Argentina shows the way?

 

All the evidence available so far points to Argentinian president Javier Milei's policies as being a major success story.

Okay, it is still only on a par with Egypt and Suriname. But the credit ratings agency Moody’s this week gave Argentina its second upgrade since its radical libertarian president Javier Milei took power.

It is yet more evidence of the dramatic improvement in the country’s fortunes. Growth has accelerated, inflation is coming under control, rents are falling and its debts are steadily becoming more manageable.

The dire warnings from the economic establishment that Milei’s bold experiment in slashing the burden of the state have been proved woefully wide of the mark.

The only question now is this: when will the rest of the world wake up to the Argentinian miracle?

. . .

One point is surely clear, however: in the 18 months since Milei took office, Argentina’s economy has been transformed.

It has been achieved by radically slashing the size of the state. Promising a “shock therapy” for the economy, the government has laid off more than 50,000 public sector workers, closed or merged more than 100 state departments and agencies, frozen public infrastructure projects, cut energy and transport subsidies, and even returned the state budget to a surplus.

. . .

The bulk of the policy-making and financial establishment still inhabits a mental universe where government spending is what drives growth, where regulation is seen as the key to innovation, where “national champions” are expected to lead new industries, while industrial strategies will pick the winners of the future, and the only role for the private sector is a “partner” for the finance ministry.

. . .

Argentina under Javier Milei is the only major country taking a different path. Perhaps because subsidies, controls and protectionism have turned it into a basket-case, it was ready to try the alternative.

The results are now clear. In reality, open, free markets and a smaller state are the only way to restore growth, and Milei is proving it all over again.

Moody’s and some of the other credit rating agencies have started to notice – and one day perhaps voters and politicians in the rest of the world will notice as well.

There's more at the link.

One sees a similar reaction on the part of the Left to President Trump's financial policies.  All around us, we see financial "experts" and economic "authorities" moan and wail about how things are really terrible, and the economy's bound to implode, and we'll regret voting for an economically illiterate person.  Yet, our own eyes show us that at least some sectors of the economy are improving, and hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats have been fired, and tariffs are, indeed, increasing US income rather than devastating it.

Personally, I'm looking forward to Act II of the economic roadshow, both in Argentina and in America.  I think it may be a lot more positive than the "experts" would have us believe.

Peter

Heh

 

Hale and Pace were a popular British comedy duo during the 1980's and 1990's.  Here's one of their most popular skits.

I can imagine most guide dogs watching that with a feeling of immense self-satisfaction . . .

Peter

How is your medical insurance treating you?

 

I'm sure you've seen headlines like these in recent weeks.

Insurers Request Huge Obamacare Rate Hikes, Many Over 20 Percent

Health Insurers Are Becoming Chronically Uninvestable

They indicate that across the health care industry, costs are becoming unaffordable not only for consumers, but for the insurance providers on whom they rely.

I've noticed a new trend this year.  Previously, I've never been denied a treatment or medication prescribed by a doctor.  This year, I've had four denials, two for medication and two for in-patient hospital treatment.  None were issued directly by my insurer;  they all came from some sort of specialist claims investigation agency employed by my insurer to assess whether the prescribed service(s) and/or medication(s) were "appropriate" or "met clinical guidelines".  This is presumably so that my insurer can claim, "Oh, we didn't deny your treatment - an outside agency did.  It's not our fault!"

I'm told that I'm far from alone in this quandary.  It looks as if anything other than the most basic of medical care is being far more heavily scrutinized, and may be denied.  This is of particular concern to me with some major surgeries pending.  What if they become unaffordable for me, thanks to penny-pinching insurers?

That made me wonder.  What's your experience in recent months, dear readers?  Are you finding it increasingly difficult to get the treatment and/or medication and/or medical services you need?  Are you being fobbed off with excuses?  Please let us know in Comments, so we can assess whether or not this is a common trend.

Thanks.

Peter

Are American motor manufacturers and dealers destroying their own market?

 

Karl Denninger thinks so - and alleges that manufacturers and dealers have effectively conspired to hide the real ongoing cost of their vehicles from purchasers.

I refuse to purchase a vehicle where the "infotainment" screen, if the electronics for it or the screen itself, fails, it is single-sourced at the dealer, it costs $2,000 and the car will not operate reasonably without it because, for example, I cannot select heat, air conditioning and defrost without that screen.

. . .

Likewise manufacturers think they have a right to charge you $300 or more for a key -- why?  Because they have locked up the capacity to reprogram them.  That's unacceptable too; never mind what happens if I lose the key while on vacation?  Now I must be towed to a dealer -- what if the closest one is a hundred miles away?  You think I should pay $300 on top of a $200+ tow charge for a $20 or $50 key?  No.

The manufacturers and dealers both think they are entitled to screw people in short and they've been doing so on an increasing basis for the last couple of decades.

Look at one other example from that video ITSELF: "I have a 2024 Tahoe that won't start because the battery died.  The replacement battery costs $340...."

Ok Mr. Dealer: Why did you suborn the production of a vehicle, and accept it for sale as a dealer, when the battery costs $340?  You know damn well batteries are wear items and the customer will have to change it.  You may think he's stupid but perhaps he thinks that the battery should be $150 tops and it would be if you didn't have all that start-stop and similar crap on the vehicle!  Oh by the way, let me guess -- the system has to be calibrated when its replaced too and you think you have a right to force the customer to do that as well at an additional $100 or more cost without which the car will not start instead of the customer taking 5 minutes to swap it in a WalMart parking lot with a couple of wrenches like is the case for all four vehicles I currently maintain.

"People want reliable transportation they can afford, not $80,000 pickups with features they don't need."

Well then, Mr. Dealer, why did you permit the manufacturers to make the latter rather than the former?

