an interview of him by Larry King from that time. King asked him about foreign policy and he goes into an unhinged rant: EVERYBODY’S LAUGHING AT US etc, you could see the “all caps” while he was bellowing. Yet as is so often the case with Trump underneath it he was making some very shrewd and pointed remarks about US policy that have frankly influenced my thoughts on it quite a bit.
On the torpedo. I’d say (as a former naval officer) it was almost certainly a wire-guided one against a surface ship.