I have never seen such devotion to a fish before:
What is different about this enemy in Iran
Explained here:
Dan Schueftan’s answer boils down to this: it will almost certainly take a long time but time is on our side, and although it would be great if this war would bring down the regime, it may not happen and we (Israel, in this case) are prepared to fight another war and another as needed.
The whole discussion is worth watching (with longer videos such as this one, I always speed them up when I listen):
Lindbergh and America First
We had a discussion on this blog recently about Charles Lindbergh and whether he ever actually supported the Nazis in the buildup to World War II, rather than just being an isolationist.
First, an interesting bit of background from Wiki:
Lindbergh’s father, a U.S. congressman from 1907 to 1917, was one of the few congressmen to oppose the entry of the U.S. into World War I.
I’m going to assume that his father had some influence on the formation of Lindbergh’s viewpoint about entering foreign wars
After the tragic kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh’s first child in in 1932, Lindbergh and his wife moved to Europe to try to recover. They visited Germany during the 1930s:
In July 1936, shortly before the opening of the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, American journalist William L. Shirer recorded in his diary: “The Lindberghs are here [in Berlin], and the Nazis, led by Göring, are making a great play for them.”
This 1936 visit was the first of several that Lindbergh made at the request of the U.S. military establishment between 1936 and 1938, with the goal of evaluating German aviation.
Lindbergh was aware of Kristallnacht when it happened:
“I do not understand these riots on the part of the Germans”, he wrote. “It seems so contrary to their sense of order and intelligence. They have undoubtedly had a difficult ‘Jewish problem’, but why is it necessary to handle it so unreasonably?” Lindbergh had planned to move to Berlin for the winter of 1938–39. He had provisionally found a house in Wannsee, but after Nazi friends discouraged him from leasing it because it had been formerly owned by Jews, it was recommended that he contact Albert Speer, who said he would build the Lindberghs a house anywhere they wanted. On the advice of his close friend Alexis Carrel, he cancelled the trip. ….
So it seems he continued to be German-friendly, and although he disapproved of the Nazis’ violence against Jews his main problem with it seemed to have been that it was disorderly and beneath his high opinion of Germans. The Jews themselves were undoubtedly a problem, however.
More:
In 1938, the U.S. Air Attaché in Berlin invited Lindbergh to inspect the rising power of Nazi Germany’s Air Force. Impressed by German technology and the apparently large number of aircraft at their disposal and influenced by the staggering number of deaths from World War I, he opposed U.S. entry into the impending European conflict. In September 1938, he stated to the French cabinet that the Luftwaffe possessed 8,000 aircraft and could produce 1,500 per month. Although this was seven times the actual number determined by the Deuxième Bureau, it influenced France into trying to avoid conflict with Nazi Germany through the Munich Agreement. At the urging of U.S. Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, Lindbergh wrote a secret memo to the British warning that a military response by Britain and France to Hitler’s violation of the Munich Agreement would be disastrous; he claimed that France was militarily weak and Britain over-reliant on its navy. He urgently recommended that they strengthen their air power to force Hitler to redirect his aggression against “Asiatic Communism”.
Following Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland, Lindbergh opposed sending aid to countries under threat … He equated assistance with war profiteering: “To those who argue that we could make a profit and build up our own industry by selling munitions abroad, I reply that we in America have not yet reached a point where we wish to capitalize on the destruction and death of war”.
He reminds me somewhat of our current isolationists, and they even use the phrase that was used back then: “America First.”
In late 1940, Lindbergh became the spokesman of the isolationist America First Committee, soon speaking to overflow crowds at Madison Square Garden and Chicago’s Soldier Field, with millions listening by radio. He argued emphatically that America had no business attacking Germany. Lindbergh justified this stance in writings that were only published posthumously:
I was deeply concerned that the potentially gigantic power of America, guided by uninformed and impractical idealism, might crusade into Europe to destroy Hitler without realizing that Hitler’s destruction would lay Europe open to the rape, loot and barbarism of Soviet Russia’s forces, causing possibly the fatal wounding of Western civilization.
He seems to have been so focused on the evil of the Soviets that he was blind to the evils of the Nazis. Was he merely naive? I think that was part of it, but still another part was his affinity for German culture and what he saw as German “order and intelligence.” Nor was he keen on Jews. But I think he was more a German sympathizer than an actual Nazi sympathizer, although he shared their emphasis on race.
