I went to a small get-together last night where costumes were obligatory.
I wore this, made of two garments bought on sale at Walmart and T. J. Maxx. The ensemble was finished off by white socks and white sneakers. I bet you can guess what I was:
(No, I’m not wearing the costume in that photo.)
I’ve been doing a lot of research for a post or series of posts on anti-Semitism on the right, and it’s got me down.
First of all, the usual disclaimer: there’s much more of it on the left, and in addition it seems to be mainstreamed on the left although often disguised as “Oh, we only hate the genocidal maniacal Israeli babykillers.” On the right, it’s still mostly outliers.
But not entirely. For example, Tucker Carlson’s viewpoints may not be popular with older conservatives, but he has influence with younger ones (as does the even-more-pernicious Candace Owens). And Carlson is still very tight with Turning Point, and is one of their major speakers.
Now Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation has weighed in, and it’s not good. Roberts seems to be confused about what canceling means, and it’s not the same as criticizing. Here’s what Roberts said [my responses are added in brackets]:
“When it serves the interests of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we should do so, with partnerships on security, intelligence and technology. But when it doesn’t, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government [no one on the pro-Israel side is asking for that, so it’s a strawman argument], no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class [the actual “globalist class” detests Israel, so this is absurd] or from their mouthpieces [not sure whom he means – but I would guess Israeli lobbyists? As I said, globalists are very anti-Israel, so this seems to be some sort of code for something else he’s trying to say] in Washington.
The Heritage Foundation didn’t become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by cancelling our own people [criticizing is not cancelling] or policing the consciences of Christians [and yet that’s exactly and precisely what Carlson did when he accused “Christian Zionists” of heresy and said he despises them more than anyone else], and we won’t start doing that now. . . .
We will always defend truth [that’s all people are asking you to do by pointing out what Carlson is doing], we will always defend America and we will always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda [hmm, who’s that “someone else” – could it be: Jews? Israel? Have the courage to come out with what you actually mean, at least, and stop talking in secret code]. That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and, as I have said before, always will be [no matter what he does or says, now and forever? That doesn’t sound very principled of you], a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.
The venomous coalition [“venomous” is quite a word – although actually, it’s more appropriate to Carlson and certainly Fuentes, to whom Carlson gave a fawning interview and huge platform] attacking him are sowing division [unlike Carlson, who attacked Christian supporters of Israel as heretics?]. Their attempt to cancel him will fail [They’re not trying to cancel him. They’re criticizing him and asking you to do the same]. Most importantly, the American people expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right. [The two are hardly mutually exclusive. If you fail to attack Jew-haters on the right, I don’t think you’ll win in the end.]
I disagree with, and even abhor, things that Nick Fuentes says, but canceling him is not the answer, either. [Again, you seem to be confusing criticizing with canceling. Nor is refusing to give someone a platform canceling; that person is free to speak anywhere else] When we disagree with a person’s thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas and debate. [But Tucker Carlson did very little debating of Fuentes; he added his own fuel to the Jew-hating and Israel-hating fire.]
As I said, I plan to write more about this because there’s much more to say, particularly about why I think Carlson is doing this and what might be motivating Roberts, about whom I know less. But at the moment I don’t have the stomach for it. Maybe some time next week.
(1) The other two liberal SCOTUS justices, Kagan and Sotomayor, are not all that happy with Ketanji Brown Jackson.
(2) There’s been some progress on a way to restore aging skin. As Glenn Reynolds might say, “faster, please.”
A lot faster.
(3) Don’t click on this if you don’t want to get depressed by the amount of depraved cruelty circulating online about Kirk’s assassination and his widow’s grief. That features mockery coming from the left, which is where you’d expect it to come from and from where I’m virtually certain the vast majority does originate. But a few on the right – or who used to be on the right, at least for a while – get into the “hate Erika Kirk” act in other ways (I’m talking about the Jew-hating Owens, accusing Kirk’s widow of covering up the fact that the culprit was – of course, because this is Owens – Israel).