Oh, I know the answer: You believed you were entitled to screw people rather than being in business to serve people with reliable products they want to buy at a rational price with rational operating and servicing costs, not a box full of $10,000 surprises when the transmission or engine blows up three months out of warranty or the "stereo" stops working, its proprietary and cannot be swapped for something else, and because it is tied to essential vehicle functions like the heater, A/C or defroster, forces the customer to pay $2,500 to have to have replaced.  The root of the problem is that you think you are entitled to do that to customers without disclosing it up front because if you had he or she would have never bought the vehicle in the first place and you knew damn well every single vehicle on your lot has those sort of forced and undisclosed costs built into them on purpose.

Why do you think plenty of people call your line of business "stealers" rather than "dealers"?

There's more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

Here's the video he mentions.  It's well worth watching, and warns that the entire US automotive industry is facing disaster.  If the facts and figures the narrator provides are correct . . . he's not wrong.

Food for thought, particularly if you're considering the purchase of a new or used vehicle anytime soon.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 270

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

Back in 1941, during the Second World War, a film was released in Britain titled Dangerous Moonlight (in the USA, it was renamed Suicide Squadron).  In an effort to set the mood for the film, particularly in the context of the ongoing war, Richard Addinsell composed what became known as the Warsaw Concerto.  It had an enormous impact, selling millions of records, and remains popular to this day.  Wikipedia notes that "One commentator has suggested that the Warsaw Concerto is the most significant instrumental work written in Britain during the war, still conjuring up a time and place better than any other piece."

The backstory to the music is very interesting in itself;  you'll find it in Wikipedia, and I hope you'll click over there and read it.  Here's the best performance I've been able to find of the piece on YouTube.

My parents, both of whom lived through World War II, remembered the piece with great affection.  To them, it summed up the emotions of the fight against Nazi Germany.

Peter

Sorry, but life's like that...

 

Stefan Pastis draws another great cartoon.  Click on the image to be taken to a larger version at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.

Blame, guilt, whatever . . . there's plenty to go around, for all to share.  Fortunately, there are good things to share as well, otherwise we'd never get out of the moral morass!

Peter

A "long drop" indeed!

 

In Africa, when one digs a latrine for use in the bush, there are different ways of going about it.  A "scrape" is literally that - scrape away the surface dirt, do your business, and cover it with the dirt you'd previously removed.  If you're planning a longer stay (e.g. overnight), or if multiple people want to use the same facilities, a "short drop" is called for - digging a hole a foot or two deep, using it (with each successive user scooping a little dirt over his or her "deposit" to control odors), and then filling it in before departure next day.  A "long drop" is for longer-term use, several days or weeks in the same camp.  A hole is dug at least four or five feet deep, sometimes more, depending on whether the soil is firm enough not to collapse into the cavity.  It's often surrounded by a thatch shield, so that ladies can use it in greater privacy.

(I could tell a rather embarrassing story against myself involving a long drop, a snake, and a double-barreled 12ga. shotgun . . . but I shall refrain.  Ahem.)

At any rate, it seems an unfortunate resident of Mumbai in India inadvertently discovered another meaning to a "long drop".  In fact, it's probably the longest drop of all . . .

A 52-year-old man with an upset stomach died after falling from the 18th floor of a building in Mumbai on Sunday while defecating from the edge of a shaft, an official said.

The incident occurred at the 18-storey Matoshree Sadan building, Wadala, in central Mumbai, said the official from RAK Marg police station.

The man, a resident of the high-rise, had been suffering from dysentery for the past few days.

"The victim, who was jobless, lived with his sister on the 18th floor. Someone was using the toilet in their house when he lost control of his bowels and rushed outside," an official said.

He sat to defecate on the edge of a shaft near a lift but lost his balance and plunged into a pit on the ground floor, the official said.

There's more at the link.

A tragic situation, and I'm sure his family is devastated . . . but I can already hear the jokes around campfires the length and breadth of Africa!  Unfortunately, Indians are not popular in Africa because they run many of the local stores that are regarded as interlopers and profiteers, so the jokes will be rather barbed.

Peter

What type of buffet eater are you?

 

I had to laugh at the types of buffet eater identified in this article - particularly when I resembled more than one of them!

The heels are high, the tie knots Windsor, the conversation genteel and nobody has yet started to worry about the babysitter. The wedding reception is going smoothly. But there’s a beast behind the nearby sneeze guards. And, when it’s set loose, the atmosphere changes.

It’s the same at golf-club socials, corporate away-days and resort hotels – because when you put Britons and a buffet in the same room, human behaviour turns from pristine to primitive before you can say “cocktail sausage”.

We’re different from many European countries when it comes to communal feeding. Picture the aperitivo spread in a Milan bar: exquisitely made snacks – arancini, tramezzini, bruschetta – to place, one by one, beside your cocktail glass. This could never work in Britain: too many of us would sweep an armful of goodies into a carrier bag and leg it.

Here, it’s less “eat as much as you like” and more “eat as much as you can before gout kicks in”. So what do our dining habits say about us?

There's more at the link.

The article identifies seven types of buffet eater.  The descriptions are often funny, but also a bit uncomfortable when one looks at oneself through their lens and realizes that at least some of their traits can be identified in our own behavior.  Humbling, as well as amusing.

Peter

Well, it's true, isn't it?

 

The more secular among us will probably disagree, of course, but when push comes to shove, it's hard to fault the logic of this meme, whether based on religion or anything else.

Peter

Aid is supposed to make people independent - not trapped like this!

 

This news report shows precisely why aid given at any level - person to person, organization to organization, nation to nation, whatever - is supposed to give people a hand up, not a hand out.

Phay is among millions across Africa who have seen their lives upended after the U.S. aid cuts. In Liberia, the American support made up almost 2.6% of the gross national income, the highest percentage anywhere in the world, according to the Center for Global Development.

