LAT: ‘Dennis Prager sets talk-radio return following a severe spinal cord injury’

Posted on March 25, 2025 by Luke Ford

The story doesn’t say if Prager is still paralyzed below the neck but that has to be the assumption right now.

Grok says: “The average life expectancy for someone paralyzed below the neck after age 70 is…an additional 5-8 years from the time of injury.”

The Los Angeles Times reports Mar. 24, 2025:

…noting that Prager could not move below his shoulders at the time.

“He is talking a lot to people in the rehab facility that he’s at right now,” David Prager, chief development officer for Prager U, said in the same February video. Nonprofit Prager U bills itself as a creator of “free educational content promoting American values.” “He’s all there. He’s 100% there. When you hear him on the radio, you’ll say he hasn’t skipped a beat.”

Dennis Prager is still undergoing “extensive” rehab, Salem Media said in its release.

“Dennis may have some physical limitations at the moment, but his wit, wisdom, insights and passion are as strong and as clear as ever and we are delighted at his spirit and resolve to return to his audience,” Phil Boyce, Salem’s senior vice president of spoken word, said in the release. “We want Dennis to remain a part of the Salem family and want his millions of loyal fans to continue to hear his voice.”

When Prager returns to radio, it won’t be on the exact same show that he left. Salem Media announced last week that “The Charlie Kirk Show,” hosted by the founder of the conservative Turning Point USA student movement, will take over Prager’s affiliate stations — including 870 AM — beginning next Monday.

Grok says:

Dennis Prager remains paralyzed below the neck following a severe spinal cord injury sustained from a fall at his home in November 2024. According to the Los Angeles Times article dated March 24, 2025, which you referenced, Prager suffered an injury to his spinal cord at the C3 and C4 levels, an area that also controls the diaphragm. The article quotes Prager University CEO Marissa Streit from a February 14, 2025, video update, stating that “he could not move below his shoulders at the time.” No subsequent updates in the article or other available sources indicate that he has regained movement below the neck by March 25, 2025.
While Prager is set to return to his talk radio show on June 3, 2025, hosting the 2-3 p.m. ET hour, the announcement from Salem Media and related reports focus on his mental acuity, voice recovery, and determination to resume broadcasting, rather than confirming any restoration of physical mobility below the neck. For instance, the article notes that he is “still undergoing ‘extensive’ rehab” and that Salem Media’s Phil Boyce remarked, “Dennis may have some physical limitations at the moment, but his wit, wisdom, insights and passion are as strong and as clear as ever.” This suggests that his paralysis persists, though the exact extent of his current physical condition is not explicitly detailed beyond these statements.
Earlier reports, such as those from PragerU and family updates in February 2025, consistently described him as unable to move from the shoulders down, with “promising incremental improvements” primarily related to breathing and speaking, not broader motor function. Without a definitive statement confirming recovery of movement below the neck, the available evidence indicates that Dennis Prager is still paralyzed below the neck as of March 25, 2025. However, his rehabilitation is ongoing, and his condition could evolve in the coming months before his scheduled return to radio.

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off on LAT: ‘Dennis Prager sets talk-radio return following a severe spinal cord injury’

Does Big Law love civil rights law because it enhances Big Law’s power, prestige and income?

Posted on March 24, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Big Law firms engage in civil rights law to enhance their power, prestige, and indirectly their income, rather than out of a deep passion for the field.
Research suggests that civil rights work, often done pro bono, boosts their reputation and attracts socially conscious clients, which can lead to more business.
The evidence leans toward Big Law valuing civil rights law for strategic benefits, such as visibility in high-profile cases…

Posted in Law | Comments Off on Does Big Law love civil rights law because it enhances Big Law’s power, prestige and income?

How Good Is Stratford?

Posted on March 24, 2025 by Luke Ford

Geopolitical analyst George Friedman reminds me of his protege Peter Zeihan. They both sound amazing and confident. Their track record is mixed.