(4) I have no idea whether this is true or not. But it’s certainly interesting, and it’s certainly a possibility:
Zohran Mamdani’s campaign is facing explosive allegations that it benefited from tens of millions of dollars in donations funneled from George Soros-linked charities as part of an elaborate scheme that may have violated federal tax laws.
The 34-year-old State Assemblyman’s team has always claimed that he rose from obscurity to become New York City’s mayoral front-runner thanks to an organic, grassroots movement involving many small donations and hundreds of young people with backpacks canvassing on his behalf.
But the Daily Mail can reveal that that narrative is now being called into question according to a report from a watchdog website.
(5) A recent NYC mayoral poll shows this:
According to Atlas Intel, Mamdani leads with 41 percent, Cuomo sits at 34 percent as an independent, and Sliwa trails with 24 percent. The poll carries a ±3 margin of error, a much tighter margin than other major surveys that have shown Mamdani leading by double digits.
That seems to be due mostly to Sliwa picking up support. If Sliwa-supporting people decide to switch to Cuomo when actually in the voting booth and faced with the reality of what their Sliwa vote facilitates (a Mamdani victory), that would give Cuomo the win.
In this poll, the “undecided” vote has shrunk to almost nothing. The poll is an outlier, however; others show Mamdani with a much bigger lead – but Atlas has been known for greater accuracy in the past.
I don’t see the Democrats capitulating and ending the shutdown. They seem to have boxed themselves into a corner.
Trump is all for Senate Republicans invoking the so-called nuclear option:
“Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!’” Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social.
In a separate post, he wrote, “THE CHOICE IS CLEAR — INITIATE THE “NUCLEAR OPTION,” GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
There is no question in my mind that the Democrats would end it themselves in the future, when and if they get control of the Senate, and if they have the votes for it and need it to pass something they consider important. The only reason it did not happen already during the Biden administration was the presence of two Democrat “no” votes in the persons of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. They’re gone from the Senate now and I think we can be pretty sure they won’t be returning, so the only Democrat I can see blocking the nuclear option in the future would be – perhaps – John Fetterman.
So, should the Republicans vote to be able to end the shutdown by a simple majority? I’m not sure that they presently have the votes to do it. In fact, I think they don’t have the votes to do it – there’s Collins and Murkowski and Tillis, for example. Only Thune knows if they do, and although he hasn’t revealed the head count, he seems to be saying “no”.
Johnson – who really has no say, being in the House – likewise isn’t in favor.
Another thought I have is that the Republicans seem to have gained support during the shutdown rather than lost it. That might make them less-than-eager to use the nuclear option to end it, at least not yet.
How did November get here so fast?
Commenter “Rufus T. Firefly” writes, in contemplation of the fact that James Lileks and his wife are separating after decades of marriage:
I think this fascinates me because he is being so very open and public about something that all of us who are married are susceptible to. When my wife and I had been married about 7 years I heard a stat on divorce. More than 20% of divorces occur after 25 years of marriage. I was shocked. How could a couple live together for 25 years and then divorce? It would seem, if you make it that far, you’d have things pretty much worked out. I would have guessed almost no one divorces after 20 years of marriage.
Then, around the 25 year mark, the Lovely Mrs. Firefly and my nest was emptying out and her and had a lot more free time and were spending a lot more time together. That’s when it hit me. “Oh, this is a whole, different thing.” And we were entirely different people than the two, young people who exchanged vows at an altar so many years ago. I remember talking with my wife about it when we were on a long drive to visit friends for the weekend. I realized her and I had to figure out a new way to live together. When kids are around and you’re working and busy you have far fewer options regarding how you spend your time, what you will do with your nights and weekends, where you will live, what you will eat*… Sometimes limits to freedom can make things easier.
Although I’ve read Lileks at times, I’m not a regular there and know zero about his marriage. But I do know about divorce after a long marriage, from personal experience. I’m not going to tell my story, because my ex and I are friends now, but suffice to say that even he would say that he was at fault.
