Welcome to the end of another week, and a sad one given the duckling situation. (I have now been apprised of yeat ANOTHER nesting hen hearby.) It’s Friday, July 17, 2026 and National Tattoo Day. For some reason many soccer players are tattooed, including Lionel Messi, who didn’t have this tattoo a while back but showed up with a heavily tattooed left arm. The caption below: “Messi celebrating after scoring against Egypt in the 2026 FIFA World Cup round of 16.”

It’s also National Peach Ice Cream Day and Wrong Way Corrigan Day, celebrating a famous ruse:
[Today] commemorates the day in 1938 when Douglas Corrigan made a transatlantic flight. He had recently purchased a 1929 Curtiss Robin plane and rebuilt and modified it. In July of 1938, he flew it from California to New York. He then applied for permission to make a transatlantic flight but was denied. On July 17, 1938, he flew out of Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, New York, with the supposed intention of flying back to California. He instead started heading east and flew all the way to Dublin, Ireland. As he disembarked from the plane he said, “Just got in from New York. Where am I?” He claimed his flight had been an accident and he had gotten lost after his compass failed to work. His pilot’s license was suspended but was soon reinstated. He became a celebrity and gained the name Wrong Way Corrigan. Until his death in 1995, he maintained that his transatlantic flight had been done on accident. In 1987, in Long Island, he was honored on the 49th anniversary of his flight. Beginning in 1992, his hometown of Galveston, Texas, began celebrating Wrong Way Corrigan Day. Corrigan has since been celebrated across the country on Wrong Way Corrigan Day.
Corrigan never admitted thet he planned this wrong way journey. Here’s the New York Post‘s famous backwards headline announcing the flight:

Yesterday the smoke from Canadian wildfires finally hit Chicago, causing a dense smog that limits vision as well as a yellowish tinge to the air, a smell of woodsmoke, and dangerous air conditions. Here’s the view from my crib; normally you can clearly see the skyscrapers of downtown, six miles away. Yesterday you could barely see a block. This is not fog: the sky was clear except for the woodsmoke:
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the July 17 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*Footy news, from a NYT op-ed written by Matthew Rose, identified as “an Opinion editorial director and a long-suffering England soccer fan”: “England defeats itself. Again” (archived here). Remember that England last won the World Cup was 1966:
Little good comes when a country measures itself by looking backward: Misty nostalgia makes the real problems of the present harder to tackle. Ever since 1966, the English soccer team, like Britain itself, has been burdened by the dead weight of impossible expectations, yearning for past glories while failing to grasp why things, in general, are not glorious. In political terms, that helped usher in Brexit, economic stagnation and six prime ministers in 10 years, all of whom tried and failed to restore Britain to something like its former self.
The sporting equivalent comes every four years, when England somehow convinces itself, despite a pile of evidence to the contrary, that it ought to win the World Cup. And every four years, this ends badly.
It started with the 1982 cup, famous for Maradona’s two goals, one brilliant and one involving a handball and cheating.
Then 1990 was Germany on penalties in the semis. No one talks about 1994. Four years later was another tragic blowout against Argentina. And 2002 was grim. I’d moved to New York by then and watched the loss to Brazil in a sticky pub on Third Avenue surrounded by my gloomy, pale compatriots. On to 2006: quarterfinals, again; lost on penalties, again. And 2010 was a 4-1 drubbing by the old enemy, Germany. The less said about 2014 the better. In 2018, the team somehow ended up fourth. In Qatar four years ago, England lost to its other, older enemy, the French.
There is an undeniable pattern here, in addition to not winning. England is stuck in some kind of middle rank — not the best, not the worst, always flattering to deceive, usually grinding it out until the gravity of reality takes over. This isn’t the cheery optimism of the Brooklyn Dodgers’ “Wait ’til next year.” This is deeper — an aching sense that things just won’t work out.
. . .In the 1990s, The Sun, a spicy tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch, superimposed the head of a particularly hapless England soccer manager onto a turnip. In 2000, the newspaper lobbied for a donkey called Jack Ass to take the job. And yet after England’s June win over Croatia, even it fell victim to the ancient habit. “Spooky omen is good news for England fans,” the paper intoned. What was this spooky omen? The final score, 4-2, was the same as the final score in ’66.
For a month, England clawed and grimaced its way to the semifinals, accompanied by fans chanting “IN-GER-LAND” to the tune of “The Stars and Stripes Forever.” The Sun, changing its tune, said the team was “one-dimensional.” The Guardian called it “turgid.” England edged the Democratic Republic of Congo, defeated Mexico in a match that resembled the siege of Leningrad, and somehow didn’t lose to Norway. Finally, the agony of hope was mercifully extinguished by Argentina (yet again).
Maybe by the 2030 World Cup, Britain will be back in the European Union, just one country among many. Maybe England’s undeniable stars will function as a team. Maybe the country will embrace its position as a midtable perennial, and be just fine with that. And perhaps then it might be able to win.
I don’t dare comment on this as I’m neither a Brit nor a footy expert, but the piece does use Brexist as a touchstone of why England can’t win at soccer. I will let the Brits comment.
Meanwhile, from the NYT daily newsletter:
What’s next? Argentina will play Spain on Sunday with a chance to become the first country in 64 years to win back-to-back men’s World Cups. It will be a something of a peculiar reunion for Argentina’s national hero, Lionel Messi, and Spain’s teenage sensation, Lamine Yamal. In 2007, when Messi was a rising star, he gave a bath to a 5-month-old Yamal for a charity calendar. Read the remarkable back story.
*My affection for James Carville is well known; I love the old curmudgeon, though sometimes he’s misguided, as when he enthusiastically endorsed Kamala Harris rather than calling for a quick convention. Over at The Hill, though, Carville is on track when he indicts far-left Democrats—”progressives”—as being a serious problem in the Democratic Party. And he doesn’t omit the swearing.
Democratic strategist James Carville recently said far-left Democrats are a “part of the problem” within the party, slamming candidates for critiquing it during their campaigns instead of uplifting the collective messaging.
“Is their solution to beat Republicans to run against Republicans? No,” Carville said in the Friday episode of his “Politics War Room” podcast.
“Their solution is to beat Democrats like they’re part of the problem. You are part of the problem because you’re a f—ing idiot,” he added.
He pointed to Abdul El-Sayed, a Democrat vying for the party nomination for Senate in Michigan, as an example of one far-left candidate bucking the party.
“He’s running for Senate … and he’s running against both parties. Oh, so it’s both parties’ fault. No, it’s not both parties’ fault,” he said during the podcast.
“One party expanded health insurance, all right? Another party destroyed it. One party balanced the budget and created economic prosperity. The other party destroyed it,” he continued.
The Democratic strategist said far-left candidates are pushing voters toward Republicans.
He said, “in this century, if it wouldn’t be for the Democratic left wing, we might not have even had a Republican president. We sure wouldn’t have had one in 2000. And we sure wouldn’t have had one in 2016.”
Carville said he was proud to brand himself as a “liberal” but noted the identity should be separated from being on the far left.
“I am a proud liberal. I am not a leftist. I don’t believe you ought to break the thing up. I think the role of government is to help people, to be a partner with people, to help them get educated, to help them have retirement security, to make them secure in this world, and make them secure in their homes,” he told listeners.
“And if you believe that, blame the left wing of the Democratic Party for the catastrophe that we’re facing right now, because as much as any group, it’s their fault.”
We’ll see. The Democrats seem impervious to any formerly Democratic principles, espousing the “progressive” views of the the DSA. The party seems to be catering to young voters, which means that candidates must diss Israel to be viable. The saddest thing I’ve seen lately (besides waterlogged ducklings) is the pandering of Rahm Emanuel and the silence of J. B. Pritzker and Josh Shapiro on Israel. See the next piece:
*This is very sad: a NYT article titled “Almost half of House votes to end aid to Israel” (archived here).
The House on Wednesday rejected a measure to eliminate U.S. aid to Israel, but almost half of Democrats supported the move, reflecting a rapid and dramatic shift within the party away from decades of unequivocal support for the Jewish state.
The measure, which sought to cut all $3.3 billion in military and humanitarian aid to Israel from a foreign affairs spending bill, failed by a vote of 104 to 314, with 10 voting “present,” and all but one Republican, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a sponsor, voting no.
But more Democrats supported it than opposed it, including many who said they voted in favor despite their opposition to the cuts to humanitarian aid. It was the latest and starkest evidence of a major divide over backing Israel within the Democratic Party, which is grappling with a groundswell of hostility in its ranks toward Israel and its conduct of the war in Gaza.
Supporters said the measure was their only way to register their opposition to the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, and their desire for a fundamental change in course in the U.S. relationship with Israel.
“While I wish we could vote on an amendment targeted just to military aid, and of course support humanitarian programs, we do not have that option,” Representative Greg Casar, Democrat of Texas and the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a letter to his members, in which he urged all 98 of them to follow his lead in backing the proposal. “The American people are crying out for an end to U.S. tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military.”
The vote even split Democratic leaders.
Representatives Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, and Pete Aguilar of California, the No. 3 Democrat, voted against the measure, while Representative Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, the minority whip, voted in favor.
. . . In the final tally, 103 Democrats voted to cut off aid while 98 opposed doing so, with another 10 voting “present,” declining to register a position. That amounts to more than half of the Democratic Caucus unwilling to reject a measure that would terminate U.S. assistance to Israel.
It took me a while to find the votes broken down by individual; I failed using Google but Grok took me to the site. You can see how your representative voted here. I guessed correctly that everyone in the “squad” voted “aye”—to cut off aid. The Democrats who voted that way probably want to cut off all ties with Israel, but certainly don’t want to support the only democracy in the Middle East. And they’d probably want a two-state solution—so long as the Palestinian State was right next to Israel and was controlled by either the Palestinian Authority or Hamas.
*And Amit Segal’s take on the vote above from It’s Noon in Israel:
“The tide is changing,” Representative Thomas Massie declared last night after his attempt to zero out Israel aid failed 104-314. What made it a shift in tide wasn’t the outcome—a doomed show vote from the start—but the Democratic split: 103 Democrats voted yes, 98 voted no, and ten voted present. Massie was the sole Republican in favor.
The good news: that’s well short of the 150 some predicted—a figure inflated precisely because the measure was certain to fail, letting members vote against Israel at no policy cost. The bad news: it’s 66 more than two years ago, when the House faced a similar vote, and 99 more than 2016, when the chamber passed the memorandum of understanding 405-4. According to sources, another 60 Democrats might have joined the provision without leadership pressure holding the line.
More bad news: those 98 who voted no are not, by and large, Israel hawks. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries called the amendment “overly broad,” warning it would gut humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, and the ability to confront Hamas and Hezbollah—then conceded that “there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government,” and that “a meaningful change in direction is needed” ahead of the new memorandum of understanding. Congressman Sam Liccardo, who opposed the underlying funding through a separate vote, drew the line others left implicit: no to 3.3 billion dollars in offensive weapons, yes to defensive systems like Iron Dome, and a new memorandum of understanding treating Israel “as an important ally, not a supplicant.” The no column was against the vehicle, not the destination.
. . .Good news: there aren’t 103 Zohran Mamdanis in Congress. Representative Katherine Clark voted yes “not because I agree with the entirety of the amendment, or the GOP’s cynical motivations for its consideration, but because I believe we must change course”—the status quo, she said, “is not tenable.” Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi was blunter, calling the amendment “ill-conceived” and voting yes anyway “for the message that it sends.” Clark even swiped at the mechanism she was endorsing, dismissing it as “more stunts from Congressional Republicans who would rather score cheap political points than lead.”
Halie Soifer, executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, captured the hedge: many yes-voters “haven’t turned their back on Israel, recognizing there’s a distinction between the people of Israel and the current Israeli government.”
The problem is how much longer that distinction holds; one suspects that the anti-Israel passion in the Democratic party is not simply directed against the current makeup of Israel’s governing coalition, no matter how much moderate Democrats wish it were.
I agree with the last sentence: blaming everything on Netanyahu is identifying a scapegoat for disliking all of Israel, and I suspect that any Prime Minister, be they right- or left-wing, could be substituted for Bibi. Democrats either changed their minds on Israel, are Jew-haters anti-Zionists like the Squad, or are pandering to the young electorate.
*It’s not often that a new species of primate is discovered, but LiveScience says we have one (h/t Nicole).
Scientists have identified a new species of monkey that has orange lips and makes unique roars and snorting sounds. The distinctive monkey lives in a remote region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
It is only the fifth new monkey species to be identified in Africa in the past 75 years, and there might be more unknown monkey species in the region, scientists behind a new study suggested. Researchers named the newly identified species of monkey Colobus congoensis, after the region, and it is known by the common name “likweli” in the local Kilanga language.
DNA sequencing showed that this species is distinct from any primate known that could be a potential relative. Here’s a video of the creature making its strange calls:
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Andrzej is cogitating:
Hili: You’re playing solitaire again.
Andrzej: Yeah, sometimes I need to sort out my thoughts.
In Polish:
Hili: Znów układasz pasjansa.
Ja: Tak, czasem muszę uporządkować myśli.
*******************
From Cats Doing Cat Stuff:
From Things With Faces:
A good one from The Grammar Police:
From Masih: Another peaceful protester executed in Iran:
In the middle of the war, the regime in Iran executed an innocent protester.
Aref Khoshkar today, joined #WomanLifeFreedom to protest the murder of Mahsa Amini and the hand of morality Police.They tortured him for years. When that wasn’t enough, they arrested his younger… pic.twitter.com/K0DF8eE31T
— Masih Alinejad (@AlinejadMasih) July 16, 2026
From JKR via Luana: another objection to Amnesty International’s stand that a “woman counselors only” rape crisis center is a violation of “rights.”
Another letter to add to @AmnestyUK‘s overflowing mail box, this one from women-only rape support service, Beira’s Place. 1/3 pic.twitter.com/iVqyLfNjzZ
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 15, 2026
From Jeff Maurer, and yes, the stuff about the Jamestown founder John Smith is true:
Goddamn this should have been the movie. https://t.co/gMVWq2RQj4
— Jeff Maurer (@JeffMightBWrong) July 16, 2026
Two from my feed. Isn’t this calf cute?
A Scottish Highland cow born just two hours ago 🤍 🩶 pic.twitter.com/EiS1dvN3wo
— Wholesome Side of 𝕏 (@itsme_urstruly) July 16, 2026
Otters like ice cubes?
At a Japanese aquarium, these baby otters have an end-of-day routine: clean up the toys with grandpa, then collect their well-earned ice cube reward. pic.twitter.com/7JneoxRrxI
— Antidepressant Content (@depressionlesss) July 15, 2026
And one I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:
This Hungarian Jewish girl was gassed to death as soon as she arrived in Auschwitz. Had she lived she would be 91 today. https://t.co/5x8bq8KezA
— Jerry Coyne (@Evolutionistrue) July 17, 2026
Two from Doc Cobb. Wait for the end of this chick video:
WAIT FOR ITWAIT.FOR.IT! 🪶 🐣
— Brett "Solidarity 2026" Banditelli (@banditelli.org) 2026-07-08T01:51:19.000Z
Ghost cat:
Purranormal activity . 😍🤣





Strictly speaking it’s a Heilan’ Coo, rather than the anglicised Highland Cow. 😁 Or should I say ‘anglicized’ as this is a US site 😂 They are so cute, although I prefer the normal ginger ones. I’ve sent in some photos of adults but they maybe aren’t good enough quality for here.
Cousins with orange lips! There being no possibility of confusion, Spain and Argentina can play in their traditional shirts. Lovely. Opta favours France (for third) and Spain. I favour France but can’t make up my mind about the final. But I’m pretty sure no one can do anything about it.
I heard that Leviticus has a strong opinion about tattoos. But I don’t know how it is interpreted these days.
re: “I heard that Leviticus has a strong opinion about tattoos. But I don’t know how it is interpreted these days.”
yes, interesting, how that particular Leviticus tattoo verse gets ignored, explained away, or just shrugged off — once tattoos became the cool thing
Well, Orthodox Jews still don’t get tats. However, walking the streets of Tel Aviv and most other cities in Israel, one sees so many tats that you would thing that you are attending a Southeastern Conference football fan reunion.
Most folks just don’t care what others do as long as it does not impact them. If some young person wants a tattoo of Ariana Grande on their belly, that’s on them. As is the fact that, by middle age, it will look like a map of Greenland.
It’s the spandex rule, folks.
If on a body that could serve as a model for Michelangelo, it can be sexy or cool.
Otherwise….not.
I witnessed that in the tats of construction workers in their 60s, back when I was an early teenager. My stock comment is, “The tensile strength of collagen is not infinite.” The tatted don’t grasp that, and don’t care anyway (I think a lot of them are in it for the endorphin release), but they may beget a new generation of un-tatted, and then the cycle will repeat.
We’ve been tattooing ourselves for thousands of years, Starwolf. I have none, I’m a GenXer, but s/t like 1/3rd of American youngsters are inked.
I dunno – not for me but my attitude is go for it if you like. Hell why not?
best and S.S. to you.
D.A.
NYC
You know I was thinking probably PCC(E) and Chicago got worse woodsmoke from the Grand Canadian Poutine Burn (heheh) because it was –terrible– here.
One of those large disasters we all walk around in pretending that nothing is happening. (cough)
D.A.
NYC
Re the otters and ice cubes: somewhere I read about an aquarium (don’t know which one) where this same procedure is followed. The otters clean up, then get a reward of ice cubes. The incentive is that there are small fish frozen into the ice cubes.
Aha! A fishie cube treat sounds much more appealing. Hadn’t heard about that!
My representative voted No on the resolution to cut off aid to Israel. Thank you, Suzan DelBene. That said, Israel needs to reduce its dependence on American aid, as U.S. support is no longer reliable—despite the fact that almost all U.S. aid is spent in the U.S. itself, providing American jobs and helping the U.S. economy: https://spencerguard.substack.com/p/what-does-america-get-for-38-billion.
Yes. Some of the Democratic ire against Israel is directed at Benjamin Netanyahu. We’ll see what happens when he is no longer Prime Minister. Will the Democrats snap back into line, or will they prove that what they really objected to all along is not Netanyahu but the State of Israel itself?
The contribution of Israel to US security is more than that.
Use a search engine to find out how much as US aircraft carrier costs to run. The imagine an unsinkable carrier located in a place of permanent strategic interest to the US. Of all countries in the world, Israel is one of the few, if not the only, that would allow the US to use its facilities without protests, conditions, etc. And by the way, that is true whether or not US aid continues. It’s called common strategic interest.
On another topic, the progressives in the US really cannot seem to find non hypocritical candidates. From AOC attending the Met Gala wearing a tax-the-rich dress, to El-Sayed demanding Medicare for all, and calling doctors who don’t take Medicare as racist—while being married to a psychiatrist who does not accept any form of insurance, these politicians advocate socialist policies for everyone but themselves.
Yes, indeed. Spencer’s piece talks about our common strategic interest as well. There’s who oppose our strategic alliance with Israel are like paper cutouts: thin on substance.
Reason ran an interesting piece on the vote. Here’s a note from it: “In other words, the Massie amendment forced Democrats to go on the record about an issue at exactly the moment that either position could cost them their seats. Jeffries circulated a letter more or less telling members to vote their conscience, and that’s exactly what they didn’t want to do. Members “expressed alarm” at how to handle the Massie amendment and were “begging for leadership guidance,” Punchbowl News reports.”
https://reason.com/2026/07/16/thomas-massie-sparks-a-democratic-civil-war-over-israel/
The article also notes that Massie “also recently proposed amendments to cut aid to three Arab countries: Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia” and he’s always taken a principled stance against foreign aid. Is Israel’s cause different from those? I’d argue yes, but at least Massie’s consistent. I can’t say the same for the other representatives.
I think Carville is wrong that the far-left candidates will result in widespread D losses. People are really good at convincing themselves that they’re making the right choice, and if they’ve always voted D in the past, they will continue to do so. Harris was a very weak candidate and the popular vote was still close. Regardless of who the candidate is, people will still say, “but he/she is not as bad as the other guy/gal” and find ways to justify that choice. Look at the comments on this site when Dr. Coyne pointed out Harris’s obvious faults as a candidate. It goes double for those who supported Platner until the end, and he was running against a “purple” (in terms of values and voting record) senator in Collins.
Note: I’m only pointing it out for the Dem side because this post concerned Carville’s comments, but the same goes for all of the R voters who would have gleefully attacked Trump had he stayed a Democrat and run for Prez. We THINK we’re voting on principle, but in the end, like most decisions, we make the choice based on emotion and our own cognitive biases.
On the Israel vote.
Makes me happy about my new (post Oct 7th) hobby of just giving Money to politicians who oppose antisemitism, anti Squad people I specialize in. And they invite me to parties which is nice. 🙂
In my career as an options/equities trader I learned the value of leverage: you can have outsized profit if levered correctly. In this political donation thing one can also have outsized effects.
That’s our system, for good or ill, I work within it. Support for Israel is support for civilization.*
D.A.
NYC 🗽
*article coming about that, I’ll post here.
Why is the Netanyahu government so often referred to as “far-right” when it is ultra-liberal compared to the ultra-ultra-far-right Islamonazi terrorists it is fighting against – and who are never characterized that way by the media!