” … because it is malformed. It is not advisable to try again. That is all we know.”
That’s a message I got today when trying to sign in to an email account. It was accompanied by a little schematic drawing of an old-fashioned science fiction type of robot in broken pieces.
I tried again. It worked just fine.
What gives? I’ve never gotten a message like that before. And who is this “we,” kimosabe?
I believe this may just reflect the desire for a pause in the fighting so they can destroy Israel another day. Nevertheless, this is interesting. although the group is small:
Palestinians in Gaza demand the release of the Israeli hostages today.
IDF spokesperson reports that Palestinian protest near a hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza saw men, women, and children expressing their anger at the situation Hamas, and especially Sinwar, have caused… pic.twitter.com/TTWDFAh2x0
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) January 24, 2024
By the way, I’m puzzled by people who say that if Hamas returns the hostages the war ends. Israel can’t afford to do that; Hamas has shown its hand.
There’s a saying that laws are like sausages and it’s best not to watch them being made. Politics can be an ugly, smelly, and repellent business as well.
So this just might give you indigestion:
The UK’s Daily Mail has released audio of Jeff DeWit, the leader of Arizona’s Republican Party, that appears to show him trying to bribe MAGA stun-gun Kari Lake not to run for the Senate. The tape starts with DeWit asking Lake to name her price to stay out of politics for two years.
“Just say, is there a number at which—” DeWit begins to ask before Lake interrupts and asks, “I can be bought? That’s what it’s about.”
“Not to be bought. To take a pause for a couple of years,” DeWit continues.
“No, no. Ten million, 20 million, 30, no. No. A billion, no, no,” Lake fires back. “This is not about money, it’s about our country.”
DeWit continues by stating that there are “powerful people” “back East” who want Lake to take a break from politics. He even states he, too, wants a “fresh face,” referring to the impending Senate election in Arizona this November.
My guess is that Lake herself made the recording of DeWit.
Today DeWit resigned, saying (among other things) that the conversation was taken out of context and selectively edited. It’s possible, I suppose, and I would like to have access to the entire conversation. But the part that was released certainly sounded bad for DeWit. However, could he just be reporting what others have offered her in order to quit? – although why he’d be their mouthpiece if he’s innocent I’m not sure. Is there another part of the recording in which he says that he backs her and he’s just warning her that others are out for her? That would be interesting, although not definitive.
I want to clear some things up about the New Hampshire primary. In New Hampshire, there are 44% who are Democrats or lean Democrat, 35% who are Republicans or lean Republican, and 20% who report no lean. The latter group would represent the true Independents, if there be such a thing. The state has Republican state officials and Democrat federal representatives, which I suppose makes it officially purple. But on the federal level it is blue. Except for the year 2000, New Hampshire has voted for the Democrat in every presidential election since 1992.
But the voter registration rolls are a bit different. Because New Hampshire has long had an important position in the primaries, many people who are not Independents nevertheless register as “undeclared” (there is no other way to register as an Independent in NH). This gives them the freedom to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primaries. All they have to do, as an undeclared voter, is to ask for either ballot when they enter the polling venue. They can’t vote in both, of course. But they can vote in either.
This means that there is great incentive for people to register as “undeclared.” Voting in one primary or other changes their affiliation to that party, but they can change it right back that very day before they exit the place. That’s how it works, and so it was tailor-made for people on the left to vote for Nikki Haley if they wished to do so. But that’s not just a phenomenon this year; it happens in other years, in particular when the other party has an incumbent and therefore a non-competitive race. If both races are competitive, it’s less likely to feature crossover undeclared votes for the simple reason that there is far more motivation to vote in the primary of the party one wants to vote for in the general.
As far as registration numbers go, 30.28% of the voters are registered Democrats, 29.82% are registered Republicans, and 39.90% are unaffiliated (also sometimes called undeclared at other sites). Therefore I think we can safely say that at least half of the undeclared voters actually lean to one party or other, and more of them are Democrats. The people who are registered as being members of a certain party are also able to change their affiliation, with a deadline a few months prior to the primaries.
