The wild and wacky world of car rental
I recently rented a car for three weeks on the west coast. That’s a long time, and car rentals have become very very expensive. Indeed, the prices I originally got for this 3-week car rental ranged from about $1200 to $2000, all for a mid-sized car for the same duration.
I’d paid that much before, too, for rentals during the past few years. The explanation I’d read was that car rental companies had overbought electric cars, which just about no one wanted, and also that during the COVID travel slowdown they had to unload a lot of cars that were just lying around on their lots unused.
For this recent rental, I then tried renting the car through hotels.com, which I often use for hotel reservations but had never used for cars. I’m some sort of member, which gives a small extra reduction. But when I checked the same car rental for the same duration through the hotels.com site, I discovered to my shock that the car would cost $315 for the three weeks.
Yes, you read that right: about three hundred dollars total. From a reputable rental company. Same size and type of car.
It seemed too good to be true, and on the flight over I was nervous about whether that car would be waiting for me. That nervousness was compounded when I got some sort of message that the reservation was not found. But you know what? The car was right there, waiting for me, at the quoted price.
Can someone explain this? I’m not complaining. I’m just flabbergasted. And happy.
Gaslighting the public about Biden: you have to want to be gaslighted
There have been a host of recent “now it can be told” articles “revealing” that President Biden has been cognitively challenged for his entire presidency, although it’s gotten worse in recent months.
But it was obvious even during the 2020 campaign that Biden had declined compared to his level of functioning during his vice presidency only four years earlier. It wasn’t rocket science to figure it out; all one had to do was look and listen. The only question was how bad he was; my position was that he had definitely lost a great deal but that he was still functioning enough to have some opinions and some input into policy decisions that were made. Some – actually, many – bore the mark of his lifelong terrible judgment, especially in foreign affairs. A good example was the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But anyone could tell that Biden was cognitively messed up right from the start. The evidence was glaring – for example, his lapses in extemporaneous remarks and even in reading the teleprompter, and his often seeming lost in terms of which direction to walk. There was no denying he wasn’t playing with a full deck; the only question was how many cards remained. And the debate with Trump last June made it glaringly obvious that his decline was steeper, and even the Democrats who had previously tried to gaslight the public had to admit he had to go if they were to have any chance of beating Trump.
Those who continued to claim otherwise sounded ludicrous. And yet they were caught in a dilemma, and that includes Kamala Harris: admit the truth and you were admitting to a nefarious coverup; deny the truth and it was obvious you were still lying.
Oh what a tangled web we weave. And the Democrats got caught in their own web.
But here’s the question: how could anyone have bought the story that Biden was fine until last June? And of course, that he’s fine enough now to stay president till January 20, 2025? Are people that gullible, or that unobservant, or that willing to believe what they want to believe, or all of the above?
Roundup
(1) Here’s the spending bill that was passed in the House.
(2) Trump wants NATO countries to pay more:
Now he’s prompting the rest of NATO to bump their defense spending to five percent of GDP.
Probably won’t happen, though.
(3) Democrats try to troll Trump by referring to “President Musk” during the CR negotiations.
Trolls only work if they hit home, and this is pretty absurd IMHO, for two reasons. The first is that Trump is obviously in charge – and has taken charge of so many things very very quickly, even though he’s not president yet – and has put Musk in charge of cutting government waste. The second is that the same people attempting this trolling of Trump were remarkably silent and incurious about who was really in charge when President Biden was snoozing at the wheel.
(4) A closer look at Biden’s most outrageous pardons:
Hard to figure this one out: the Magdeburg perp
The toll in the Magdeburg Christmas market car-ramming has risen to four dead and over 200 injured. And some facts about the alleged perp have come out that seem to make little sense.
Yes, he’s a Saudi national and doctor who’s been in Germany for 18 years, as previously stated. But his social media accounts indicate that he’s a former Muslim who is actually anti-Islam. So why would such a person plow into a crowd attending a Christmas market? As a 50-year-old, it’s unlikely he had a schizophrenic break. And although it’s possible that his anti-Islam stance was some sort of elaborate ruse, it’s hard to know or to understand what’s going on.
