Now I have to remember to write a new number.
Happy New Year to all.
New Year’s Eve – what are you doing?
And me? Glad you asked.
This year I’m visiting relatives and there’s actually a party tonight.
Staying up till midnight is ordinarily no problem for me, since I’m a night owl and always have been. Actually, even when young, I had somewhat of an aversion to New Year’s Eve. To the idea of a night when you were supposed to have fun or else. A reminder of the speedy passage of time. With alcohol drinking. And the obligatory midnight kiss, which wasn’t a fun moment if you didn’t like your date.
Once or twice I went to Times Square to see the ball go down in person and not just on TV. Curiously, those were some of my better New Year’s Eves. Maybe it was the people I was with those nights. We ate at Tad’s Steaks, just for laughs, but Tad’s wasn’t bad at all.
And six years ago the very last Tad’s in New York City closed down. I had no idea any of them had lasted that long.
So let’s drink to Tad’s:
The cafeteria-style chophouse is known for hawking inexpensive meat-and-potato dinners on red trays — meals that cost little more than $1 each when the first one opened in 1957. A steak lunch today can be had for as little as $9.
At its height, Tad’s had eight New York locations out of 28 nationwide. But come Jan. 5, 2020, the red neon sign in the window advertising “broiled” steaks at 761 Seventh Ave. will go dark — as will the vast grill that played host to smoky “steak shows,” where dozens of cuts could be grilled at once during the thick of lunch hour.
Happy New Year, everyone! I’m very grateful for all of you. Here’s to a wonderful 2026, full of love, joy, and good health!
[NOTE: Much of this appeared in previous posts.]
Bye bye 2025
When I look back, I see a cycle of upswing that began in July of 2024 with Trump’s near-miraculous survival of an assassination attempt and then his election, which continued in January of 2025 with his inauguration and his subsequent frenzy of activity to undo some of the worst policies of the Biden years.
But then in September of 2025 it seemed that a new cycle began with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Those two assassination attempts – one failed and one horrifically successful – seem like bookends to me. Since September of 2025 the right has seen a slight fracturing that doesn’t bode well for the next election, and a rising general restlessness and dissatisfaction.
For me personally, this year has brought some very serious illnesses of friends and loved ones, and although most of those people are now holding their own, that aspect of things has been difficult and remains so.
On the other hand, I take tremendous joy in my grandchildren and am very grateful for their existence.
And I am very glad to have finally finished the Vanderleun poetry book. That certainly was a learning experience.
Let’s hear it for 2026. I wish health and happiness to you and your families and friends, and plenty of good things for this country and the world.
The ten best movies of 2025
None.
I haven’t seen a single movie that came out in 2025. If you have any nominations for the “best” list, be my guest.
But I was thinking – what are my ten favorite movies of all time? That’s a difficult task, but a lot more fun. So here they are, in no particular order:
(1) Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet (1968). Saw it in a movie theater when it came out; wide-screen. Immediately loved it and still do today. An inspired idea to cast actual teenagers in the lead roles, but it wouldn’t have worked so well if these particular teenagers hadn’t been excellent actors and physically beautiful. I cried all the way through it and still do.
(2) Groundhog Day (1993). Funny, poignant, and ultimately philosophical. I’ve written about this film many times on the blog.
(3) The Lives of Others (2006). Brilliant reflection on life in East Germany under surveillance and the constant threat of surveillance.
(4) Wuthering Heights (1939). It’s schmaltzy, it doesn’t follow the book much and softens the Heathcliff character a great deal, but Olivier is young and riveting and the music gives me chills.
(5) The Wizard of Oz (1939). Magical, then and now. As a child, I felt the change to Oz and color film was the best thing ever, and Ray Bolger’s dancing wasn’t far behind. Did I appreciate Judy Garland’s phenomenal singing? Probably not. But I do now.
(6) The Great Escape (1963). Saw it in a movie theater when it first came out. I was old enough to understand and appreciate it (including the male pulchritude on display) but young enough to be shocked at the ending.
(7) Ballad of a Soldier (1959). A Russian movie, it came to this country during the Khrushchev “thaw.” A relative took me to see it – in black-and-white and with English subtitles – in a Manhattan movie “art” theater. It remains extraordinarily touching. Another one that makes me cry and cry.