I got a divorce, having left very reluctantly after thirty-one years of marriage. It was something that had to be done, but it was incredibly difficult. Heartbreakingly so. Among other things, I was recovering – slowly – from a big surgery at the time, and I was in a lot of physical pain as well as emotional. I had no other romance in my life and saw no prospect of one. I had loved my husband very much, and I didn’t fall in love easily.
Of course, as regular readers here know, after a while I did have another relationship – with Gerard – but not another marriage.
It’s my observation that most long marriages that end do so for one of two reasons, and often for both of them. The first is what “Rufus” mentions: the empty nest changing the marital equation. The other is that one of the spouses has found someone else, or at least thinks that he or she has found someone else who’s much better than the spouse of whom he or she has grown weary.
There’s a lyric in a Jackson Browne song that covers that situation rather well, I think:
But when you see through love’s illusions, there lies the danger
And your perfect lover just looks like a perfect fool
So you go running off in search of a perfect stranger
All the loneliness seems to spring from your life
Like a fountain from a pool …
“A perfect stranger” is a phrase that takes on new meaning there, doesn’t it?
I know next to nothing about what happened in Lileks’ marriage to end it. It may not fit the scenario I just outlined. But I believe that most later-life divorces do. I wish him well. Most people recover, more or less; sometimes very well. But some never do.
[NOTE: I wrote a piece a while back that touches on some of this, in particular the empty nest phenomenon; please see this.]
[Note: This is an edited version of a previous post.]
Halloween was my favorite holiday, bar none, as a child.
The main reason was probably the candy. But the secondary reason – and perhaps it even superseded the candy, come to think of it – was the opportunity even as a little kid to get dressed up in a costume and go out in the dark with other kids, prowling around the neighborhood and ringing doorbells.
Alone, with no adults present after we attained the ripe old age of 4 or 5.
Those days are gone. And not just for me – since I’m not a kid anymore – but for children these days. Everyone under twelve or so has an adult escort or escorts.
But it’s still a lot of fun to see the kids in their costumes, especially the little ones. Which I plan to do in a little while.
I wish I was with my grandchildren, though.
Remember Boasberg? I do. My first mention of him on this blog was back in 2015, concerning his ultra-liberal rulings on illegal immigration. Here’s a list of all the posts in which I mention Boasberg; there are quite a few.
And here he is again:
The subpoena [in Arctic Frost] requested records and communications related to over 430 individual and organizations — all of them appear to be aimed at Republicans,” the Iowa Republican [Grassley] added, noting requests sent to the late conservative icon Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA and the Republican Attorneys General Association.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), one of the nine Republicans whose phone metadata was sought, said “Arctic Frost is Joe Biden’s Watergate.”
“Merrick Garland was a fundamentally corrupt attorney general. Jack Smith was a fundamentally corrupt prosecutor. This was a political enemies list from the beginning,” he told reporters, brandishing the court order that demanded AT&T hand over his cell records to the feds.
The order was signed by US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg and barred the cell carrier from letting Cruz know about the request “for at least one year,” he said.
The Texas Republican and others called for Boasberg’s impeachment in the House, with Cruz claiming the judge was “abusing his power” by asserting in the order there were “reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses and serious jeopardy to the investigation.” …
“If a judge signs an order reaching a factual conclusion for which there is zero evidence whatsoever, that judge is abusing his power. I am right now calling on the House of Representatives to impeach Judge Boasberg.”
Boasberg issued a scathing order against the Trump administration earlier this year to halt deportation flights of alleged MS-13, Tren de Aragua and other gang members from the US to a Salvadoran mega-prison.
The MSM doesn’t seem to be covering this; certainly not in the way it deserves. If Watergate had occurred under a Democrat administration, it would have been a nothingburger in the MSM as well.
But impeachment won’t lead to conviction in the Senate, for obvious reasons: no Democrat would vote for it. Attorney “Shipwreckedcrew” writes, however:
Impeachment by the House, even if a conviction in the Senate is unlikely, would have the salutary effect of having the entire episode aired publicly, and forcing the Dem. Senators to vote in such a way that has them affirm their approval of this kind of effort against sitting Senators of the opposition party.
unfortunately, I believe Democrat voters would applaud. That’s what it’s come to.
