Now shutdowns are good, because the Democrats are doing them.
It seems as though a shutdown will probably happen tonight at midnight. Hard to get too excited about it at this point, but see this as well as this.
Today is the 25th anniversary of the Palestinians finding the perfect formula for the modern revival of the blood libel
Remember?. I certainly do. It was with the supposed death of the young boy Mohammed al Durah that the Palestinians found the perfect vehicle for spreading the idea around the world that the Israelis are evil and purposely target children. And as with the more ancient blood libels, the world ate it up.
I wrote a great deal about the topic, and the subsequent defamation trials in France (one of which I attended), back in the early days of this blog. You can find the posts here.
From No Pasaran on the anniversary:
Tuesday marks the quarter-century anniversary of the beginning of one of the biggest scandals of the past 50 years, the Mohammed al-Dura affair, which saw French television video and photos of a 12-year-old Palestenian and his father being supposedly felled by Israeli bullets in Gaza, and which led to the creation of a new word — Pallywood. …
Before we take a look at the Philippe Karsenty interview, a must-read is the piece that Richard Landes penned in The Jerusalem Post five years ago — as the Abrahamic accords were being signed — about the twentieth (20th) anniversary of “one of the most disastrous events in the year 2000”. It’s a hard, indeed a mind-boggling, read — check out RL’s blog, The Augean Stables — especially coming three years before the October 7th massacre.
It was Landes who coined the phrase “Pallywood” and Karsanty who was one of the defendants in the defamation trials. I know both of them, although we haven’t been in touch in several years. Both are brilliant and courageous.
From Landes’ article on the 20th anniversary:
The image of Muhammad al-Dura via the narrative that the IDF had targeted him became the global symbol of Palestinian suffering at the hand of Israeli cruelty. It rapidly became an “icon of hatred” that had a greater immediate and long-term effect on the new century than any other such vehicle of incitement.
A cry arose, for some of pain, for some of rage, but for all a clear sign that the Infidel, led by the twin Satans Israel and USA, were making war on Muslims. Indeed, no single event so far has done more to arouse the spirit of jihad against the West than this footage, which, as Bin Laden quickly pointed out in his recruiting video for global jihad, demanded vengeance against al Yahud and their allies. …
Instead of Christians or Muslims replacing Israel as the true Chosen People, it was the former chosen people replacing the Nazis, and the poor Palestinian victim suffering the fate of the Jews. The progressive refrain, “Israel has lost the moral high ground.” …
… Al-Dura justified terrorist attacks on Israel in the minds of both Muslims and non-Jews, especially Europeans. “What choice do they have?” progressives responded when Palestinians targeted Israel civilians. They were merely resisting …
… … The icon of al-Dura was the first successful blood libel in the West since the Nazis rode their ecumenical Jew-hatred to mega-death for all in 1930s and ‘40s. …
… Whether we know it or not, those of us entering this very grim-looking third decade of the 21st century are the inheritors of this al-Durah-triggered new wave of Jew-hatred and its accompaniments: fake news, conspiracy theories and violence.
… As some honest Arab journalists point out, #FakeNews is something of an Arab specialty, and for far too long public opinion has been manipulated by dishonest and malevolent actors masquerading as journalists.
Not only did Osama bin Laden explicitly cite the al Durah incident as motive, but he also cited the Daniel Pearl murder as revenge for it. Not only that, but it helped launch the bloody Second Intifada by the Palestinians. And it was all a fake. As Karsanty says:
It’s crucial to understand that we moved from the notion of “deicide” to “genocide.” In Christian tradition, Jews were stigmatized as “Christ-killers.” With the Al-Dura case, the Jews were recast as child-killers, genocidal by nature. This image of Mohammed Al-Dura, supposedly shot by Israeli soldiers in 2000, became the ultimate weapon of demonization against the Jewish people.
And that lie didn’t just get halfway round the world, it’s taken over most of the world.
Please read the whole thing.
No fat generals, says Hegseth
Of course, that’s hardly all he said. The basic thrust of the speech was to turn back the clock to the time before Obama’s Hope and Change and Wokeness transformed the military (at least, the Obama years are when I noticed the change). I would guess plenty of those assembled were happy about what they heard, and plenty were not; I couldn’t even begin to say what the proportion of each group might be.
More:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the military’s top generals and admirals ahead of Trump, rolling out a 10-point plan to overhaul the culture of the military.
At the unprecedented meeting that pulled leaders from posts around the globe, he announced a shift to a merit-based culture with a return to “the highest male standard only.” And Hegseth emphasized the need to stick to strict fitness standards, calling it “completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon leading commands around the country and the world.”
Hegseth said a lot more about that male/female thing. Here’s his actual speech; it’s worth looking at. For example, he mentions 2015 (which is during Obama’s term) as being one turning point in that regard:
I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men, or troops who are not fully proficient on their assigned weapons platform or task or under a leader who was the first but not the best. Standards must be uniform, gender neutral and high. If not, they’re not standards. They’re just suggestions, suggestions that get our sons and daughters killed. …
Today, at my direction, each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat MOS, for every designated combat arms position returns to the highest male standard only. Because this job is life or death. …
Any place where tried and true physical standards were altered, especially since 2015 when combat arms standards were changed to ensure females could qualify, must be returned to their original standard. Other standards have been manipulated to hit racial quotas as well, which is just as unacceptable. This too must end; merit only. …
Because war does not care if you’re a man or a woman. Neither does the enemy, nor does the weight of your rucksack, the size of an artillery round or the body weight of a casualty on the battlefield who must be carried. This — and I want to be very clear about this. This is not about preventing women from serving. We very much value the impact of female troops. Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world.
Seems completely reasonable to me. But the left always counts on the idea that you can’t turn back the clock. They believe once the Overton Window has shifted, the public accepts the new standard as the way it should be.
As for those fat generals, Hegseth said:
Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are.
So, whether you’re an airborne Ranger or a chairborne Ranger, a brand new private or a four star general, you need to meet the height and weight standards and pass your PT test. And as the chairman said, yes, there is no PT test. But today, at my direction, every member of the joint force at every rank is required to take a PT test twice a year, as well as meet height and weight requirements twice a year every year of service.
It sounds a bit as though, with the generals in particular, this is about esthetics. I also wonder where they draw the line at “fat.” As people get older, it can get more difficult to be really slim, and if a slightly overweight general is brilliant, do we want him on a starvation diet to meet the standard?
I asked Google “were there any fat US generals in World War II?”, and its AI replied, helpfully (and I assume factually?):
Based on historical accounts, photographs, and the health standards of the time, there were no notably overweight or “fat” U.S. generals during World War II. However, it is important to remember that physical standards and perceptions of weight were very different in the 1940s compared to today.
Reasons why U.S. generals in WWII were typically not overweight:
Rigorous physical standards: While enlistment standards for average soldiers had some flexibility for those who could correct their weight through training, military leaders faced intense pressure to maintain peak physical condition. Many of the top generals were lifelong military officers who had been shaped by a culture that valued athleticism and physical fitness. For example, General George S. Patton was a dedicated athlete who competed in the 1912 Summer Olympics.
Operational demands: Generals commanding troops in the field often faced demanding conditions that would make significant weight gain difficult.
Wartime stress and lifestyle: The intense stress, long hours, and constant movement involved in commanding a war effort contributed to a lean physique for many senior officers.
Medical standards: Unlike today’s strict body fat standards, the regulations of the era were primarily concerned with ensuring weight did not interfere with a soldier’s physical activities and proper training. The average American soldier in WWII was also much leaner than modern soldiers, weighing around 144 pounds and standing 5’8″ tall.
One reason people were thinner then: smoking was very common. Of course, there were other reasons, but that’s one difference people don’t often mention.
So expecting generals to be lean is another case of turning back the clock. Of course, the rules don’t apply to commander-in-chief Trump, who’s not a member of the military.
Open thread 9/30/2025
Thirty days hath September.
