Posted by Thomas Catenacci

Electric bills for millions of Americans are expected to rise by more than 20 percent in the coming months. The number of power grid blackouts could double by 2030. Electricity demand in that same time period will skyrocket, far surpassing current levels.

It's all part of what the top North American power grid watchdog says is one of the grid's "greatest near-term reliability challenges": the rapid development of data centers, which contain fast-working, electricity-hungry computer systems that support artificial intelligence technology.

Across the country, tech firms are building data centers faster than power companies can build new electricity generation plants, creating the potential for supply crunches and shortages. By 2028, data centers are projected to account for up to 12 percent of total electricity consumption nationwide, and the United States is expected to consume more electricity for data processing than for manufacturing all energy-intensive goods combined—that includes aluminum, steel, cement, and chemicals.

By comparison, the total electricity generated in the United States increased about 3 percent last year.

That dynamic is raising policy questions for lawmakers, regulators, and industry about the speed of power development and whether new power generation will be fossil fuel-based or green energy. Those questions are urgent: A Harvard study this year found that consumers face billions of dollars in rate increases to pay for new data center-related grid improvements. According to a study commissioned by the government of Virginia, which is home to hundreds of data centers, new data center development will likely increase electricity costs "for all customers."

The issue is on full display up and down the Mid-Atlantic, which has been dubbed "Data Center Alley," where more data centers have been constructed than in any other region in the world. These facilities are gobbling up so much electricity that it is diverting supplies away from homes and businesses and causing noticeable rate increases.

"Prices will remain high as long as demand growth is outstripping supply—this is a basic economic policy," a spokesman for the region's power grid operator told Reuters this week.

It's also on display in Tennessee, where advocates have expressed concern that Elon Musk's xAI supercomputer in Memphis will suck much-needed power from surrounding communities. In response, the local utility company said the facility is using temporary gas-fired turbines for power and that xAI will pay for grid upgrades as it increases power consumption.

For green energy developers and climate activists, the United States must lean into developing more wind and solar to continue to decrease reliance on fossil fuels and curb carbon emissions. They also argue green energy, particularly solar, is the fastest energy source to construct.

But according to the oil and gas industry, the challenge presented by artificial intelligence will only be solved by increasing the grid's reliance on fossil fuels and decreasing its reliance on green energy sources that fail to provide electricity without the right weather conditions—that means more domestic natural gas production, more pipelines, and more natural gas-fired power plants.

"Fossil fuels are finding their footing. I think there's a vibe shift," Amy Oliver Cooke, the president of the right-leaning firm Always On Energy Research, said in an interview. She noted that natural gas is the primary source of energy powering data centers nationwide.

"Wind and solar can't power a data center," she said. "If it can't power a data center, how is it going to power a grid? The point is it can't."

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump, top federal energy officials, lawmakers, and industry leaders will huddle at a first-of-its-kind energy and innovation summit to address these questions. The fossil fuel industry is prepared to make its voice loud and clear during the meetings.

"For too long, there's been too much of a focus on aspirational goals of where the energy should come from, rather than what is realistic in this timeframe," American Petroleum Institute president and CEO Mike Sommers, who will attend the summit, told the Washington Free Beacon. "There's a renewed look at the importance of natural gas and getting away from these intermittent sources that don't provide the kind of energy that these data centers and that American consumers are going to need."

He said his main message to the president at the summit will be that the nation needs more infrastructure, like pipelines, to transport fuels as more power plants come online. "We need the infrastructure in place so that we can move that energy from where it is to where it needs to be," Sommers added.

Meanwhile, power companies continue to shutter existing fossil fuel-fired power plants to meet climate goals set in recent years and accelerated during the Biden administration. Coal, gas, and petroleum power plants with a total capacity of 12.3 gigawatts, enough to power millions of homes, are expected to retire in 2025.

The vast majority of new electricity generation is expected to come from green sources—more than 32 gigawatts of solar power and nearly 8 gigawatts of wind power are projected to come online this year. But because they are dependent on the weather, those sources will only produce 34 percent of their listed capacity at best, according to federal data.

"Unrealistic commitments that were made during a period of lesser energy demand are really hitting energy reality right now and people are waking up to the fact that you're going to need a lot more energy on the grid, and most of that energy is going to come primarily from natural gas," Sommers told the Free Beacon, noting that he has had "blunt conversations" with the power generation industry.

At the same time, the challenges posed by the rapid growth of artificial intelligence present a real national security-related risk. Failing to power data centers could ultimately mean ceding ground on the technology to China, which is working to rapidly scale up its data center infrastructure in competition with America.

The post How the AI Revolution Is Straining American Energy appeared first on .

(no subject)

Jul. 15th, 2025 06:39 am[syndicated profile] amigofriend_feed
на свободу со стилем -
вот наш лозунг в беде
взять например бастилию
каждый день

Posted by Alana Goodman

All three commissioners leading the United Nations’ anti-Israel inquisition panel resigned this week, just days after the State Department sanctioned a pro-Hamas U.N. investigator.

The U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory's chairwoman Navi Pillay, commissioner Miloon Kothari, and commissioner Chris Sidoti all announced they are stepping down, according to the watchdog group U.N. Watch.

The exodus comes less than a week after Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced U.S. sanctions against U.N. special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese for her "illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt [International Criminal Court] action against U.S. and Israeli officials, companies, and executives."

Albanese, as the Washington Free Beacon reported earlier this month, wrote "threatening letters" to a variety of companies across the globe in which she warned them to cut business ties with Israel or face "potential criminal liability."

The mass departure could mark the end of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry,  founded after a request from the Palestinian delegation and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in 2021 to probe the "root causes" of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Supporters of Israel have accused the commission of extreme bias, noting that the appointed leaders have called Israel an "apartheid" state and accused Jews of controlling the media.

While Pillay attributed her resignation to "age, medical issues, and the weight of several other commitments," U.N. Watch welcomed the departures and said the "architects of the U.N.’s anti-Israel inquisition are fleeing the ship."

"The resignation of all three commissioners is long overdue," U.N. Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said in a statement. "This was a commission born in prejudice—designed to target Israel, while ignoring Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Authority. Its members were selected precisely for their hostility to the Jewish state."

The hostility Neuer referenced includes Pillay’s accusation of "apartheid" against Israel and Kothari’s claim that social media is "controlled largely by the Jewish lobby."