“The impact of USAID in Liberia cannot be overstated,” said Richlue O. Burphy, who worked for USAID projects for over a decade and manages the National Lottery, a government body. “Everywhere you go, you see the USAID (signs). And almost all the government institutions ... had some kind of USAID partnership.”

The sense of betrayal runs deep in Liberia ... Following civil wars and an Ebola epidemic, Liberia’s survival has depended largely on foreign aid, mainly from the U.S. and the World Bank. Despite abundant natural wealth, six out of 10 Liberians live in poverty, according to the World Bank, and Liberia is among the world’s 10 poorest nations.

There's more at the link.

I'm very sorry for the people of Liberia, and for their suffering (and yes, it really is suffering) brought on by the sudden removal of the aid on which they've relied for so long.  However, the reality of Liberia (which can be confirmed by anyone who's been there for long - and yes, I've been there) is very simple:

• Aid arrives from international sources.
• At least half of it, and often two-thirds to three-quarters, is promptly stolen or misused by government ministers, bureaucrats, and corrupt businessmen.
• The remainder trickles down to the people in the form, not of money, but of things they need, for much of which they have to pay up front, even though aid is supposed to be free of charge to them.

This is the norm in Liberia, as it is in many parts of Africa.  A few corrupt, venal leaders soak up almost all the aid, and deliver very little to their people.

By continuing to provide aid under such circumstances for so long, the USA and other donors have effectively allowed the corruption to be perpetuated.  If you wonder why Liberia can't provide medication, etc. from its own resources, it's because those same corrupt leaders who stole most of the foreign aid are doing the same thing with the nation's tax and tariff income.  They don't care whether their people are suffering.  They have their standard of living to maintain - and that's far more important than helping their people stay alive and healthy.  Their people see only pennies on the dollar of the nation's income.

That's the simple, honest truth about why Liberia is experiencing these problems . . . but it doesn't fit the politically correct line that all its troubles are the fault of President Trump for ending USAID, so the truth will never be found in the mainstream media.

Peter

Say goodbye to France...

 

... because if this decision is sustained, what's left of French culture is about to be swamped by jihadist extremism.

All Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip will be eligible for the first time to apply for asylum in France, a court ruled on Friday.

Deciding on a case brought by a Palestinian mother seeking asylum in the wake of the Islamist Hamas October 7th terror attacks on Israel, France’s National Court of Asylum (CNDA) ruled in her favour given the “war methods” of the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza, which the court found were “serious enough to be regarded as methods of persecution.”

The decision overturned a previous rejection from the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Effrusion (OFPRA) in November, which noted that the Palestinian woman was not specifically being “persecuted” and therefore could only be eligible for “subsidiary protection”, a lesser form of asylum which only allows for a four-year temporary residence permit rather than the ten years of protection guaranteed to refugees.

The case paved the way for the CNDA to declare that all Palestinians living in Gaza should be entitled to asylum protection in France.

There's more at the link.

I can't blame the Gazans for wanting to be somewhere - anywhere! - else, just as I can't blame poverty-stricken South Americans and Africans with no prospects for any sort of meaningful future wanting to come to the USA to find work and new opportunities.  The problem is, no nation can sustain itself - its own culture, its own nationality - when it allows other cultures and nationalities to swamp its own.

I do believe that any wealthier nation should be willing to help poorer nations, and richer societies should do likewise for poorer ones.  However, that does not mean that richer nations and societies should commit cultural, religious, economic, or any other form of suicide by helping others to such an extent that they destroy themselves.  We can help refugees, and those in need, by sending aid to their own countries, and/or to refugee camps across the border in neighboring nations.  There is no need, and no logical or rational justification, for allowing them to walk across multiple borders and cross multiple nations to reach our territory, and settle here.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is a worthwhile example.  The Good Samaritan provided medical help, accommodation, etc. to the injured man, at or near the scene of the crime.  He did not take the victim back to his own country and put him up in his own village, or his own house.  The former is the sort of aid and assistance I think we should all be willing to provide, within the limits of our own capacity to do so.  France could do the same for the citizens of Gaza by providing aid within the territory, or just outside it in the Sinai Peninsula.  It does not have to bring all Gazans to France to provide help, just as the USA doesn't need to bring refugees and other victims into or nearer to the USA in order to assist them.

I hope this decision by the Court of Asylum will be overturned.  If it's not . . . visit France while its historic culture and monuments still exist, because I fear they won't be there for much longer.  To see what will replace them, visit any of the Islamic-fundamentalist-dominated banlieues in major French cities.  They're not a pretty sight - in fact, they can be very dangerous when their largely foreign residents decide it's time for another riot.  To see the American equivalents, try the Somali enclaves in Minnesota, or the Muslim enclaves in Michigan.

Peter

The old clichés still fit: "Beware used car salesmen and estate agents"

 

I grew up with those warnings ringing in my ears, the more so as I approached an age to leave home and make my own life.  It's been my experience that seven or eight times out of ten, they're right.  I'm sure my readers can tell us whether it's been true for them, too.

The "estate agents" part has been borne out in England yet again by some very shady business practices.  I know we're in America, but I'm sure the same issues crop up here from time to time:  so, in the interests of helping people who may not be aware of them, here's the skinny.

One of the biggest estate agencies in the UK, Connells runs 80 chains with more than 1,200 branches. Our undercover reporter, Lucy Vallance, got a job in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, in an own-brand office.

During her six weeks there in February, she found evidence that the senior branch manager favoured prospective buyers, if they were planning to take out Connells in-house services, like conveyancing or mortgages, because it made more money for the company.

. . .

Panorama also investigated the online estate agency Purplebricks, after we heard concerns it had been trying to attract sellers by overvaluing properties.

Once a customer was signed up, staff then tried to convince them to cut the asking price, earning commission if successful - a former sales negotiator told us. The whistleblower, who worked for the company between June and October 2024, also filmed online meetings for Panorama.

