The Tucker-Huckabee clash missed the real crisis



The aftermath of the viral Tucker Carlson-Mike Huckabee interview has, for me, included the privilege of private conversations with both men, as well as an on-air discussion with Huckabee on my show.

I want to give both men every benefit of the doubt, because I have genuine affection for each of them and respect the lifetime of contributions both have made to the cause. But whether their nearly two-and-a-half-hour clash clarified anything or merely deepened the confusion likely depends on the eye of the beholder.

God initiates covenants. We break them. Then we depend on God’s mercy to bail us out.

Still, let me offer a spiritual clarification as Christians think through the issues now in front of us. My fear is that in arguing over modern Israel, we will become so determined to win secondary battles that we lose sight of the primary truths that govern all of us.

The stakes are not small. If believers drift too far off course, the consequences are damning in the most literal sense.

So we should begin here: You cannot determine whether the current state of Israel is a reconstitution of covenant Israel merely by examining the nation’s behavior. If you have read the Old Testament and tried to compile a list of Israel’s greatest hits in covenant faithfulness, you will not end up with anything resembling a list of bangers like most of Led Zeppelin’s catalog.

From the beginning, the pattern ran the other way. Moses went up Mount Sinai to receive the first words God ever wrote by hand and came down to find the chosen people in the middle of a pagan orgy. After that came the familiar cycle: disobedience, judgment, repentance, deliverance, and then disobedience again — with slavery and captivity poured in for good measure.

Carlson and Huckabee can argue Israel’s borders all they want, but it should surprise no one that the nation never fully possessed the borders outlined in Genesis 15. As with so many things, human beings are terrible at obedience. We always have been.

That is the lesson. God initiates covenants. We break them. Then we depend on God’s mercy to bail us out.

The Jews did not attain a level of holiness that compelled God to bring forth the Messiah. Quite the opposite. Israel had hit bottom, spiritually and temporally. So God initiated yet again, through Christ Jesus, reminding humanity once more that we are utterly lost without Him.

That remains true whether you believe the modern state of Israel is a prophetic extension of Old Testament Israel or not. We must not lose that point, and its implications are not remote, theoretical, or merely historical.

Many Americans, after all, love to read our own national story in providential terms. Fine. Then how are we doing with the whole “endowed by their Creator” business in the Declaration of Independence?

RELATED: Trump’s Iran gamble: Peace Prize or Persian Gulf firestorm

Photo by Tajh Payne/US Navy via Getty Images

Do we know what a gender is? No.

Do we know what a border is? No.

Do we know what a baby is? No.

Do we know what a marriage is? No.

Do we know what a family is? No.

Do we know what a law is? No.

Do we even know our own heritage, customs, and traditions? No.

Sure, people will stand and sing “God Bless America” at the next sporting event, maybe even with tears in their eyes. Then many of them will settle back into their seats and applaud while the world burns around them, so long as someone keeps scratching their bellies.

That is idolatry.

For by grace you have been saved through the free gift of faith — and not by your own doing, lest anyone should boast.

So once again, it is revival or bust. That is why I keep saying it and why I keep praying it. There is no other road to the only promised land that finally matters.

Mike Huckabee addresses viral Tucker Carlson exchange on biblical land claims with Steve Deace



In a nearly three-hour interview released on February 20, Tucker Carlson pressed U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on several topics, including biblical claims to land “from the Nile to the Euphrates," Gaza civilian casualties, U.S. aid to Israel, and Christian Zionism, resulting in heated exchanges. The interview highlighted a divide within conservative America over U.S. foreign policy priorities, particularly the balance between "America First" principles and strong support for Israel.

On a recent episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” host Steve Deace spoke with Huckabee about his recent interview with Carlson.

“Overall, how did you feel it went?” Deace inquires.

“Our interaction in the interview was just fine. I didn't understand a lot of the things that he was going with in terms of the questions, and it was very frustrating because normally when he has someone on his show, he gives them about 65% of the time and he takes about 35%. … But with both Ted Cruz and me, he interrupted constantly; he went off on tangents,” says Huckabee.

