By Maureen Dowd
Opinion Columnist, writing from Washington.
An earthquake. An eclipse. A bridge collapse. A freak blizzard. A biblical flood. Donald Trump leading in battleground states.
Apocalyptic vibes are stirred by Trump’s violent rhetoric and talk of blood baths.
If he’s not elected, he bellowed in Ohio, there will be a blood bath in the auto industry. At his Michigan rally on Tuesday, he said there would be a blood bath at the border, speaking from a podium with a banner reading, “Stop Biden’s border blood bath.” He has warned that, without him in the Oval, there will be an “Oppenheimer”-like doomsday; we will lose World War III and America will be devastated by “weapons, the likes of which nobody has ever seen before.”
“And the only thing standing between you and its obliteration is me,” Trump has said.
An unspoken Trump threat is that there will be a blood bath again in Washington, like Jan. 6, if he doesn’t win.
That is why he calls the criminals who stormed the Capitol “hostages” and “unbelievable patriots.” He starts some rallies with a dystopian remix of the national anthem, sung by the “J6 Prison Choir,” and his own reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


The bloody-minded Trump luxuriates in the language of tyrants.
In “Macbeth,” Shakespeare uses blood imagery to chart the creation of a tyrant. Those words echo in Washington as Ralph Fiennes stars in a thrilling Simon Godwin production of “MacBeth” for the Shakespeare Theater Company, opening Tuesday.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
“The raw power grab that excites Lady Macbeth and incites her husband to regicide feels especially pertinent now, when the dangers of autocracy loom over political discussions,” Peter Marks wrote in The Washington Post about the production with Fiennes and Indira Varma (the lead sand snake in “Game of Thrones.”)
Trump’s raw power grab after his 2020 loss may have failed, but he’s inflaming his base with language straight out of Macbeth’s trip to hell.

“Blood will have blood,” as Macbeth says. One of the witches, the weird sisters, urges him, “Be bloody, bold and resolute.”
Another weird sister, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is predicting end times. “God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent,” she tweeted on Friday. “Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come. I pray that our country listens.”

​

Like Macbeth, Trump crossed a line and won’t turn back. The Irish say, “You may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.” Macbeth killed his king, then said: “I am in blood. Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”
The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey reported that since Trump put his daughter-in-law in charge of the Republican National Committee, prospective employees are asked if they think the election was stolen. Republicans once burbled on about patriotism and defending America. Now denying democracy is a litmus test for employment in the Formerly Grand Old Party.
My Irish immigrant father lived through the cruel “No Irish Need Apply” era. I’m distraught that our mosaic may shatter.
But Trump embraces Hitleresque phrases to stir racial hatred. He has talked about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country.” Last month, he called migrants “animals,” saying, “I don’t know if you call them ‘people,’ in some cases. They’re not people, in my opinion.”
Trump’s obsession with bloodlines was instilled by his father, the son of a German immigrant. He thinks there is good blood and bad blood, superior blood and inferior blood. Fred Trump taught his son that their family’s success was genetic, reminiscent of Hitler’s creepy faith in eugenics.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” the Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio told PBS. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”
Trump has been talking about this as far back as an “Oprah” show in 1988. The “gene believer” brought it up in a 2020 speech in Minnesota denouncing refugees.
“A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe?” he told the crowd about their pioneer lineage, adding: “The racehorse theory, you think we’re so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.”
As Stephen Greenblatt writes in “Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics,” usurpers don’t ascend to the throne without complicity. Republican enablers do all they can to cozy up to their would-be dictator, even introducing a bill to rename Dulles airport for Trump. Democrats responded by introducing a bill to name a prison in Florida for Trump.
“Why, in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers?” Greenblatt asked. “Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Like Macbeth’s castle, the Trump campaign has, as Lady Macbeth put it, “the smell of blood,” and “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten” it.

The guy can't shut his mouth. He is making Israel look like shit.

When they post it later, I'll get it on here.



For those you that want to call me anti - semetic.......Bibi knew the plan to attack them. He told Qatar to give Hamas money a month before the attack. He didn't send in help for up to 13 hours in some cases for his own citizens. Bibi is an evil SOB, just as much as Hamas

Next week? Next week? He has no position on it now... yesterday... last week? Is he waiting until someone explains it to him? Is he consulting the 'many bibles' he has in his house? 😂 What is he afraid of? How spineless can a person get... I guess we are now seeing that answer.

Remember that viewership record and Iowa and LSU set on Monday night? It was a record for all of four days.

