I commented on President Trump’s remarks to the Minnesota GOP’s sold-out Lincoln Reagan dinner in St. Paul on Friday night in “Trump comes to town.” I assessed that Trump was in good form. Below are a few video highlights via X. I stand by my assessment.
NEW: Donald Trump’s Minnesota rally practically turns into a stand up comedy skit as he ditches the teleprompter.
Amazing.
Trump even used props including a Biden Tic Tac dispenser to highlight Bidenflation.
Video of Trump’s remarks in their entirety is posted here on YouTube. Video of the entire event is posted here on YouTube — North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum introduces Trump at about 2:00:00 followed by Trump at about 2:15:00. I assess that Burgum will be Trump’s VP pick.
Last night’s fight between Tyson Fury and Oleksandr Usyk was big, for a number of reasons. For one thing, it yielded an undisputed, unified heavyweight champion for the first time in 25 years. I am not particularly a fan of the heavyweight division; in my opinion, the welterweight and middleweight divisions generally have better fighters and better fights. Still, a unified heavyweight title is a pretty big deal.
Beyond that, the boxers are premier talents. Usyk came into the fight undefeated at 21-0, while Fury, the lineal champion, was 34-0-1. Usyk is from Ukraine, a boxing hotbed, and Fury, the Gypsy King, is a colorful character, a Traveller who stands 6′ 9″, weighs 262 pounds and is known among other things for his defensive skills. Sort of a Jess Willard only three inches taller and a really skilled boxer.
The fight, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, proved a classic. Fury won most of the early rounds and was sometimes clownish in the ring, apparently mimicking one of Muhammad Ali’s less likable traits. But Usyk, six inches shorter and with a seven-inch reach disadvantage, came on in the fight’s second half, bloodying Fury’s face and, in the 9th, stunning him with a left, followed by a barrage that had Fury out on his feet. Fury was saved by an eight-count and the bell. One might have thought he was finished, but, with the amazing resilience that is typical of boxers, he fought three more rounds in creditable fashion.
This brief video shows some highlights, including the action in Round 9:
In the end, Usyk won a split decision and is now the undisputed, and lineal, champion. The above video might cause you to wonder how anyone could have seen Fury as the winner, but, as noted above, he won most of the early rounds, and boxing is scored according to how many rounds you win. The only two-point round was the 9th, when Usyk scored his knockdown.
After the fight, Fury rather classlessly claimed that he should have won, but Usyk was favored because of international sympathy for Ukraine. Usyk missed the press conference, as he was taken to a hospital for treatment of a broken jaw, which he apparently suffered halfway through the bout and fought with thereafter. This fight illustrates why some fans think that all sports other than boxing are child’s play.
Fury said he will invoke the rematch clause in his contract; the rematch will presumably be in the fall. It should be another great fight.
Susan Baker read Peggy Noonan’s recent Wall Street Journal column so that you don’t have to. Baker took issue with Noonan in a letter to the editor published yesterday. It’s hard to nail Noonan down in the column, but Baker bites on Noonan’s set-up:
Peggy Noonan starts out decrying Joe Biden as “too old and infirm” to be president and Donald Trump as “too crazy” (“2024: A Certain Fatalism Sets In,” Declarations, May 11). I think this gives Old Joe a pass; after all, who doesn’t feel for an old man?
Instead, I see a man who has spent his adult life living off the largesse of political power. I see a man who has weaponized law enforcement to attack his opponent as well as everyday citizens—concerned parents, pro-lifers, Catholics and even grandmothers praying in the Capitol.
I see a man who defies Supreme Court rulings by expanding regulatory overreach and canceling student debt. I see a man who throws allies under the bus to gain votes, holding back arms in Ukraine and Israel, and prolonging, not winning, wars.
I see a man who attacks dependable fossil fuels and mandates electric cars that few want to satisfy the noisy greens. I see a man who would sanction abortion through the third trimester and supports the mutilation of troubled children, both under the guise of health. I could go on—open borders, fentanyl, Afghanistan, Hunter, Tara Reade, inflation.
