🤣

Login to view embedded media

jail time

But keeps the Russian, German, French, Polish clubs. Because only certain clubs upset the racist in chief.

Trump is being very tight lipped about who he swapped for the American teacher.
I suspect the outrage online won’t be as vociferous as when Britney Griner was released on nearly identical drug charges. Also interesting that Fogel was immediately put before the cameras in the WH versus being taken for medical care and the opportunity to receive counseling after his ordeal. He looked exhausted and dazed.
Link

Login to view embedded media
Not adjusted for overall purchasing power parity (PPP), but still....

Mexico's GDP per capita is about a third of ours. So PPP suggests our eggs should cost 3x theirs.

I like the idea of ATVs scooters and motorcycles in Walmart. I wish he had shown their prices.

They are the US Courts policing service. They are not usually asked to force the Prez to adhere to court rulings.

Right now if the Dumpster tries to ignore court rulings the courts can cite him and his minions for contempt and that is about it unless they rule that Trump has to vacate people from buildings and if that is refused the maybe the marshalls will be tasked with forcefully acting on the courts' orders.

To observe this happening will be very shocking. I hope the Exec Branch doesnt try to ignore court orders. If they do I would like nothing more that the Dumpster to go to jail this time

To try to cover for their lies.

Step 1 - claims 8 billion in savings for terminating a contract

Step 2 - others point out contract is for 8 million not 8 billion

Step 3 - DOGE changes underlying website to 8 billion

QED

Login to view embedded media

Brother of Aaron Hernandez, DJ was a graduate assistant 2013-2014 at Iowa, was at Miami in 2012.

Sad story, due to mental health issues. But not going to prison, time served covers his sentence.

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...nandez-sentenced-served-shooting-threats-case

In the past structure, the 5 major conferences mostly split evenly 80% of the CFP’s $460 million in revenue.

The CFP is barreling toward a new 14 team format and revenue model that skews toward the new Power Two of college athletics, creating a more formal delineation between two groups: the SEC and Big Ten; the ACC and Big 12.

With a 14 team playoff, the difference in distribution between the two sets of conferences — SEC/Big Ten and ACC/Big 12 — will likely exceed $300 million a year. The Power Two will earn around a combined $760 million versus around $440 million for the ACC and Big 12. Roughly $115 million is slotted for the Group of Five.

Considering the distribution percentages, SEC teams will earn as much as $23 million annually, Big Ten $21 million, ACC around $13.7 million and Big 12 around $12.3 million. Group of Five teams are expected to earn a figure just south of $2 million

Click on the football helmet to take you to the full story:

Login to view embedded media

President-elect Donald Trump’s margin of victory was greatest among those who consume little or no news. “Americans with less formal education tend to rely more on friends and family for election information, while those with higher education and income are more likely to prefer the news media,” one report found.

Other studies and literature have confirmed the prevalence of low-information (also sometimes categorized as “ignorant” or “disengaged” voters) who know shockingly little about government, policy and their fellow Americans (e.g., wildly overestimating the size of some groups, assessing the state of the economy, understanding basic facts about the Constitution).



Moreover, political reporters and pundits — who cannot fathom someone might never read a newspaper or know the three branches of government — consistently overestimate voters’ knowledge. They nag politicians (as they did with Vice President Kamala Harris) to provide reams of policy detail that these voters never hear — or care to learn about. Pundits’ pleas were especially misplaced considering Harris needed to appeal to the very voters whose policy knowledge and interest was the lowest.
Follow Jennifer Rubin
The problem is getting worse over time, as the Washington Monthly pointed out in March:

The share of Americans who say they are following any kind of news closely dropped 13 points in the past eight years to just over one-third. And a segment of voters takes almost no notice of what’s happening at all, particularly when it comes to politics. According to studies conducted by pollster Ian Smith, up until a couple of months before an election, “people spend as little as ten minutes a week absorbing political news.” That’s 0.1 percent of voters’ time, about the same amount they spend brushing their teeth.

Click to expand...

We shouldn’t be surprised when most Americans can’t name a Supreme Court justice or when they’re shocked to learn that Obamacare is the same thing as the Affordable Care Act, upon which they rely. (One wonders what is the point of asking such voters their view on policy issues — or which candidate does better on handling an issue — when they do not follow political news.)



This does not mean that voters don’t learn about candidates during the campaign or cannot be stirred on issues near and dear to them. After all, when seniors hear about potential cuts in Medicare or Social Security, you hear a chorus of protests.
Simply put, only a certain stratum of Americans prioritize learning about politics. That poses a problem for Democrats who love to flash their policy credentials and often rely on substantive arguments (e.g., tariffs are effectively the same as a sales tax). Democrats are missing a large and increasingly critical segment of voters.
There is a vast range of literature about how voters who know little about the issues develop “shortcuts” to identify candidates. They take clues such as the politicians’ profession (e.g., business mogul), party image (Democrats defend voting rights) and viral moments (Ronald Reagan, “I am paying for this microphone!”) to decide who they prefer.