Albanese, the sanctioned U.N. official, has also minimized Hamas terrorism, accused the CIA and Mossad of orchestrating the 2015 terrorist attack by ISIS in Paris, and said the United States is "subjugated by the Jewish lobby."

The post Anti-Israel UN Commissioners Resign En Masse After Trump Sanctions appeared first on .

Posted by Zach Kessel

An academic center at Georgetown University that sits within its prestigious School of Foreign Service has a history of fostering support for Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist groups, a Washington Free Beacon review found.

Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU), founded in 1993, has hosted scholars sympathetic to Islamism since its inception. John Esposito, the center’s founder and a professor of religion and international affairs and of Islamic studies at Georgetown, has long defended terrorist groups and collaborated with jihadist figures.

As the Free Beacon reported in June, approximately 25 percent of all graduates from the ACMCU—which operates within the School of Foreign Service—enter government positions around the world after receiving their degrees. The ACMCU’s history appears likely to draw congressional scrutiny during a Tuesday morning House Education and Workforce Committee hearing featuring Georgetown interim president Robert Groves, as does the funding it has received from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT).

The IIIT, the Free Beacon reported, had a relationship with the now-defunct SAAR Foundation, which ceased operations after the FBI raided its offices on suspicion of terrorism financing. Georgetown acknowledged that the IIIT "contributed $1 million or more to Georgetown" in 2017 when the university invited the organization’s leadership to its 1789 Society for large donors.

Esposito’s scholarly and professional history includes many instances of either the defense of or support for terror groups and figures. When asked whether Hamas was a terrorist organization during a 2000 interview with the Middle East Affairs Journal, for instance, Esposito hedged.

"One can’t make a clear statement about Hamas," he said. "One has to distinguish between Hamas in general and the action of its military wing, and then one has also to talk about specific actions. Some actions by the military wing of Hamas can be seen as acts of resistance, but other actions are acts of retaliation, particularly when they target civilians."

Esposito had more charitable words for Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a late Islamic scholar and intellectual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood whom the Clinton administration banned from entering the United States.

"If you look at Qaradawi’s work—I actually just finished working on him for a new book that I have—he goes out of his way to say that he is not anti-Jewish but he is anti-Israeli, anti-Israeli occupation of Palestine, and that is what he is talking about," Esposito said. "So, he will talk about Jews again as ‘People of the Book,’ et cetera, but when it comes to Palestine, he defines that situation politically."

Al-Qaradawi’s work, which Esposito referenced, included praise for Adolf Hitler.

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption ... The last punishment was carried out by Hitler," Al-Qaradawi stated in a 2009 speech. "By means of all the things he did to them—even though they exaggerated this issue—he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them ... Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the [Muslim] believers."

Al-Qaradawi’s sermons and writings also included calls to kill U.S. troops in Iraq and fatwas authorizing suicide bombings.

Esposito’s associations with Islamist figures and movements go beyond his statements. He publicly defended an academic named Sami Al-Arian before Al-Arian pleaded guilty to a charge of making or receiving contributions of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). According to a Department of Justice press release, Al-Arian "admitted that he performed various services for the PIJ in 1995 and thereafter, knowing that the PIJ had been designated as a Specially Designated Terrorist and that the PIJ engaged in horrific and deadly acts of violence."

Esposito described Al-Arian as "a good friend" and "an extraordinarily bright, articulate scholar and intellectual-activist, a man of conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice" in a letter to the judge overseeing the case.

He also testified as an expert witness for the defense in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) re-trial, the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history. The HLF was ultimately found guilty of giving more than $12 million to support Hamas, and a jury convicted five HLF associates on charges including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Esposito formerly served on the advisory board of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), a U.S. think tank founded by future Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and future Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef.

Nader Hashemi, an associate professor at Georgetown who became ACMCU director in July 2023, also served on the board of the UASR, which federal prosecutors identified in the 2008 HLF trial as part of Hamas’s U.S. network.

Hashemi made headlines in 2022 while director of the University of Denver’s Middle East studies center. He suggested after the assassination attempt against novelist Salman Rushdie that the Mossad intelligence agency could have been behind the stabbing attack, saying that was "one possible interpretation and scenario that could explain the timing of this, at this moment, during these sensitive political discussions related to Iran’s nuclear program."

The ACMCU hosts a project called the Bridge Initiative, which the university describes as "a multi-year research project on Islamophobia." Much like its parent organization, the Bridge Initiative has ties to terrorism. Jonathan A.C. Brown, an associate professor at Georgetown and former Bridge Initiative director, is married to the daughter of PIJ fundraiser Al-Arian. The daughter, Leila Al-Arian, is a producer with Al Jazeera and a graduate of Columbia University’s journalism school.

Neither Esposito nor the university responded to Free Beacon requests for comment by press time. Hashemi referred the Free Beacon to a 2022 blog post explaining his comments about the Rushdie assassination attempt.

The post Academic Center Within Georgetown's Prestigious School of Foreign Service Has Long History of Terror-Supporting Leaders appeared first on .

Posted by Andrew Stiles

We've never had any reason to doubt Donald Trump's commitment to American greatness.

Until now.

In a display of unfathomably poor judgment, Trump attended an international soccer game on American soil. Instead of playing golf or working hard to restore the soul of our nation, Trump spent several hours on Sunday watching Chelsea defeat Paris Saint-Germain 3-0 in the FIFA Club World Cup final at MetLife Stadium.

Despite the grotesque spectacle of humiliation that ensued, Trump appeared to enjoy himself like a filthy lib whose only passion in life is cheering on America's enemies. Soccer fans are among the most virulent forms of America-hating scum. Zohran Mamdani, the communist radical and terrorist supporter vying to be the next mayor of New York City, is a huge soccer fan. So it's no surprise that Trump was booed during the national anthem. The halftime show featured a performance by Coldplay, a British boy band whose prancing vocalist once dedicated a song to the notorious anti-Semitic activist Louis Farrakhan.

The president defiled himself by sitting next to FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who presides over one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. He defiled himself even further by agreeing to take part in the post-game celebration on the field, which gave the degenerate fans another opportunity to boo our greatest living president. Trump praised the so-called athletes for playing a "great match," using the obnoxiously un-American word for "game." Then, in an egregious affront to the concept of American exceptionalism, he floated the idea of signing an executive order requiring the United States to refer to soccer as "football" in line with the vastly inferior countries that comprise the rest of the world.