And then there were three: Eric Adams does the right thing
Current NY Mayor Eric Adams was actually my favorite Democrat of the three competing in the 2025 New York mayoral race, which I suppose isn’t saying much. But he didn’t have a chance to win, and his presence was making it even more likely that the especially abominable Mamdani would win. So I’m glad Adams dropped out:
Mayor Eric Adams dropped out of New York City’s mayoral race Sunday amid escalating pressure to clear the crowded field in a last-ditch attempt to stop socialist Zohran Mamdani’s election to City Hall.
The bombshell move came after weeks of back-and-forth over whether Adams would bow out of the race, in which he is polling fourth, far behind frontrunner Mamdani, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and also, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. …
The mayor noted his campaign’s inability to fundraise, taking aim at the city’s Campaign Finance Board for repeatedly denying him millions of dollars in matching public funds, which put him at a massive disadvantage compared to his opponents.
Adams was fourth in the polls, after Mamdani, Cuomo, and Sliwa (the Republican). Who’ll drop out next – if anyone? My best guess – although I wouldn’t bet a ton of money on this – is that the answer is “no one.” Cuomo’s best chance to win would be if Sliwa drops out, but Sliwa is the only Republican and he might hope that the other two will split the Democratic vote and let him squeak past. I doubt that would ever happen; there just aren’t that many Republicans in New York City. Cuomo certainly wouldn’t drop out without Sliwa dropping out; it would basically guarantee a Mamdani victory if it became a two-way race between Mamdani and Sliwa. And besides Cuomo is a huge egotist. And of course Mamdani the frontrunner isn’t leaving.
If you believe this poll from two weeks ago, even in a two-way race between Mamdani and Cuomo, the former wins. Add Sliwa into the picture and Mamdani’s margin increases. But there’s still time for Cuomo to close the gap.
What a mess.
Iran snapback – and more talk of Israeli hostage deal
Did the UN finally do something right? The snapback has arrived:
Sweeping UN economic and military sanctions have been reimposed on Iran – 10 years after they were lifted in a landmark international deal over its nuclear programme.
The new measures took effect as the three European partners to the deal – the UK, France and Germany – activated the so-called “snapback” mechanism, accusing Iran of “continued nuclear escalation” and lack of co-operation.
Iran suspended inspections of its nuclear facilities – a legal obligation under the terms of the 2015 deal – after Israel and the US bombed several of its nuclear sites and military bases in June.
Its President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted last week that the country had no intention of developing nuclear weapons.
The reintroduction of sanctions – which Pezeshkian described as “unfair, unjust, and illegal” – is the latest blow to a deal that was heralded as a turning point in Western relations with the long-ostracised Islamist nation when it was first struck.
Oh, it was a turning point all right. A terrible one. Thanks, President Obama.
The Security Council’s decision on September 19 – reaffirmed on September 26 – to restore these restrictions sends a clear message: the world will not acquiesce to threats and half measures – and Tehran will be held to account.
President Trump has been clear that diplomacy is still an option—a deal remains the best outcome for the Iranian people and the world. For that to happen, Iran must accept direct talks, held in good faith, without stalling or obfuscation. Absent such a deal, it is incumbent on partners to implement snapback sanctions immediately in order to pressure Iran’s leaders to do what is right for their nation, and best for the safety of the world.
I wouldn’t sit on a hot stove till that happens.
As for the Israeli hostage deal that’s said to perhaps be imminent, I’m highly skeptical. But here’s the report:
The White House has signaled it aims to finalize elements of a Gaza deal, with Trump declaring the effort in “final stages.” Israeli officials, meanwhile, have sought to narrow remaining gaps before the meeting.
Background reporting indicates the plan links a stabilization force in Gaza to governance reforms and a pathway involving the Palestinian Authority, points that have stirred debate in Jerusalem. …
According to reporting ahead of the summit, the leaders are expected to focus on securing the hostages’ release, establishing a durable ceasefire, and charting interim administration and security arrangements in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israeli officials expect Netanyahu to also bring up the issue of West Bank sovereignty.
Trump has framed the moment as an opening for “something special” in the region.
And Hamas? Is there any chance they’ll say yes to whatever this deal might be? I highly doubt it. And then [my emphasis]:
“I think we are very close,” Trump said in remarks at the White House. But if Hamas fails to agree to the plan, the president said Israel could continue its campaign. “Bibi, you’d have our full backing to do what you would have to do,” he added.