Deace then turned to the section of the interview that drew the most attention. Carlson referred to a Bible verse in Genesis 15 promising Abraham's descendants land "from the Euphrates to the Nile," an area encompassing much of the modern Middle East, and asked Huckabee whether this verse implies Israel has a divine right to that entire territory today.

In response, Deace said that Huckabee said that it would "be fine" but immediately added that Israel has no such endeavor.

“[Tucker’s] side of the argument absolutely seized on this. … Some of these nations, I think, have even released statements in response,” says Deace, offering Huckabee a chance to “clarify” and “react.”

“He was badgering me, trying to get me to say that Israel was going to try to do a conquest from the Euphrates to the Nile … and finally I said, tongue in cheek, ‘Yeah, they can have the whole thing,”’ says Huckabee. “Now then immediately what I said was ‘Tucker, Israel is only wanting to keep the land of Canaan, the land that they have.”’

He went on to emphasize that Israel has no plans to expand beyond its current borders into Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or even Gaza.

“Tucker clipped from that one statement, and then he marketed that all over the Arab world, where he apparently has some very strong contacts. Well, they got all spun up and did a blanket condemnation of what I had said,” Huckabee explains.

“If you missed the last part of my answer, of course it kind of looks like that I said, ‘Yeah, just let 'em have the whole part’ — flippantly acting as if, ‘Yeah, that's fine with me.’ If you took it in its context, listened to the whole answer, you come away with a completely different view.”

To hear more of Deace and Huckabee’s conversation, check out the full interview above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Newly revealed documents back Tucker Carlson, Roger Stone's take that Nixon was undone by a 'coup'



Seven recently uncovered pages from Richard Nixon's 1975 grand jury testimony indicate that the former president was undone by a coup d'état contrived by the deep state, a theory previously argued by Tucker Carlson and Roger Stone.

In June 1975, Nixon testified before the Watergate Special Prosecution Force and a couple of members of a federal grand jury. A portion of Nixon's 297-page transcribed testimony was previously sealed, considered too incendiary to share with the rest of the grand jury. While most of the transcript was released by the National Archives in 2011, a seven-page segment remained withheld.

'The answer fills an important gap in the record of the Nixon era — and carries significance for our own.'

Last week, the New York Times published a guest op-ed from reporter James Rosen detailing the contents of those seven pages for the first time.

The newly uncovered portions of Nixon's testimony revealed that he became aware in December 1971 that Navy Yeoman Charles Radford had secretly copied roughly 5,000 classified National Security Council documents, including documents nabbed from the briefcase of Henry Kissinger, who was then national security adviser. Radford then shared those documents with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.

Kissinger went on to become Nixon's secretary of state in 1973.

"Yoeman Radford was Kissinger's top notetaker. He had been with Kissinger on his secret trip to Paris when we were trying to end the war. He had been on all of those trips and had been the notetaker and knew what Kissinger had said and what the other side had said," Nixon testified.

He stated that Radford "broke down" when he was given a polygraph.

"He cried ... and virtually admitted his guilt," Nixon said.

"The reason that we couldn't prosecute and wouldn't was that if we did, he then would expose and could expose these highly confidential exchanges we were having to bring the war in Vietnam to a conclusion," Nixon explained.

RELATED: Biden FBI's Arctic Frost surveillance of lawmakers could cost the government, thanks to 'real teeth' measure in funding bill

Photo by the White House Photo Office/PhotoQuest/Getty Images

Nixon believed that the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed his foreign policy, including his goal of ending the Vietnam War, and Radford's spying might undermine and sabotage these policies.

Nixon's testimony revealed that he had initially wanted to pursue charges against those involved in the spying efforts, but ultimately chose not to publicize the incident to protect sensitive operations and the military's reputation.

He called it a "can of worms" that was not worth opening, urging prosecutors not to probe the affair deeply. Prosecutors agreed.