One of Lindbergh’s worst acts was a speech he gave in September of 1941 (emphasis mine):
… for an America First rally at the Des Moines Coliseum that accused three groups of “pressing this country toward war; the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration”. He said that the British were propagandizing America because they could not defeat Nazi Germany without American aid and that the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt was trying to use a war to consolidate power. The three paragraphs Lindbergh devoted to accusing American Jews of war agitation formed what biographer A. Scott Berg called “the core of his thesis”. In the speech, Lindbergh said that Jewish Americans had outsized control over government and news media (even though Jews did not compose even 3% of newspaper publishers and were only a minority of foreign policy bureaucrats), employing recognizably antisemitic tropes. The speech received a strong public backlash as newspapers, politicians, and clergy throughout the country criticized America First and Lindbergh for his remarks’ antisemitism.
Sound familiar? It certainly does to me.
Roosevelt told Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, “If I should die tomorrow, I want you to know this, I am absolutely convinced Lindbergh is a Nazi.”
Lindbergh also believed that Communism would destroy the West’s “racial strength.” However, after the war he was shocked by what was revealed to have occurred at Nazi concentration camps: “Here was a place where men and life and death had reached the lowest form of degradation. How could any reward in national progress even faintly justify the establishment and operation of such a place?”
Once the US entered the war, Lindbergh did work for the Allied war effort. But he retained his admiration for Germany, later visiting often, having several long-term affairs with women there, and fathering children with those women.
There’s a great deal more about Lindbergh, but this is already so long that I’ll just end with this, which expands on the topic of his father’s influence:
Lindbergh was the son of a Progressive Republican congressman from Minnesota. His father, Charles August Lindbergh possessed Populist agrarian views prevalent in the Midwest and adamantly opposed the so-called “Money Trust,” an alleged de facto monopoly of powerful New York bankers, led by J.P. Morgan. The farmers the senior Lindbergh represented were wary of more cosmopolitan Americans, especially bankers from the east coast. They assumed bankers were to blame for the travails of Midwestern farmers and incorrectly assumed they were primarily Jewish. Many of Lindbergh Sr.’s constituents were xenophobic and often antisemitic. These were not uncommon themes throughout the country at the time.
Unfortunately, very similar attitudes have become more common again in our time.
The fat lady hasn’t quite finished singing on Russiagate
If you want to see a good overall summary of the Byzantine twistings and turnings of Russiagate, take a look at this article by Jonathan Turley.
Here are a few excepts:
This week, we learned that the probe into the Russian conspiracy theory in Florida is moving forward with the disclosure that former FBI Director James Comey has been subpoenaed. What is different in this probe is that it is pursuing the real Russia conspiracy — the creation of a false narrative to kneecap the first Trump administration.
At issue is what could be the greatest political hit job in history. Of course, the growing evidence of this conspiracy continues to be buried by one of its key components: the media. Nevertheless, the “truth will out,” and it appears to be coming out in Florida.
That’s certainly optimistic. But how many people are still paying attention, and how many Democrats would change their minds on Russiagate at any point? Extremely few. Nevertheless, it’s good to hear that more is happening.
Ironically, the Washington Post and the New York Times received Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting promoting this Russian conspiracy hoax. The media spent years in wall-to-wall coverage of disproven allegations …
The true Pulitzer Prize-worthy story was staring the media in the face the whole time: a conspiracy to create a false conspiracy narrative to elect Clinton and later to derail the Trump administration. The latter effort succeeded with help from top intelligence figures.
A fairly good summary follows.
Iran-talk
I don’t know what to make of the news of talks with Iran. How can anyone know? We don’t even know with whom these talks are happening, or whether they’re just some sort of delaying tactic for Trump in order to get other things in place (such as Marines, or arming dissidents, or some inventive Mossad operation). We don’t know if they’re designed to get the mullahs quarreling with each other, trying to find the betrayers. We don’t know what’s in Trump’s head, or what the instructions are to the negotiators.
I can say that the very notion of negotiations with the current Iranian regime makes me very nervous, because they clearly cannot be trusted except to lie strategically. But if I know that and you know that, surely Trump and his US negotiators know that, and more.
In the meantime, here’s an article from the NY Post, for what it’s worth:
The US has sent Iran a 15-point plan and cease-fire proposal to end the war in the Middle East — and President Trump claims the regime has already agreed to a critical part of the peace framework: No nuclear weapons.
I don’t think he actually said “the regime.” He said this. Who’s the “they”?:
The 15-point plan was reportedly delivered by Pakistan. If the list is correct, you can see there’s nothing about regime change. Enforcement would be through the IAEA, which would be granted access. Sounds like the agreement to which Saddam Hussein acquiesced after the Gulf War, and which he continually violated by not letting the inspectors do their jobs.