The mainstream media coverage was predictably nauseating, and highlighted the absurdity of Trump's decision to attend the game. The Washington Post reported on the "skepticism" among foreign soccer snobs regarding America's ability to host the 2026 World Cup. Some are concerned that a president "who has taken actions to close America’s borders and imposed wholesale bans on residents from some countries" might not be woke enough to preside over the "quadrennial celebration of global camaraderie and athleticism."

What in the actual f—, Donald? You should have known better than to associate yourself with this pathetic "sport" and its monstrous supporters. It is antithetical to your noble desire to achieve American greatness at home and to project it abroad. You swore an oath to defend our country from foreign threats, yet you eagerly endorsed this enemy operation on American soil. You might as well have attended an Antifa seminar on how to wipe your ass with the American flag after defecating on a police cruiser.

Not cool, bro.

The post National Disgrace: Trump Appeases Soccer Menace on Home Soil in Solidarity With America's Enemies appeared first on .

Posted by Adam Kredo

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) is set to introduce legislation that would formally designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, financially crippling the global Islamist group and sanctioning its violent offshoots worldwide, according to a copy of the bill obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2025 adopts "a new modernized strategy" for designating the organization, which preaches terrorism against Israel, the United States, and Western governments, a fact sheet the Cruz team has distributed to Senate offices states.

While past legislative efforts focused on the organization’s nebulous global operation, the new bill employs a "bottom-up" approach that systematically sanctions the Muslim Brotherhood’s violent branches around the world. The bill centers on active terrorist organizations, creating a legal framework to designate the Muslim Brotherhood writ large as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

Previous efforts failed, the Cruz fact sheet reads, "because not all Muslim Brotherhood branches are currently violent and wouldn't therefore meet the criteria for designation." The new bill, set to be introduced on Tuesday, instructs the secretary of state to "catalog Muslim Brotherhood branches that are designated as terrorist groups and designate additional ones that meet relevant criteria—and mandates the designation of the global Muslim Brotherhood for its support to those terrorist groups."

This approach, congressional sources told the Free Beacon, draws from President Donald Trump’s successful 2017 bid to sanction Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which employs tactics similar to those used by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Trump administration created the legal justification to designate the IRGC as an FTO by targeting the group’s violent affiliates.

The governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. White House and congressional officials during Trump’s first term began laying the groundwork to sanction the Muslim Brotherhood’s global affiliates, but a formal designation never materialized. Momentum has built over the past few months for Congress to revisit the issue with Trump back in office, as the Free Beacon first reported in June.

Cruz’s legislation has early support from several GOP senators, including John Boozman (Ark.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Dave McCormick (Pa.), Ashley Moody (Fla.), and Rick Scott (Fla.). The bill also has endorsements from groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Christians United for Israel (CUFI), and the Foundation for Defense of Democracy’s advocacy arm, FDD Action.

AIPAC said in a statement that it supports the bill, noting that the Muslim Brotherhood "has backed Hamas and other groups that use terrorism to attack U.S. allies and interests across the Middle East," while FDD Action director of government relations Alexandria Paolozzi told the Free Beacon that "as the U.S. works to foster a new era of cooperation in the Middle East, it must stand with its partners in the region to hold accountable those who promote terror and extremist ideologies."

Sandra Hagee Parker, chairwoman of the CUFI Action Fund, said that "the Muslim Brotherhood’s unique network requires a modern approach to law enforcement and this bill enables exactly that."

Once Cruz formally files the legislation, broad GOP majorities will likely rally behind it in the House and Senate. Arab allies also appear ready to back the initiative, with one official telling the Free Beacon in June that "any of the countries in the Middle East that have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization would welcome the United States doing the same."

One source familiar with Cruz’s thinking on the bill said the senator "deliberately and extensively workshopped [the bill] so that it could become law."

"Cruz got it to a place where it was both in line with President Trump's priorities while still being bipartisan," the source explained. "The goal is to get it passed and implemented."

Cruz’s legislation outlines three primarily vehicles to designate the Muslim Brotherhood’s global operation, as well as those of its violent offshoots. These include congressional action under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (ATA), a State Department designation as an FTO, and another designation as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).

The bill effectively "does all three," according to the fact sheet and legislative text.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has 90 days after the bill passes to submit a report to Congress cataloguing "all Muslim Brotherhood branches" around the globe. The legislation instructs him to designate any identified group that meets the criteria.

The bill then authorizes a formal designation for the Muslim Brotherhood’s global operation under the 1987 ATA, creating a "primary embargo" under which Americans are banned from engaging in financial transactions with the group and rendering it services.

The legislation’s third pillar allows for sanctioning of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots for "conducting terrorism" under both the FTO and SDGT designations.

The United States has already designated multiple Muslim Brotherhood affiliates as terror groups, including Hamas, which bills itself as "one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood." Others include the Hasm Movement and Liwa al-Thawra, which the State Department says are "associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood."

The post Ted Cruz Unveils Bill To Designate Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization, Anticipates Bipartisan Support appeared first on .

Posted by Matthew Xiao

President Donald Trump on Monday announced major developments in his policy on Russia's more than three-year-long war on Ukraine, saying that the United States will provide Ukraine with "top-of-the-line" weapons through NATO and that, if no peace deal is reached within 50 days, he will impose 100 percent tariffs on countries doing business with Russia.

NATO allies will pay for and deliver to Ukraine 17 U.S.-made Patriot missile defense systems to bolster the country's defenses against Russian attacks, Trump said during a White House meeting with NATO secretary general Mark Rutte.

Trump also said he has given Russia 50 days to end the war, threatening 100 percent tariffs on Moscow's trading partners unless Russia and Ukraine agree to a ceasefire. "We're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days," Trump said. "It's very simple, and they'll be at 100 percent."

The announcement comes as Trump ramps up pressure on Russian president Vladimir Putin amid what Secretary of State Marco Rubio called a "lack of progress" in seeking a ceasefire to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Trump has said that he is "disappointed" with Putin and that the Russian leader "talks nice but then he bombs everybody in the evening."