What’s more, he’s a “specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy.” And also a supporter of the anti-immigrant AfD party.
So, what gives?
Open thread 12/21/2024
Dad seems to be the better dancer:
Terror attack at German Christmas market
Germany is very big on celebrating Christmas, and the annual Christmas markets take place in many parts of the country. However, they’ve become a magnet for jihadi terrorist attacks.
Therefore, terrible events such as this come as no surprise:
A festive Christmas market in Eastern Germany erupted into chaos after a car was driven into a group of people in the city of Magdeburg on Friday in a suspected terrorist attack.
Between 60 and 80 people have been injured, according to a spokesperson for the local rescue service, as reported by AFP as officials continue to investigate the incident.
Several of the injured are said to be in critical condition, and multiple reports citing the German public broadcaster MDR, that said at least two people had been killed.
At first the news and government reports were hesitant to label the perp or the motive – as usual. But very recently we see this:
“We have arrested the perpetrator, it is a man from Saudi Arabia… a doctor who has been in Germany since 2006,” state premier of Saxony-Anhalt Reiner Haseloff told reporters at the scene. “From what we currently know he was a lone attacker so we don’t think there is any further danger for the city.”
This report says one of the dead was a toddler, and adds the following:
Authorities believe he acted alone and used a rental car, he added, and German media described him as 50 years old and previously unknown to security services.
My guess is that he just couldn’t resist that anti-Christmas spirit.
Here’s thread for discussing the ongoing CR negotiations
I”m not going to write a post about it right now because the entire thing is in a state of flux. One given, however, is that the MSM is trying to frame this as “Republican meanies shut down the government,” as usual. I’m not so sure the public will buy it anymore.
Caroline Glick interviews Lee Smith on Trump and Netanyahu and the lawfare against them
I’ve discussed this before, but Lee Smith is on point about it. The parallels are strong:
Obama’s “permission structures” seem to have gone awry
Commenter “Dax” and others have pointed out this piece in Tablet by David Samuels entitled “Rapid-Onset Political Enlightenment: How Barack Obama built an omnipotent thought-machine, and how it was destroyed.” It’s very long, and quite a few bloggers are writing about it. However, I found it ultimately unsatisfying because I think that although parts of it are brilliant it somewhat misses the point.
For example, here’s Samuels’ description of what David Axelrod – whom the author sees as absolutely central to Obama’s success both in Illinois and on a national level – did to further Obama’s political career:
Permission structures, a term taken from advertising, was Axelrod’s secret sauce, the organizing concept by which he strategized campaigns for his clients. Where most consultants built their campaigns around sets of positive and negative ads that promoted the positive qualities of their clients and highlighted unfavorable aspects of their opponents’ characters and records, Axelrod’s unique area of specialization required a more specific set of tools. To succeed, Axelrod needed to convince white voters to overcome their existing prejudices and vote for candidates whom they might define as “soft on crime” or “lacking competence.” As an excellent 2008 New Republic profile of Axelrod—surprisingly, the only good profile of Axelrod that appears to exist anywhere—put it: “‘David felt there almost had to be a permission structure set up for certain white voters to consider a black candidate,’ explains Ken Snyder, a Democratic consultant and Axelrod protégé.
I find that somewhat peculiar in terms of what I know of Obama’s political course in Chicago. His success actually depended on a number of other things, which I’ve chronicled in many posts. Chief among them were knocking out all his political rivals in the Democratic primary on petition signature challenge technicalities, and Axelrod’s greatest assistance involved releasing embarrassing court records of his opponents’ marital strife. Very old-fashioned stuff, although Axelrod had great allies in the conventional press to rely on to spread the word. Another aspect of Obama’s early career, this time on the national level, was avoiding challenging black incumbents such as Bobby Rush, and running in districts more white.