I have been assuming for quite some time that regime change will not happen as a result of our military campaign in Iran, but that – as has been said many times – it’s up to the Iranian people. I also assume a lot is already going on behind the scenes to foster that, much of it dependent on Israel.
As for the supposed current leaders of Iran, they had some choice words about all of this:
Iran emphatically fired back at President Trump’s 15-point peace plan Wednesday – as the clerical regime reportedly fears it’s just another trick by the commander in chief.
Top military spokesperson Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaghari criticized any talk of a deal between Washington and Tehran, warning “Someone like us will never come to terms with someone like you,” according to a video shared by the state-run Fars News Agency.
Zolfaghari didn’t refer to the US by name, but essentially branded Operation Epic Fury a “defeat” and accused Washington of making empty promises. …
“Have your internal conflicts reached the point where you are negotiating with yourselves?”
“Our first and last word has been the same from day one, and it will stay that way: Someone like us will never come to terms with someone like you. Not now, not ever.”
Much more at the link. It would make a good movie, I think – except this is our reality, or at least the part of our reality we’re allowed to see and hear.
Meanwhile:
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt signaled that the US military operations against Iran will continue until Trump’s objectives are met. …
Iran has made a set of demands in return, which a US official branded “ridiculous and unrealistic,” the Wall Street Journal reported.
I can well believe it. In addition, recall that a series of talks preceded the US attack on Iran – nor has that attack ended.
In related news, some countries are agreeing to take part in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. After all, it’s to their benefit:
Over the weekend, the United Arab Emirates and Australia became the latest to join a growing list of nations, now numbering 22, offering their help to open the Strait of Hormuz.
Six — United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Japan — jointly declared their “readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait” on Thursday; another 16 have signed on since. …
And NATO Secretary Mark Rutte says the alliance is working out a timeline for a joint response: “If Iran would have the nuclear capability, together with the missile capability, it would be a direct threat, an existential threat — to Israel, to the region, to Europe, to the stability in the world.”
It remains to be seen what they will actually do. But the Iranian attacks on Cyprus, and on the far-off Diego Garcia base, have alerted Europe to a danger to themselves which they should have recognized decades ago.
Open thread 3/25/2026
Joe Kent, leaker
On March 19 I wrote this about Joe Kent:
Lastly, I wonder – with zero evidence, so this is truly just a thought – whether the investigation of Kent for leaking (an investigation which started prior to his resignation) has to do with leaking information to Carlson or Owens or both.
Well, consider this new information, courtesy of Ace:
So here’s the story as alleged:
A TPUSA employee named Andrew Kolvet says he wanted to leave no stone unturned in the search for Charlie Kirk’s killer. This was in the early hours after the murder, before police discovered the rifle with Tyler Robinson’s fingerprints on it, and his texts telling his gay furry lover he was going to do something wonderful.
Kolvet knew Joe Kent. He passed to Kent some private DMs of Charlie Kirk — if I have this right — complaining that one Jewish donor had stopped funding TPUSA because he didn’t like the organization platforming confirmed antisemitic monsters Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson. Kovet’s idea — stupid from the start — was apparently that maybe this Jewish donor might have killed Charlie Kirk.
Kolvet claims he never believed this, but that he wanted to make sure every possible avenue of investigation was open. It’s silly, but I’m sure he wasn’t thinking quite straight in the hours after his friend was murdered.
He trusted that Joe Kent would act like a responsible government official in handling the texts in a responsible, official way.
Instead, antisemtic Nazi conspiracy theorist Joe Kent began demanding that Kolvet make the chats public. Kent wasn’t investigating the texts; he was trying to create a podcaster “investigation” and public witch-hunt.
Not long after that, Owens got hold of the texts:
Kovett’s conclusion is — and it seems hard to doubt — that Joe Kent was a determined conspiracy theorist who could not let go of the idea that Jews Killed Charlie Kirk, even after the proof emerged that the killer was a non-Jewish furry-fucker. And after Kolvett repeatedly refused to make the chats public, Kent gave them to Candace Owens (and probably Tucker Carlson too, although Owens could have given them to Carlson).
Note that Joe Kent was a government official and ostensibly a high-ranking counter-terrorism official, but decided to leak private DMs he had been given in his capacity as government official to an extremely unreliable and toxic internet personality.