(8) The Sixth Sense (1999). Yes, it’s probably gimmicky. But what a twist! Best twist ever.
(9) Some Like It Hot (1959). Another film I saw in a movie theater when first released, and I was almost undoubtedly too young for it. But it’s one of the funniest movies of all time, and I got the humor – for the most part.
(10) Marriage Italian Style (1964) (note: not Divorce Italian Style). Loren and Mastroianni. Do not – I repeat, do not – get the dubbed version; only the subtitled version. Loren is at her funniest and yet most moving. Mastroianni does what he does best: playing the charming heel. All wrapped up in a satisfying plot.
I can easily think of others to add, perhaps just as worthy. But that’s my first take, and I’ll leave it.
Note what’s left out: Citizen Kane and The Godfather, both of which leave me cold. Gone With the Wind, which has its pluses but just isn’t a favorite for me. 2001 definitely might have made it, but probably belongs somewhere in the top twenty instead. Same with Rebecca, Jane Eyre, and Splendor In the Grass. Nothing in the Star Wars genre would ever make the cut; I saw the original in an LA movie theater with the sound cranked up to painful heights, and otherwise it bored me tremendously. I have a distinct fondness for Scorsese’s After Hours, but again it probably should be in my top twenty rather than top ten.
Demonstrations in Iran – once again
We’ve seen this before, over and over: the people of Iran against the mullahs, the stirrings of hope and defiance, and the suppression of the movement.
Is there any reason to believe the cycle won’t simply repeat itself this time? Turning points in these sorts of revolts tend to occur when the police or military turn on the regime and refuse to enforce order. I haven’t read any sign of that happening in Iran right now, but when it occurs it can be sudden.
Meanwhile:
Independent analysts warned the unrest reflects deeper structural strains. The OSINT research group SpecialEurasia said in an assessment on Tuesday that Iran’s internal stability has reached a “critical threshold,” citing the convergence of currency collapse, renewed international sanctions and chronic water and energy shortages. The group noted that the participation of bazaar merchants, traditionally a pillar of regime support, signals declining confidence in the state’s economic management and raises the risk of prolonged unrest.
There’s also this news:
Reports from across the country indicate that shop owners in other cities, including the western city of Hamedan and the southern island of Qeshm, have also joined the protests by closing their stores. Slogans such as “death to the dictator” and “Seyyed Ali (Khamenei) will be toppled this year,” referring to Iran’s supreme leader, were heard in Qeshm and Zanjan, according to reports. …
Video and pictures coming from different cities in Iran show a heavy police and security force presence at the ongoing protests, with some video showing the police using tear gas against protestors.
That last paragraph – not a good sign.
Open thread 12/31/2025
Notice there’s a blurb that says “altered or synthetic content.” I think the content of this video probably is from something Feynman said or wrote, but his voice is AI–generated.
The fraud scandal grows and grows and grows
It is already so large that I can’t cover all the angles. Luckily, I don’t have to, because a roundup will serve.
(1) Excellent point:
If welfare and redistribution were really about helping people, then their proponents should care *more* about fraud. That’s money not going to the stated purpose of these programs. Their hostility to all scrutiny proves their stated goals were always lies. It’s just patronage.
(2) And from Stephen Miller, about the reporting on the subject:
I guess the question is why did the New York Times allow a kid with an iPhone to put millions of eyeballs on this instead of them.
Journalists would love to answer this question but they can’t. It’s lunacy. It’s industry suicide because they don’t want to called racist by their colleagues and they don’t want to do anything that might prove Donald Trump’s administration right on *a thing* like *anything*
(3) Transparency, not:
Stunning – it appears they have taken down the license look-up website so Minnesotans can’t see who the Medicaid service providers are or what licensing violations they may have.
(4) As Minnesota goes, so goes Ohio>?:
After the fraud scandal in Minnesota, a TikToker decided to investigate daycare centers in Ohio, which has the country’s second-largest Somali population.
By plugging the addresses into Google Maps, he discovered that many of the buildings didn’t look like typical childcare facilities—lacking playgrounds, proper signage, and even having blacked-out windows.