There's more at the link, including details of how the companies manipulated both sellers and buyers.

I recommend reading the whole article, because it exposes much of what goes on behind the scenes at large estate agent businesses.  I'm certain much the same things happen in this country, even though the legal system might call them by different names.  With so much money to be made out of even a single transaction, it's not surprising that agents with . . . er . . . more relaxed moral and ethical standards (to coin a phrase) might reach for every advantage they can, even if that's at their clients' expense.

You won't be surprised to find out that the agencies under investigation "signed up to the Code of Practice for Residential Estate Agents which says: 'You should provide a service to both buyers and sellers consistent with fairness, integrity and best practice'."  Funny how those "Codes of Practice" tend to be honored more in the breach than in the observance, isn't it?

Let me hasten to add that I'm sure there are, indeed, honest and ethical estate agents out there.  I number a couple of them among my friends.  It's just hard to find them without looking very carefully.

Peter

How can we prevent "Drone Dominance" from becoming yet another gold-plated Pentagon folly?

 

I'm sure that by now, most of my readers are aware of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's directive to the US armed forces to expand and enhance their use of drones (i.e. unmanned combat vehicles, aerial or otherwise).  He set three objectives:

Our mission is threefold. First, we will bolster the nascent U.S. drone manufacturing base by approving hundreds of American products for purchase by our military. Leveraging private capital flows that support this industry, our overt preference is to Buy American.

Second, we will power a technological leapfrog, arming our combat units with a variety of low-cost drones made by America’s world-leading engineers and Al experts. Drone dominance is a process race as much as a technological race. Modem battlefield innovation demands a new procurement strategy that fuses manufacturers with our frontline troops.

Finally, we’ll train as we expect to fight. To simulate the modern battlefield, senior officers must overcome the bureaucracy’s instinctive risk-aversion on everything from budgeting to weaponizing and training. Next year I expect to see this capability integrated into all relevant combat training, including force-on-force drone wars.

There's more at the link.

That sounds great . . . but it contains a number of pitfalls that have bedeviled US arms development for decades.  Far too often, designers have "gold-plated" their work, adding in expensive features and capabilities that are not essential to the task originally envisaged.  They protest that they will need such capabilities in the future - but what they're doing is making the base product so expensive it may not be affordable, and so complex that maintenance and training take up far too much time to be operationally effective.  As a case in point, consider that the F-35 has still not been declared fully operationally capable, despite having been launched as the Joint Advanced Strike Technology program in 1993 - almost 32 years ago!

In contrast, I remember South Africa's weapon development programs.  They were run on very tight budgets, to meet clearly defined operational needs, and little or no "gold-plating" was allowed.  A cardinal principle was that any weapon had to be "soldier-proof", because soldiers were guaranteed to break anything that was in the least fragile or delicate.  Wherever possible, the engineers who designed and/or would produce the weapon were expected to actually take pre-production prototypes into the combat zone in northern Namibia and southern Angola, to test them under real combat conditions.  This tended to concentrate their minds wonderfully, and avoided too many esoteric flights of design fantasy.  I had cause to be grateful to those hard-headedly practical engineers on more than one occasion.

"Approving hundreds of American products for purchase by our military" risks buying a lot of stuff that may or may not be needed.  I'm sure that right now, the salespeople at every defense firm in the country are racing to write brochures and produce slick TV ads for their products, in the hope that they can seize part of this spending cornucopia.

As for "a technological leapfrog, arming our combat units with a variety of low-cost drones made by America’s world-leading engineers and Al experts" . . . I distrust that sentence profoundly.  There's an old saying:  "Fast.  Cheap.  Easy.  Pick any two."  A fast technological leapfrog can doubtless be achieved, but it won't be cheap, and it's unlikely to be easy.  Furthermore, America no longer holds the world lead in engineering and AI experts.  Ukraine is probably top dog right now, with Russia not far behind - and they're doing it the South African way, keeping things simple, innovating one step at a time, and making sure that their designs are practical and effective.  A rush to throw money at the problem won't necessarily produce anything better for the USA.

I applaud Mr. Hegseth's enthusiasm for this project, but I think he's expecting a lot more than the US defense industry is capable of delivering at present.  If a boat is "a hole in the water into which one pours money", to quote an old tongue-in-cheek definition, this "drone dominance" project may come to resemble that far more closely than one might wish.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #1,125

 

Some doofi and their doofidities are so weird, so flatly daft, that it's hard to believe they actually happened.  Today's is one example.  See this video clip on X of a cop who was stopped by two ladies (?) complaining that the illegal drugs they were illegally trying to sell had been stolen by someone else.

What's a poor cop to do???

Verily, the mind doth boggle . . .

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 269

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

I wonder how many of my readers remember the British musical comedy duo, Flanders and Swann?  Old school friends Michael Flanders and Donald Swann teamed up after World War II to write musical revues, with an emphasis on comedy, and were very successful through the 1950's and 1960's.  Some of their songs remain popular to this day.

To start with, here's a short documentary about the duo and their success together.

They wrote many comic songs about animals, one of the most famous being "The Hippopotamus".

"Design for Living" examined the vexed question of interior decorating.

One of my favorites was when Michael Flanders decided to sing Mozart's Horn Concerto.

And, last but far from least, here the duo perform "A Song of the Weather".

You'll find many more of their songs on YouTube.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #1,124

 

Courtesy of Cederq, posting at Phil's place, we find this pearl of wisdom:

To anyone who believes that, may I gently suggest that sexual intercourse might be a lot more to blame than any other politically-correct factor?

Sheesh!!!