The 20-point U.S. plan to end the war begins with an immediate ceasefire and proposes Hamas release all of the hostages within 72 hours in exchange for a phased withdrawal of Israeli troops with the aim of a permanent ceasefire, according to the White House.
Hamas members who commit to peace and lay down their arms will be given amnesty, offering them a pathway to rejoin civilian life, while those who wish to leave Gaza will be offered safe passage, the White House said.
Full humanitarian aid will resume, administered by the United Nations and its organizations, the Red Crescent, and other groups. According to the plan, Gaza will be redeveloped “for the benefit of the people of Gaza.”
“I hope that we’re going to have a deal for peace and if Hamas rejects the deal, which is always possible, they’re the only one left,” Trump said. “Everyone else has accepted it.”
“Which is always possible” – quite an understatement from Trump.
It seems to be in the air: more mass shootings over the weekend
If it sometimes seems as though these things are contagious, it’s because they probably are. Not literally contagious, of course. But susceptible minds read about a mass shooting or see a video, and a few of them think, “What a good idea!” – and carry out that idea in their own idiosyncratic way.
Assassination attempts are similar. The two failed Trump attempts occurred close together, and back in 1975 two women in California decided, within three weeks of one another, that it would be a nifty idea to assassinate the relatively innocuous and seemingly non-divisive President Ford (one of these women, Sara Jane Moore, died the other day at the age of 95 and I might write a post about her in the not-too-distant future).
This horrific Southport, North Carolina, shooting seems to have been perpetrated by 40-year-old Nigel Edge Max, a bona fide crazy person – a brain-injured schizophrenic who had a previous history as a Marine sniper in Iraq. The shooter decided that it would be a nifty idea to use his unfortunately not-rusty-enough skills to fire from a boat on patrons enjoying themselves at a waterfront restaurant.
It might strike you – as it struck me – that the suspect’s name seemed like something out of a fantasy, and in fact he had changed it in from the original. He had one of those “troubled” histories which should surprise no one:
The suspect, formerly known as Sean DeBevoise before he changed his name in 2023, reportedly has a complicated and troubled past, and law enforcement sources indicated that he engaged with numerous Q-Anon conspiracy theories. He also once escorted former “American Idol” contestant Kelly Pickler to the CMT Music Awards, but later sued her, claiming she had tried to kill him by poisoning his drink.
He also filed several other lawsuits accusing organizations of plotting to murder him, and he wrote a book called “Headshot: Betrayal of a Nation,” where he described his injuries and theorized that it constituted an additional plot to murder him.
Extremely paranoid. He doesn’t seem to be on the left, and I guess if he was indeed a Q-Anon follower we can safely say he was in some sort of fringe group category that could roughly be described as being on the far far right (perhaps the anarchist right? – anarchy can be on right or left). But I doubt the murders in North Carolina had much if anything to do with politics.
RIP to the three people who were murdered. The suspect was caught because the police had a good description of his boat. From the authorities:
“Chief Morris already said that he was a resident of Oak Island, and was well-known to law enforcement, but he wasn’t quite as well known in the criminal court system,” District Attorney Davis said Sunday. “There were some minor contacts over the years but nothing significant in his past, which would give us any indication that he was capable of such horrors.”
Well, the combination of being an ex-sniper and a brain-injured paranoid schizophrenic might be an indication.
Then there was a mass shooting at a Mormon church in Michigan, plus a fire, that killed four people – with a fifth being the perp, who was shot by police. Strangely, this man was also an ex-Marine of about the same age, who had served in Iraq, but unlike the NC perp he had not been in combat nor had he been wounded at all, much less in the head:
The lone attacker, authorities said, plowed his pickup into the church at 10:25 a.m. Sept. 28, and then began shooting at people, before he, too, was shot and killed by police, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints building went up in flames.
By late evening, news outlets were reporting the possibility that more bodies could be found, the latest in a string of violent incidents in Michigan in churches, hospitals, a Walmart, and even a suburban park where children were playing.
I’m not aware of those other violent incidents in Michigan, but they point to the “contagion” effect as well. I doubt the Michigan perp was aware of the NC boat perp, although who knows? The NC murders had occurred Saturday night and the Michigan ones occurred Sunday.
For Sanford, the motive seems to have been hatred of Mormons rather than anything political. He seems to have also had a history of drug use:
Burton City Council candidate Kris Johns said he spoke to Sanford about a week ago.
According to Johns, Sanford was at home and went on a tirade against the church and described Mormons — an informal name for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — as “the antichrist.”
Johns described Sanford as “extremely friendly,” and said their conversation didn’t delve into national party politics or current events — “there was no mention of anything right or left, blue or red” — but Johns did say he spotted a Trump 2024 sign on the suspect’s fence.
Johns also said they talked about their children. Johns said his daughter has special needs; he said Sanford told him his child has a health condition. Sanford asked Johns what he thought about guns.
The city councilmember-hopeful responded that he supports the Second Amendment. Then, Sanford talked about his life story, and the conversation lasted no more than 20 minutes.
Johns said Sanford spoke quickly as he shared about his time in Iraq and his struggles with drug addiction when he returned home. Sanford moved to Utah at one point to plow snow and had a relationship with a woman there whose family was Mormon.
Johns said Sanford asked him if he believed in God. He responded, “yes.” Johns said he’s Christian and a member of Solid Rock Community Church in Burton. And the, from there, Johns said, the conversation took a “a very sharp turn.”
That sharp turn was, apparently, hatred of Mormons. Another hint – perhaps – involves the woman in Utah; perhaps her family disapproved of him? If so, they turn out to have been perceptive.
RIP to the dead in Michigan.
Open thread 9/29/2025
Spambot of the day
I must say that the quality of spambots has gone down quite a bit lately – although this one paints a picture worthy of Bruegel:
Peasant women, their husband and riff-raff of all sort, all singing and all more or less drunk.
Young people in the US have had little experience of successful political assassination – till now
They’ve only read about it. We who were old enough to remember the 1960s and 1970s recall the searing and terrible assassinations of huge American figures: JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King. To us, these things are extremely real. But to young people they’re not. They’re ancient history – if they even know the history.
Yes, there have been plenty of assassination attempts since then – including of course the Butler PA shot that hit Trump’s ear. But that experience probably only served to underline what I’m referring to, because Trump’s amazing survival with only a bloody ear probably seemed almost cartoonish: See, he bounces back! And – except for relatively minor political figures that probably escaped most people’s attention, such as the murders of Minnesota Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband – all other American political assassinations in recent years in the US have been failed attempts.
The young people I’m talking about are even too young to have experienced the shock of 9/11. To them, that’s another semi-distant historical event, long ago and far away in the background.
So young people may not even have quite believed that a successful assassination was possible till now, although obviously it was. This one was different, because they saw the gore of murder with a rifle in full public view up close. And they saw it happen to a young man, speaking to a large crowd of mostly young people on a college campus. They saw right before their eyes the difference between stupid phrases such as “words are violence” and real violence.
In a sense, they entered history, at least a little bit.
Tyler Robinson, who has not been convicted but who is almost certainly the culprit, was an avid gamer who wrote video game phrases on the casings. And many young leftists online acted like this murder was a video game, and whooped it up about the murder. But I bet a not insignificant number were stunned and are now wondering about some of the things they’ve been blithely mouthing before this happened. What percentage? I don’t know; perhaps it’s quite small. But I believe this groups exists. And as for those already in the middle, I doubt that leftism holds much appeal at all for most of them at this point.
Revisiting J6: how many FBI agents were there, and why and when?
Recently the news came out that 274 plainclothes FBI agents were at the J6 protests, and that some of them later complained they’d been used as political pawns. Some of the coverage on the right implied that they were embedded from the start – but that’s not what the report actually said. To clear that up, here’s a good summary:
The [FBI] document has proven a bombshell to lawmakers, revealing for the first time that the FBI had a total of 274 agents deployed to the Capitol in plainclothes and with guns after the violence started but with no clear safety gear of way to be recognized by other law enforcement agencies working in the chaos of the riot.