In short, I see a man destroying our country. This election, I’ll vote “crazy.”
Susan C. Baker
Mooresville, N.C.
Noonan concludes the column with which Baker takes issue by writing in a vein meant to persuade Trump’s enemies by appealing to their deprecation of Trump:
I end with a word to Trump foes who hope he’ll be found guilty in the New York case and sentenced to prison time. They think this will finish him off. It will not.
Donald Trump doesn’t know it, but he will love prison. He’ll be the most specially treated convict in American history, better than the mob bosses in “Goodfellas.” He’ll be in his cell with his phone—he’ll get one—live-streaming and live-Truthing; he’ll be posing thumbs up in his uniform surrounded by gangbangers and white collar hoodlums. He’ll philosophize about how a lot of people in prison don’t deserve to be there, the system’s rigged, he’ll consider pardons. All convicts tell you that they were railroaded, but this will be new to Trump, he’ll believe them.
He’ll be the king of Rikers. He’ll say he’s learned a lot and the guards are all for Trump and he’s going to get out and reform the justice system. It will be fabulous for him. He’ll put himself as Martin Luther King and he’ll be writing Truths From the Birmingham Jail.
People forget: He loves this, loves the game, the drama, and the devil takes care of his own.
Noonan’s fantasia purports to humor Trump’s enemies. Perhaps for that reason, Noonan’s train of thought may be a little off course. I doubt the Secret Service is on board with it.
The Journal must compensate Noonan handsomely for her deep thoughts. If she were as concise, commonsensical, or straightforward as Ms. Baker, she would probably struggle to make a living.
On October 7 Hamas brutally maimed and murdered — not necessarily in that order — Israelis attending the Nova Music Festival in Re’im. Hamas kidnapped the living and the dead to Gaza.
Hamas has sought to Gaza exchange the living hostages and the bodies of the murdered Israelis for a multiple of living Hamas murderers incarcerated in Israel. Hamas seeks freedom for its incarcerated murderers so that they can assist in the project of repeating massacres again and again until Israel is annihilated — as Ghazi Hamid explained on Lebanon TV.
Late last week the IDF undertook an overnight operations to recover the bodies of Itzhak Gelerenter, Amit Buskila, Shani Louk, and Ron Binyamin. The Times of Israel reports on this operation here. The New York Post focuses on Louk’s story here.
Shani Louk, Amit Buskila and Yitzhak Gelernter were kidnapped and murdered by Hamas terrorists on October 7 from the Nova Music Festival.
Overnight, our troops recovered their bodies and brought them back home to Israel.
It took the authorities longer to identify Binyamin’s body. In the video below IDF spokesman Daniel Hagari announces the recovery of Binyamin’s corpse. The Jerusalem post reports the recovery and identification of Binyamin’s body here.
“On October 7, the cruelty of Hamas was directed against anyone who stood in the way of the murderous terrorists—women, the elderly, adults, children, whether they were Israeli or foreign nationals.”
Watch an operational update from IDF Spokesperson RAdm. Daniel Hagari regarding… pic.twitter.com/GYV0rPcrXC
It is difficult fully to comprehend the special savagery of this aspect of the war. Hamas’s treatment of the dead “involves ostentatiousness and theatricality, aimed at showing contempt, discouraging opponents, sowing fear, and asserting superiority.” The genocidal essence of Hamas lies beyond civilized norms. This manifestation of it provides a graphic example.
Protesting for Hamas may have seemed like a lark to students at “elite” colleges and law schools, but it turns out that there might actually be consequences. Law firms, in particular, have expressed unwillingness to hire anti-Semites. Now we have this:
S&C is our go-to law firm. Their principled approach here makes me want to send them more business. You should too. https://t.co/G0Ay3w9s0D
Sullivan & Cromwell is one of the world’s great law firms, I think in the top five by anyone’s reckoning. This is from the National Law Journal article linked in the tweet:
[Senior firm chair Joe] Shenker was in his Jerusalem synagogue’s bomb shelter when the Hamas-led attack on Israel began on Oct. 7.
Oops. So what will Sullivan do to try to identify students who turned out for terrorism?
