Saturday: Hili dialogue

February 21, 2026 • 6:45 am

Welcome to CaturSaturday, February 21, 2026, and Boiled Peanuts Day. If you ever see them for sale, as I did ion 2013 at this stand near Warm Springs, Georgia, buy them. They are terrific, especially when hot.  (Note that they use immature peanuts.)

It’s also National Sticky Bun Day, World Kombucha Day (again? I still haven’t had it), World Pangolin Day, and World Whale Day.

Today’s Google Doodle is on freestyle skiing. Click to see where it goes:

The Olympics end tomorrow, after the U.S. men’s ice hockey team play’s Canada. Will we have another “Miracle on Ice” after 46 years. I think so.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the February 21 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*I wrote last night about the Supreme Court ditching Trump’s recently-imposed tariffs. Whether he can circumvent that, as he pledges, remains to be seen.

*The WaPo reports that a poll of Americans show that most of us think Trump has gone “too far” with his immigration scheme. (Article is archived here.)

Thirteen months into President Donald Trump’s second term, a growing majority of Americans have soured on his handling of immigration, with 58 percent saying he has gone too far deporting undocumented immigrants, a rise of eight points since last fall, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll.

The survey finds that a slightly higher number, 62 percent, oppose the aggressive tactics of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a result that comes after federal immigration personnel shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis last month. More than half the public is “upset” or “angry” about enforcement operations in that city.
Here’s the poll as shown in the Post. As usual, there’s a huge partisan divide, but Independents are getting upset, and, overall, the “too fars” have risen 10-15% among “all Americans” or “independents”.  Trump can still enforce the law without these egregious extremes, and he should listen to Americans as a whole rather than Republicans (of course he won’t)

 

Trump’s approval rating on one of his signature campaign issues has eroded steadily over the past year, falling to 40 percent in the latest poll, down 10 points from a year ago, when half the country approved of his handling of immigration. The president receives higher marks — 47 percent approval — for his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border, specifically. Illegal border crossings rose dramatically during the Biden administration but dropped sharply in Trump’s first year

The widespread negative views of Trump’s immigration crackdown underscore a stark political reality ahead of his State of the Union address next week. Once a pillar in the president’s efforts to build a larger electoral coalition in 2024, immigration may no longer be a reliable bulwark for GOP lawmakers, who are increasingly worried about their chances of maintaining full control of Congress in the midterm elections this fall.

At the same time, half of the nearly 2,600 Americans surveyed in mid-February said they support federal efforts to deport all of the estimated 14 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States —a figure that is almost identical to the 51 percent who supported doing so a year ago. And the public opposes abolishing ICE by a margin of 50 percent to 37 percent.

It’s not the deportation of illegals that is becoming unpopular, but how it’s being done. The first requirement is that cases have to be verified by an immigration judge.  We’ll see what the Congress does with the bill affecting Homeland Security. It won’t formally defund ICE, of course, but could make the agents behave more responsibly.

*A group of faculty at the University of British Columbia is suing the school for promulgating social-justice initiatives that, they say, violates a provincial law requiring universities to be politically neutral.

Job candidates required to describe how they would advance “decolonization.” A video that suggests starting meetings by identifying oneself as a “settler” on unceded native lands. A political scientist who says he was instructed to teach game theory “from an Indigenous perspective.”

Each, a practice at the University of British Columbia, is now evidence in a lawsuit brought against the school by a group of professors who claim such social-justice efforts violate a provincial law requiring universities to stay out of politics.

The suit, filed last spring and currently under review by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, has set off a major legal and cultural battle at one of Canada’s top universities, in which each side accuses the other of trying to push an activist political agenda in the name of free speech.

The case underscores how Trump-era opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts has spread north to Canada. But more than a snow-covered battlefield in the culture war, the suit raises important questions about when public speech in a democratic society is political.

The professors who petitioned the court say the university’s measures promote a campus culture that punishes contrarian ideas and pressures academics to endorse progressive political positions with which they may disagree. They seek to ban the university from a broad range of actions that include requiring job applicants to commit to diversity principles; and the making of so-called land acknowledgments, ceremonial statements which often precede public events and that note Canada is the ancestral land of Indigenous people.

The professors’ case hinges on a decades-old provincial law, called the University Act, which mandates that universities be “nonsectarian and nonpolitical in principle.” But the law does little to clarify the bigger question before the court: What counts as political?

“In recent years, university administrators have given in to the calls to take political positions,” said Josh Dehaas, a lawyer for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a libertarian organization, who is representing the professors suing the university. “In this particular era, the pressure they have given into is often progressive causes.” Before 2020, he added, an accomplished academic did not need “to commit to D.E.I. principles to become a professor at U.B.C.”

The four professors who brought the lawsuit declined to speak on the record while the case is under review by the court.

In a brief submitted to the court, the university argued the professors have not shown proof of harm to their careers or liberties, and denied that either land acknowledgments or D.E.I. policies constitute “political activity” under the law.