(5) DHS is investigating suspected fraud sites in Minnesota.
(6) Is this magnitude of fraud a possibility? I don’t know where the figure is coming from. But there’s little doubt that we’re talking about a very large figure:
It’s a very real possibility that the United States is looking at over $2.5 trillion/year in fraud from state and federal entitlements.
That’s more than next year’s estimated federal budget deficit.
This is a national security issue.
(7) Glenn Reynolds observes that, so far, there’s no evidence that Walz has committed a crime, and so he probably can’t be tried for anything. But this is what Reynolds says about the press coverage:
… [W]ith Walz on the Democratic presidential ticket in 2024, why did no national or local “mainstream” journalists look into all this?
Given the previous prosecutions [in Minnesota is similar fraud cases years ago], the background of a state’s governor on a national ticket should be a top priority for any honest press.
(I know, haha, I said “honest press.”)
Even now, Minnesota press isn’t covering this story.
Shirley’s findings [and video on the subject] went uber-viral on social media — but the Minnesota Star-Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press have said not a word about his post as I write.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is the Liz Cheney du jour
All it takes is to become Trump’s enemy, and the MSM will give you the sympathetic star treatment.
From Ace, a post entitled: “As Predictable As the Setting Sun: After Conspiracy Theorist and Lunatic Marjorie Taylor Greene Turns on Trump, the NYT Offers Her a Puff-Piece with an Attempted Glamour Shot.” In the Times article, Greene gives them the Trump-dissing quotes that earn her new respect from the Gray Lady: a lot about Trump and Epstein, plus the standard charge (one that usually comes from the left) that Trump will never leave office.
Is a Greene gig at MSNOW on the horizon?
She adds, just to top it all off:
I’ve seen a bunch of America Last accounts attacking Tucker so I’m making it clear that I’m proudly friends with Tucker Carlson.
He is a man of sincere faith, loves his family, and our country.
America First is winning.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
My opinion is that Greene, Carlson, and their allies on the “woke right” are trying to take over the GOP and replace MAGA with themselves – much like what the Democratic Socialists have done quite successfully to the Democrats.
Hail Somaliland
A fascinating move by Israel:
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland landed like a dropped plate in a room full of diplomats pretending not to hear the crash. Somalia protested. The Arab League scolded. Turkey and Egypt warned darkly about precedent. The African Union fretted about stability. Western officials whispered about process. All the usual theater. What none of them wanted to say out loud was the obvious truth staring back at them. Israel did nothing radical. It applied the rules.
For thirty years Somaliland has functioned as a state. Not a slogan, not a cause, not a grievance economy. A state. Permanent population. Defined territory. Effective government. Capacity to conduct foreign relations. The four tests of the Montevideo Convention, met quietly and consistently since 1991. Add a fifth fact that the convention does not even ask for but history does. Somaliland has committed exactly zero acts of international terrorism. No hijackings. No embassy bombings. No exported jihad. No global fundraising networks laundering blood as politics.
The article goes on to state that Palestine, the darling of so many countries around the world who have recognized it as a state, lacks characteristics of effective government (unless the aim of effective government is terrorism):
[“Palestine” has no] defined territory under sovereign control. No effective government with a monopoly on force. No independent foreign policy capacity. No coherent administration. Plenty of armed factions. Plenty of glorified murder. Plenty of international terror. And yet that project is treated as sacred, inevitable, untouchable. …
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland … says something deeply offensive to the professional peace industry. Sovereignty is not a vibe. It is a performance. You earn it by governing, not by suffering louder than your neighbor.
Leave it to Israel to point out the contrast.
And from Roger L. Simon:
According to Grok, “Somaliland, a former British protectorate, has maintained relative stability, its own currency, passports, elections, and government since 1991, in contrast to ongoing instability in Somalia.” …
In fact, their residents have been photographed waving the Israeli flag after their country’s leader signed agreements promising Israeli aid for agriculture, health, technology, and economic development.
Is this another important avatar of Netanyahu’s “New Middle East?” It could well be, but in the short run, it certainly will make life extremely difficult for the Houthis with the possibility of Israeli jets parked three hundred miles from their shores. Say goodbye to the terrorists’ control of the Gulf of Aden with its proximity to the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.