"The Joint Chiefs' spying formed only one prong of the campaign against Nixon, the most spied-on president in modern times," Rosen wrote. "The answer fills an important gap in the record of the Nixon era — and carries significance for our own. The classified portion of the grand jury transcript, obtained by Times Opinion, bears directly on allegations by President Trump and his supporters about the existence of what was once called the permanent bureaucracy, better known today as the 'deep state.'"

The pages unearthed by Rosen support previous claims from Carlson and Stone that Nixon was the target of a successful coup attempt from deep-state actors.

RELATED: Watergate was amateur hour compared to Arctic Frost

Photo by Bettmann / Contributor /Getty Images

"He was the most popular president, by votes, which is the only way we can measure, in his re-election campaign. And two years later, he's gone, undone by a naval intel officer, the number two guy at the FBI, and a bunch of CIA employees," Carlson stated during an April 2024 appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast.

During an August 2024 episode of "The Tucker Carlson Show," he said, "In retrospect, it looks very much like a kind of coup against a sitting and enormously popular president."

Stone previously wrote two books discussing the coup against Nixon, "Nixon's Secrets" in 2014 and "Tricky Dick" in 2017.

"Basically, [what] you have here is the deep state, which Nixon's testimony now proves exists, spying on Richard Nixon for the same reasons that they spied on Donald Trump. For the same reasons they invented the Russian collusion hoax as their rationale for the FISA warrants to spy on Trump and his aides," Stone stated during a Sunday episode of his podcast, "The Roger Stone Show."

Stone referred to the takedown of Nixon as a "government-engineered coup d’état."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How to Spot Lies & Find Truth as Conspiracies Spread on Both Sides | Michael Shermer
play icon

How to Spot Lies & Find Truth as Conspiracies Spread on Both Sides | Michael Shermer

'F**k you, Ted': Sen. Cruz caught on secret recordings attacking Vance, complaining about Trump, report says



Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Calgary-born Republican widely expected to make another bid for the White House in 2028, was reportedly caught on tape tarring Vice President JD Vance with the same brush he uses on Tucker Carlson and criticizing President Donald Trump's tariff policies.

Unlike politicos keen to fault Vance for his enduring friendship with Carlson, Cruz has avoided publicly broadening his critique of the podcaster to the vice president. Behind closed doors, however, Cruz has apparently exercised no such restraint.

'JD is Tucker's protégé, and they are one and the same.'

In secret recordings provided to Axios by an unnamed Republican source, which were apparently taken during a pair of private meetings with donors last year, Cruz allegedly characterized the vice president as a non-interventionist puppet of Carlson.

"Tucker created JD," Cruz reportedly says in the recordings. "JD is Tucker's protégé, and they are one and the same."

Cruz and Carlson have long appeared at odds on matters both foreign and domestic. Carlson, for instance, castigated the senator in 2022 for calling the Jan. 6, 2021, melee a "violent terrorist attack."

The enmity between them reached an apparent high, however, in June, when the two clashed on Carlson's show over whether the U.S. should militarily back Israeli actions against Iran.

In the immediate wake of the combative interview, Cruz accused the host of engaging in "gotcha" journalism, attacking Trump, defending terrorists, demonizing Israel, and "running interference" for the Iranian regime.

RELATED: Which way after Trump? 'Strong Gods' may offer the solution.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

While both men have traded barbs in the months since, Cruz appears increasingly fixated on Carlson, accusing him of being anti-Semitic, an Islamist, and — in response to Carlson's criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — "#AmericaLast."

In the recordings, Cruz also allegedly accused Vance of working with Carlson to oust former national security adviser Mike Waltz over his support for U.S. strikes on Iran.

Waltz "supported being vigorous against Iran and bombing Iran — and Tucker and JD took Mike out," Cruz allegedly told donors.

While Waltz's hawkish stance on Iran and alleged behind-the-scenes coordination with Netanyahu reportedly angered Trump, the straw that broke the camel's back may have been Waltz's accidental invitation of an anti-Trump polemicist to a private high-level group chat on Signal where senior administration officials were discussing sensitive military plans.

