(The above picture is an actual advertisement from a Star Trek website. I am not exaggerating or modifying it in any way.)

I thought the Klingons presented in Star Trek: The Next Generation were really interesting. They were a fierce warrior race where honor and bravery meant everything. They were tough fighters and strong and all that. But behind all the head-butting and ridiculous sword duels, it seemed like honor and selfless bravery were what they were all about.

Worf was loyal to the human-dominated Federation, but he still adhered to the Klingon traditions of honor, discipline and martial valor. Worf was interesting because the Federation was not based around Klingon culture, but he was theologically and culturally totally Klingon. In later episodes, he had difficulty raising his son, Alexander, because he wanted him to be Klingon yet remain a loyal Federation citizen. Klingons were an unusual fit in the human-dominated Federation society.

We were driving Mrs. Tex’s daily driver yesterday, a 2015 Escape with about 120K miles.  It’s got a lot of life yet, but at ages 68 and 65 we figure it will get replaced at some point.  Not so my truck, a 2023 F150 that replaced a ’99 truck that we purchased new.  In retrospect I wish I had kept it as a ranch truck rather than trading it in for a pittance.

We got to talking about how we keep making purchases that will be THE LAST ONE.  It’s sort of humbling to realize we are definitely approaching the twilight years.  Now, some large projects we have done were purposely so we would never have to do them again – a metal roof, concrete driveway, new windows, etc.  But I always enjoyed shopping for new cars (as distinct from purchasing them, never a truly enjoyable experience).  But the seemingly endless acquisitions of the past will be just that: in the past.

The photo is of Scotch and Ginger in the ’99 truck.  I pulled it out and had to go back in the house and left the passenger door open, and they decided that they wanted to go along.  It took some persuasion to get them out,

The extreme Democrat intransigence regarding DHS funding and their willingness to inflict pain and injury on ordinary Americans to achieve their goal against ICE leads me to believe that this is an existential issue for Democrats. It seems to me that Democrats are counting heavily on illegal immigration to enhance their Congressional representation, and that this is a key feature of their plan to make America as much a one-party country as California and other states are one-party blue states. I think they have been counting on sanctuary cities and states to harbor enough illegal aliens to give them enough congressional seats to achieve and then maintain a perpetual majority in Congress, at least in the House. Just as Democrats held the House for 40 years, until Newt Gingrich upset their majority in 1996, Democrats have plans to recover that lasting majority, and they will do anything toward that end.

Democrats are aware that Americans are leaving blue states for more favorable business climes, where freedom from a vast and incompetent bureaucracy and excessive taxes exists. The party is not confident that it can maintain sufficient populations in those jurisdictions to retain its Congressional seats. (See Kathy Hochul’s plea to prosperous constituents leaving New York to return and fund her welfare state.) They seek warm bodies from elsewhere—unproductive, dependent, criminal, whatever—to maintain population and hence House representation. Never mind the redistricting. That only shuffles the chairs on the Titanic deck. They need more warm bodies. And they fear they will suffer ignominious loss of control if they do not keep those illegal aliens in their states to be counted in the census.

Today I’m joined by Zohar Palti — Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution and former head of the Intelligence Directorate in Israel’s Mossad—for a rare, inside account of how Israel thinks about war, deterrence, and survival. From the shock of October 7 to the current campaign against Iran, Palti explains why Israel sees both nuclear capability and ballistic missiles as existential threats—and why waiting is not an option.

The conversation explores the logic of preemptive war, the limits of intelligence when it comes to predicting regime change, and the realities of fighting a modern conflict—from missile defense and drone warfare to the vulnerability of global energy routes. Palti also reflects on Israel’s internal challenges, the resilience of its people under constant attack, and the enduring partnership with the United States.

Some of you might remember that I wrote a post last spring about two nesting sandhill cranes. We were thrilled to have the birds across the pond from our house, and watched their process for minding the egg, sharing shifts, and taking breaks.

We weren’t sure they would return this year because the nest was flooded when the pond water elevated from the rains.

My thought of the morning as I doom scroll centered on how resilient America is and whether the progressive project has succeeded in dooming the American Experiment.

The famed HMS Titanic was billed as unsinkable, and yet it sank. Its design involved sixteen watertight compartments in the hull divided by fifteen transverse bulkheads. As many as four compartments could be breached while the ship could remain afloat. Six compartments were breached, and the ship went down.

In the most recent election cycle, three incumbent black judges in San Antonio lost their primaries, as did the other two first-time black candidates. In this article in the San Antonio Express-News, the following quote appears:

“I think it’s a very bad look for the criminal justice system not to have any African American judges,” said attorney Andrew Birrell, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. “The bench ought to reflect A, the society, and B, the people who come before the court. That’s how you get the fairest result that people are the most accepting of.”

I listened to Tucker’s interview, several days ago, on a podcast–I think it was Megyn Kelly’s podcast.  Along the way, Tucker made one outrageous claim after another.  And yet he also, when it came to Israel, was repeatedly at pains to point out that he–who insists that he isn’t an anti-Semite–“understands” Israel’s position vis-a-vis Iran and the rest of the Middle East, and that he realizes that the Israeli position is merely one of wanting supremacy in relation to its regional neighbors. Something, Tucker repeatedly said, that every nation-state wants. And he repeated, time after time, an assertion that he, “Tucker,” understands Netanyahu’s position, and said that had he (Tucker) been in charge of the messaging, he’d have said exactly the same as has Bibi.

Megyn, as I’ve increasingly come to expect, nodded along.

And I started to wonder:  What is it that Tucker Carlson thinks is Iran’s goal in the Middle East?  And why do I never see him speaking to it?  Why doesn’t he ever seem to state that it’s perfectly understandable and defensible to execute thousands of Iran’s citizens, if they’re standing in the way of the regime’s national and religious objectives, and why isn’t he asserting that he–Tucker–would be doing exactly what the mullahs and the IRGC are doing to promote it, were he in charge of Iranian messaging along the way?