All of this is relevant to the statistic I’ve read, which is that 70% of Haley’s votes were not registered Republicans. This is made easier by the NH system of primary voting. I don’t know how it compares to other “moderate” candidates in previous years, though, because I’ve never read statistics on it, but a quick search located this:
In 2000, 62 percent of undeclared voters chose the Republican ballot — and 61 percent of that group voted for John McCain, helping him defeat George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary. But in the 2008 primary, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off on the Democratic side, the group flipped, with 62 percent taking the Democratic ballot. Mrs. Clinton emerged as the winner.
This year [2016], undeclared voters are finding their decision especially daunting.
“I am truly, completely undecided,” said Barbara Wilson, 64, of Henniker, who said she liked both Democratic candidates, as well as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. “I have no earthly idea what I’m going to do at the end of the day.” …
Then there is strategy to consider, with some undecided voters debating not just which candidates they like best, but also which primary would allow their votes to have a greater impact. The Democratic primary has been fairly static, with Mr. Sanders holding a sizable lead over Mrs. Clinton. But the Republican race feels up for grabs.
So you can see that this is an old story in New Hampshire.
… with an estimated margin of 12% over Haley. That’s quite a bit of room in what amounted to a 2-way race, in a state in which many Democrats who had registered as “undeclared” probably voted in the GOP primary.
Haley isn’t polling very well in her home state of South Carolina, so I think this will be a short primary season with the equivalent of a Republican incumbent (Trump) and a Democrat incumbent (Biden), either or both of whom may somehow end up not being his party’s candidate when November rolls around.
Here’s an in-depth discussion.
The COVID lockdowns were a factor. But certainly not the only factor; “meritocracy” is now a dirty word in US education.
The learning loss debacle is the latest chapter in the decade-long decline in public schools. Achievement among black and Latino students on state tests was already dropping before COVID drove an exodus of families away from traditional public schools in search of a better education. Although by lowering standards and lifting the graduation rate districts have created the impression that they have bounced back, experts say that’s the wrong signal to send, creating complacency when urgency is needed.
It’s so much easier to lower standards – sometimes in the name of anti-racism – than to try to meet them. And it’s not as though schools weren’t given money to remedy this, but there was almost no effective oversight.
Ah, well you might ask.
After all, as Paul Mirengoff writes:
Under any rational analysis, however, the events of October 7 conclusively demolish any claim that there’s a viable two-state solution.
Gaza was a de facto Palestinian state, though it was not officially recognized as one. Gaza had its own government — supported financially by the international community and militarily by Iran — and there was no Israeli presence in that territory.
Hamas ran the show and there’s no evidence that the Gazans, who elected Hamas years ago, were unhappy about this. In any case, Hamas’ rule was reality in this de facto state.
October 7 was the consequence of Gaza’s independence. Hamas, unconstrained, invaded Israel and committed the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. If Israel had maintained a presence in Gaza, as it has in the West Bank, Hamas could not have pulled off its butchery.
Can it be more obvious that a Palestinian state on the West Bank would leave Israel exposed to another October 7? I don’t see how.
And yet the Biden administration insists on it. Why?
Mirengoff lists several ideas: force of habit, lack of any other idea on what to do, and to please the Democrat anti-Israel base. I believe that all three are operating to a certain extent.
But there’s more. Calling for a two-state solution is virtue-signaling par excellence: showing oneself to be in favor of treating both sides the same even though that’s a total fiction, respecting the supposedly “brown” Palestinians who are by definition oppressed, placating the international community, believing that negotiations can solve any problem, not recognizing the existence of evil but blaming it on economic disadvantages and supposed persecution, and being against “escalation” by pariah Israel.
There’s another possibility: wishing Israel would just go away already and cease to exist. What a headache it is! A two-state solution would accomplish that goal while wrapping those who promote it in the cloak of kindly and evenhanded peace advocacy.
There’s also, of course, the possibility of sheer stupidity. Perhaps they actually believe their own fictions. Stranger things have happened. And after all, to give up the idea does leave a vacuum of sorts, which can only be filled by supporting a more ruthless war on the part of Israel. That is a harsh prospect that might be very difficult and depressing to accept.
Have I left anything out?
(1) Terrible news: building collapse kills 21 IDF soldiers:
The forces removed buildings and infrastructure that served Hamas in an area approximately 600 m from the border, with the intention of allowing residents of the south to return to their homes. According to our information at the moment, at approximately 4:00 p.m., an antitank missile was fired at a tank guarding the force, and simultaneously an explosion collapsed two two-story buildings close to the force while most of the force was in or near them.
