So let’s get the first thing out of the way. Josh Hokit is a moron who gets hit in the head professionally and shouldn’t be allowed around a microphone for that dumbass Michelle Obama line.

Other than that, I didn’t hate UFC Freedom 250 at all.

America is a place where we take risks. We reward innovation and a never say die spirit. And at times Americans need to do something just because they can. Holding a UFC card on the White House’s South Lawn is one of those thing we do in this country because we can. Continue reading →

When the Supreme Court decided Bruen, holding that the constitutionality of laws restricting the fundamental right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, it was obvious that it would not only wreak havoc with myriad existing gun laws, but that it would present a nearly impossible task of trying to divine how the history and tradition at the time of the founding would apply to laws in the future.

That was the problem facing the Supreme Court in United States v. Hemani, which unanimously held that Second Amendment rights could not be presumptively prohibited because a person was a regular pot user. Continue reading →

It made sense to await the release of the actual terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. After all, media reports can be wrong, and there was always the possibility that the administration was leaking terrible terms so that when the actual document was released with slightly better terms, it wouldn’t come off so bad.

The MoU has now been signed, hard copy and digitally, and its terms are disclosed. Continue reading →

I have no desire to watch two savages beat each other in an octagonal cage. I appreciate that others do. To each his own. But was the “garish spectacle” at the White House, enmeshing government with crass commercialism culminating in a fighter proclaiming Michelle Obama is a man, and ironically putting some sort of necklace around Trump’s neck which he praised as “bling,” what should come from the presidency?

My views are captured fairly well by Will Leitch, that this was an absurdity.

If you found it bizarre, surreal and downright flabbergasting to witness the spectacle of the Ultimate Fighting Championship holding a massive event on the White House lawn, with sweaty men being escorted from the Oval Office to a glowing octagon to go punch each other as the president and his war cabinet cheered them on, you were not alone. You should know that the fighters and many people in the U.F.C. appeared to feel the same way. Maybe even more so.

Continue reading →

If there is reason to believe that outgoing California Governor Gavin Newsom, or his wife, has committed a crime, then it should be investigated. If probable cause is supported by evidence, then he, or she, should be prosecuted. Neither being a governor, a Democrat, nor a potential presidential candidate, means he is either above the law or immune from investigation or prosecution.

But the flow begins with a reason to believe a crime has been committed, not a person who presents a threat to Trump or the Republicans. You don’t first identify a target and then go in search of a crime, unless you’re Lavrentiy Beria. That’s what Newsom claims is happening. Continue reading →

The Petite Policy, named for the Supreme Court’s decision in Petite v. United States, prohibited federal prosecution of a defendant who had already been prosecuted for the same offense by the state in the absence of a strong demonstrable federal interest that went unvindicated. While the Double Jeopardy Clause didn’t apply under the Dual Sovereigns Doctrine, the policy precluded overbearing and unnecessary federal “piling on” when the defendant had already been punished for his acts. While the policy was vague and voluntary, the idea behind it was good, as it prevented prosecution that violated the spirit, if not the doctrine, of double jeopardy.

But that was back when the DoJ cared about such matters, and when federal prosecution was the superior mechanism for assuring that crime would not go unpunished or insufficiently punished due to state parochial concerns or bias. Continue reading →

Trump turned 80 today, and coincidentally according to Trump, the south lawn of the White House has been turned into a UFC cage match extravaganza. The images of the “claw” with the White House behind it and the names of various corporate sponsors emblazoned on the cage has already gone viral. At least Trump has a financial interest in the company behind the fight, so the sale of the White House to commercial interests won’t be wasted. 

The Claw is a 600-ton steel arch built in Belgium. Jumbo-sized and star-spangled, with huge television screens hanging from every corner, it coexists strangely with the rest of its environs.

Continue reading →

Friends, as I write this it’s the start of the FIFA World Cup 2026. The tournament that’s supposed to embody the spirit of “The Beautiful Game.” It’s America’s turn at hosting the major sporting event the rest of the world loves so much.

I have questions.

Mind you I’m not exactly the person the World Cup wants to reach. I’m a middle-aged white guy from Tennessee who loves college football (the kind that involves hands) and my New England Patriots. My last sporting event I attended was a local minor league baseball game. Continue reading →

In the face of a Republican senatorial revolt, including refusal to approve the extension of FISA § 702, which will lapse as the House took off for yet another vacay, to Trump’s appointment of Bill Pulte as the acting DNI, Trump has announced the nomination of Southern District of New York United States Attorney Jay Clayton as the next DNI.

Clayton, whose qualifications to be US Attorney* were dubious given his complete lack of prosecutorial experience, was at least a decent lawyer. Compared to Pulte, who has no qualifications for the job whatsoever, Clayton seems almost like a decent choice, even though he too fails to meet the statutory qualification of “extensive national security experience,” and he’s very much a Trump sycophant. Continue reading →

Adhering to the terms of international trade deals, or any international deals for that matter, has always been a matter of trust. And trust mattered, for without it, no deal was a deal, and no country could be held to its end of a bargain if it simply chose not to honor its obligations. After all, what can really be done about it? Complain to the United Nations? Take it to the Hague? Go to war?

Since World War II, there has been one alliance where the trust was so deeply grounded that the idea of breaching agreements seemed unthinkable. That was between the United States and Europe, since refined to the European Union. We were allies against Hitler and the Nazis, partners in NATO and the bastion of first world democracy. It was us against the world, the world being the Soviet Union and Communist China, with third world countries being off to the side for occasional plunder or noblesse oblige. Or both. Continue reading →