On the recordings, Cruz allegedly also claimed that Vance worked in concert with Carlson to help Daniel Davis, an Army veteran critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, secure a senior national intelligence position — a post that Davis was ultimately denied.

Carlson told Axios that he "didn't have anything to do" with the ousting of Waltz or attempted onboarding of Davis.

The Texas senator appears in recent months to have been laying the groundwork for a 2028 bid in which he would run as the kind of Republican Trump crushed in the 2016 and 2024 Republican primaries. According to Axios, this has involved courting powerful pro-Israel donors and "positioning himself as a traditional free-trade, pro-interventionist Republican."

Whereas early pulling suggests that Vance is poised to sweep the GOP 2028 primary, Cruz presently has a 2% chance of becoming the 2028 GOP nominee, according to Polymarket, and proved unable to capture 1% in an October poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire.

Blaze News has reached out for comment to the offices of Vance and Cruz.

A spokesperson for Cruz told Axios that the senator is "the president's greatest ally in the Senate and battles every day in the trenches to advance his agenda" and that "those battles include fights over staffers who try to enter the administration despite disagreeing with the president and seeking to undermine his foreign policy."

The spokesperson added, "Sen. Cruz is proud of those fights, his accomplishments, and his close relationship with the president. These attempts at sowing division are pathetic and getting boring."

'They will be terminated on the spot.'

The Texas senator allegedly also attacked Trump's tariff policy on the recordings from his private meetings with donors.

Cruz allegedly regaled donors with the tale of a call that he and other senators made to Trump that "did not go well" after the president introduced his Liberation Day tariffs.

"Trump was in a bad mood," Cruz allegedly told the donors. "I've been in conversations where he was very happy. This was not one of them."

"Mr. President, if we get to November of [2026] and people's 401(k)s are down 30% and prices are up 10%-20% at the supermarket, we're going to go into Election Day, face a bloodbath," Cruz allegedly recalled telling Trump. "You're going to lose the House, you're going to lose the Senate, you're going to spend the next two years being impeached every single week."

Cruz allegedly told donors that Trump's response was, "F**k you, Ted."

At the mention of "Liberation Day" in reference to the tariffs, Cruz allegedly joked with donors in the meeting, "I've told my team if anyone uses those words, they will be terminated on the spot. That is not language we use."

Blaze News has reached out to the White House for comment.

According to the Texas Politics Project, Cruz's job approval rating is presently 35% overall and 69% among Republicans.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How do you solve a problem like Wikipedia?



Wikipedia has recently come under the microscope. I take some credit for this, as a co-founder of Wikipedia and a longtime vocal critic of the knowledge platform.

In September, I nailed (virtually) “Nine Theses About Wikipedia” to the digital door of Wikipedia and started a round of interviews about it, beginning with Tucker Carlson. This prompted Elon Musk to announce Grokipedia’s impending launch the very next day. And a national conversation evolved from there, with left- and right-leaning voices complaining about the platform’s direction or my critique of it.

As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

As its 25th anniversary approaches, Wikipedia clearly needs reform. Not only does the platform have a long history of left-wing bias, but the purveyors of that bias — administrators, everyday editors, and others — stubbornly cling to their warped worldview and vilify those who dare to contest it.

The “Nine Theses” are the project’s first-ever thoroughgoing reform proposal. Among the ideas:

  • Allow multiple, competing articles per topic.
  • Stop ideological blacklisting of sources.
  • Restore the original neutrality policy.
  • Reveal the identities of the most powerful managers.
  • End unfair, indefinite blocking.
  • Adopt a formal legislative process.

Such ideas were bound to be a hard sell on Wikipedia. It has become institutionally ossified.

Nevertheless, I was delighted that the discussion of the theses has been robust, without much further prodding from me. Following the launch, Jimmy Wales actually stepped into the fray on the so-called talk page of an article called “Gaza genocide,” chiding the participants for violating Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. I chimed in as well. But the criticism was thrown back in our faces.