In addition to the Patriots, which are primarily used for defense, the Trump administration may also provide Ukraine with long-range offensive missiles capable of striking deep inside Russian territory, including Moscow, Axios reported Sunday. U.S. military aid to Ukraine so far has been limited to defensive weapons.

The post Trump Sends 'Top-of-the-Line' Weapons to Ukraine, Threatens 100 Percent Tariffs on Russia's Trading Partners appeared first on .

Сто процентов на пятьдесят дней - это будет… Это будет… Три пишем, два на ум пошло… Пошло, Наум.

Posted by Matthew Xiao

Former president Joe Biden "did not individually approve" the names of thousands of federal convicts granted clemency, instead allowing his staff to finalize the sweeping pardons and commutations using an autopen, the New York Times reported Sunday after reviewing White House internal emails.

"Mr. Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people, he and aides confirmed," the Times reported. "Rather, after extensive discussion of different possible criteria, he signed off on the standards he wanted to be used to determine which convicts would qualify for a reduction in sentence."

After Biden approved general criteria for clemency, the Bureau of Prisons submitted updates on individual inmates, leading to changes to the final list, a former aide told the Times.

"Rather than ask Mr. Biden to keep signing revised versions, his staff waited and then ran the final version through the autopen, which they saw as a routine procedure," the Times reported based on its interview with the aide.

According to the Times report, Biden's White House staff secretary, Stefanie Feldman, managed his autopen and relied on secondhand accounts of Biden's oral instructions about the clemency orders. Aides drafted the written accounts based on information relayed to them by senior advisers who met with Biden.

The revelation comes as President Donald Trump has ordered his White House counsel and attorney general to investigate Biden's mental decline and whether Biden's aides used the autopen without the former president's approval.

Near the end of his term, Biden commuted the sentences of nearly 4,000 federal convicts. Among them was Josephine Virginia Gray, who in 2002 was sentenced to 40 years in prison for murdering two husbands and a boyfriend for insurance money between 1974 and 1996, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Recent reports have shed light on Biden's mental and physical decline while in the White House. Biden appeared "extremely exhausted" and "unaware of what was happening in his own campaign" ahead of his debate last June with Trump, longtime aide Ron Klain said, according to Chris Whipple's book Uncharted. Klain had to cut short the two mock debates he had organized for Biden and was "struck by how out of touch with American politics" the then-president was.

Former White House physician Kevin O'Connor—who gave Biden clean bills of health throughout his term—refused to testify last week before House Republicans.

Biden told the Times last week that he "made every decision," saying that he asked his staff to use an autopen on the clemency warrants because "we're talking about a whole lot of people."

The post Revealed: Biden 'Did Not Individually Approve' Blanket Pardons Signed Via Autopen appeared first on .

Posted by Dan Mitchell

Part I of this series celebrated economic progress in Argentina, but noted that many more reforms are needed.

Part II explained the need to liberalize labor markets. This new video, Part III in the series, points out that Argentina needs better tax policy.

The video cites a couple of very depressing statistics.

First, a recent OECD report notes that the aggregate tax burden in Argentina is the fourth highest in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2023.

And second highest (behind only the basket case of Brazil) when looking just at Latin America.

In either case, that’s bad news for Argentina.

Especially when you consider that people are not getting good value.

Which brings us to the second grim statistic.

As I noted earlier this year, Argentina is the world’s third-worst country in the 1841 Foundation’s Tax Hell Index. Which means a country that has a heavy fiscal burden combined with very poor scores for governance (bad rule of law, for instance).

The good news is that President Milei has been very successful in reducing the burden of government spending. This should give him some leeway to lower tax rates and (as shown in the video) eliminate a wide range of nuisance taxes.

Hopefully that will soon happen, especially if Milei’s libertarian-oriented party gains seats in the mid-term elections later this year (I’m cautiously optimistic).

I’ll close with an analogy to show what’s happened in Argentina. Imagine going to a doctor and finding out you have all sorts of health problems because you weigh 400 lbs.

You decide you need to get serious (the diet-and-exercise equivalent of electing Milei) and you weigh 300 lbs. at your next appointment.

The doctor is very impressed and happy with your progress, but he reminds you that you still need to lose at least another 100 lbs.

The bottom line is that Milei has an incredible goal of turning his country into a free-market Mecca. And he deserves immense praise for what’s already been accomplished, but so much more still needs to be done.

Remember, it took the Peronists about 80 years to drive Argentina into a ditch. Even in a best-case scenario, it will take a few years to undo all their mistakes.

P.S. Never forget that 100-plus leftist economists warned that Milei would produce disaster if he became president. Have a group of people ever been so wildly wrong?

Posted by Jon Levine

New York City socialist Zohran Mamdani has pledged to target "negligent" landlords and seize their properties if elected mayor. Local real estate experts told the Washington Free Beacon the policy would mark a significant expansion of city power—and lower the quality of affordable housing for New Yorkers.

Mamdani's housing policy memo vows to punish landlords who "repeatedly put New Yorkers at risk," including by forcing them to sell their property "through a public foreclosure process." Mamdani would, in theory, have the power to do so: The mayor's office can temporarily seize buildings under New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law.

The city used that law in the 1970s and '80s amid a housing crisis to take over abandoned buildings and work with local nonprofits to rehabilitate them. Mamdani's plan, however, appears to cast a much wider net by applying the law on a "case-by-case basis" to "non-compliant" buildings rather than abandoned ones.

Mamdani says doing so will see the city turn "poor quality housing" into "deeply affordable" and "safe" homes. New York City real estate professionals disagree. They point to the poor quality of the city's already existent public housing, which is known for "dreadful living conditions" and high rates of violent crime. By "supercharging" the public housing system, New York Apartment Association CEO Kenny Burgos argued, Mamdani will reduce the quality of affordable housing, not improve it.

"The buildings that are in the worst shape right now ... are co-owned by the city," Burgos said. "And I think he’ll soon learn that these high violation counts are typically a product of the lack of revenue to cover the cost, and not because owners decide to run buildings poorly."

The New York City government already acts as landlord to more than 520,000 residents who live in the city’s famously decrepit public housing. The municipal government’s own New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) watchdog noted in December 2024 that "NYCHA remains substantially out of compliance with several mold and leak requirements," adding that "83 percent of verified mold complaints involved large mold growths." The watchdog also deemed NYCHA buildings "out of compliance" in waste management and pest control.