Peter

Andrew Branca lays out the reality of the Epstein files

 

Andrew Branca, whom we've met before in these pages, is a lawyer specializing in self-defense issues.  He had this to say on X about the Epstein files imbroglio.  I've taken the liberty of quoting him in full, because this is a very important issue that's (unnecessarily) divided many of the President's supporters.  Mr. Branca responds to another post accusing President Trump and his Cabinet of malfeasance, and explains why that's not a rational approach.

"Barely 18 months ago, Kash Patel said there was a list, Bill Gates is on it, that he was lobbying the government to not disclose the list, and that Republicans were feckless for having a majority and doing nothing."

18 months ago Patel was not the Director of the FBI, did not have access to the "list," and was speaking in explicitly speculative terms while a T-shirt wearing guest on a podcast. None of these statements were presented as authoritative and based on personal knowledge. 

"Throughout his career as a commentator/analyst, Bongino implored his audience to never give up on the Epstein story. That there is something much deeper in there. That it involves intelligence / Middle Eastern countries."

Similar story here--Bongino was speaking as a "commentator/analyst," not as someone with personal knowledge. And he may even have been right--everyone might be right--that a huge cover-up was happening. 

But there's little that Bondi, Patel, or Bongino can do in July 2025 with conspiracy theories.  They need actual evidence of criminal conduct. It's quite possible that evidence was obliterated before these three assumed the reigns of power. In which case, no matter what ACTUALLY happened, THESE THERE have NO EVIDENCE of criminal conduct to pursue. 

"Now, after assurances that the file was on her desk and promising disclosures, we are being told that Epstein killed himself (which even if true, is itself a scandal requiring investigation), that there is no client list, no blackmail material, and that we should just move on with our lives."

The "file" WAS on her desk. But what does "file" mean? Bondi didn't know--she explicitly said the "file" was on her desk FOR HER REVIEW. Until that review, she could have no certainty about what the "file" contained.  

Now we hear that the "file" on her desk, while voluminous, did not contain evidence of criminal conduct, that there is no EVIDENCE that the names contained in those documents were engaged in criminal activity--and in that case it is standard DOJ procedure to NOT release such information, as any persons named are presumed to be innocent of criminal misconduct until there is evidence to the contrary. This has ALWAYS been DOJ policy. 

"After Kash specifically described the criminality of the previous FBI/DOJ/administration, they are basing their findings on the file provided by that criminal administration."

Again, Kash was not speaking authoritatively, but speculatively--and arguably based on sound inferences, BUT INFERENCES ARE NOT EVIDENCE. 

In any case, WHAT IS BONDI SUPPOSED TO BASE HER FINDINGS ON, BUT FOR THE EVIDENCE IN HAND? Is she supposed to wave her hand and resurrect the notional evidence of criminal conduct that she doesn't possess? 

"This is an abject disaster that is severely undermining the Trump administration and the most integral populist players in it. Namely, the Director and Deputy Director of the FBI."

Anyone who believes that Epstein had a client list of criminal monsters must now also believe that the evidence of this client list was obliterated or stolen or hidden by the previous administration--so it is THEIR legitimacy that is undermined, not Trump's ...

...OR you have to believe that Trump is currently engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover up for monsters who committed horrific crimes against children.

If you believe THAT, how can you support Trump AT ALL? 

Alternatively, one could believe what the Trump administration is explicitly telling us--they HAD good reason to EXPECT that a careful review of the Epstein "files" in the possession of the prior administration would lead to evidence of criminal conduct that could be prosecuted--but that the ACTUAL review of what is available to them does NOT amount to evidence of prosecutable criminal conduct. 

That could be because the criminal conduct was much more limited than imagined--perhaps it was largely Epstein who was the actual monster, and he's already facing the forever consequences of that conduct?  

Or it could be because the monstrous conduct WAS widespread but that the EVIDENCE of that widespread criminality has been stripped from the "files" available to the current administration, due to no fault of Trump.

After all, Trump's most vicious political enemies have been in possession of these "files" for years.  If the conduct largely implicates those enemies, why would they NOT strip the evidence of their criminality from the files they knew would be available to Trump? 

We can also be certain that if the "files" in the possession of Trump's enemies had so much of a hint of Trump himself engaging in any of the alleged offenses against children, we would have learned of this notional evidence many, many years ago.

And yet we have not.

When there are hypothesis consistent with Trump acting in good faith, why does everyone who is purportedly a supporter of his administration so quick to jump to the conclusion that Trump is acting in bad faith?

I think Mr. Branca's done a very good job in putting matters into perspective.  I personally do not believe that Epstein was a choirboy who left behind no records of his crimes, because they weren't crimes.  I believe he and his associates were guilty as sin, and so were the great majority of those who were his "guests" on his private island in the Caribbean.  However, if there is no evidence proving what did (or did not) happen, no further action can be taken.

I very strongly suspect that all such evidence was stripped out of the records and destroyed by the initial investigators - and/or, quite possibly, hidden away as useful material for future Deep State blackmail of legislators and others.  However, I can only suspect.  I can't prove it.  Therefore, to blame President Trump and his team for the absence of the necessary evidence is to miss the point.  I'm sure there was such evidence - but I'm equally sure it was long since deep-sixed, and despite the Trump administration's best efforts, has not been found.

Therefore, those attacking the Trump administration for not producing the evidence are barking up the wrong tree.  If there is no evidence available, it can't be produced - but that's not the Administration's fault.

Peter

Will history repeat itself?

 

Kim du Toit offers some trenchant thoughts about the impact of drastic events upon earlier human societies and culture, and applies that to today's "Information Revolution".  I'm not going to steal his thunder by quoting large chunks of his essay, which I find very apposite:  I'm simply going to recommend that you click over there and read it for yourself.

Here's how he concludes:

I have no idea how much the Information Revolution is going to change society.  All I know is that it will.  However, if I want to see how we will be affected by the next overturning of society, and get an idea of the misery we will endure, I just have to re-read Les Misérables and Loss Of Eden.