Democrats might pine for a country of high-information voters fostered by civics education and responsible social media platforms that elevate truthful policy statements. However, they shouldn’t hold their breath. Even if those efforts might make a difference at the margins (more likely improving the acuity of already-informed voters), the mass of low-information voters will remain happily oblivious to policy and political details.
Still, Democrats can do a much better job of reaching less politically engaged voters. For starters, they need to reduce and simplify the values that define the party (e.g., protecting the little guy, letting you choose your own life) and pound away at them for years, using every medium available (podcasts, nonpolitical TV shows, social media, etc.).
Second, Democrats would be wise to frame Trump and Republicans in direct, clear terms, which they can emphasize daily (e.g., the culture of corruption, the party of fat cats, reckless with your health and security). Each time Trump and his Republican acolytes do something that fits into one of these categories, Democrats must highlight their behavior and amplify it (requiring more facility with online influencing and new media).


ADVERTISING


For example: Nominating an anti-vaccination mandates, loony conspiracy theorist for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services shows reckless disregard for Americans’ health; or Republicans recklessly passed forced-birth laws that resulted in women’s deaths and serious health incidents. They are not looking out for you and your family.
And finally, Democrats must be scrupulous in tying Republicans to the consequences of their policies. Controlling the White House and both houses means Republicans will not have the luxury of blaming others (although they will try). If voters do not understand how bad policy choices are impacting their lives, they will have no reason to hold Republicans accountable.
In sum, Democrats certainly need to keep coming up with good policy ideas and selling them to voters who care about such things. But they also need spend more time and effort improving communication with everyone else. Shaping shortcuts to help voters understand the fundamental differences between candidates should be a priority.

Distinguished persons of the week​

Republicans generally seem inclined to allow Trump to expand executive power and empower a grab-bag of unqualified, extreme characters. But at least a few senators appear interested in preserving the Senate’s constitutional power — and obligation — to provide “advice and consent,” a critical part of our system of checks and balances.



Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) declared, “It is important to do these background checks, and the FBI has done this [for decades].” She continued, “It’s just been routine that they have been the one that has handled it. You don’t go to an outside private investigator, right?” After all, she pointed out, “If you’re a Senate staffer seeking to get that security clearance, you go — we all go — through that same process.” She expressed her firm belief that a thorough vetting is a requirement for Cabinet nominees.
Sounding somewhat less adamant, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) added, “The FBI should do the background checks, in my judgement.” Maybe she should insist on it. Even Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), remarked that while Trump might choose to supplement the investigation with a private firm, he “sure wouldn’t leave it” entirely in private hands.
Murkowksi, who voted to convict Trump in the second impeachment trail and voted against confirming Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh (but in favor of Trump’s other two right-wing nominees) might be the most independent-minded Republican remaining in the Senate. If she sticks to her guns on FBI background checks and takes the hard votes against absurd nominees and policies, she can preserve her reputation as a maverick. She might even inspire a few of her colleagues to show some spine.

The Board of Regents levied a rare rejection Thursday of a University of Iowa construction project, opting not to approve — at least for now — a long-awaited renovation of the 100-year-old Iowa Memorial Union.



Citing “unprecedented uncertainty about federal funding” and suggesting the $81.4 million modernization is “probably not a project that is immediately necessary,” Regent David Barker during the board meeting proposed tabling the proposal.


“Do you think that given the uncertainties about federal funding in the moment, it would be prudent to maybe postpone that for some short period of time?” Barker asked UI Senior Vice President and Architect Rod Lehnertz, who pushed for its approval by citing student-backed fees approved in 2023 to help pay debt incurred for the project.




“We all have many concerns about the federal issues — with research, indirect cost support, Medicaid and the others that are being discussed,” Lehnertz said, but the fees being collected to pay back debt incurred for the student union project could not be redirected toward research or health care. “So it’s an already established funded project,” he said.


Lehnertz also noted the long-standing deferred maintenance needs at the union, dating to before the 2008 flood that devastated the facility, earning it recovery support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.


The board had approved “fiscally prudent” upgrades at that time, according to Lehnertz. “But the federal government did not allow it and disallowed it and actually said they'd take away the federal dollars if we tried to do the work we wanted to do beyond the recovery, and we were directed to stop all work we might do,” he said.


Given restrictions on those FEMA funds, the university could not pursue the additional upgrades to the union until 2021 — when it began planning this project. A phase one proposed in 2023 aimed to spend $75 million to renovate 93,000 square feet — including moving student health from the west side of campus to the updated union.





“The IMU would undergo a major renovation of its original 1925 construction and its three subsequent building additions,” according to the 2023 proposal, noting, “there are few, if any, existing record building documents. For the design to be complete, there would need to be an extensive construction manager at risk lead, and destructive investigation activities, including select demolition by the construction manager at risk to determine the location and configuration of all major building systems.”