The texts were the beginning of her “the Jews killed Kirk” smear campaign, which later morphed into all sorts of other accusations. It’s certainly possible that it wasn’t Kent who gave her the texts, but the timing plus intent certainly makes it reasonable to suspect that he was the source.
Oh, and this: the same Andrew Kolvet now says that Kent has “reportedly indicated he is willing to testify on behalf of [Tyler Robinson’s defense], to get Robinson off the hook for an evil he committed.”
This is terrible stuff, if true. You can read much much more at Ace’s.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the …
… rule the – what?
Certainly not the waves:
“Currently the Royal Navy has 63 commissioned ships. But of this number only 25 are really fighting ships. That is submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates. The balance are support patrol and survey vessels which, though armed, are not true fighting warships.”
“Britain is of course involved with a variety of defense tasks worldwide. But due to endless defense cuts, the Navy is hard-pressed to fulfill them. So of the fighting ships in 2026, Britain possesses ten submarines, two aircraft carriers, six destroyers, and seven frigates.”
“Such a small fleet might be sufficient for a small nation engaged only in self-defense. But Britain still has some 15 overseas territories, many of which, like the Falkland Islands, require naval protection.”
Much more at the link.
I used the song “Rule, Britannia!” in the title of this post. Then I became curious to see the rest of the words. First, the chorus, which is repeated many times:
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves
Some of the verses minus the chorus:
… till more majestic shalt thou rise
More dreadful from each foreign stroke
More dreadful from each foreign stoke
As the loud blast that tears the skies
Serves but to root thy native oak …Thee haughty tyrants ne’er shall tame
All their attempts to bend thee down
All their, all their attempts to bend thee down
Will but arouse thy generous flame
To work their woe, and thy renown.
Well, what can you say? It was written in 1740.
Collusion between judges and Jack Smith?
Are we cynical enough yet?
According to newly released documents by Sen Grassley office, it appears Special Counsel Jack Smith conferred with both DC Chief Judges Beryl Howell and James Boasberg as to their legal strategy in targeting the president and his associates.
This relates to a Jan 2023 briefing… pic.twitter.com/Wrm3EddvmJ
— Julie Kelly ?? (@julie_kelly2) March 24, 2026
Surely this sort of briefing isn’t standard? Notice it doesn’t say it’s a hearing.
The most recent Bill Cosby lawsuit illustrates why we have statutes of limitations
[NOTE: I’ve written many previous posts about the various cases against Bill Cosby.]
Defendants need to be able to have access to evidence against them, and to be able to find witnesses for their side if such witnesses exist. Memory is often flawed, but over time it becomes more flawed. Those are some of the reasons there are statutes of limitations for most causes of action, and they are especially important in civil suits because the burden of proof required for a guilty verdict is lower than in criminal cases.
But California decided to pass this curious law:
On January 1, 2023, California expanded its statute of limitations for sexual assault claims, which permits survivors to file legal claims for a sexual assault that happened years ago.
In the past decade, in large part thanks to the impact of the #MeToo movement, sexual assault survivors have come forward in increasing numbers. Undoubtedly in response to this movement, California has repeatedly redefined its statute of limitation for sexual assault cases to give survivors more opportunities to take legal action. Some of California’s changes permanently increase the period of time a survivor can bring a civil claim for sexual assault. Other changes temporarily open a “lookback” window during which a survivor can bring a civil claim for sexual assault that had otherwise expired. …
In California, regardless of whether the survivor has reported the sexual assault to the police, the survivor can pursue a civil claim for sexual assault.
The usual limitation is 10 years. But the law carved out a special “lookback” for adult victims of assaults that were alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2019, which permitted civil claims for sexual assault to be filed beginning on January 1, 2023 and ending on December 31, 2026.
But that wasn’t the end of it – the law was further extended:
For survivors of sexual assaults that occurred prior to January 1, 2009, AB 2777 opened a one-year “lookback” window – from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023 – for a sexual assault survivor to file suit if an entity responsible for their harm had covered up a prior alleged sexual assault by the perpetrator. …
A “cover up” in this context, is a “concerted effort” to hide evidence, including efforts to prevent information from becoming public or incentivizing individuals to remain silent. It can include the use of a nondisclosure agreement or a settlement agreement.
Importantly, AB 250 also clarifies that a survivor can bring their claims against the perpetrator under this provision, even if the perpetrator was not involved in the cover-up.
During that particular look-back period a lawsuit was filed against Cosby for an alleged assault in 1972. That’s over fifty years earlier. The plaintiff has just been awarded big damages:
A civil jury in California found Monday that Bill Cosby was liable for drugging and sexually assaulting a woman in 1972 and awarded her $59.25 million.