The firm is now outlining some of its vetting processes in that effort, including reviewing resumes, social media, news reports and student group affiliations and employing third-party specialists for background checks.
“Third-party specialists for background checks.” That sounds serious; Sullivan obviously doesn’t want to inadvertently hire Hamasniks. And their clients–like Bill Ackman–likely appreciate that vigilance.
Of course, the average demonstrator’s chance of getting a job with Sullivan & Cromwell, even if he or she is a law school graduate, is vanishingly small. But other firms and companies may follow the lead of Sullivan and the other prominent law firms who have publicly said that they will not knowingly hire anti-Semites. Maybe there will be a trickle-down effect on the broader economy. We can only hope so.
Meanwhile, who had “John Fetterman is the most sensible senator” on his bingo card? Not me, that’s for sure. But Fetterman continues to impress:
In the course of writing From Mainline to Sideline I came acrossHuan-Ying: Journey Through Workers’ China, authored by Janet Goldwasser and Stuart Dowty and published by Monthly Review Press in 1975. “We wrote it to combat misinformation, ” explained Goldwasserin 2019. “China had a different way of setting priorities in terms of healthcare and working conditions, so we intended to get information to readers who weren’t able to visit themselves.”
Stuart Dowty, billed as an automobile worker who visited China in 1972, also showed up inChina: People-Questions, published by the National Council of Churches (NCC) in 1975. As Dowty saw it:
While Liberation turned the whole society towards socialism, the Cultural Revolution deepened and continued that process. Mutant social growths were identified and unceremoniously uprooted. And, the Chinese conclude, there will be more cultural revolutions in the future as their society moves along a socialist direction.
Layoffs and unemployment were no problem because China’s planned economy could handle such changes rationally.
There is no doubt that socialist motivations, as opposed to individualist perspectives, have produced an impressive record of social and economic growth during the past two decades.
And so on. The editor of China: People-Questions was Michael Chinoy, who explained:
China’s Communist revolution has propelled a backward, poverty- stricken, virtually medieval society into the modern world. . . a violent revolution and bitter civil war were necessary to sweep away the decay, exploitation, and backwardness of old China. . . the revolutionary process did not stop. Indeed, it was accelerated.
Stuart Dowty is now listed as retired attorney in Ypsilanti, Michigan, the former chairman of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party, and former deputy supervisor in Pittsfield Township. Huan-Ying: Journey Through Workers China is stillavailable on Amazon, but no second thoughts on the “misinformation” Goldwasser and Dowty set out to “combat.” And no tally of all those “mutant social growths” who were “unceremoniously uprooted.” For details see The Black Book of Communism.
Listeners want to know from John: did Justice Clarence Thomas let us down with his ruling in this week’s 7 – 2 decision upholding the unique independent funding structure of Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), which she designed intentionally to avoid congressional control as much as possible? John says no, and makes a persuasive three-part case for why Thomas’s opinion is thoroughgoing originalism, and good history to boot. If we want to get rid of Warren’s regulatory handiwork (AND WE DO!), it will need to be done directly by Congress, rather than indirectly by the courts.
This week also marked the 70th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which we have deplored before on account of the poor reasoning for the halfway right result, but a our Article of the Week from our friend Shep Melnick of Boston College draws our attention to some ongoing ambiguities of Brown that still afflict our civil rights law today. You’d think after 70 years we might have figured it out, but no—and worse, the ambiguity is likely on purpose, because it suits the shifting strategy and tactics of the identitarian left.
Other topics covered briefly this week include the collapsing case against Trump in Manhattan, Trump’s VP sweepstakes (you can scratch Kristi Noem from the list), the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition and King Charles’s ghastly portrait (hard to say which is worse here), Harrison Butker’s cultural butt kick, and, finally, how to devise some tests to judge whether higher education is truly reversing its multi-decade slide into pernicious leftism.
As usual, listen here, at Ricochet, or wherever your source your favorite podcasts.
I’m heading overseas shortly for three weeks for multiple academic conferences in several different locations, so both regular posts and podcasts may appear on an irregular schedule.