This time, Shakespeare’s “bare ruin’d choirs” will not be in our buildings, but in our souls. 

A gloomy conclusion, but from what I see all around me, I fear it may end up that way.  It's for us who care about the higher aspects of human society to fight against that, tooth and nail, to preserve what we can of the best that came before us.

Peter

Is left-wing terrorism to be the "new normal"?

 

John Farnam thinks so.

Overshadowed by the tragic flooding in TX, there was an well-funded, violent attack, a “planned ambush,” by at least ten heavily-armed leftist terrorists on Federal Officers at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, TX on Friday, 4 July 25.  At least one officer was injured by gunfire.

This incident began with vandalism, graffiti, and fireworks.  It was all clearly intended to draw Federal Officers outside and into a deadly ambush.

Terrorists used M4 rifles (with “high-capacity” magazines), were equipped with body-armor, radios, and other military equipment, and the selection of a national holiday to stage this attack was no accident.

There was a simultaneous, separate shooting-attack on Federal Officers at the  Border Patrol Facility in McAllen, TX.  At least one armed terrorist was fatally shot by officers during that armed assault.

As expected, no Democrat politician has publically condemned these shooting attacks on our Federal LEOs.  In fact, Democrats are self-righteously calling our courageous ICE Officers “terrorists.”

. . .

In 2020, these same leftist terrorists, openly incited by Democrat politicians, destroyed historic statues and burned large swaths of business districts (in an effort to punish “hated capitalists”).

In 2024/25, these same terrorists violently attacked Jewish students and trashed college campuses, all with the approval of leftist-supporting college administrators, who simultaneously exclude Christians and Jews from being hired (in the name of “DEI”)

Today, these same leftist terrorists, now using “assault weapons,” are openly shooting at our police, all as their supporters (which includes most Democrat politicians) remain silent, or in some cases cheer them on!

This all precisely fits the Leninist pattern for the violent seizure of power, as the DNC’s current spokesman, Zohran Mamdani, so candidly articulates.

Nothing is beneath them!

Why should any of us be surprised?

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

I can't disagree with Mr. Farnam.  I fear we're going to be sending out patrol cars in pairs, at least, in our more dangerous cities, and probably in larger groups where hot-button issues such as illegal migration or other left-wing shibboleths are concerned.  Where I live, this hasn't been a problem (yet), but I understand from talking to a couple of cop friends in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and Houston that they're already preparing for that.  Unfortunately, their city governments are more inclined to pander to the extremists than crack down on them - which means that ordinary citizens are probably going to have to shoulder more of the burden of keeping their neighborhoods crime-free and regressive (as opposed to progressive, you understand).

Fair warning.  Take a close look at the political and social environment in and around the area where you live, and plan accordingly.

Peter

Training was lacking, it seems...

 

Two (apparently rookie) Chicago cops tried to arrest a fleeing felon (apparently also a rookie).

Looks like the pole was the only competent one there, stopping the bad guy when he ran headlong into it.  Certainly, it was more effective than anyone's (allegedly) aimed gunfire!

Go read the comments about the video on YouTube.  Some of them are hysterical.

(Oh - and someone please get those cops some remedial firearms training.  They desperately need it!)

Peter

Hamas asked for it, and it looks like they're going to get it - good and hard

 

Two interesting developments may offer a solution to the hitherto intractable problem of Gaza and its Palestinian residents.

First, Israel is reportedly arming "anti-Hamas militias".

According to Israeli news outlet Ynet, “one group is active in Gaza City, and the other in Khan Yunis” – where the Israeli military is currently present. 

Ynet had previously reported, citing sources affiliated with the Palestinian Authority (PA), that “new Fatah-aligned militias would soon begin operations in the strip.” The same sources told the outlet this week that “these are the very groups now coordinating directly with the IDF,” with both receiving salaries from the PA [Palestinian Authority]. 

. . .

One of the groups is based in Gaza City’s Shujaiya neighborhood – an area known historically as a hotbed of resistance, where Israeli forces are currently preparing to escalate operations. This faction is reportedly linked to Rami Halles, an anti-Hamas activist in Gaza linked to the PA Fatah party. 

The Halles clan has had bad blood with Hamas since the resistance movement’s takeover of Gaza years ago. 

“Halles and his men are heavily armed and are now receiving Israeli protection and operational cover,” sources cited by Ynet say. 

The second militia, based in the southern city of Khan Yunis, is said to be led by a man named Yasser Hnaidek, who “is receiving Israeli aid – both in weapons and humanitarian supplies – as well as a salary from the PA.” He also hails from a Fatah-linked family in Gaza, according to what has been circulating. 

. . .

The Ynet report follows recent information about an Israeli-backed gang operating in the southernmost city of Rafah – led by the Fatah-linked Yasser Abu Shabab, also allegedly linked to ISIS. 

There's more at the link.

I don't know why some people are surprised by that news.  One of the oldest and most sacred (?) tenets of life in the Middle East is that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".  I think Israel is following that principle very closely.  Furthermore, the "Fatah-aligned" aspect of the militias is interesting, because Fatah is the biggest faction in the Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank but was expelled from Gaza (amid much bloodshed) by Hamas years ago.  Fatah might be more than willing to help Israel by joining forces with it to sponsor anti-Hamas militias.  See the principle quoted above for the reason . . .

The second bit of news is that traditional Arab leadership may be resurgent in another Palestinian region.

A group of five leading sheikhs in the Palestinian Authority’s Hebron district sent a letter to the government expressing a desire to join the Abraham Accords and to have peace with Israel, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The letter, addressed to Economy Minister Nir Barkat, expresses the sheikhs’ desire to break off from the Palestinian Authority and establish Hebron as an emirate that “recognize[s] the State of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.”

Then, “the State of Israel shall recognize the Emirate of Hebron as the Representative of the Arab residents in the Hebron District.”