(1) Continuing horrific massacres in Sudan don’t seem to engender demonstrations from the left. It’s not “Palestine,” after all, so it doesn’t really matter to them.
(2) Bari Weiss continues changing the makeup of CBS: “Purge Begins at CBS; Biased Trump-Deranged Anchor John Dickerson Out, Gayle King Says She’s Leaving, Trump-Deranged and “Geriatric” 60 Minutes Facing Shake-Up.”
(3) Bill Gates’ climate change change:
In the letter, Gates called out the “doomsday view” of climate change and said leaders need to make a “strategic pivot” to focus on issues that have the “greatest impact on human welfare.”
“It’s the best way to ensure that everyone gets a chance to live a healthy and productive life no matter where they’re born, and no matter what kind of climate they’re born into,” he wrote.
Breakthrough Energy, Gates’ climate-focused investment fund, reportedly cut dozens of staffers earlier this year.
(4) On the NY Times’ lies, in which John Hinderaker points out an entire Times article in which virtually nothing is correct.
Not all that unusual for the gray lady.
(5) Trump says there’s a deal with China. Here’s what one writer says:
The U.S.-China deal is actually a one-year truce that will avoid the 100% penalty Trump threatened to slap on China. The question is whether China will follow through. Often they don’t. No matter. With $525 billion of exports to the U.S. in 2024, America is by far China’s largest trading partner, which gives Trump leverage if China tries trade war tactics again. …
… Xi agreed to open up [on rare earths], but Trump is playing the long game to cut China’s market share by boosting global production from friends and allies. …
… Xi pledged to catch up this year [on soybean purchases] and then buy 25 million tons annually …
… Here’s the deal [on AI chips]. Sales = profits = investment = dominant global market share = beating China. …
… Trump has drawn in upwards of $18 trillion in investment commitments [from Asian countries] for everything from shipyards to AI data centers and aluminum smelting. …
… The big miss of this trip, sadly, will be Ukraine. Trump tried. “Ukraine came up very strongly. We talked about it for a long time,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One. Trump said Xi is, “going to help us, and we’re going to work together on Ukraine.” Don’t hold your breath. Xi has kept the Russian war machine going with oil purchases and microelectronics. He could get North Koreans out of the Ukraine battle with one phone call. China doesn’t care if Russians and Ukrainians are dying and Europe is in a panic.
Trying to beat the mad rush:
As Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani surges ahead in New York City’s mayoral race, residents are racing to secure homes in the leafy, affluent enclaves of Connecticut and Westchester County — driven by anxieties over potential policy shifts that could reshape the city’s economic and social fabric.
Real-estate brokers in these suburban markets report a frenzy reminiscent of the early pandemic exodus, with properties vanishing in days amid fierce competition and all-cash deals that push prices far beyond expectations.
In Greenwich, long home to the well-heeled, available listings have dwindled to historic lows, hovering around 117 from more than 800 a few years earlier. It has fueled intense rivalries even for multimillion-dollar estates.
They’ll have egg on their faces, I suppose, if he somehow loses. But I don’t think he will lose.
Why don’t they move further away? I guess because they want to keep their NYC jobs and access, and are willing to commute. It will be fascinating – if Mamdani is in fact elected – to see if there’s a massive exodus from New York or not. The rich have more options than the poor, as usual.
Perhaps we’ll also see Staten Island – the only conservative borough of New York – really get serious about seceding from the city, something it’s talked about for many decades. Staten Island also has a much smaller population than the other boroughs, and is often called “the forgotten borough” of New York. But Staten Island is a huge Trump stronghold, having voted for him in all three presidential elections in which he’s run. He got abut 2/3 of the Staten Island vote in 2024, for example.
First, a disclaimer: I don’t have the definitive answer. Second: why would I care? I guess it’s because I’m interested in what makes people tick, and especially interested in political change. Most such change goes from left to right. But someone like Kristol – who was thought to be a leading conservative thinker for many years, and who much later in life changed from supposedly right to effectively left – is of some interest.