Iowa and UConn eclipsed the viewership numbers for Iowa-LSU with their thriller last night.

Login to view embedded media

The common narrative about the climate of the earth is that activities of the industrial age and subsequent eras have devastated the planet.

However, there are some lone voices in the desert who happen to think otherwise. One of these is the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, John F. Clauser.

A Parliament of Naysayers ​

In what turned out to be an effort to get the word out, Clauser spoke at a Baltimore conference not long ago. He stood as a mouthpiece for a group of like minds called the “climate deniers.”

This category of people don’t deny the fact that the earth’s climate is changing. However, they don’t support the narrative that the planet is headed for an impending climate crisis.

The Crux of Unpopular Opinions ​

But for Clauser’s presence at the news conference, involving a handful of people, the gathering would easily have been shrugged off as a mere racket.

On the contrary, the contributions and support of a recent Nobel Prize Winner gave the gathering some weight. Despite their unpopular opinions about climate change, the world is starting to pay attention.

Could an Egghead be Ignorant? ​

Clauser has not always been a climate denier, or if he has had that opinion for long, he never made it public before the Baltimore conference.

So, Clauser’s statement that “there is no climate crisis” left the science world in total shock. The Nobel Prize Winner was not the only speaker at the conference.

The Formula for Conspiracy Theories ​

The organization behind Clauser’s Baltimore keynote speech is called the Deposit of Faith Coalition. It is an organization with Catholic roots, and its members believe there is a conspiracy theory behind the global climate change campaign.

According to this group, the earth’s climate crisis is a false narrative being noised by institutions like the World Economic Forum, the Vatican, and the United Nations.

Physicists are Naturally Controversial ​

John Clauser is an 80-year-old physicist who won a Nobel Prize in 2022, for his studies on light particles. According to Clauser, that research from the 1970s made many see him as crazy, because the theories were unpopular at the time.

In comparison, Clauser claims his climate denial is just another unpopular opinion, which he has the right to hold.

Skepticism Gone too Far? ​

A fair dose of skepticism is at the root of all scientific advancement. So, a couple of fine minds like Clauser also believe a climate apocalypse is out of the question.

For example, the likes of Princeton’s Emeritus professor William Harper, MIT’s Richard Lindzen, and Steven Kooin—all physicists—believe global warming suits the earth just fine.

Clouds and Global Warming ​

However, several climate experts around the globe have not been sympathetic with the theories of the likes of Clauser about climate change.

The theory of the Clauser caucus is that the planet Earth adjusts accordingly as it warms up. For example, they believe that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet. So, no matter how warm it gets, the planet self-regulates.

Climate Experts Point to Evidence Around the Globe ​

Climate experts like Michael Mann from the University of Pennsylvania have torn the theories of climate deniers to shreds.

According to him, contrary to the believe that the clouds have a cooling effect, they in reality encourage warming. Mann claims that several studies have proven it that clouds help planet earth retain green house emission, causing net warming.

Patriotic Intellectuals ​

While the physicists and climate scientists are going for the jugular, one physicist chose to be liberal and objective. Austrian Anton Zeilinger shared the 2022 Nobel Prize with Clauser and commends the septuganerian’s scientific tact.

Yes, Zeilinger may not accept Clauser’s theories about the earth’s climate, but he acknowledges the man’s intellect.

Physicists are not Climate Experts ​

An interesting trend has been noticed among the climate deniers, Clauser inclusive: they are mostly physicists, and not climate scientists. So, climate experts believe these naysayers can only theorize, but cannot provide tangible evidence that planet earth is not heading towards a climate crisis.

For example, Clauser has no peer-reviewed publication, and there are claims that some climate deniers receive research funding from fossil fuel companies.

The Complicity of Big Oils in Climate Change ​

However, Clauser insists that he does not receive any honorarium from anyone whatsoever for his unpopular views on climate change.

In fact, since making his views public, Clauser has lost some of his affiliations. He was billed to deliver a seminar on climate models at the International Monetary Fund. However, the appointment was suddenly canceled without any reasonable explanation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...S&cvid=f0be89fe762943e4a216efeb490c7405&ei=27

Which team delivers @EvilMonkeyInTheCloset a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?


Andrea Adelson: Iowa. I picked South Carolina before the tournament started, but I changed my mind after watching both South Carolina and Iowa in Albany. Their tournaments have almost gone in reverse: South Carolina dominant in the first two rounds; shaky in the last two. Iowa was shaky in the first two; dominant in the last two. Iowa won this matchup last year, so there will be no intimidation factor. You could say, "Well, Iowa just won its rematch against LSU, therefore that puts South Carolina in great shape to win a potential rematch." That's a fair point. It just feels as though Iowa is a team that won't be denied right now.