Let’s hope so.
Open thread 12/30/2025
She did as well with the assignment as anyone could have. But it’s still too narrow:
It’s another roundup
(1) Is the Ukraine War finally nearing the end? I’ll cut to the chase and say that I don’t think so, although I’d be more than happy to be pleasantly surprised.
But here’s the story:
Donald Trump said security guarantees to end the war in Ukraine were “95 per cent done” as he hosted Volodymyr Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago for peace talks.
Speaking at his Florida holiday home, Mr Trump said a deal to end the conflict was “a lot closer” after an afternoon of negotiations with the Ukrainian president and a call with Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, on Sunday.
The US president suggested it could take a “few weeks” to get the deal over the line and that some “thorny issues” remain, likely referring to Ukrainian territorial concessions.
As thorny as a briar patch.
(2) Somalia will head the UN Security Council in January. No, that’s neither a joke nor a typo:
The great nation of Somalia is set to assume the rotating presidency of the United Nations Security Council on January 1 for a period of one month. Somalia is currently serving as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the 2025–2026 term. As president, the nation’s representatives “will chair council meetings, help shape the agenda, and represent the Security Council throughout the month.”
(3) The J5 pipebomber’s motive is revealed:
But…for those willing to accept what the current DOJ has to say about it at face value:
Cole acted alone
Cole was upset about the 2020 election
Cole blamed both of the parties
Cole planted the bombs, intending for them to go off on the night of January 5
This makes sense to me, particularly since the bombs were placed at both the RNC and the DNC.
(4) Brigitte Bardot has died at the age of 91. She quit movies while still young, and devoted the rest of her life to animal rights causes. But she also spoke out against what she saw as the Islamic practices that she viewed as cruel to animals, and was fined many times for her statements on the issue.
Bardot was very much a sex symbol, and I never saw any of her films. She apparently didn’t think too much of them:
With the exception of 1963’s critically acclaimed “Contempt,” directed by Godard, Bardot’s films were rarely complicated by plots. Often they were vehicles to display Bardot’s curves and legs in scanty dresses or frolicking nude in the sun.
“It was never a great passion of mine,” she said of filmmaking. “And it can be deadly sometimes. Marilyn (Monroe) perished because of it.”
Bardot retired to her Riviera villa in St. Tropez at the age of 39 in 1973 after “The Woman Grabber.”
That’s quite a title; perhaps it loses something in translation?
RIP.
(5) This video on the empty Somali daycare centers of Minnesota has gone viral:
The right: “live not by lies”
Solzhenitsyn famously said: “live not by lies.” How many politicians follow that maxim? Vanishingly few. And I wouldn’t expect them to; politics is a dirty, compromised business.
And yet, not all lies are created equal. Some lies are minor: “I had the biggest crowd ever at my rally.” Some lies are much worse: “The MAGA insurrectionists on January 6th killed five people.” Some lies are even more destructive: “The Jews are an evil cabal that runs the world, and all of them must be murdered, even the children.” Or: “Communism will lead to utopia; we just have to kill a few hundred million people who stubbornly refuse to get with the program.”
Politicians need to draw lines about the positions of allies, and to make it clear when a position an ally holds is beyond the pale and highly destructive, especially when that position is based on something that is unequivocally a lie.
Which brings us to discussions such as this one, from a comment by “Nate Winchester.” I had previously written this:
Yes , I think it will “end there” because the offenses of Owens, Carlson, Fuentes et al are especially egregious and vile. If [Vance] can’t be critical of them he is morally bankrupt., These are not small nitpicky issues, to be safely ignored, as other such calls to denounce someone else might be. Perhaps you haven’t listened to them; i have. They are poison, and it’s not “just” about Jews and Israel, either.
It is possible – and necessary – to pick and choose whom to denounce.
I wrote quite a bit more, but that was the part “Nate Winchester” quoted, and he replied:
I believe you have misunderstood me, @neo. I’m not saying they are small things or nitpicky or anything of the sort. You say it will “end there” – how?