The state of NYCHA buildings came to national attention in 2016, when then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton visited an NYCHA unit and her look of horror went viral.

Mamdani has promised to double down on this system, pledging direct city financing of 200,000 more units. And while New York City is famous for its mega-developers, more than a quarter of the city’s housing stock is owned by small landlords with fewer than five units, according to JustFix.nyc, a technology company that tracks property ownership.

The city already has some of the most rent-friendly laws of any major city in the country. Landlords looking to boot deadbeat tenants can be mired in litigation in city housing courts for months, if not years. Mamdani’s broad-brush warning to landlords has some fearing the worst.

John Catsimatidis, owner of D'Agostino and Gristedes supermarkets and the Red Apple Group real estate company, agreed. He told the Free Beacon that Mamdani will have wide latitude to enforce his housing policies if elected mayor.

"The mayor has a lot of power," said Catsimatidis. "He could direct the district attorney, direct investigators ... he can break your nuts. [Mamdani] can certainly make life miserable. He could send the building inspectors and give you 38 violations. I worry about the overall real estate industry in New York City."

Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, has called for "seizing the means of production" and eliminating private housing altogether in favor of community ownership.

"If we want to end the housing crisis, the solution has to be moving toward the full de-commodification of housing," Mamdani said in a 2021 video for the Gravel Institute. "In other words, moving away from the status quo in which most people access housing by purchasing it on the market and toward a future where we guarantee high-quality housing to all as a human right."

Eric Dillenberger, a board member of the Small Property Owners of New York organization, told the Free Beacon that Mamdani’s housing policy seems to be an extension of his desire to end private ownership of real estate and paints a troubling picture of the future for small property owners like himself.

"When you look at it through the lens of what can only be a path to expropriation and converting private property into public ownership, it's difficult to have any level of trust in these conversations," Dillenberger said.

An Upper East Side landlady who wished to remain anonymous told the Free Beacon that she has "had tons of people call [her] and say, 'sell your place now, get out while you still can.'"

The post New York City's Public Housing Is Infamously Trashy. Zohran Mamdani Wants a Lot More of It. appeared first on .

Posted by Ethan Barton

A lawyer representing the family of the Boulder, Colo., firebomber in their deportation case has a long history of defending anti-Israel radicals, including a Yale Law School scholar who moonlit as a member of a U.S.-sanctioned terrorist fundraising organization and a Brown University faculty member who attended slain Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's funeral.

After Mohammed Soliman threw molotov cocktails at a group supporting Israeli hostages, the Trump administration moved to deport the Egyptian national’s wife, Hayam El Gamal, and five children, who overstayed their visas. Eric Lee was one of the four lawyers who came to their defense, arguing that their removal was reminiscent of Nazi Germany. A judge ruled last week that deportation proceedings against the family could continue and that they could remain detained.

For Lee, it's the latest in a long line of controversial cases that has seen the attorney take on a who's who of radical activists.

Perhaps his most well-known client is Helyeh Doutaghi, a research scholar at Yale Law School who was put on leave for moonlighting as a member of Samidoun. The U.S. government sanctioned that organization in October in an announcement that described it as a "sham charity" and a "front organization" for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a foreign-designated terrorist organization.

Samidoun’s website indicates that Doutaghi delivered a speech in Iran for a Samidoun-sponsored screening of a film honoring Lebanese terrorist Georges Abdallah. She also traveled with a Samidoun group on a 2023 "fact-finding mission" to Venezuela to observe the impact of "U.S. sanctions and coercive economic measures," and was scheduled to speak on an October panel alongside Khaled Barakat—whom the United States has also sanctioned in his capacity as a PFLP leader—though that was postponed indefinitely.

Still, during an interview on The Hill, Lee repeatedly refused to answer whether Doutaghi was a member of Samidoun, and instead compared the questioning to McCarthyism.

"‘Have you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?’ These are the types of questions that my client isn’t obligated to respond to," he said. "We do not feel as a matter of principle that it’s appropriate to put her in the position where she suddenly has to justify potential meetings she’s attended."

In addition to Doutaghi, Lee defended Rasha Alawieh, an assistant professor of medicine at Brown University who was deported after authorities found evidence she attended Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s funeral in Lebanon. He's also represented well-known student radicals on elite college campuses.

One of them, Prahlad Iyengar, was suspended from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after the university accused him of supporting terrorism in an October article, "On Pacifism," which featured PFLP flyers, argued violence is necessary in the anti-Israel movement to overcome "colonial oppression," and called peaceful protest a "charade."

"We have a duty to escalate for Palestine, and as I hope I’ve argued, the traditional pacifist strategies aren’t working because they are ‘designed into’ the system we fight against," Iyengar wrote.

Another Lee client was Momodou Taal, the Cornell University student who had his visa revoked in March after calling for the destruction of the United States and celebrating Hamas's Oct. 7 attacks. Taal sued the Trump administration over its executive order calling to expel pro-Hamas visa holders. Lee represented Taal in both the suit and the deportation proceedings.

In the suit, Lee, on Taal’s behalf, argued that the order forced him to withdraw from "public engagement" and thus "deprived" his friends "of their rights to listen" to his "ideas and suggestions." Such suggestions include a call for campus protesters to take their "cue from the armed resistance in Palestine."

But Lee’s argument became moot after a federal court ruled against the pair and rejected Taal’s requests for a protection order. Taal, a Gambian and British dual national, opted to self-deport and dropped the suit.

Lee first took on Taal as a client months earlier when Cornell suspended the student over his involvement in a September anti-Israel protest that saw keffiyeh-clad agitators violently push past police to disrupt a career fair. Lee defended 13 other students suspended for the incident, as well.

Lee has been engaged in other anti-Israel activities besides representing radical clients. During a May 31 speech before the Socialist Equality Party in London, Lee claimed that "nobody, no reasonable person, can have any idea of what type of speech is antisemitic."

He also shared X posts from Unity of Fields, a self-described "militant front against the US-NATO-zionist axis of imperialism" that has vowed to bring violence to America. The posts boasted about detainees breaking out of an ICE detention center and called for "MANY Al-AQSA FLOODS!"—referring to Hamas’s name for the terror group’s Oct. 7 attack.

Weeks later, Lee pointed out that the Declaration of Independence "asserts a right to revolution!"