What made me think of him today was this Instapundit post mentioning that Kristol has come out for Mamdani, and asking, “Did @BillKristol ever believe anything he said he did for decades?” My answer: it depends on what you mean by the word believe.”
Let me add that I was slightly acquainted with Kristol, having met him perhaps twice – one time of which involved sitting very near him at a table of about eight people, for a dinner after a talk he gave. I also wrote for the online Weekly Standard for some years, and would submit articles to him (the articles still exist, with format somewhat strained, at this URL at the Washington Examiner, in case you’re interested in ancient history). My observation is that he certainly appeared to believe what he was saying, although his personality wasn’t what you’d call intense.
Kristol was a Harvard guy, however, who moved in those circles for quite a while. And he was what you might call a legacy conservative. His father was a leading neoconservative (that is, a left-to-right changer) and his mother Gertrude Himmelfarb was a conservative academic historian and author. Bill Kristol’s Wiki page (at the top of which you can find the unintentionally humorous “Not to be confused with Billy Crystal”) notes his career and then his NeverTrumper credentials. But it’s one thing to not like Trump; it’s another to be okay with Mamdani.
Quite a journey. The easiest explanation – money – doesn’t quite do it for me. My guess is that the legacy aspect of Kristol’s conservatism made it perhaps rather shallow, and if you look at his history he was a fan of McCain, for example, and was the kind of neocon who advocated for military interventions. So he was more of a Republican than a conservative.
Trump offended him in some essential and deep way. But why the swing to the left? It was not his children, as far as I can tell. His son works for Tom Cotton and his daughter is married to Matthew Continetti, who is a Trump supporter (at least, according to recent articles he wrote such as this one). I wonder how Thanksgiving goes in their family? Haven’t seen much information about his wife’s politics, so I can’t speak to that.
Kristol’s father died in 2009, before Kristol’s political change. But his mother lived to be 97, dying in 2019. Is that a clue? Did his full political conversion only happen when his mother was deceased? One telling fact may be that, although Kristol hated Trump from the very start, he didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton but did vote for Biden and then Harris; both votes occurred after the death of his mother. Did that death enable him to cut the final cord with his parents’ viewpoints? He also no longer calls himself a Republican. And although he’s continued to support Israel, as far as I can tell, I see no evidence that he’s religious.
Here’s the fuller text of his explanation for supporting Mamdani; he said it in an interview. His reasoning doesn’t make all that much sense and is extraordinarily shallow as well as pretty meaningless, since Kristol lives in Virginia and can’t vote in the mayoral election at all. But here’s an excerpt:
… Abigail Spanberger, who I think will win in November, is really excellent. It might be Sherrill, actually, in New Jersey, excellent. And so, part of my core praise for Mamdani has been that, you know what, if we elect three Democrats who win in November—the three big races, really—and it’s Spanberger or Sherrill and Mamdani? That’s okay. …
… [T]he idea of going back to Cuomo is just, I think, ridiculous. I think if it had been the first round, I would’ve voted for someone else and maybe wouldn’t have even ranked Mamdani and would’ve had other people who were more centrist, liberal types.
It was very disappointing. All these big shot, you know, finance types in New York, they couldn’t get behind anyone except for Andrew Cuomo. It’s really pathetic, in my opinion. So now they’re rallying to Cuomo with some of them, but I don’t have that much sympathy for that.
And I also just think, practically speaking, New York is a huge city. He’s not going to destroy it, I don’t think. He’s gonna set up five silly government-run grocery stores, I guess. I don’t think he even will do that [inaudible]. And so they’ll be fine. So there’ll be some grocery store somewhere and it won’t be as good as the privately run ones, and it will go out of business in three years and it’ll be a little bit of a waste of taxpayer money, you know? Or it’ll be harmless, you know? And so people—I do think the right’s reaction to Mamdani has been a little hysterical. He’s a very impressive politician. I don’t know that he’s going to be a very good mayor. He’s 33 years old, he’s never run anything. They’re good people who could work for him though, in New York.
Huh? So, whatever.