Grok:

George Friedman is a prominent geopolitical analyst and forecaster, best known for founding Stratfor in 1996 and later Geopolitical Futures in 2015, where he serves as chairman. His work focuses on interpreting global events through a geopolitical lens, emphasizing the interplay of geography, politics, economics, and military factors to predict the behavior of nations. A New York Times bestselling author, Friedman has penned influential books like The Next 100 Years (2009) and The Storm Before the Calm (2020), which have garnered both acclaim and criticism. Below is an analysis and critique of his approach, strengths, and weaknesses, grounded in his public record and broader reception.
Analytical Approach and Methodology
Friedman’s methodology is rooted in geopolitical determinism, a framework that prioritizes structural factors—geography, resource distribution, and historical patterns—over individual agency or short-term political developments. He argues that nations’ actions are constrained and shaped by their physical realities, such as the United States’ rise being inevitable due to its geographic isolation and access to two oceans. This approach is evident in his cyclical model of U.S. history, outlined in The Storm Before the Calm, where he posits 80-year institutional cycles and 50-year socio-economic cycles drive predictable crises and renewals.
Strengths:

Long-Term Perspective: Friedman’s focus on enduring forces allows him to sidestep the noise of daily news cycles, offering forecasts that span decades. His prediction in The Next 100 Years of a resurgent Russia clashing with the West, exemplified by the 2014 Ukraine crisis, showcases this strength.

Clarity and Accessibility: His writing distills complex geopolitical dynamics into digestible narratives, making his work appealing to a broad audience beyond academic circles.

Track Record: Some forecasts, like the European Union’s economic strains and Poland’s rising regional influence, have aligned with subsequent events, lending credence to his model.
Weaknesses:

Overemphasis on Geography: Critics argue that Friedman’s determinism underplays technological innovation, cultural shifts, and human agency. For instance, his 1991 book The Coming War with Japan (co-authored with Meredith LeBard) predicted a U.S.-Japan conflict that never materialized, possibly overlooking economic interdependence and diplomatic evolution.

Broad Generalizations: His sweeping predictions can lack granularity. In The Next Decade (2011), he foresaw the U.S. managing regional power balances, but specifics—like the Middle East’s descent into chaos post-Arab Spring—eluded precise forecasting.

Confirmation Bias Risk: His reliance on historical cycles might lead him to fit events into preconceived patterns, potentially missing disruptive anomalies.
Key Forecasts and Their Accuracy
Friedman’s reputation hinges on his bold predictions, some of which have been prescient, while others have faltered:
Hits:
Russia’s Resurgence: In The Next 100 Years, he predicted Russia would reassert itself post-2000s, a forecast borne out by its actions in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014, 2022).
EU Fragmentation: He anticipated economic and political stress in Europe, aligning with Brexit and the Eurozone crisis.
U.S. Domestic Turmoil: The Storm Before the Calm foresaw a crisis-ridden 2020s in America, which resonates with the polarization and unrest of recent years.

Misses:
Japan-U.S. War: The 1991 prediction was a high-profile misstep, ignoring Japan’s pacifist constitution and U.S.-Japan alliance post-Cold War.
Turkey’s Rise: Friedman has long touted Turkey as an emerging power, but its economic woes and regional overreach (e.g., in Syria) have yet to fully validate this.
China’s Decline: While he’s predicted China’s economic and social unraveling, its global influence persists, challenging his timeline.

These mixed results highlight a tension in Friedman’s work: his macro-level insights often ring true, but specific timelines and outcomes can falter under scrutiny.

Intellectual Style and Public Persona
Friedman’s style blends scholarly rigor with a flair for dramatic storytelling, earning him comparisons to a “Magic 8 Ball” (New York Times Magazine). His Hungarian-Jewish immigrant background and academic credentials—a Ph.D. in government from Cornell—lend him an outsider-insider perspective on American power, which he leverages effectively. At Geopolitical Futures, he positions himself as a non-ideological observer, aiming to “filter out the insignificant” for the “learned public.”

Strengths:

Engagement: His ability to captivate audiences—through books, speeches, and media appearances—amplifies his influence.

Independence: Breaking from Stratfor to found Geopolitical Futures reflects a commitment to his vision over corporate constraints.
Weaknesses:
Sensationalism: Critics argue his bold claims (e.g., a Polish-Mexican alliance in The Next 100 Years) verge on speculative fiction, risking credibility.
Overconfidence: His assertive tone can imply greater certainty than his methodology supports, as seen in the Japan misprediction.
Broader Critique

Friedman’s work invites comparison to other geopolitical thinkers like Samuel Huntington or John Mearsheimer, yet he stands apart for his populist accessibility and long-range focus. However, this comes with trade-offs:

Academic Reception: Traditional scholars often dismiss him for lacking peer-reviewed rigor, favoring instead his commercial appeal.
Adaptability: His deterministic lens may struggle with rapid technological shifts—like AI or climate change—whose impacts defy historical precedent.

Moral Dimension: Friedman rarely engages with the ethical implications of his forecasts, focusing on “what will happen” over “what should happen,” which can feel detached in polarized times.

Conclusion
George Friedman is a polarizing figure in geopolitics—celebrated for his foresight by admirers, critiqued for his misses by detractors. His strength lies in synthesizing structural trends into compelling narratives, offering a counterweight to short-termism in media and policy. Yet, his deterministic framework and occasional overreach expose him to accusations of oversimplification or hubris. As of March 24, 2025, his influence endures, particularly amid global upheaval, but his legacy will depend on how well his current forecasts—such as America’s 2020s crisis resolving into triumph—hold up. For now, he remains a provocative voice, best approached with both appreciation for his vision and skepticism of his precision.

Posted in Geography | Comments Off on How Good Is Stratford?

Trump vs Big Law

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

The trajectory of this battle depends on several factors, but here’s a reasoned assessment:
Escalation Against Other Firms: With a dozen more firms potentially in Trump’s crosshairs, the administration seems intent on expanding its punitive campaign. Firms tied to past investigations or Democratic affiliations—like Perkins Coie, linked to the Steele dossier—may face intensified pressure. The White House’s strategy appears to leverage executive power to disrupt these firms’ operations, particularly their government-related work, forcing them to either fight or fold.

Legal and Political Pushback: Perkins Coie’s ongoing lawsuit suggests some firms will resist through the courts, potentially challenging the legality of Trump’s orders. Outcomes here could set precedents—successful resistance might embolden others, while defeats could push more firms toward negotiation. Politically, Trump’s moves may galvanize opposition, especially given figures like Karp’s support for Kamala Harris, but the administration’s momentum could deter open defiance.

Industry Impact: Big Law’s response will shape its future. If more firms follow Paul Weiss’s lead, it could normalize capitulation to political pressure, altering the sector’s independence. Conversely, sustained resistance might solidify a bloc of firms willing to endure short-term losses for long-term autonomy. Client behavior—whether they flee targeted firms or stand by them—will be a key indicator.

Trump’s Endgame: This battle seems driven by retribution (e.g., targeting Pomerantz’s old firm) and a desire to assert dominance over elite institutions. Success could embolden Trump to extend similar tactics beyond law firms to other sectors. However, overreach risks judicial or congressional backlash, though the latter seems unlikely in a polarized climate as of March 23, 2025.

Key Indicators to Watch
Court Rulings: Outcomes of lawsuits like Perkins Coie’s will signal whether Trump’s orders hold legal weight.

Firm Responses: Will more negotiate like Paul Weiss, or fight like Perkins Coie? Capitulation could accelerate Trump’s campaign.

Client Moves: If major clients abandon targeted firms, it’ll amplify the orders’ impact.

New Targets: The identity of the next dozen firms could reveal the scope of Trump’s vendetta—political, personal, or both.

In short, Trump’s war on Big Law is at a pivotal moment. Paul Weiss’s deal may be a harbinger of pragmatic surrender, but resistance from others could prolong the conflict. The stakes are high: beyond survival, this is about whether an administration can bend a cornerstone of the legal establishment to its will. By mid-2025, we’ll likely see either a wave of compliance or a hardened opposition taking shape.

Grok’s Deep Think says:

Big Law firms are likely vulnerable to Donald Trump’s executive actions, with recent orders targeting firms like Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss, affecting their operations.
Legal challenges and negotiations offer some protection, but the potential for a chilling effect on the profession remains a concern.
The controversy lies in whether these actions are constitutional, with courts blocking some orders, yet the political climate adds uncertainty.
Vulnerability Overview
Big Law firms, such as Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, and Paul Weiss, face significant risks from Trump’s executive orders, which can suspend security clearances and limit federal access, impacting their business, especially with government clients. For example, Perkins Coie sued over an order restricting their operations, and a judge temporarily blocked it, suggesting legal recourse is possible. However, the fear of retaliation might make firms hesitant to take on controversial cases, potentially altering their independence.
Industry Response
While some firms are fighting back in court, others, like Paul Weiss, have negotiated deals, agreeing to pro bono work to resolve conflicts. The legal community, including bar associations, has criticized these actions, but many firms remain silent, possibly due to fear, highlighting the complex balance between resistance and self-preservation.
Unexpected Detail: Negotiation as a Strategy
An unexpected approach is negotiation, as seen with Paul Weiss agreeing to provide $40 million in legal services to causes Trump supports, showing firms might prioritize survival over confrontation, which could set a precedent for future interactions.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Big Law’s Vulnerability to Donald Trump
This note provides a comprehensive examination of the vulnerability of Big Law firms to actions by Donald Trump, based on recent developments as of March 23, 2025. It covers the nature of executive orders, legal and industry responses, and potential long-term implications, offering a detailed perspective for stakeholders in the legal sector.
Background and Context
Big Law refers to large, prestigious law firms often involved in high-profile corporate, political, and governmental matters. Recent actions by President Donald Trump have targeted several such firms, including Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, and Paul Weiss, through executive orders. These orders aim to suspend security clearances, limit access to federal buildings, and restrict federal contracts, citing reasons such as political affiliations and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
For instance, an executive order against Perkins Coie, issued on March 6, 2025, accused the firm of “dishonest and dangerous activity” related to its representation of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and its DEI practices (Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP – The White House). Similarly, Covington & Burling faced orders for representing special counsel Jack Smith, and Paul Weiss was targeted due to a former partner’s involvement in investigations against Trump.
Immediate Impacts on Targeted Firms
The executive orders have direct and immediate impacts on the targeted firms:
Operational Disruption: Loss of security clearances affects firms’ ability to handle cases involving classified information, crucial for government-related work. For example, Perkins Coie’s order barred its employees from federal buildings and terminated government contracts, paralyzing its operations for such clients.
Financial Strain: The potential loss of clients, especially those reliant on federal access, could lead to significant revenue drops. The article from The New York Times notes concerns in the legal community about firms avoiding representation due to fear of retribution.
Legal Costs: Firms are incurring costs to challenge these orders, with Perkins Coie hiring Williams & Connolly, an elite firm, to fight the administration (The New York Times).