Well, that last bit depends on whether ideological activities, which DEI measures and land acknowledgments clearly are (they’re banned at the University of Chicago), count as political activities.  I predict the plaintiffs will lose on the grounds that they don’t have standing (is that a thing in Canada?). That is, they haven’t shown personal damages to themselves.  But at least at the University of Chicago all these activities are not permitted since they count as violations of institutional neutrality.

* Three articles from the NYT about the new ballroom that’s supposedly going to replace the already-demolished East Wing of the White House. And oy, vey!—look at the titles.

Excerpts from all three:

An arts commission stacked with President Trump’s allies approved his $400 million ballroom on Thursday, bypassing the normal review process and fast-tracking the vote on a project that would transform the profile of the White House.

The vote came even as the panel’s longtime secretary — one of the only people involved who was not appointed by Mr. Trump — described mass opposition to the project, saying he had received more than 2,000 messages from across the country in one week.

The Commission of Fine Arts had been expected to hold only a preliminary vote on Thursday, but the panel chose to push forward and give its final approval ahead of schedule. Mr. Trump wants to have the ballroom built and open to guests within a year and a half.

You can see the newest plans at the second link above

In an earlier design released by Shalom Baranes — the new architect hired by Mr. Trump in December — the east and south porticoes each had a triangular pediment. The one on the south portico has been removed in the latest plan.

But the pediment on the east portico (not shown in the view above) remains and its height is about four feet taller than the roof of the executive residence. Critics have said the design would dwarf the existing White House.

. . . These are the first renderings that include details about a garden that would replace the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden, which was demolished with the old East Wing

Finally, the number and design of the arched windows on the new “wing” have changed. You can see the changes if you subscribe to the Post, or see them at the free archived page here.

As for the new golf course, it will be a luxury course that will replace the cheap public golf course on an island with both a nice park and the Jefferson Memorial. Here’s what’s there now:

It’s a neat place. There are hundreds of cherry blossom trees, a road for cycling that wraps around the perimeter of the island, and a primo picnic area at its eastern tip. Most of the park is taken up by an affordable golf course that has been there in some form since the beginning. The course, East Potomac Golf Links, is a bit shabby, but the prices are unbeatable: $42 for 18 holes.

This will be replaced by a much more expensive course, I think, and sue me if it won’t have Trump’s name on it. I am not sure if what he’s doing there is even legal. The plans:

“We’re going to make it a beautiful, world-class, U.S. Open-caliber course,” Mr. Trump said when asked about this last month. “Ideally, we’re going to have major tournaments there and everything else. It’s going to bring a lot of business into Washington.”

That would involve demolishing the adjacent park and replacing it with a course that would cost hundreds of dollars to play. And no, it may not be legal, but it’s already a fait accompli as debris is dumped all over the island.

*Daily college Jew-dissing. This one comes from Haverford College in the eponymous Philadelphia town, and was reported in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The excuse: an Israeli reporter was supposed to speak. (h/t Ginger K.)

During a talk by an Israeli journalist at Haverford College earlier this month, a group of about a dozen masked people sat and stood in the audience.

At one point, one of them began shouting through a bullhorn, “Death to IOF,” or Israeli Occupying Forces, a name critics use to refer to Israel Defense Forces, and “Shame,” according to a video of the incident and people who attended the event. The protesters’ faces were covered by masks or keffiyehs, a symbol of Palestinian identity.

“When Gaza has burned, you will all burn, too,” the protester shouted at the audience of about 180 people, many of them members of the local Jewish community, according to another video viewed by The Inquirer.

An audience member grabbed at the bullhorn and appeared to make contact with the protester as the protester yelled in his face, according to a video. The college’s campus safety personnel ejected both the bullhorn user and the audience member and has since banned both from campus, college officials said, noting that neither is an employee, student, or alumnus of Haverford.

The event sparked renewed charges of antisemitism on the highly selective liberal arts campus, which already is under scrutiny by a Republican-led congressional committee for its handling of antisemitism complaints and is the subject of an open investigation by the U.S. Department of Education.

It will also lead to changes in Haverford’s policies. In a message to the campus after the event, president Wendy Raymond — who faced intense questioning from the congressional committee about the school’s response to antisemitism last year — said “shouting down a speaker whom one does not agree with is never acceptable and stands outside of our shared community values.”

College officials acknowledged that Haverford needs to upgrade its event policies and said changes would be rolled out no later than after spring break.

Some people who attended the event to hear journalist Haviv Rettig Gur said they were afraid because they did not know who the masked attendees were or what they had in their belongings, and in light of recent mass violence at Jewish events around the world.

Click on the screenshot below to see the screaming, unhinged (and, of course, masked) student on Instagram. You can see a different but equally disgusting video embedded in the Inquirer article. (Sound up, but not too loud!) Finally, you can hear the professor in the class talking sternly to the protestors here. Finally, if you want to write to President Raymond, her email is publicly available here. I’m writing to her in a minute.