Lee has long defended immigrants, even winning an award for his involvement in a 2024 Supreme Court case that he lost. He’s also been highly critical of both parties on immigration, accusing them of abandoning "their responsibility of upholding democratic rights." During the June 2024 presidential debate, Lee accused then-president Joe Biden of failing to push back against President Donald Trump "using Hitler's talking points on immigration." A month before the November election, he said the Biden-Harris administration was pandering to Trump by considering changes that would make it harder to lift asylum restrictions.

Since Trump’s election, Lee has repeatedly called for Americans to "forcefully" rise up against the president and his immigration policies, particularly in Los Angeles.

"[W]e need to sober up and realize that the only way to protect immigrants and their families is to mobilize the population," he wrote in a December op-ed in Slate while arguing that sanctuary city policies wouldn’t be sufficient to stop the federal government’s deportation plans. "Civil society must respond forcefully to defend our neighbors, friends, and democracy itself the moment that they are threatened. Lawyers, academics, teachers, labor, all must coordinate not only to fight Trump in the courts but to mobilize the schools and workplaces and the population in defense of immigrants and democratic rights."

Lee did not return a request for comment.

The post Meet the Lawyer Defending the Boulder Terrorist’s Family From Deportation appeared first on .

Posted by Andrew Kerr

California Gov. Gavin Newsom doesn’t typically get involved in disputes between rival Native American tribes. That changed last year, when Newsom used his office to try to block a small tribe from opening a casino in Northern California.

In August 2024, Newsom's office sent a letter on his behalf to the Biden Interior Department urging it to reject a $700 million proposed casino project north of San Francisco by the Koi Nation, a tribe with fewer than 100 members. But the Biden administration approved the project anyway, so in May, Newsom sued the Trump administration in a last ditch effort to block the Koi Nation’s casino. Should Newsom get his way, it would be a major win for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, a major California political donor which operates its own gambling compound just 15 miles away from its rival’s proposed site, which broke ground on a $1 billion expansion in 2023.

A little-known California government disclosure database may shed light on why Newsom took Graton Rancheria’s side in the high-stakes dispute.

In April 2024, a few months before Newsom sent his letter to the Biden Interior Department, the Democratic governor requested Graton Rancheria to contribute $500,000 to his wife’s charity, the California Partners Project. And in April 2025, one month before Newsom filed his lawsuit against the Trump administration, he again asked Graton Rancheria to contribute another $500,000 to his wife’s charity. The tribe cut those checks specifically at Newsom’s request, according to California’s "behested payments" database, which discloses whenever state elected officials request others to make donations on their behalf.

While the data doesn't show an explicit quid pro quo between Newsom and Graton Rancheria, several ethics experts told the Washington Free Beacon that Newsom’s charitable solicitations from the tribe to his wife’s charity just before he used the powers of his office to try to block its rival from opening a competing casino raises major red flags.

"Any reasonably objective person would conclude this looks horrible," said Kendra Arnold, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust watchdog group.

And it’s hardly the only time Newsom has taken action to benefit donors just after he secured their contributions to charities connected to him and his wife, according to a Free Beacon review of the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s "Behested Payments" database.

Newsom’s appointee to head that commission, Adam E. Silver, said in November the state discloses "behested" payments "because they’re considered a payment to influence that could impact a governmental decision."

Graton Rancheria has fiercely opposed the Koi Nation’s proposed project on the grounds it lacks ancestral ties to the land—an argument Newsom repeated verbatim in his written appeal to the Biden administration. The Koi Nation, however, says its roots to the land date back 3,000 years, and said Newsom’s opposition to its proposed casino reflects a "fundamental misunderstanding of federal law." Graton Rancheria, the small tribe says, is just trying to stave off economic competition to its existing casino. Newsom has not "behested" any charitable contributions from the Koi Nation.

Ethics watchdog Michael Chamberlain, the director of Protect the Public's Trust, said the favors Newsom performed for Graton Rancheria may have run afoul of a California state law that requires state officials to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.

"This is very troubling and likely warrants further investigation by authorities," Chamberlain said.

Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, doesn’t take a salary from the California Partners Project, but it works closely with her government office and serves an integral role in her efforts to force gender equity in private corporate boards. The charity runs a tight budget—from its founding in 2020 through 2023, the California Partners Project raised $2.7 million but ended 2023 with just $184,000 in the bank, according to its tax disclosures.

Siebel Newsom has her husband to thank for keeping the lights on at her charity. Newsom "behested" $2.4 million to the California Partners Project from 2020 through 2023 from a variety of organizations with business interests in California, including a total of $1.8 million from Graton Rancheria and $100,000 from the now-defunct Silicon Valley Bank.

"The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria has a long history of giving to local, regional, and statewide causes that work to improve the lives of Californians," said Graton Rancheria chairman Greg Sarris. "In that vein, we are proud of the strong support we have provided annually to the California Partners Project since 2022."

Newsom has performed other political favors after "behesting" contributions from companies with business in his state.

On Sept. 3, 2024, for example, Newsom "behested" a $25,000 contribution from CVS at the same time the pharmacy giant lobbied Newsom’s office against a bill that would have cracked down on pharmacy benefit managers. CVS cut its check to the California Protocol Foundation, a charity that pays for Newsom’s out-of-state and overseas travel.

Newsom vetoed that same bill just a few weeks later on Sept. 28. A CVS spokesman praised Newsom for his "thoughtful approach" to the drug supply chain issue, and the company’s stock spiked nearly 3 percent at the open of the next market day on Sept. 30.

CVS spokeswoman Amy Thibault told the Free Beacon its donation to the California Protocol Foundation "was not related to any legislative outcome."

Newsom has "behested" nearly $6 million to the California Protocol Foundation from private corporations such as CVS and activist groups with business interests in California since he became governor in 2019. Newsom has put those funds to good use. In January 2020,  the Protocol Foundation gifted $8,799 to Newsom so he could "represent the State of California" at Super Bowl LIV in Miami, according to state disclosure records first reported here.

Later, in February 2023, the Protocol Foundation gifted another $3,595 to Newsom so he could attend a "whale-watching tour" in Baja, California, while his constituents were still reeling from a string of devastating winter storms.

Newsom also had the Protocol Foundation pay for roughly 100 "burner" phones that he mailed to prominent California tech CEOs, Politico reported in March. The phones were pre-programmed with Newsom’s phone number and came packaged with notes from the governor that read: "If you ever need anything, I’m a phone call away."