This brings me to the deeper problem: Wikipedia is stuck in its ways. How can it possibly be reformed when so many of its contributors like the bias, the anonymous leadership, the ease of blocking ideological foes, and other aspects of dysfunction? Reform seems impossible.

Yet there is one realistic way that we can make progress toward reform.

Above all else, those who care should get involved in Wikipedia. The total number of people who are really active on Wikipedia is surprisingly small. The number editing 100 times in any given month is in the low thousands, and this does not amount to that much time — perhaps one or two hours per week. Those who treat it as a part-time or full-time job — and so have real day-to-day influence — number in the hundreds.

In interviews, I have been urging the outcasts to converge on Wikipedia. You might think this is code for saying that conservatives and libertarians should try to stage a coup, but that is not so. Hindus and Israelis, among others, have also complained of being left out in recent years. The problem is an entrenched ruling class. As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

RELATED: Wikipedia editors are trying to scrub the record clean of Iryna Zarutska’s slaughter by violent thug

Photo by Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images

If you are a conservative or libertarian who is concerned about the slanted framing of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, get involved. If you are a classical liberal who is alarmed by the anti-Semitism within Wikipedia — like Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz — it is time to make your presence felt. Wherever you may fall on the ideological spectrum, I call on good-faith citizens to become engaged editors who take productive discourse seriously, rather than scapegoating “the other side.”

Even a dozen new editors could make a difference, let alone hundreds or thousands who might be reading this column. Given that Wikipedia attracts billions of readers, in addition to featuring prominently in Google Search, Google Gemini, and elsewhere, improving the platform will strengthen our collective access to high-quality information across the board. It will bring us closer to truth.

So how do we solve the Wikipedia problem? With you, me, and all of us — individual action at scale.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

10 predictions that could define 2026 — and upend expectations



Each January, I dust off the crystal ball and offer my top 10 predictions for the year ahead. If you want to see how last year’s fared, you can find them here.

Now, on to what I expect to see in 2026.

Trump rallies a demoralized base, but, barring a massive economic boom, history and opposition energy prevail.

1. China and the U.S. effectively swap Venezuela for Taiwan.

I predicted this weeks ago on Glenn Beck’s final Wednesday Night Special on Blaze TV, and the early contours are already visible following President Trump’s arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

One of last year’s quieter stories involved China’s mounting unrest and economic instability. As Beijing grows more desperate, its pressure to resolve Taiwan increases. One way to avoid a world war over Taiwan involves a tacit bargain: The United States consolidates influence in its own hemisphere while China moves on Taiwan.

Venezuela holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves and has been sending nearly 80% of its exports to China. What America would lose in technology via Taiwan, it could gain in energy via Venezuela. Each superpower gains leverage, ideally enough to trade rather than fight. Regional hegemony comes first for both.

2. At least one sitting elected official claims communication with non-human intelligence.

The UFO/UAP psychological operation escalates in 2026. Steven Spielberg’s return with “Disclosure Day” only adds cultural fuel. The stage is set for someone “respectable” to come forward and give the narrative new legitimacy.

3. The Buffalo Bills defeat the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl LX.

This season has defied prediction. With young and inexperienced teams dominating the standings, the door is open for a veteran squad to rev up. Josh Allen remains arguably the best football player on the planet. Why not Buffalo?

4. Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” tops the box office.

An A-list director, an all-star cast, and a July release give Nolan’s adaptation a decisive edge over “Avengers: Doomsday,” which won’t arrive until Christmas. Add superhero fatigue and Marvel’s audience-alienating woke escapades, and the path clears.

5. Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito retires.

Ideally both do.

This prediction will anger people I love and respect, but the future of the republic outweighs hurt feelings. Conservatives cannot afford a Ruth Bader Ginsburg-style miscalculation with hostile midterms looming.

6. Pam Bondi does not survive the year as attorney general.

Frankly, she should not have survived last year.