*Finally, in Chicago news, a local man filed a lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings, arguing that their menu item “boneless chicken wings” was deceptive, as the “boneless wings” were not wings at all, but just breast meat formed into winglike shapes.  To me that’s deception, but a federal judge said that the term was okay.  Here’s an ABC news clip in which both reporters make as many jokes about chicken wings as possible:

 

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Andrzej finishes Hili’s thought:

Hili: If we weigh it all…
Andrzej: Then the outcome could truly surprise us.

In Polish:

Hili: Jeśli zważymy wszystko…
Ja: To wynik może nas bardzo zdziwić.

*******************

From CinEmma, presumably photographed on Valentine’s Day:

From The Language Nerds:

From Cats, Coffee, & Chaos 2.0: A cat-loaf sandwich (is that cream cheese?)

From Masih, an ineffably sad post showing a ten-year-old boy whose mom was killed by Iranian cops:

From Luana; this is horrific:

From Malcolm, a cat wants into a Mercedes:

Larry the Cat makes a funny:

One from my feed. Crikey, look at the Taliban’s new laws!

One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:

Two from Matthew. First, the U.S. vs the UK:

Mike Luckovich (@mluckovich.bsky.social) 2026-02-19T19:42:02.342Z

And a lovely nudibranch:

Nudibranch Phyllidia #gili #giliislands #lombok #diving #scuba #trawangan #diveandstay #giliair #pets #ocean #sealife #marinelife #padi #seaslug #nudibranch

Terumbu (@terumbudivers.com) 2026-02-18T10:22:22.000Z

13 thoughts on “Saturday: Hili dialogue

  1. There are other statutes which give tariff authority to the Executive. There are many tariffs in place that are not affected by the Court’s ruling, and Trump has imposed a new blanket tariff under one of the applicable statutes. The problem for those who oppose his tariffs is that there is no statute directing what should happen with the money raised under the new illegal tariffs, and the Court provided no remedy. I am guessing that impacted countries will have to sue, which could wind up giving Trump more negotiating leverage, assuming that the nation doesn’t want to spend years in court. Of course, Congress could clear this up, either by amending the IEEPA to clarify that the act includes tariff power or by providing a mechanism for refunding tariff money.

    1. It’s not foreign countries that pay the tariffs. They’re paid by the importer, when the importer picks up the goods at the dock. The goods are not released until the importer pays.

      The importer usually passes the cost on to the customer.

      The foreign countries are impacted indirectly, as their now more expensive goods sell more poorly.

  2. All of the broad tariff powers remaining to Trump, with the exception of the sector-targeted ones (?), have time limits on them. The 10% one can only be put in place for 150 days. Thankfully. So he can’t use threats of tariffs to bully and coerce other countries anymore the way he was previously.

  3. How has the once great now not NYTimes gone to the dogs?
    (Animals, dogs, Jihadis, Brooklyn)

    As far as I can tell… (I notice my streets, and dogs) the New Woke Times made up an entire (non existent) dog poo-in-the-snow story to — provide cover — for that Palestinian politician (Brooklyn, Hamas) who objected to (haram) dogs.

    This dog hating jihadette pretends first that there’s some kind of new? poo problem, then switches to: “I was joking” about dogs being unacceptable pets. After the whole thing blew up in her face, like a 8 year old Pal kid on an Israeli bus.

    Such a dog crap politician covered by a dog crap newspaper.
    archived: https://archive.ph/FxEKI

    D.A.
    NYC

  4. “The Olympics end tomorrow, after the U.S. men’s ice hockey team play’s Canada. Will we have another “Miracle on Ice” after 46 years. I think so.”

    Blasphemy!!

    1. I, a non-hockey fan, watched my then-boyfriend and his friends watch the famous game. After the USA won, I remember thinking that they had all gone certifiably insane.

      But it was still fun, so, Hope you lose Canada!

      But sorry about Trump and all that. I bet your heads were all spinning when our orange Pez told you that China wouldn’t let you play hockey anymore.

  5. Bill Mazeroski, who won the 1960 World Series for the Pittsburgh Pirates, has died.

    The wrong people keep dying.

  6. Tarries have been US policy for a long time. The first law ever passed by Congress was a tariff act (to raise revenue, not protect domestic industry). Abraham Lincoln made the statement, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth”. Go read “Abraham Lincoln’s Classroom” (https://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-the-tariff/index.html). Quote

    “In the days of Henry Clay, I was a Henry Clay-tariff-man and my views have undergone no material change on that subject,” wrote Abraham Lincoln in 1860. A campaign profile published in a Pennsylvania newspaper in February 1860 labeled Lincoln “a consistent and earnest tariff man from the first hour of his entering public.” When Lincoln announced his first candidacy for the state legislature in 1832, he reportedly said: “I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles.” Speaking in Pittsburgh on the way to Washington in February 1861, President-elect Lincoln said: “The tariff is to the government what a meal is to the family; but, while this is admitted, it still becomes necessary to modify and change its operations according to new interests and new circumstances.”

Leave a Reply to Matthew Morycinski Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *