Who predicted a year ago that this would be happening in Argentina? I certainly didn’t.
Milei gets to work:
Argentine lawmakers took a first step Friday toward approving President Javier Milei’s sweeping economic, social and political reform package, which has sparked angry opposition protests.
The bill won the “general” approval in principle of the lower house of Congress, whose members will examine the plans of libertarian and self-described anarcho-capitalist Milei in detail next week.
Shortly before the vote, the 53-year-old political outsider said on social media that lawmakers had “the opportunity to show which side of history” they wanted to be on.
“History will judge them according to their work in favor of the Argentines or for the continued impoverishment of the people,” a presidential statement said.
Milei won a resounding election victory in October, riding a wave of anger over decades of economic crisis in the South American nation, where annual inflation stands at over 200 percent and poverty levels are at 40 percent.
I make no predictions about how this will go, but I wish him well. He’ll need it; he will be bucking a great many vested interest groups.
Natan Sharansky is interviewed in the following video, in which he speaks on growing up in the Soviet Union and the mental gymnastics it required, becoming a “refusenik,” spending nine years in the Gulag, living in Israel after his release, and what’s going on now both in Israel and around the world regarding anti-Semitism. I found it to be an unusually fascinating talk by a courageous and insightful man.
I’ve written about Sharansky before. This post from 2015 concerns his contention that the many Jews leaving France at the time were a warning sign that liberal democracy was in grave danger of dying there. And this post is about his description of living what he calls a “double life” under the Soviets.
I’ve cued up a couple of short clips from the recent video. In this first one, Sharansky describes his reaction at the age of five to Stalin’s death:
Here he describes how, about twenty years ago, he noticed what was happening on campuses and correctly predicted a rise in anti-Semitism as a result of the spread of “progressive” (neo-Marxist) viewpoints:
Here’s the entire interview. One of the things that occurred to me while watching it is that, for many secular American Jews on the left, 10/7 and the world’s reaction to it shocked them into feeling as though they were part of Jewish history, and helped them to identify with that history, perhaps for the first time.
I want to add that when Sharansky says “left” and “right” he’s not talking about small-government conservatism; he’s using the word “right” more in the European sense:
[NOTE: What could be more appropriate on Groundhog Day than a repeat of an old essay about the movie? The film is a huge personal favorite of mine: very funny, mysterious, and touching. This essay has been slightly edited, of course, because in the spirit of the movie we try to get it better and better.]
In discussions of the film “Groundhog Day” on this blog, I’ve noticed a couple of people questioning why the Bill Murray character would find Andie McDowell’s Rita deserving of all those years of his devotion and energy. For example, “…[W]hat, exactly, made the lovely but, let’s face it, vapid Rita worthy of Phil’s centuries of effort?”
My answer is that he discovered love. Yes, Rita was beautiful, and a good human being with many excellent qualities. But of course she was imperfect, and over the years (centuries? millennia?) Phil no doubt had learned just about all of her flaws. Still, it didn’t matter to him because it wasn’t about Rita, exactly—it was about the fact that, somewhere along the long path of his transformation to wisdom, he finally understood that every person in town, including the ones he couldn’t tolerate at the beginning, was worthy of his attention—and of something one might call “love,” in its broadest sense.
And somewhere along the way to that knowledge, Phil’s efforts in “Groundhog Day” stopped being about getting into Rita’s pants or even getting her to love him, although that certainly took up a larger percentage of his time (and the movie’s length) than some of his other pursuits. But he probably spent at least as much time learning to play the piano (a form of love, too), or to carve ice sculptures, or to become skilled at some of the more mindless and meaningless tricks he mastered, or learning details about the life of almost everyone in town.
Was the old derelict, whose life Phil tried to save over and over and over, “worth it” either? Such questions no longer mattered to him, because the gesture and the effort were worth it, and every life was worth something to him.
Rita, of course, had always been physically attractive to Phil. But as the film (and time) wore on—and on—she became the object not just of eros, but of agape as well. By the end of the movie, I think that Phil had come to appreciate the idea of the theme and variations versus the symphony, which I wrote about here:
And, although walking repeatedly in the same place is very different from traveling around the world and walking in a new place every day, is it really so very much less varied? It depends on the eye and mind of the beholder; the expansive imagination can find variety in small differences, and the stunted one can find boredom in vast changes.
And I submit that love is like that, too. Some people spend a lifetime with one love, one spouse; plumbing the depths of that single human being and what it means to be in an intimate relationship with him/her. Others go from relationship to relationship, never alighting with one person for very long, craving the variety.
It would seem on the face of it that the second type of person has the more exciting time in love. But it ain’t necessarily so. Either of these experiences can be boring or fascinating, depending on what we bring to it: the first experience is a universe in depth, and the second a universe in breadth. But both can contain multitudes.
Towards the end of the film (SPOILER ALERT), Phil makes it clear that he has given up the pursuit of Rita entirely, and immersed himself in his love for her instead. Is this what finally frees him?
[NOTE: Here’s another essay on the film that’s worth reading.]
Don’t buy the hype: When President Biden finally responds to the deadly Iran-backed attack on American troops in Jordan, odds are he’ll both dispel the concerns of fearmongers hysterical he is going to bomb Iran and dash the dreams of hawks demanding he do so.
This was apparent even before his administration leaked it will strike Iranian personnel and facilities in Iraq and Syria, giving the regime ample time to close up shop and evacuate.
For Biden to strike Tehran’s tentacles, let alone the head of the octopus with the overwhelming force necessary to deter it — à la President Donald Trump’s strike on Iranian terror mastermind Qassem Soleimani — would be to completely contradict his entire Middle East policy.
In a continuation of the Obama-Biden administration policy before it, the president has subordinated nearly all else to making the mullocracy the regional “strong horse,” under the perverse premise putting Iran First — and the screws to our Israeli friends and anti-Islamist Arab partners — will produce order and peace over instability and war.
Biden has sought since day one to appease and empower the Islamic revolutionary regime and its proxies, fueling and incentivizing ever-greater aggression.
That’s really pretty much it. Biden follows in Obama’s footsteps re Iran, but why? Obama at least had a long leftist history and an internationalist “anti-colonial” outlook. Biden has a very different history. He’s never been smart about foreign affairs – in fact, has been wrong very very often in his long career in the Senate – but prior to becoming Obama’s VP I don’t think he ever was pro-Iran, anti-Israel, or anti-American.
So, what happened? A lot of possibilities, and they’re not mutually exclusive:
(1) Biden isn’t calling the shots at all, and it’s just Obama’s advisors continuing Obama’s destructive policies.
(2) But Biden is at least acquiescing to these things, and I assume he has some agency and is not an automaton. Perhaps his agreement is because he saw how popular Obama was because of, or despite, such moves.
(3) Currying favor with the international crowd that despises Israel.
(4) Catering to his left flank. They’ve been upset with him ever since October 7. Then again, this pro-Iran policy has been one he consistently followed much earlier than that.
(5) Cowardice.
(6) Lack of any other ideas about what to do.
The article calls Biden’s Iran agenda “treacherous.” That it certainly is. I would add “treasonous.”
The US military struck Iranian forces and Tehran-backed militia groups in both Iraq and Syria on Friday as a retaliation for the drone attack that killed three American soldiers at a base in Jordan.
The US has blamed Iran-backed forces for the attack but did not directly strike its rival.
Of course not. Wouldn’t want to “escalate” things – even if Iran keeps doing so through its proxies.
More:
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitor said that at least 13 pro-Iran fighters were killed in the attack. “At least 13 pro-Iran fighters have been killed,” Observatory chief Rami Abdel Rahman said.
The administration says there will be more coming. I predict that none of it will affect Iran in any important way. Iran is well aware that any retaliation will not be meaningful, and acts accordingly.
This is one of the most disturbing discussions I’ve ever heard. If the information here is accurate – and I believe it substantially is – the Biden administration is pressuring Israel to make a suicidal deal and to reward the terrorists and hand them a triumph.
I have detested this administration from the start. For example, the manner of its withdrawal from Afghanistan was absolutely catastrophic in an almost surrealistic way, making a bad situation so very much worse, and for no rational reason (unless the destruction of America’s military reputation and deterrent threat is the reason). What Biden and company did there seemed to be capriciously evil, almost a sort of madness. And what the administration is reported to want Israel to do now has the same characteristics: self-destructive madness for Israel and reward for some of the worst people on earth.
If you don’t want to become very very angry, don’t watch it:
Osama Hamdan, a senior Hamas official in Beirut, says the Gaza-ruling terror group remains committed to its initial demands for a permanent ceasefire. Israel is ready to pause the fighting in order to secure the release of hostages, but insists it will not end its military campaign until Hamas is destroyed.
Hamdan also says Hamas seeks the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners being held for acts related to the conflict with Israel, including those serving life sentences.
He mentions two by name, including Fatah terror convict Marwan Barghouti, who is seen as a top future candidate to lead the Palestinian Authority. Barghouti was arrested by Israel in 2002 and is serving five life terms for planning three terror attacks during the Second Intifada that killed five Israelis.
In addition to Barghouti, Hamdan names Ahmad Saadat, head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group, as well as Hamas prisoners and those from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization. Saadat is serving a 30-year sentence for his role in the 2001 assassination of Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Ze’evi.
The internal pressure from many (not all) of the hostage families and many many other Israelis, and the external pressure from Blinken and Biden, is immense. But it seems suicidal madness to me to even consider such a deal.
Why are they even seriously talking about it? Two possibilities occur to me. The first is that they are seriously considering it. The second is that they wish to appear to be, both to placate the families (who will not be placated until their loved ones return) and to keep the terrorists hoping. The reason to keep the terrorists hoping is that, if the terrorists were to think no deal is possible, the hostages’ worth would disappear and they would likely be killed and possibly publicly, with extra violence and cruelty, in Isis-like fashion.
… to an affair with the prosecutor she appointed in the case against Trump.
Only it’s called a “personal relationship,” which is a nicely generic term:
Embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis admitted to having a “personal relationship” with lead prosecutor Nathan Wade but says this shouldn’t warrant tossing out the charges against former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants.
“In 2022, District Attorney Willis and I developed a personal relationship in addition to our professional association and friendship,” Wade wrote in an affidavit released by Willis’ office in court papers they filed Friday.
But the filing said there was no “personal relationship” at the time Wade was hired.
“Although District Attorney Willis and Special Prosecutor Wade have been professional associates and friends since 2019, there was no personal relationship between them in November 2021 at the time of Special Prosecutor Wade’s appointment,” the court papers said.
I would say that being “friends” for several years is a type of personal relationship, although in this pleading the word “personal” is an obvious stand-in for “sexual.” And it’s certainly possible – although I wouldn’t take Willis’ or Wade’s word for it – that their relationship didn’t become sexual till after they were working on the Trump case. But I find it hard to believe that, since they knew each other rather well prior to the appointment, Willis and Wade didn’t at least have the possibility of something like that in mind from the start.
Whether or not the court rules this matters in the Trump case depends on additional things, such as how qualified Wade was to try the case, whether he did enough work to justify his high salary, and whether Willis benefited from the extra money he was paid.
Even if is ultimately found that every bit of the hanky-panky occurred after Wade’s appointment, and even if he was highly qualified for the job, I find the degree of recklessness here to be interesting. I think both were drunk on power – the ability to bring the evil Trump down – and we all know that power is an aphrodisiac.
The story of Icarus, who flew too close to the sun and whose wax wings melted and caused his death, is often considered a warning against hubris.
So that’s why I refer to people such as this – and he is not alone – as a modern-day Icarus. It’s not a compliment.
The title of the NY Times article is “”Could a Giant Parasol in Outer Space Help Solve the Climate Crisis? Interest in sun shields, once a fringe idea, has grown. Now, a team of scientists says it could launch a prototype within a few years.” Here’s some of the text:
“To block the necessary amount of solar radiation, the shade would have to be about a million square miles, roughly the size of Argentina”….A shade that big would weigh at least 2.5 million tons — too heavy to launch into space, [Dr. Rozen] said. So, the project would have to involve a series of smaller shades. They would not completely block the sun’s light but rather cast slightly diffused shade onto Earth…. Dr. Rozen said his team was ready to design a prototype shade of 100 square feet and is seeking between $10 million and $20 million to fund the demonstration.
There will be more of this sort of thing. How will it be regulated or stopped? Will it be regulated or stopped?
(1) Montana parents lose custody because of their refusal to cooperate with transitioning their daughter.
(2) The Disney lawsuit against DeSantis is dismissed.
(3) Harvard loses another huge donor in protest of its DEI policy. Harvard has a ton of money anyway, but this trend must disturb it at least somewhat. If so, good, and it’s about time.
(4) Perhaps Republicans are finally understanding how to try to use mail-in voting to their advantage. If they can’t stop easy mail-in voting – and in red states and even many purple states, they can’t – they may as well learn how to employ it to encourage their own voters to vote.
(5) A James O’Keefe undercover video indicates that Democrat operatives would like to but cannot figure out how to get rid of Biden and Harris as candidates in 2024. Also, if the person talking on the video (Charlie Kraiger, who is a cybersecurity policy analyst at the White House) is telling the truth, Michelle Obama does not wish to run. It’s funny, but all of these things agree with what I’ve been writing. My opinions aren’t based on inside info, of course; they’re just my reactions to what I see.
Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Cori Bush (D-MO) were the only House members to vote against a bill that would bar Hamas members and those who participated in the attacks against Israel last year from entering the United States.
The House passed the bill, No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act, 422-2-1, on Wednesday evening. Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL) voted present, and Tlaib and Bush were the sole votes against the measure, which now heads to the Senate.
While Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad members were already prohibited from entering the U.S. under existing laws, the new bill now expands to officers of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which is the governing body of the Palestinian enclave, and anyone who was involved in the Oct. 7 attacks against the Jewish state who is not listed as a member of a terrorist group.
Tlaib said this: “”It’s just another GOP messaging bill being used to incite anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim hatred that makes communities like ours unsafe.” It’s Republican-promoted Islamophobia, don’t you see – even though almost every other Democrat in the House voted in favor of it.
This is a bill about legal entry, by the way. But it is probably the case that most operatives would enter illegally, since the Biden administration has so thoughtfully made that very easy to do.
A month or two ago I watched a video interview with Peter Hitchens about Israel/Palestine. In it, he said that Hamas was popular in Gaza because it was not corrupt. And that wasn’t just a passing remark, either; he went on for some time about it. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
In a quick look right now I haven’t found the clip – the interview was long, and I’d have to listen to the whole thing, but my guess is it was with John Anderson. Here’s a different short excerpt from that interview in which Hitchens shows more stupidity, or perhaps it might rightly be called naivete. I’m really not sure what to call it, but here he says that you can’t destroy an idea by killing Hamas terrorists.
Well, of course not; whoever said you could? Jihad is an idea in more places than Gaza and it comes from more groups than Hamas; would that it were limited to them, but it’s not. However, strangely enough – and Hitchens should know this – war can destroy an idea and/or much weaken a particular group acting out that idea. Just take a look at Germany and Japan today as an example. Of course, it wasn’t just the waging of a bitter and bloody war but also how the peace afterwards was dealt with, but that’s too big a subject to tackle in this post except to say that it’s part of the picture. But the picture starts – unfortunately – with killing people, quite a lot of them if it’s a big group of perpetrators.
Hitchens states another stupid/naive idea here, which is that if only Israel hadn’t started the kind of war its waging in Gaza in retaliation for October 7, it had an opportunity to unite the Western countries in its favor to somehow stand together against Hamas et al. Dream on, Hitchens; dream on. He seems to think that anti-Israel sentiment is caused by Israel’s defending itself in this manner, and that if they desisted then there wouldn’t be so much anti-Israel opinion. But it’s the other way around – no other country would be widely criticized for a counter-attack such as Israel’s under like provocation. Israel is treated differently because of leftist propaganda combined with anti-Semitism, not because of anything it does or doesn’t do.
Of course, if Israel would just lay down and die I suppose the world would praise it. But as a commenter to the Hitchens video at YouTube writes [typos corrected by me]:
So Hitchens’ plan is to do nothing and be pitied. I think Golda Meir’s comment on the matter is pertinent. [Paraphrase] “Given a choice of being dead or unpopular, then we choose unpopular.”
I’ve read quite a few comments there, and the vast majority disagree with Hitchens. Here’s a sampler:
Peter’s naivete on this is astounding. If Israel did not respond it would be seen as vulnerable and weak by its own people – never mind the world. They had no choice.
No country on earth would tolerate having Hamas in power next door to it after what Hamas did on October 7th.
I respect and understand Peter’s opinion here, but how else is Israel supposed to deal with Hamas?? If you have thousands of terrorists next door that want to completely annihilate your nation and your people, how else are you supposed to respond?
Sorry Peter, I disagree with you on this, something I very rarely do. Even great minds (and hearts) such as yours can be wrong. God bless you.
An interesting perspective but erroneous. The world has always been fickle with respect to support of Jews and their country. Israel was caught off guard and if it does not respond decisively Hezbollah and Iran will most certainly attack – and that would pose an existential threat. In this region the only currency that matters is deterrence by force.
What planet is Peter on?
What planet indeed – the planet “British intellectual.” Or, as another commenter there writes:
… when Peter finishes his talk, where is he going? home or hotel? where do Israelis who live up to 50 km from Gaza should go? what about their normal lives? I’m Israeli, I’m a left minded person and still – we should throw Hamas out now! why? cause everybody else just talks and thinks – see what happens to people to “talk and think” – they get killed. It happened to us in Europe and now at home – no more!!!
Another point at which Hitchens shows his naivete is when he says that the left turned on Israel because of the 1967 war. He ignores the influence of Russian propaganda, which used that war to turn the Western left against Israel. I wrote about that in this post.
[NOTE: Also please this about Gandhi and the Jews.]