Michael Voepel: Iowa. Going by the logic that I was sure LSU, with its greater rebounding prowess, would defeat Iowa in the regional final. But the Hawkeyes still won. I'm equally sure now that South Carolina will clobber the Hawkeyes on the boards. Yet somehow, as was the case against LSU, Iowa is still going to pull it off.

The Full Story:

We now know that Sunday is the last day we will ever see this team on the court together.

So I just want to say thank you.

Not to just to CC, but to the whole team and coaching staff.

The past few years have created some of the best sports memories we will ever have.

But more importantly, the young girls you have inspired have undoubtedly created some future Hawkeyes to hand this torch off to.

The heart, emotion, teamwork, and hard work have been an inspiration to many all over the world.

So bring home the Ship Sunday, but know no matter what, we owe you a lifetime of gratitude.

Go Hawks!

We just had a chance to turn this on, and what a cool aspect of the weekend. Cannot believe how many people are there just to watch an open practice. Plus ESPN is coming some really cool behind the scenes things. Thank you Hawks!!!!

Because she would have to win multiple championships to be in the conversation. Reason she gives is that Candace Parker won 2 at Tennessee, Taurasi won 3 at UConn and Breanna Stewart won 4 at UConn.

There is no way you can convince me that taking Iowa to back to back championship games with 1 title wouldn’t be at least just as impressive as what the others did.

We ain’t UConn, Tenn, Stanford, Norte Dame, Baylor etc

Login to view embedded media

They aren’t all super hopped up anti-Iowa people. It was suggested there is a long thread complaining about the call and us winning, and that’s true….

However it is a long winding tournament thread covering a lot of teams with an emphasis on Iowa. And yes, there are some guys over there, much like here, who hate everything Iowa & they go out of the way to make themselves feel better about their hate by justifying all kinds of stupid bullshit..

But, below is an example of a couple guys who get it and have called out the propaganda…

….The way I saw the game, Iowa came out tentative and wasn't playing sound basketball in the first half. They were very lucky to not be down by a lot more at halftime. In the second half, they started playing better defense and it looked to me like they were intentionally not running the offense through Clark. They got things going and then Clark got involved. Hannah Stuelke played a whale of a game and well-deserved player of the game honors. In the star matchup, I thought it was easy to forget Paige Buekers was on the floor for a lot of the game. Not so with Clark. Even though she had a subpar game shooting the ball and still played indifferent defense, she was integrated into the offense and you couldn't forget she was on the floor. If Iowa had played better in the first half and shot a bit better, they should have won by 20. The Connecticut defender on Clark did a great job. Foul problems and a lack of depth certainly hurt Connecticut….,

And….

…
I dont comment on women's basketball much, but here's my 2 cents.

It looked very questionable live, and quite frankly I was shocked any kind of team from this state got a call like that. Upon further review of different angles, it was one of the most blatantly obvious moving screens I've ever seen and needed to be called.

You can't let something that obvious go in that situation, respect for that official for having the guts to make the call.…

All in all, people are beginning to see it. If they “want” to…

And if they don’t who cares, I’m not gonna apologize. Every team has been on the bad end of a lot of calls, and as another said, it’s rare a team like Iowa will even get that call, but the reality is it was pretty damn blatant!!!

Jeezusf--kingkrist that was stressful.

Our Georgetown friends reached out to us after Iowa beat LSU to offer the services of a photographer, Madison Collins, who wanted to work the Final Four. She brought a 300mm lens and got some gems, most of which are lock-screen ready. You'll recognize the Kate Martin jumper over Bueckers from the banner image on my story from this morning.


We're eager to get her back in the building for the title game and get some more great pics for y'all. Enjoy!

Not much talk about Kate. She had a rough start, but was clutch in the 4th. That second one in the video over Paige was a thing of beauty.
Login to view embedded media

Americans overwhelmingly trust Donald Trump more than President Biden on immigration, polls show. This might be unsurprising, since the southern border is overwhelmed and Trump has made immigration the centerpiece of all his presidential campaigns.

But it’s also kind of astonishing. Most of what Trump actually plans to do about immigration in a second term is unpopular.

Myths and misinformation about immigrants (whether legal or undocumented) abound, including whether they’re more likely to commit crimes (they’re not). Or whether immigrants hurt the economy (they don’t; they are net-positive contributors to the economy and federal budgets). Such misunderstandings are one reason I write about immigration: If Americans had better information, they might be more likely to see immigration’s benefits for America’s finances, national security and moral standing in the world.