So they were sent while the brouhaha was already underway. But they were endangered by not being in uniform, and the situation became even more chaotic. Did they even have instructions on what they were supposed to do there?
More:
Wray, Patel’s predecessor, steadfastly refused to tell Congress how many if any agents went to the Capitol that day. And a prior DOJ Inspector General Report did not divulge the number, referring only to a SWAT team the bureau sent into the Capitol and having more than two dozen informants in the crowd.
The existence of mass FBI agents at the Capitol on Jan. 6 could also be a problem in many of the cases that were subsequently brought in court. If agents were witnesses at the Capitol and did not disclose it in the subsequent affidavits during prosecutions it could create grounds for defendants to appeal.
The document also reveals for the first time that there were widespread concerns for years inside the bureau – sentiments that boiled over after the FBI began sending SWAT teams to arrest Jan. 6 participants on misdemeanor charges – that the FBI had become biased in favor of liberals and against conservatives.
Over the years, I’ve written a great many posts about J6. But one of the things that struck me from the beginning and all along is how many unanswered questions there are – questions to which I strongly believe the authorities actually know the answers. You can see some of my earlier and later questions in the following posts: this written the day after, this written about five months after, this from September of 2021, and this from March of 2023.
Will we ever know the answers? I think not.
NOTE: About a week ago, before this report came out, I was thinking about J6 and one question I’ve wondered about for a long long time. I even wrote a short draft for a post, and this seems as good a time as any to ask the question: who were the people convicted for scaling the Capitol wall, or whose convictions mentioned that they had scaled the wall? After all, those men – I believe they were all men – were among the most visible and alarming participants that day. I figured they’d probably be fairly easy to spotlight, identify, and charge with something. But oddly enough, so far I’ve only found one person whose conviction mentions that he scaled the wall. The description is in this article datelined October 21, 2022, and it says [emphasis mine]:
On Jan. 6, 2021, [Matthew Bledsoe, 38] attended a rally near the Ellipse. Bledsoe then headed to the Capitol, and illegally entered the Capitol grounds shortly after 2:13 p.m. He then moved to the Capitol Building itself. He scaled a wall at the Upper Northwest Terrace and entered through a fire door at the Senate Wing. Among other things, he yelled, “In the Capitol. This is our house. We pay for this s—. Where’s those pieces of s—at?” He climbed a statue and was outside the corridor to the House Chamber and hallways near the Speaker’s Lobby. He left the building about 2:47 p.m., after approximately 22 minutes inside.
Within two hours, however, Bledsoe returned, lingering outside the East Rotunda Doors as law enforcement officers worked to secure the building and grounds.
He got a sentence of four years in prison. It appears those four years were for trespassing, climbing a statue, and yelling a few curses. No one even seems to have alleged that he was violent towards anyone. I’ve read another article about Bledsoe, which mentions that prosecutors asked for a sentence of nearly six years.
But we’re already quite familiar with the overreach of the prosecutors and the judges who applied that sort of penalty for a non-violent demonstrator. My question remains: who were the other people scaling the wall? Maybe they were all demonstrators much like Bledsoe. But I’d like to know. I realize there are many more important things about J6 that we still don’t know. But that particular one bugs me. If you can find more information on the people who climbed the wall, please put in in the comments.
Dennis Prager’s first interview on video since his accident
You may be aware that last November Dennis Prager was severely injured in a fall and became a quadriplegic. At first, and for quite a while, he was unable to talk, although his mind was clear. I’ve been following his progress and yesterday I saw this video, which was the first time (as far as I know) that he’s been on camera since his accident.
It’s somewhat shocking at first, if you’re familiar with Prager. It’s not just that he’s lying down and immobile except for his head, but it’s also that even he face looks different – he’s lost weight, for example. His voice is similar to before but somewhat different as well; it now sounds like it’s coming from the depths of the ocean. But he does seem very sharp, and his usually ebullient spirits seem to remain intact.
I haven’t watched the whole thing; it’s long. But I suggest you watch at least the first eight minutes or so to hear the part that’s the reason I put it up here (as usual, when I watched it I increased the speed setting quite a bit):