“The buildings apparently exploded due to charges that our forces had placed and were about to be blown up along with terrorist infrastructures in the area.
(2) SCOTUS rules to allow the feds to continue to cut away barbed wire that Texas has placed on the border, pending a court case on the matter. No written opinion was rendered, but the decision was 5-4, with Roberts and Barrett ruling with the liberals. If I understand this correctly, the issue is whether states have any rights in the matter of the US borders, or whether the federal government is totally in control.
(3) Here’s the latest in blood libels from an antisemitic cartoonist who used to work for the Telegraph until his 2021 firing, but commands top prices for his work. These themes not only are old, but they’ve been a near-constant especially in Europe. In 2019 I wrote this post on the subject, in which I feature a similar cartoon from 2003 that showed Sharon eating babies, as in the famous Goya work about Saturn devouring his son.
(4) Today is the NH primary, but DeSantis’ dropping out of the race has taken away much of its meaning. Now it’s just Trump and Haley, and Trump is reported to be way ahead. It really depends on turnout, but I think it’s safe to predict a Trump victory. In NH, registered Democrats can’t cross over, but since many people don’t register with a party even though they really reliably vote for that party, Democrats actually can and will cross over to vote for Haley.
(5) Hamas is reported to have refused an Israeli hostage deal:
The terrorist group Hamas has rejected a generous Israeli ceasefire offer in exchange for the release of remaining hostages, media reports say. Israel had offered “a two-month cease-fire in exchange for hostages, and a free passage out of Gaza for its leaders,” the Israeli news website Ynet reported Tuesday.
The Associated Press, the news outlet that broke the story, cited an Egyptian official saying, “Hamas rejected the proposal and is insisting that no more hostages will be released until Israel ends its offensive and withdraws from Gaza.” The Israeli government did not comment on the news reports.
I don’t know whether this is true; Israel hasn’t confirmed it. But if true, it is both depressing and unsurprising. Israel’s offer shows a softening of its position and a worrisome trend, whereas Hamas’ refusal shows that it thinks that it is in the driver’s seat because of all the hostages. That’s why it takes them.
I can’t say he actually answered the question. But kind of interesting nonetheless:
Here’s the Jerusalem Center again, with another extremely informative discussion. Once again, these guys aren’t telegenic, and the accents can make it a bit hard to listen, but I’m impressed by their knowledge and perspective. This discussion is about the entire Middle East picture. I’ve cued it up to start where the guest speaker enters:
NOTE: By the way, Hamas tells Israel sure, we’ll give you your hostages back … as long as you cease fighting us and cease existing. From past experience, Hamas has always thought of the hostages it holds as giving it absolute power over Israel, although this time it hasn’t worked out that way so far. But Hamas knows that the world is against Israel and will excuse the worst and most malevolent actions on the part of Hamas and other Palestinians, having firmly established its neo-Marxist credentials as victims no matter what they do.
Blinken unveiled his grand plan for Middle East peace: a Palestinian state. Yes, that’s right: Hamas murdered 1,200 Israelis, many in unimaginably gruesome ways, with Palestinian civilians gleefully cheering them on, and Blinken wants them to end up being the ones who emerge the winners from this present conflict.
A Palestinian state would seem to be the last thing any sane person would recommend now after we have seen Gaza become a jihad terror statelet, but Blinken has not bothered to let the experience of history, much less the power of common sense, revise his preconceived notions. As far as he is concerned, the Palestinians are violent because they lack self-determination.Giving them self-determination (you know, like when they elected Hamas in Gaza) will therefore fix the problem. Never mind that they’ve turned down numerous quite generous offers to give them a state. Remember: the facts don’t matter in Washington.
Nor do they matter in Davos. And so Blinken said Wednesday that Israel could only attain “genuine security” if it allowed the Palestinians another base for jihad attacks in addition to Gaza, that is, a Palestinian state. He even had the audacity to present this tired, multiply failed, ill-conceived “solution” as a daring new idea that the Israelis needed to have the imagination and courage to seize upon.
One of the many, many, many reasons Biden (or his replacement) needs to be defeated in 2024.