Newsom also has a history of failing to report his "behested payments" to the public. The governor paid a $13,000 fine in November for failing to report $14 million in "behested" contributions that major corporations including T-Mobile, Amazon, and Microsoft made at his request between 2018 and 2024.

One of Newsom’s charitable benefactors didn’t have to wait more than two weeks to score a victory after donating to his wife’s charity at the governor’s request. On Feb. 27, 2024, for example, Newsom "behested" $99,000 from the Central Valley Community Foundation to the California Partners Project. Nine days later, Newsom awarded a $14 million no-bid contract to the Central Valley Community Foundation to administer part of a state jobs-building program.

"The sheer amount of cash combined with the nature and timing of government activity, is eye-catching—especially when unexpected windfalls are benefiting the contributors," said Caitlin Sutherland, the executive director of Americans for Public Trust. "It’s past time for this cash flow to fall under intense scrutiny."

The Central Valley Community Foundation did not return a request for comment.

Newsom wouldn’t be the first Democratic governor to come under investigation over an alleged "pay-to-play scheme."

Arizona attorney general Kris Mayes, a Democrat, launched an investigation against Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs in 2024 after her administration approved a 60 percent rate increase to a residential care provider just after the company donated a total of $400,000 to her campaign and the Arizona Democratic Party.

Newsom’s office did not return a request for comment.

The post Corporate Donors Gave Big to a Newsom Family Charity. Then the California Governor Took Their Side on State Issues. appeared first on .

(no subject)

Jul. 14th, 2025 07:54 am[syndicated profile] amigofriend_feed
Будучи в Видовиче (давненько не), мимоккролетал беркут, гонимый вороной. Далековато, кадры не, но хотя бы очевидно что таки беркут.

Posted by Dan Mitchell

I shared four columns of statism satire last year (here, here, here, and here), but only one column so far this year.

So time to catch up.

We’ll start today with a look at how many leftists think.

Since we’re on the topic of tax increases, this next meme also captures the mindset of many statists. They mostly care about being spiteful against success rather than focusing on helping the less fortunate.

Very similar to my Eighth Theorem of Government.

Our third item is also about the thought process of folks on the left (though this also could apply to some right wingers as well).

Our fourth bit of satire is amusing, but also makes a serious point. We think of government as necessary because there are bad people in the world.

But what happens when bad people control the levers of power?

For what it’s worth, America’s Founding Fathers tried to avert the problem by limiting the powers of Washington.

That approach was reasonably successful for about 140 years.

Per tradition, I’ve saved the best for last.

This meme is especially amusing because I was at a softball field many decades ago where a nearby port-a-potty had recently caught fire.

When the wind blew the wrong way, it was one of the worst olfactory experiences of my life, rivaled only by something that happened back in 2010.

Posted by Andrew Ferguson

A long time ago, in a media environment far, far away, an editor walked into my office and dropped a pile of books by Dave Barry on my desk. "Here’s an idea," he said. "Read these and figure out how he does it."

At the time, Barry was a weekly humor columnist at the Miami Herald, which, at the time, was a newspaper. By tradition, humor columns in newspapers were pretty dreary. For one thing, labeling any piece of writing "humor" discourages discerning readers from finding it funny; discerning readers like to decide these things for themselves. Beyond this terrible handicap, newspaper humorists shared a problem with their employers: They had to satisfy, or at least not offend, a large enough audience to stay in business, which encouraged a timidity and blandness that made humor nearly impossible. Too much humor could get a humorist fired.

Dave Barry was different. Dave Barry was funny—and not just funny but consistently funny, line by line and paragraph to paragraph, week after week. Yet he was astonishingly popular. By the late 1980s, the Herald was syndicating his column to more than 500 newspapers. (Yes! The world once contained 500 newspapers!) A TV network created a situation comedy about him, Dave’s World, which ran for four seasons. Even more: He was awarded a Pulitzer Prize. A Pulitzer itself is nearly meaningless as a measure of quality—Thomas L. Friedman has won three of them—but anyone who can get a laugh out of the self-important, humor-impaired stiffs who sit on Pulitzer committees deserves a prize. You might as well try to jolly up a board of oncologists or the docents at the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Barry seemed to be a magician. I didn’t know anyone who didn’t like his stuff. My editor’s idea of trying to figure out what made it tick technically, isolating the elements that combined in a Barry joke to combust into belly laughs, struck me as a fine assignment. It would be a public service.

And then I tried to do it.

I didn’t get very far. Even I could see what he didn’t do. He avoided the cheapest kind of humor tricks, usually steering clear of the grosser bodily processes or the tawdry shock of blue language. He never used dialect, another wheeze of the flailing funny man. He didn’t play the fool the way other "humorists" often did, pretending to an ignorance he didn’t possess.

I did eventually put my finger on one of his devices. Barry had mastered a certain kind of bureaucratic tone common to business and government. It’s an idiom puffed up by the bureaucrats’ self-importance and their sneaking suspicion that their own work, described plainly, would sound stupid, or at least unimpressive. (Verbal inflation, for example, is what leads a communications hack at Kraft Foods to describe its sliced cheese as "Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Product.") This insight of mine, brilliant as it was, even prompted me to use the word "periphrasis."

That’s when I gave up. The moment you use the word periphrasis in an article about humor writing, it’s time to admit defeat.

It was only later that I recalled the famous line of E.B. White in his essay, "Some Remarks on Humor": "Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind." Therefore, in what remains [checks word count] of this review, I will forgo analysis in favor of an earnest plea that you read Dave Barry’s new book, Class Clown.

Class Clown is a full-blown memoir, making it unique among the long shelf of Barry’s books—a corpus that has now grown beyond the usual collections of columns to include a dozen novels, notably the Starcatchers series of fantasy tales, which is popular with people who can tolerate a series of fantasy tales. But it’s more than a memoir, as all good memoirs are. It also offers a critique of showbiz phoniness, a guide to good writing, a charming re-creation of suburban U.S.A. in the 1950s, an exploration of the relationship between celebrities and their fans, and a history of journalism, especially political journalism, over the last 40 years.