But even I recognize that’s a tall order. Voters are busy; learning the ins and outs of the immigration system requires bandwidth most people lack. You know what should be an easier lift for those of us in the media, though? Simply telling Americans what Trump’s immigration policies are, and then asking them to evaluate whether those policies match the views Americans already hold.


We already have a good sense of Trump’s likely immigration agenda from recent speeches, previous administration actions and Project 2025 documents (co-written by Trump aides and widely viewed as the policy playbook for a second Trump term). On lots of major policies, polling is not in his favor. For example:
1. Terminating legal status for so-called dreamers.

Polling shows that most Americans — even most Republicans and Trump supporters! — believe undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children should be allowed to remain here and apply for permanent legal status.


Trump has sometimes said that he has a “great heart” for these particular immigrants, nicknamed “dreamers.” But always pay more attention to what politicians do than to what they say.
As president, Trump repeatedly tried to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which temporarily shields dreamers from deportation and allows them to work. His efforts were stopped by the Supreme Court — before his final high-court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, was confirmed. DACA is expected to return to the Supreme Court soon.

In the meantime, Trump in a second term would effectively end the program administratively, by prohibiting government employees from reviewing and processing renewal applications, according to Project 2025.

2. Family separations.
The Trump administration program systematically took asylum-seeking children from their parents, with no tracking process that would allow them to be reunited. The policy was widely condemned, even by members of his own party.


In fact, it was historically unpopular, faring worse in polls than any major bill of the past 30 years, as George Washington University professor Chris Warshaw has shown.

Even today, our country has not made all these families whole, and the moral stain remains. Nonetheless, Trump has recently defended the policy and refuses to rule out reviving it.

3. Militarized mass-detention camps.
Trump wants to deploy the military to round up migrants and place them in detention camps and has publicly pledged to use the Alien Enemies Act for this purpose. This wartime measure, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, was previously invoked for mass imprisonment of Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals during World War II.
One recent survey addressed a version of this policy (Agree/disagree: “Illegal immigrants should be arrested and put in detention camps while awaiting deportation hearings”). Respondents were divided, with neither “agree” nor “disagree” claiming a majority. This question wording left out some important details of the design, so perhaps more specific language would be useful in assessing levels of support (or moral revulsion).

Missed FT potentially by design aside......boy would that have been an extremely rough f***ing way for her to end her career.

Standing and waiting for the ball, resigning herself to being locked down by her defenders and not making the extra effort to get open, or at the very f***ing least have it be stolen WHILE she was working hard to get open, and then standing there watching Stuelke get stuck on that turnover that led to the last 3 by UConn.

I could also point out that she should have conceded the layup rather than daring Muhl(?) to shoot that 3.

Hopefully she can take that coaching/criticism if our staff even mentions it, or at the very least make those mental adjustments so that the end of that UConn game isn't also the lasting images of her in a loss to to South Carolina, because we WILL f***ing lose if she can't step it up off the ball in late game situations against South Carolina (assuming it even comes to that).................

Free throws decide a game in the last 5-10 seconds. It actually happens A LOT. I could probably go through the men's and women's college games played this year and find a couple hundred examples. Fouls are called all the time in the final 10 seconds. An egregious moving screen removing the primary defender from the play is not different than fouling the ball handler. Both affect the game.

Sad at every level......

Login to view embedded media

Good to be the underdog. All pressure on SC to finish the job.
Good to get a game under your belt on this floor.
Good to have endured a tough one, sharpens the sword.
Good for CC to go out on the biggest stage, brightest lights.

Go get this girls.

The US is on high alert and actively preparing for a “significant” attack within the next week by Iran targeting Israeli or American assets in the region in response to Monday’s Israeli strike in Damascus that killed top Iranian commanders, a senior administration official tells CNN.

Senior US officials currently believe that an attack by Iran is “inevitable” – a view shared by their Israeli counterparts, that official said. The two governments are furiously working to get in position ahead of what is to come, as they anticipate that Iran’s attack could unfold in a number of different ways – and that both US and Israeli assets and personnel are at risk of being targeted.

Bad news: officially listed as out for tonight. Had to figure this was coming after the emotional exchange with Bluder during yesterday’s shoot around.

I think she has a position at Oregon as Director of Athletic Culture. Creating such would be a wonderful way to continue Iowa's relationship with CC, imo.

Oh... wait...

Login to view embedded media