After a nearly two-week trial in Santa Monica, jurors found Cosby, 88, liable for the sexual battery and assault of Donna Motsinger. They awarded her $17.5 million in past damages and $1.75 million for future damages, including “mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress.”
Then in a second phase of the trial Monday afternoon, they awarded an additional $40 million in punitive damages. …
Motsinger had been a server at a restaurant in Sausalito near San Francisco who said in her lawsuit, filed in 2023, that Cosby had invited her to his stand-up comedy show at a theater in nearby San Carlos. Both were in their 30s at the time. She said Cosby gave her wine and two pills that she believed were aspirin, and that she was going in and out of consciousness as two men put her in a limousine.
“She woke up in her house with all her clothes off, except her underwear on – no top, no bra, and no pants,” the lawsuit said. “She knew she had been drugged and raped by Bill Cosby.”
In court filings, Cosby’s lawyers argued that the allegations rested almost entirely on speculation and assumption, saying Motsinger “freely admits that she has no idea what happened.” …
Cosby did not testify at the trial, whose witnesses included Andrea Constand, the Temple University sports administrator he was convicted of sexually assaulting in a Pennsylvania criminal court in 2018. The state’s Supreme Court threw out the verdict and Cosby was freed from prison after serving nearly three years of a three- to 10-year sentence.
Motsinger first made her allegations anonymously in a 2005 lawsuit filed by Constand.
So you can see that Motsinger only came forward after some of the other suits were filed.
It’s not easy to get more facts than that about what evidence was presented. Some of the articles are behind paywalls, so if anyone can find further evidence I’d like to hear it.
This article mentions that Cosby gave a deposition saying he could not remember what had happened with Motsinger – so it seems neither of them can really remember if a rape occurred. He is 88 right now and the plaintiff is 84. Whether he is guilty or innocent, this “looking back” law is absurd and dangerous. The plaintiff may not recover much money because he is alleged to have little at this point. Maybe the lawyers will get what he does have.
In this post from 2018 on the topic of a previous Cosby case, I wrote the following, which seems equally relevant now:
To turn to that other court, the court of public opinion—a lot of people have pointed out that cases like that of Roy Moore and Harvey Weinstein have accustomed us to think that the accusations of one person are stronger if there are other, similar accusations. Now, we reap the dubious “benefits” of that with Kavanaugh, where even the most suspect accusations are strengthened (in the eyes of some people, anyway) when there’s more than one accuser. But weak, suspect accusations are weak and suspect no matter how many there are. What makes accusations especially weak or suspect? Sketchy memory, a long previous silence, a political and/or financial motive for making the claim, and reading about other claims from other women giving the new accuser ideas for a similar set of charges. It’s not hard to do for anyone who may have had any prior encounter with the accused, and who has the motivation.
I don’t know what other evidence Motsinger provided. Maybe there’s a paper trail of allegations of some sort that would tend to corroborate her story. If so, I haven’t seen it, although that would make her case much stronger. Nevertheless, the fact that it occurred over fifty years ago makes it virtually impossible to defend against.
Open thread 3/24/2026
I’ve watched a lot of prodigies. She’s the best I’ve ever seen. Her technique, tone, musicality, and maturity are simply astonishing. You can see it in the expression on her face, too:
Plane crashes with truck on landing at LaGuardia
Very disturbing – so far it appears that air controller error may be the most likely cause. Both pilots have died because it was a frontal high-speed collision. However, the officers in the truck and all the passengers survived, although there were many injuries:
The fatal plane crash at LaGuardia Airport on Sunday night was entirely avoidable and likely caused by a miscommunication — but either way, the Air Canada jet had the right of way, experts said Monday.
“Once that aircraft was cleared to land … it owned that runway,” said Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general of the Department of Transportation, to The Post.
There appeared to be clear confusion between the control tower and ground control when the plane smashed into the truck, killing two pilots and injuring dozens, she noted.
It could have been worse, according to this:
It was “just pure luck” that the LaGuardia plane crash didn’t involve more fatalities — with the jet miraculously hitting the fire truck at an angle that avoided fuel supplies, an aviation-safety analyst said Monday.
Former FAA safety inspector David Soucie told CNN that the spot on the truck where the Air Canada passenger plane struck it minimized the destruction, which led to two pilots being killed and scores of passengers, crew and two cops wounded.
It was nighttime when the crash occurred. A flight attendant was ejected, strapped to her seat, but survived.
RIP to the pilots.