Again, more at the link.

Hebron is part of the West Bank, not Gaza.  If it "defects" to an independent arrangement with Israel, this will undermine the Palestinian Authority itself, as well as offering an interesting example to other regions with their own authority structures.  Furthermore, it would offer a counterweight to the so-called "two-state solution" that's been touted for so long as the only possible solution to the Palestinian problem.  If Palestinian regions are divided into self-ruling "statelets" or Emirates or whatever they want to call themselves, there will no longer be just two Palestinian regions - and none of the smaller entities will want to give up their own authority (and lucrative rake-offs) to ally with others.

If Hamas won't make peace, Israel will be more than happy to make sure Hamas has nothing and nobody left over which to rule.

Peter

The renewable energy cow is getting gored - and not before time

 

Back in May, when renewable energy reforms were being debated in Congress, I wrote:

Son, if you can't make money on your product without taxpayers giving you thousands of dollars per installation, you don't deserve to be in business.  If you can't make a fair and reasonable profit without gouging others for it, you're the problem - not the government.

The entire alternative energy sphere is filled with subsidies and special-interest money like this.  I know one wind power project in Colorado that's been sold twice in the past decade or so.  Every time, the sale was at the end of a ten-year federal subsidy for wind energy for the "new" field - and the new owner got a renewed ten-year subsidy every time he/it/they bought the project.  It's basically a license to fleece taxpayers, and they get away with it every time, thanks to a complaisant Congress and the lobbyists who hand out money to politicians who support their favored schemes.

As far as I'm concerned, Congress should never have passed the subsidy in the first place.  Getting rid of it now is rather late, but at least we won't be hemorrhaging even more money that way in future.

There's more at the link.

Now, the Telegraph adds more insight into why the renewable energy industry is so upset.

The cat is out of the bag. Electricity made from renewable sources is not as “cheap” as its advocates sometimes claim. It evidently cannot survive without billions annually in tax credits.

That’s the message from the latest skirmish over America’s renewable energy future, where the House and Senate have unveiled duelling visions for the rollback of energy tax credits – each with its own tempo and tone. The vitriolic reaction from the green lobby, and the predictions of disaster for renewables should any of these changes be passed into law, have exposed just how economically unsustainable even the fiercest backers of these energy sources clearly accept them to be.

Supporters of renewable energy have assured us for years that the wind blows and the sun shines free of charge. But although these technologies have received hundreds of billions in subsidies globally over the past 20 years, proponents still demand more – for a few years, we’re told, until renewables can stand on their own feet.

. . .

One dirty little secret is that, on a state-by-state basis, nine out of the top 10 states in electricity prices in the United States in 2024 required renewable energy as part of their electricity mix. The bottom 10 states generally did not require renewable energy.

. . .

Taxpayers are paying multiple times for renewables. In their electricity bills, they pay not only for wind and solar, but for the backups to the wind and solar. In their tax bills, they pay for the energy tax credits. They also give up faster economic growth when electricity prices rise.

Another dirty secret is that renewable energy is often neither green nor clean. About 70 per cent of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and their components are made in China, which remains reliant on coal-fired power plants to fuel its industries. Wind turbines kill birds, and, when offshore, can harm sea mammals. Solar power can take over agricultural land, which is likely to drive up the price of food. Green and clean are marketing hype used to push renewables onto unsuspecting consumers.

. . .

With the end of these tax credits, Americans may well discover that the true costs of renewable energy are higher than utility companies are willing to bear. Developers are already saying that they will halt projects without the tax credits.

If the age of renewable energy tax credits is drawing to a close, Americans will be the beneficiaries. The question is how abruptly Washington will pull the plug – and whether other countries will follow.

Again, more at the link.

As always, follow the money.  He who screams the loudest when a government subsidy is reduced or eliminated is, in my book, automatically suspicious, because he's basically admitting he's been making money at taxpayer expense and hates the thought of losing it.

I can understand government subsidizing some new technology that will be of genuine long-term benefit to the nation.  In energy terms, pebble bed reactors and other advances in the nuclear field come to mind, because modern designs virtually eliminate the risk of accidental radiation release, and appear to generate much less nuclear waste.  However, solar and wind energy will always have the problem that they need backup power sources to fill in the gap when the winds don't blow or the sun doesn't shine.  To pay out literally hundreds of billions of dollars for a part-time resource that isn't consistently reliable seems utterly pointless to me.

Kill those subsidies, yesterday!

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 268

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

Some musicians and music groups trouble me, because while they may produce excellent music, they also appear to be actively anti-Christian in some of their themes, lyrics and personal lives.  There are many examples:  Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page, Nightwish's Tuomas Holopainen, groups with names such as Judas Priest or Black Sabbath . . . too many to list.  I generally avoid listening to them out of those qualms of conscience.  On the other hand, I have to concede that some of them produce outstanding music.

A group that I have to classify as "borderline" over such concerns is Disturbed.  Some aspects of their work light up big red warning lamps in my brain, such as artistic effects like the logo for their second album, Believe, which incorporates both the Star of David and devil's horns, and their participation in festivals such as Hellfest.  On the other hand, their cover of The Sounds Of Silence is possibly the best version of the song ever recorded, surpassing even the original from Simon and Garfunkel, and they've crafted a number of rock/power ballads that are world-class.  Let's just say that I won't listen to some of their work, because I'm unabashedly Christian in my world-view.  If you can say the same, caution is indicated.

Nevertheless, this track from their latest album, "Divisive", appeals to me.  It's a dark power ballad about relationships.  See what you think.

Here's a half-hour interview with their lead singer, David Draiman, in which he discusses the group's background and development.

An interesting group, despite my reservations about some aspects of their work.