So no, I don’t think that Axelrod got people who were racists to change their minds and vote for Obama. Axelrod’s tactics helped the very person – Obama – who was uniquely positioned to exploit white voters’ desire to prove their supposedly post-racism beliefs. There was a host of voters who were eager to virtue-signal how incredibly tolerant and open-minded they were, and Barack Obama was the perfect vehicle for demonstrating that they really had overcome anti-black racism. Obama, the “clean and articulate” black person (one of Biden’s more unfortunate phrases but one of his more revealing), was the candidate who appealed to this impulse the most.
And yes, during the Obama and “Biden” administrations, businesses and social media and the MSM parroted whatever the Obama administration promoted. This certainly amplified the message, but I don’t think it convinced people not already disposed in the direction. If that’s what meant by a “permission structure” than I guess the phenomenon did occur, especially with phenomena such as gay marriage. But I think that the most important element was not giving permission but rather making agreement obligatory lest one be called a bigot and ostracized in various ways. So it wasn’t so much giving permission to agree; it was withdrawing permission to disagree.
But I don’t recall the public being in favor of Obamacare prior to its passage (see the early years in this chart). As for the Iran deal, also discussed at length in Samuels’ article, I don’t think the public ever bought into it. Only the party most faithful accepted any rationale for the Iran deal – and of course the ever-compliant MSM. So Obama didn’t enter into those things by convincing the public, whatever the media said and however the media helped. He accomplished them through Congressional machinations with the help of confederates such as Pelosi, and in the case of the Iran deal by ignoring any requirement that Congress approve it.
Biden was simply not as adept at any of this, even if he’d been in full possession of his faculties (which he was not). And although Obama was pulling strings behind the scenes, it was no longer working. Much of the public had found in Trump a spokesperson who was remarkably plainspoken and in the position of being an adult who functioned much as the child in the Emperor’s New Clothes story: Trump said what he actually saw and for much of the public it was what they saw, too, and felt relief at finally hearing someone say it loud and clear and in a non-mealy-mouthed manner. Plus, by 2024, the public had seen the left in all its manipulative power-mad glory, and increasing numbers of the public didn’t like it.
The American people have gotten mugged by reality, and that’s a pretty powerful experience.
Open thread 12/20/2024
Is a hostage release plan actually in the works?
It’s been about fourteen and a half months since the Israeli hostages were taken to Gaza. It has been a nightmare for their families and friends, and although there is probably some comfort in the fact that the war has been going better than expected lately, it doesn’t change the intensity of the pain and the horror of the imaginings that fill the gap left by little to no information about who is alive and who dead, what hideous psychological and physical torture the hostages themselves have endured, and when and if it will ever end.
And so I keep paying attention to stories such as this:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to hold a high-level meeting on Thursday with top security officials as efforts to reach a hostage-ceasefire deal with Hamas appeared to gather momentum, Israeli televion reported Wednesday.
Netanyahu’s planned assessment, which will include Defense Minister Israel Katz and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, comes as CIA chief William Burns reportedly arrived in Qatar Wednesday night to try and hammer out the outstanding issues. Channel 12 news said that if there was progress, senior Israeli officials would join the talks. …
Despite optimism that a deal can be reached in the next few weeks, the report said there are still disagreements on several key issues including the number and identity of the hostages to be freed; a mechanism for the return of displaced Gazans to the north of the strip; the identity of the Palestinian security prisoners to be released as part of the deal; and a mechanism for exiling the most dangerous of those prisoners to other countries.
I seem to recall that during the Obama years, some of the Guantanamo prisoners were released to other countries with a supposed guarantee that they wouldn’t be able to leave those countries, and the promise was not kept. Anyone who believes such promises at this point is very very gullible.
Trump’s impending presidency looms large in these talks:
Hamas is concerned that US President-elect Donald Trump will allow Israel to resume fighting in Gaza at the completion of the first phase of the three-stage ceasefire that is currently in advanced negotiations, four sources familiar with the matter told The Times of Israel.
They are right to be “concerned.”
Trump said again this week that he wants the war in Gaza to end, but an Israeli official told The Times of Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes he’ll have more flexibility under Trump to resume fighting after the first phase than he would under Biden.
The two things are hardly contradictory. Sometimes the way to end a war is to end it more quickly through decisive victory.
