Saturday, April 04, 2026

More Iran Cheerleading: F-15, A-10 Shootdowns, etc.

Better headline: First two shoot-downs come after four weeks and 13,000 combat sorties.
My real concerns are (a) Trump's chaotic rhetoric and (b) the left's relentless opposition (including the rhetoric).
   The Iranian regime needs to think that we're implacably committed to victory.
   But they almost certainly don't think that.
   I sure hope somebody, somewhere in the administration knows what he's doing...

Friday, April 03, 2026

This War is Hell on Strike Eagles

Thursday, April 02, 2026

Elliot Abrams: The President's Not-So-Reassuring Iran Address

Yeah, I couldn't even get through it.
I'm terrible at reading aloud...and I find it very unpleasant to listen to anyone who's even worse than I am. And Trump, when he's not on in this respect is really, really not on.
But what I did hear was, indeed, not all that reassuring.
Even if Trump is right about this war--something of which I'm far from convinced--there's no excuse for failing to produce a clear public justification.
Better than lies--ala the Bush administration and Iraq...
But that's setting the bar awfully low.

Reem Ibrahim: Trump Bullying Allies to Help in Iran Suggests He Knows the War Is Not Going Well


Seriously, who could write a headline like that...not to mention a whole post?
Look man.
Here's the deal:
TRUMP BULLIES OUR ALLIES ALL THE TIME FOR GOOD REASONS AND BAD.
In particular, he bullies anybody who doesn't do pretty much exactly what he wants them to do.
Jeez, buy a clue.
His bullying tone just means he's being defied.
That's all it takes.
Ibrahim does correctly note, however, that the rationale for the war is ever-changing.
I mean--I do realize that there are a lot of reasons to bomb Iran.
But...message discipline...it's a thing.
As for how the war is going: I'd guess pretty well.
But what do I know?

Supremes Rule Against "Conversion Therapy" Aimed at Non-Heterosexual Etc. Youth

   I haven't even read many synopses of the arguments, but here's my more-or-less initial position:
   First, adults should be able to do whatever they want in this respect--but that doesn't seem to be the issue.
   Second, so long as a kid consents to the therapy, I don't see any problem; the worry is that parents may force kids to do it.
   Third, the left's contention that conversion therapy doesn't work is probably bullshit and at odds with its own previous position. The left spent decades telling us that 10-50% of the population is homosexual...or 100% is naturally bisexual...or whatever...they said a lot of things. But society brainwashed all those people into thinking that they were straight--or at least acting that way. It's the left itself that thinks that humans are far more malleable than they actually are. Nevertheless, I suspect that the truth on this one lies somewhere in the middle--there's fair malleability...but certainly not total malleability.
   Third prime: Political lesbianism told (or tells? is it still around?) feminists that they ought to be lesbians for political reasons. Presumably they think that this isn't a matter of pure political duty--surely they think that sexual desire is to some degree malleable.
   Fourth, everything about conversion therapy is more reasonable and less awful than "gender" pseudoscience.
   Fifth, you'd have to be a fool to believe the alleged studies that say this therapy increases suicidality. As soon as the left takes a position--especially a position like this one--their army of lapdog pseudoscientists starts producing Lysenkoist studies backing them up.
   But, sixth, there's nothing wrong with it, and some kids are non-heterosexual, and that's the way it is. So, y'know, parents ought to be cool about that. (Maybe easy for me to say, since I don't have kids...)
   Now, all that having been said, I still don't see much reason to be too keen on this stuff. Seems like religious wackos will be prone to forcing their kids into it. Though I guess I could see reasonable parents thinking: well, my kid's life will be a lot easier if he's at least straight-ish...might as well just see whether this works... Or thinking: this is likely to be a result of brainwashing at school--or just general cultural brainwashing--so let's see whether it's changeable...
   And there is no doubt whatsoever that kids with "gender confusion" should get therapy to try to reverse that shit. Little Timmy's teacher told him he might be a girl...that needs to be fixed right away. Before they convince him to take estrogen and cut his junk off...
   All that having been said: prima facie, it seems weird to defend a quasi-medical treatment on First Amendment grounds. Everybody's making fun of KBJ...and I just saw like one short paragraph from her dissent...but...it didn't sound crazy to me...

Randy E. Barnett: Trump is Right about Birthright Citizenship

Well, maybe the case for this is stronger than I thought.

Wednesday, April 01, 2026

Artemis II

Fantastic!

Back to the Future: Artemis II Scheduled to Launch Today

Wow.
Crazy that this sort of thing came to seem more-or-less routine when I was a kid...
Anyway: fingers crossed.

Damon Root: Trump's Unconstitutional Attack on Birthright Citizenship

First: consider the source--and remember that libertarians are on the same side as the left on this one. That is: open borders or damn near it.
Second: I disagree with that position. Very much. I think that would be the end of the USA. Hence Western civilization. Hence, well, a large percentage of worthwhile things.
Third: I currently think that birthright citizenship is a very bad idea--and the drafters of the 14 Amendment would never have defended it if they knew how it would play out in the 21st century.
But, sadly, fourth:
The arguments in favor of the standard interpretation of the 14th Amendment sound stronger to me than those that support Trump's favored interpretation. It all turns on what '...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means. And it seems that, on the most natural--and the original--interpretation of that phrase, e.g. illegal aliens present in the U.S. are subject to its jurisdiction.
I think we would be much, much better off if people could not basically sneak across the border and have anchor babies. And if we could block e.g. Chinese birth tourism.
But I fear we're stuck with those things.

[Almost forgot:
Seems like bullshit to me to call the other interpretation an "unconstitutional" "attack."
It's a different interpretation of the Constitution.
Even if it's wrong...well...do we call mistaken interpretations "unconstitutional"?
Surely they're not all attacks...]