gehringer_2

There is a pretty universal consensus that the law around asylum is broken. These people are not legally immediately deportable - i.e. they are 'legal' as far it goes, because the current law allows them to make asylum claims that in all probability will ultimately be rejected, but the system is too overburdened to ever adjudicate. That works well enough for them because if they can stay in the US and make some money for any number of years then the crossing was a success. There is no single step that will do more to stop the attraction of crossing the border illegally than for economic immigrants to know they will not be allowed to stay while an asylum claim is processed. That is something that the current addresses.

That's just a redescription rather than an explanation however. The interesting question is what drives a particular change? Since the rise of the printing press, the dictionary, and recorded media, language has gotten much stiffer - almost immobile today. In the ~225 years from Chaucer to Shakespeare English practically turned into a different language, but we can read Shakespeare or a King James Bible 400 years later with relative ease by comparison and most rhymes still work, or watch a film that is almost 100 years old and not hear much difference at all.

Just hope the new one doesn't start pining for the fiords.

Yeah - but remembrances of Freehan are always in order.

CPD doing anything differently? More cops? New gang units? or is it just improving overall economics?

Don't agree with the premises of the 1st part of this but to plan on Boras taking him to free agency is definitely advisable.

IDK what the prescription is for Tork. He can make decent plays for 1b, it's not his catching ability per se so much as either his concentration lapses or he just gets ahead of himself before he completes a catch. At any rate I think it's more mental than physical with him.

LOL - I was just coming back from the store and heard Caputo on the radio extolling how strong the Wings goaltending was going to be down the stretch because Husso was coming back. OK Pat.

the other recent one is "Im.`pord.ent" for "im.por.tant" It 's been common for the 1st 't' to be weakly tongued, but now it's completely missing. Hear this from lots of even the most erudite Gen Z's.

Husso will have to play better down the stretch for anyone to be interested in a $5M goalie. Hopefully he does.

They are probably open to him playing 3rd in theory only as far as his arm health stabilizes - so it could be some but likely none - depending.

But the two most likely outcomes are too depressing to talk about - which are: 1) nothing happens. Boring. 'nuf said about that. 2) Yzerman is a major seller again and possibly bye-bye playoffs. Granted it doesn't seem like after working so hard toward making the playoff that Yzerman would pull the plug when they are so close - but if he really wants Stanley Cups, just making the playoffs may not be enough for him to be willing to stand pat with this team.

then again, they've had their best streak of the season without him. And without Chiarot. A few different ways to read that combination!

Of course they've denied that Kane's injury had anything to do with the hip, but any injury coming only 19 games after his return might have left GMs skeptical about his availability, and If there is anything you need in a deadline deal player it's availability. Buddha almost talked me into them being able to keep him, but that's down the road.

which is why it's better to be on the selling side than the buying side. So will Yzerman will driven more by the shot at this years playoffs or to sell something to buy more future? Best case: move Gostisbehere for a pick, bring up Edvinsson and still be better and make the playoff. Well, make that 'dream' case.

This also appears to be the beginning of one phase of what Friedman reported, that the Admin has decided to hit Iran hard enough to get their attention and change their risk calculations. The tricky part is that at least in Iraq, degrading Iranian forces to a degree beyond where the Iraqi government can pick up the security slack could open the door for more Isis oriented Sunni Radicals. There is more that a little irony in the fact that overlaid on the hostility between Iran and the US is the fact that as a practical matter we are in alliance against Sunni Radicals.

The analogy would be to something like the Miranda rule or a warrantless search - fruit of a poison tree etc. Except that it's a lot longer stretch from the need to punish a prosecution for process misconduct by excluding evidence to why private personal conduct would require any kind of similar response. How would you argue that such a relationship actually put the defendant at any greater or unjust risk of conviction? It was both their jobs regardless of their relationship. Which is not to say we may not see some novel arguments in that direction anyway.

One possible view would be that that Iraq and Syria are of more immediate strategic importance to Iran than Yemen and also that there are actors on the ground in a position to take advantage if Iranian forces are weakened. Also, the Houthi ability to make trouble ends whenever Iran stops supplying them, so we don't have to hit them directly to get that part of the result.

FWIW, David Axe in Forbes claiming that Ukrainian effectively controls the western Black Sea and grain exports have reached pre-war levels. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/01/a-pod-of-ukraines-explosive-drone-boats-just-chased-down-and-blew-up-a-russian-missile-corvette/?sh=36d311f95b0c

This is amazing stuff - Aaron Blake in WaPo reporting on SC polling.

I've sort of touched on this before, but from 1968 on the Woodstock side of the boomer generation seized the media/historical narrative for our generation and pretty much never let go. But I tend to believe the truth was we were never the majority of the cohort. The Young Rebubs for Reagan, all the guys who got drafted and served, all the girls who got married in lace and taffeta. There was a silent majority, but it wasn't Nixon's cohort, it was all the conservative boomers who were culturally invisible. Those people eventually came to resent people like Bill Clinton, and right wing boomers today are still a core element of Trump's support.

Right. Most likely Holmes and Campbell believe that as many seasons turn on depth as top line players (Campbell talks a lot about depth) They probably see some competitive advantage to using FAs to build depth at controlled cost while other teams are bidding up the cost of bigger upgrades. That said you hope they are flexible if circumstances warrant.

Good point. You've probably read some of the current analysis about how China might somehow end up in a economic conundrum where they miss the boat on per capita GDP growth and end up "developed" yet still only middle income. Maybe there is an odd parallel in wage stagnation producing bad leaders in the case of both Trump and Xi.

I don't care what either of these guys ran but credit due on some serious level research.

On Tariffs you can criticize Trump on two levels and give him credit on a third. The credit goes on the side of the ledger that we have been allowing ourselves to be played by China on trade issues for a long time on the theory that as they integrated into the world economy, their trade behavior would become less predatory. That assumption turned out to be utterly wrong*, and Trump can be duly credited for abandoning it and letting China know things had changed. He can be criticized (see above) for claiming his tariff work was going to help American manufacturing in the absence of any over all program in combination with tariffs that could actually do that. And he can be criticized for selling his approach as a way to force the Chinese to the table and then not having enough 'art of the deal' actually in his repertoire to bring China into negotiation instead of just starting a low level trade war. The last one is probably somewhat unfair because it takes two to tango and the Chinese have sort a programmed response of artificial excess outrage every time anyone does anything they don't like and that phase has to pass before they will enter negotiation about anything. But politics is hard ball and that kind of criticism that is fair game. It's the more benign policy cousin of entering a war without an end game. On Biden's side you can absolutely say that leaving the Trump tariffs in place is pure political expediency. But one real difference is that Biden is serious about re-industrialization in a way that Trump and the GOP never were and tariffs do fit into a larger framework in Biden's world. But the other question is what assumptions are we all making? If we give Trump credit for refooting the trade relationship with China, which I am happy to do, then we don't need to criticize Biden for leaving them in place. That is not an inconsistent position. *as we are seeing, China has become an economic super power, but as the current real estate crisis there shows, their economy is still very brittle and they know it, so politically it understandable they still have to try to have it both ways. That said, we are not obligated to let the Chinese solve their economic management problems at the expense of US workers. Maybe the real short form answer here is that with any policy initiative, you knew the Trump admin was corrupt and incompetent and would not be effective or productive in it.