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings
Firms have responded by filing lawsuits, with Perkins Coie leading the charge. On March 11, 2025, they filed a suit claiming the order violated constitutional rights, arguing it was an “affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice” (Above the Law). A federal judge, Beryl Howell, issued a temporary restraining order on March 12, 2025, blocking enforcement, stating it cast a “chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession” (NPR). This ruling suggests the judiciary may serve as a check on executive overreach, but the outcome of ongoing cases remains uncertain.
Legal experts, as noted in Reuters, argue these orders may violate First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, representing unprecedented acts of retribution. This legal pushback is crucial, but the process could be lengthy and costly, adding to firms’ vulnerability.
Negotiation as a Strategy
An unexpected development is the negotiation route taken by Paul Weiss. On March 20, 2025, they reached a deal with the Trump administration, agreeing to provide $40 million in legal services to causes like the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and to audit their hiring practices to ensure no DEI policies, in exchange for withdrawing the executive order (The New York Times). This approach, while ensuring survival, raises questions about the independence of the legal profession, as firms might prioritize compliance over principle.
Industry Response and Silence
The response from Big Law has been mixed. While Perkins Coie and others are litigating, many firms remain silent, as reported in Reuters. This silence is attributed to fear of retaliation, with some lawyers speaking out individually on platforms like LinkedIn, but firms avoiding institutional responses. Junior lawyers at firms like Skadden are pushing for a larger response, but the lack of unified action heightens vulnerability.
The legal community, however, is not entirely passive. The American College of Trial Lawyers and American Bar Association have criticized these actions as threats to the justice system (CNN Politics), and law schools like Georgetown are defending DEI curricula. This collective pushback could provide some protection, but the fear factor remains a significant barrier.
Long-Term Implications and Chilling Effect
The potential long-term implications are concerning. If upheld, these actions could set a precedent for future administrations to target law firms based on political affiliations, undermining the adversarial system. The “chilling effect,” as described by Ellen Podgor, a Stetson University law professor, in CNN Politics, might lead firms to self-censor, avoiding cases involving political figures or sensitive issues. This could alter the landscape of legal representation, particularly for marginalized groups or political opponents.
Moreover, the White House’s plan to review other “large, influential, or industry leading law firms” for DEI practices, as mentioned in Above the Law, suggests a broader campaign, potentially targeting up to 15 firms, increasing the scope of vulnerability.
Conclusion
Big Law firms are vulnerable to Donald Trump’s actions due to the direct operational and financial impacts of executive orders, compounded by the fear of retaliation and potential chilling effect on the profession. However, legal challenges and negotiation provide avenues for resistance, with courts showing willingness to intervene. The industry’s mixed response, with some firms litigating and others negotiating, reflects the complex balance between survival and principle. The long-term implications, particularly the risk of setting a precedent for political targeting, remain a significant concern as of March 23, 2025.

Posted in Law | Comments Off on Trump vs Big Law

Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump’s Return to Power by Alex Isenstadt (3-23-25)

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

Posted in America | Comments Off on Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump’s Return to Power by Alex Isenstadt (3-23-25)