Not even rhetorical or leading, I really do mean, “how will it end there?” Because I remember the 2016 election. You could make a drinking game of how often Trump would get asked in interviews about white nationalists and like. Each and every time he expressed strong condemnation and denouncement. And then they would ask it again. Even in Trump’s Charlottesville speech he outright said “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally” and yet what was the meme created by the media? I remember that time because on other blogs I pointed out to Leftists that line, a line of condemnation in a speech by Trump before that day, and a line of condemnation in a speech that followed that one (establishing that in 3 speeches in a row he condemned white nationalists) and it still wasn’t enough for the other side (some of whom even outright denied it).
So yes, part of me just does not believe that it will “end there” because experience has shown me that it won’t. It may “end there” for you and a few other people, but unfortunately those are not the only votes that count in a nation-wide run or voice in public spaces. … My impression looking back is that when the Right said, “Ok, we’re also not ok with racism and will kick out people who have those views” the Left very quickly figured out they could use “racism” to snipe out of the way any Right-leaning figure that was a bit too troublesome for them.
I’m not even saying you’re wrong or Carlson et al aren’t dangerous or anything like that. I’m trying to think what are the long term plays. JD kicks them out of the party and establishes for the Press that a specific charge can cut someone out of the coalition. Then they start badgering JD about the next person/group they want to get cut off. Then the next after that. And another after that.
Because in the post and thread that followed we were talking solely about demands from the right that Vance criticize and even denounce Tucker, Owens, and Fuentes, I assumed with my answer that we were not talking about demands from the left. But apparently that wasn’t clear enough, so let me say that of course, the left will never stop making such demands. Also, it will distort any response that is made in order to make the Republican look as bad as possible. Those things are crystal clear and have been for a long long time.
I’m talking about demands from people on the right. And to clarify further: I’m not even saying that demands from the right will ever end, although I think they are not as incessant or widespread as those from the left. What I meant when I wrote that “it will end there,” was not that the demands themselves will end, just that only some things require a public stance against them. I think that generally, when we’re talking about demands from the right, it’s only the most egregious and destructive lies on the right from which a politician on the right would need to distance him or herself.
And furthermore – for me, the emphasis shouldn’t be on demands and reactions to them, yea or nay.
If a person says “I’m not going to do a certain thing because I don’t respond to demands,” that is paradoxical because the demand is still shaping the speaker’s behavior, albeit in a negative way. It’s a bit analogous to the position of a rebellious teen who won’t do something merely because mom and dad tell him not to do it. The demand nevertheless is still shaping the behavior and the teen is not independent, merely stubbornly negating the demand.
“I don’t do something merely because people tell me to do it” is a perfectly reasonable position for anyone to take. But it should be combined with, “I also don’t not do something just because people tell me to do it. That is, I make my own decisions independently.” And then the person can either condemn something, refuse to condemn it, agree with it, disagree with it, or declare neutrality, based on the thing itself: is it true or false, is it wrong and destructive, and how important is it?
That should be the basis of the decision. Each politician can make that decision and must make it, setting up a hierarchy of issues he or she deems important enough and offenses great enough on which to draw the line.
“I will condemn no one and no thought or utterance on the right, no matter how awful” is, in my opinion, a position of moral bankruptcy, although it might be arrived at for the very practical reason that the politician has decided that’s the way to election victory. I don’t think that’s the case here with Vance’s stand; I not only think it’s morally bankrupt but I also don’t think it will lead to victory. I think that more people would vote for moral clarity than moral bankruptcy, and that “my buddy, right or wrong, and there is literally nothing that person could say with which I would publicly disagree” is not moral clarity and not worthy of respect.
NOTE: Let me add that it’s a strawman to pretend that the issue at hand is the demand that Vance or any other politician condemn people for disagreeing with Israeli policy or the current Israeli government. I see that strawman argument made constantly; it started on the left and then morphed to the right. I’ve written about some of the actual issues involved, in several posts on Owens and Carlson; for example this and this for Owens, and this and this for Carlson.
And by the way, I don’t think Trump needs to denounce the trio. He’s already called Carlson “kooky” (way too mild, but at least it’s both true and negative). But actions speak even louder than words, and Trump has made it clear by both words and action that he doesn’t share the pernicious beliefs of Carlson, Owens, and Fuentes and is opposed to them. Perhaps as time goes on, this will become more clear of Vance as well. I certainly hope so.