7. Trump’s foreign policy marginalizes the dissident right.

In 2025, figures such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes capitalized on anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic tropes, conspiracism, and the grievances of young men in desperate need of a dad and a direction.

That window narrows fast as Trump reasserts American power abroad. An “America Only (except Islam)” MAGA faction collapses once Trump himself acts aggressively on the world stage. It turns out that building a brand on hating Israel gets harder when Trump is the one moving the chess pieces.

Try growing an audience by calling Trump a schmuck anywhere outside BlueSky. Good luck.

RELATED: Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026

Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty Images

8. The Trump administration blocks the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger.

Trump will not allow Netflix — the most ideologically aggressive streamer in the industry — to consolidate Apple-scale control over pop-culture IP.

9. Trump engineers a split midterm decision.

Trump will nationalize the midterms around his presidency and agenda, not congressional Republicans. He rallies a demoralized base, but, barring a massive economic boom, history and opposition energy prevail.

Republicans narrowly hold the Senate. Democrats narrowly flip the House.

10. We make this happen.

Debate: Can JD Vance become the right’s great unifier — or does his VP role stand in the way?



The young conservative movement is experiencing a notable leadership gap amid ongoing chaos in the online right-wing space. Sure, there are passionate influencers and rising political voices, but no one has fully stepped up to unify and guide the broader coalition with a commanding presence.

One person investigative journalist and BlazeTV host Christopher Rufo thinks might be able to step into the role, however, is Vice President JD Vance. But Rufo’s co-host Jonathan Keeperman isn’t sure Vance is up for the job either.

In this episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” the hosts debate whether JD Vance can step up as the unifying leader the conservative movement needs amid escalating chaos.

“I've been so far a bit surprised that the vice president hasn't tried to step into this role,” says Rufo, arguing that Vance has both the “charisma” and the “authority” to effectively lead the movement.

“I’ve known JD over the years. ... It does feel like he has some hesitation or maybe even some fear,” he adds.

While Keeperman agrees that Vance “has all of the tools and charisma and ... the right talking points” to be an excellent leader, his role as the vice president would actually be a hindrance.

“I don't think JD Vance should actually do that in his vice presidential position. Not right now. I think it'd be a bit presumptuous. I think people might kind of see it as him stepping in to sort of correct a situation that I think needs to just happen organically,” he counters.

For one, Vance’s position prohibits him from “[speaking] candidly about the administration.”

“Whoever is going to step into this role has to feel credible to this audience, and part of that credibility is going to come from just speaking honestly about all of these different things happening in this ecosystem — whether it's the different personalities, the ideas, the sort of ideology that's animating Trump but also the specific actions that the Trump administration is taking,” Keeperman explains.

In other words, the kind of leader people will follow needs to be an outsider who can speak brutal truths about the current administration, and Vance, as Trump’s right-hand man, can’t be that person.

Secondly, President Trump is still the top dog, Keeperman explains. For his VP to assume the authority of this role as the leader of the conservative movement “might not sit well inside of this coalition.”

“Maybe you're right,” Rufo concedes. “We need some sort of native figure to step up in the same way that Charlie Kirk did, in the same way that Tucker had done.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Heritage Foundation Scholars Jump to Mike Pence’s Group in ‘Reorganization of the Conservative Movement’

Leaders of Advancing American Freedom (AAF), the nonprofit led by former vice president Mike Pence, said that their move to hire more than a dozen former Heritage Foundation employees represents a significant shift within the American right.

AAF president Tim Chapman described the organization’s addition of Heritage Foundation’s legal, data, and economics centers, a move that doubles its size, as a "reorganization of the conservative movement."

"People are voting with their feet as to where they feel they are best suited to be," Chapman said.

The post Heritage Foundation Scholars Jump to Mike Pence’s Group in ‘Reorganization of the Conservative Movement’ appeared first on .

‘It’s Literally All Talk’: Gen Z At AmericaFest Takes Aim At GOP Infighting

'Rather absurd'