Peter

Independence Day 2025

 

Here's wishing everyone a happy, relaxed, upbeat Fourth of July celebration this year.  When I think back to how things were last year, there's a vast difference, isn't there?  We have a President who may not suit everyone, but is doing his job the best way he knows how, and a Congress and Senate that are - however shakily - working together to move forward his agenda.  I think that beats stalemate, and I think most of the Founding Fathers would have approved.

May our Republic grow stronger every year, and become a land whose citizens may live in liberty and prosperity under the grace of God.

Peter

A travel tip I wouldn't have considered

 

I've never thought that wrapping up my vehicle might be a worthwhile precaution before hiking a trail, but it turns out that in parts of this country, it's not a bad idea.

From the awe-inspiring views of the Grand Canyon to the geysers of Yellowstone, millions of people travel to national parks across the United States every year. The parks are home to countless animals, including one mountain-dwelling critter that can ruin a day in the great outdoors.

Marmots will pillage backpacks left unattended in search for a snack, and at Sequoia National Park's Mineral King trail, the rodents have been known to chew on tubes and wiring on the underside of vehicles.

To prevent damage in such a remote location, officials recommend hikers wrap their vehicles in a large tarp, which looks unusual, but deters marmots from chomping on a radiator hose or a brake line.

. . .

In the past, hikers used to surround their vehicles with chicken wire, but over time, the marmots learned how to evade the wire and reach the vehicles.

"On several occasions, marmots have not escaped the engine compartment quickly enough and unsuspecting drivers have given them rides to other parts of the parks; several have ridden as far as Southern California," the NPS explained.

There's more at the link.

I'm not familiar with US marmots, but I've had lots of encounters with the very similar species that South Africans familiarly refer to as dassies (actually a species of hyrax).  They're endemic on Table Mountain in Cape Town, and have "colonized" the area around the upper cable car station.  They unashamedly beg food from patrons at the restaurant there, so much so that they're typically so rotund and corpulent that they can't move in a hurry.  That provides the local eagles with a plentiful meat diet, but there are so many dassies waiting their turn at the tourist buffet that the numbers never seem to drop.

No need to tarp your vehicles there - for a start, they're 3,000 feet below, parked on the road leading past the lower cable car station, and besides, the dassies are so well fed by tourists that they'd turn up their noses at engine cables and wires.

Be that as it may, I suppose marmots, hyrax and similar critters have developed all over the world to fill a specific ecological niche.  We're simply supplementing their diet by parking nearby.  Does that mean that tarping one's car to keep them out is interfering with natural selection?

Peter

An amazing, interesting and sometimes amusing history lesson

 

Did you know that Noah's Ark had a Mesopotamian counterpart?  Not only were the Ark narratives very similar between the two cultures, but a replica of the Mesopotamian "ark" - in reality a very large coracle-type design - was actually built and launched.

The project was the brainchild of Irving Finkel.  He describes it in the video below.  I highly recommend making time to watch it if you have any interest in history, sacred writings, or early ships.  It's a fascinating story, and Finkel is a very absorbing lecturer.

Prof. Finkel wrote a book about the project titled "The Ark Before Noah".  After viewing the video above, it's on my must-read list.

Fascinating!

Peter

The ambulance chasers lose at last

 

I was pleased to read that a manifestly unjust court verdict has finally been overturned by the Texas Supreme Court.

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Werner Enterprises, reversing a $100 million jury verdict against the motor carrier upheld by an appellate court in a 2014 fatal crash in which a pickup truck lost control on a slick interstate, traveled across the highway median and collided with a Werner tractor traveling on the opposite stretch of road.

. . .

“This awful accident happened because an out-of-control vehicle suddenly skidded across a wide median and struck the defendant’s truck, before he had time to react, as he drove below the speed limit in his proper lane of traffic,” the court wrote. “That singular and robustly explanatory fact fully explains why the accident happened and who is responsible for the resulting injuries. Because no further explanation is reasonably necessary to substantially explain the origins of this accident or to assign responsibility for the plaintiffs’ injuries, the rule of ‘proximate causation’ does not permit a fact finder to search for other, subordinate actors in the causal chain and assign liability to them.”

The high court said that nothing the Werner driver, Shiraz Ali, did or didn’t do contributed to the pickup truck hitting ice, losing control, veering into the median and entering oncoming traffic on an interstate highway.

However Ali was driving, the presence of his 18-wheeler in its proper lane of traffic on the other side of Interstate 20 at the precise moment the pickup truck lost control is just the kind of “happenstance of place and time” that cannot reasonably be considered a substantial factor in causing injuries to the plaintiffs.

There's more at the link.

I've long been angered by the "sue-at-all-costs" approach by so-called "ambulance-chasers":  lawyers who'll hunt down anyone who might conceivably have any case of any kind against another after an accident, then sue on their behalf for often ridiculous sums in damages, hoping that the defendant will settle rather than go to the trouble and expense of an often long-drawn-out trial.  They're an entire sub-culture in the legal "industry".  During our recent travels, both my wife and I commented on the huge number of billboards in economically depressed areas through which we traveled, advertising the services of lawyers to sue anybody whom they could persuade you had "wronged" or "harmed" or "damaged" you.  It appeared to be the major economic activity in those areas, if one judged only by the billboards alongside the roads.

This case is a classic example.  The truck was doing everything legally, traveling in its lane at a lawful speed, and nowhere near traffic coming the other way:  yet the ambulance-chasers tried (and, at first, succeeded) to paint it, its driver and its owner as guilty parties, responsible for the accident and subsequent injuries and expenses.  That they succeeded in a lower court is a black mark against that court, which really should have known better.  Fortunately, in this case, a higher court was able to put a stop to that nonsense:  but how many times does that happen?  How many times can the defendant not afford to take the case to an appeal, and is therefore forced to bear the costs of a settlement?

Shakespeare's prescription for lawyers might have been in jest, but it sometimes seems more than appropriate in the light of how they conduct themselves . . .

Peter