Barry came to newspapering the way lots of journalists once did, with no professional training or idea of what he was doing. He dabbled at his college paper before graduating college in 1969—"a truly shitty time for America," as he rightly notes. He hoped vaguely for a job that had to do with writing and eventually, through a friend, landed one as a reporter on a small suburban paper outside Philadelphia. Within a few months, as he also rightly notes, he had learned everything he needed to know to become a journalist. It’s not particle physics.

He is very good at evoking the pre-digital newsroom. "I loved the chaotic noise of the newsroom as deadline approached—typewriters clattering; police and fire radios sporadically blaring out staticky transmissions; editors calling out ‘Who’s up for an obit?’; reporters occasionally, for a wide variety of reasons, yelling ‘Fuck!’" Things are much quieter now.

As much fun as reporting was, he left the trade through a series of professional miscalculations and took a job as a writing instructor, giving tutorials to eager but not terribly literate businesspeople. What might have seemed like a career blunder proved invaluable. Journalism is at once the most outward-facing and the most insular trade there is. As a reporter, he writes, "I assumed that business was boring and monolithic, and that the employees were mostly drones doing mindless jobs, unlike us English majors in journalism keeping democracy alive by covering the regional sewage authority."

Pretty quick, though, he discovered what most normal, non-journalistic people know: "the business world, although it can be boring, is also fantastically varied and complex, and it’s inhabited by all kinds of people, including smart, funny, creative and subversive ones." This understanding of how most Americans make their ordinary way in our commercial republic struck him with the force of a revelation—one all too rare in the news business. It enlarged the scope of his sympathy without dulling his sense of the absurd. It was the making of him as a writer.

He began writing humor pieces on spec and sending them around to newspapers, and before long, the Herald offered him a full-time job. His editors gave him a long leash, even sending him to cover real events like a real reporter, with no obligation not to make fun of what was happening. Barry’s reported pieces were among his funniest, even when he was making it up.

He had a special feel for electoral politics. In 2008, he went to a rally for Barack Obama in New Hampshire: "People were cheering, chanting and throwing their underwear at him. And those were just the journalists." Later in the same campaign, Sarah Palin burst on the scene as John McCain’s running mate. No one was quite sure how this happened.

"McCain’s staff insists that it conducted a thorough investigation of Palin, which included not only inspecting her driver’s license, but also, according to a campaign spokesperson, ‘reading almost her entire Wikipedia article.’"

There’s an uncharacteristic tone of wistfulness when Barry describes the low state of contemporary political journalism. He is particularly dismayed at the mainstream press’s treatment of Donald Trump, "going after [him] more aggressively than we go after his opponents, and downplaying news that might benefit him."

Even those of us who, like Barry, know that Trump is a "narcissistic jerk and a liar" know this is bad news for the news business. "When the public sees us taking sides—and the public definitely sees it—we lose the only reason we had any influence with the public in the first place: our credibility. We become just another partisan voice in a cacophonous chorus, one more basement blogger." The credibility, he thinks, is gone forever, and he’s probably right.

If all this sounds long-faced, then I’m misrepresenting the book. A little wistfulness is excusable in a memoir, and Barry is quickly off to other matters, like exploding toilets, inflammable underwear, and—the Holy Grail of humor—boogers. He quotes himself liberally, making the memoir a kind of "greatest hits" collection in disguise and offering readers a chance to survey his work over nearly half a century. It turns out, upon rereading, that I was wrong those many years ago about Dave Barry not relying on the grosser bodily processes for his humor. There’s a ton here about the grosser bodily processes. I was right about the periphrasis, however.

Class Clown: The Memoirs of a Professional Wiseass: How I Went 77 Years Without Growing Up
by Dave Barry
Simon & Schuster, 256 pp., $28.99

Andrew Ferguson is a contributing writer at the Atlantic and nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The post A Funny Thing About Dave Barry appeared first on .

Posted by Michael M. Rosen

In publishing, as in much of life, timing is everything. And by that measure, if by no other, Iran’s Grand Strategy, Vali Nasr’s latest analysis of the Islamic Republic, is a smashing success.

First available just two short weeks before Israel’s stunningly successful aerial campaign against the mullahs, Nasr’s book attempts—but fails—to frame the Islamic Republic as having "evolved into a prototypical nation-state" whose "aims are now secular in nature."

To Nasr, a professor and distinguished Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies who emigrated from Iran to the United States after the ayatollahs seized power in 1979, Islam is merely "an instrument in the hands of [Iran’s] political class and military leaders to realize political and economic interests at home and define national interest abroad." Iran, he argues, is essentially a normal country following a rational path.

Yet Nasr’s analysis repeatedly undermines his own thesis, as history amply demonstrates how the regime’s insistence on religious and ideological purity has over and over again—including in its most recent humiliation by Israel—stymied the country’s political, economic, and military goals. As Henry Kissinger famously put it in 2006, "Iran has to take a decision whether it wants to be a nation or a cause"; since then, it has repeatedly opted for the cause.

Nasr begins his narration in earnest with the revolution, when the clerics overthrew the shah and kidnapped 66 American embassy employees. He concedes that "Iran’s foreign policy effectively abandoned any pragmatic considerations that could have involved engaging the United States; instead, it became a battle between good and evil."

So, too, did Ayatollah Khomeini’s determination to "export the revolution" to neighboring countries, entailing the expenditure of vast sums on proxy armies across the Levant, short-circuit any reasonable prospects of economic and political success. The absurd nine-year-long Iran-Iraq war, which claimed over one million lives and resulted in no territorial gains, served to consolidate the clerics’ viselike grip on the country and calcify its combative approach to foreign policy. Far from practical, Khomeini announced that "the path to Jerusalem ran through Karbala," a city in Iraq.

His successor as supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has proven even more conceptually rigid. Nasr observes that Khamenei regarded the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the consequence of the dissipation of ideological vigilance and embrace of Western liberal ideas in its stead" and, accordingly, has steadfastly resisted any meaningful efforts at political or religious reform. He repeatedly crossed swords with would-be reformers within the regime, and he always prevailed. Nasr notes that, decades ago, Khamenei articulated a set of industrial, economic, cultural, and technological targets to be reached 20 years hence but candidly acknowledges that "Iran has not progressed on the goals of its Vision 2025."

In the 2000s, Iran turned toward developing its nuclear program, which Nasr unconvincingly claims "was motivated not by ideology but rather by deterrence and Tehran’s pursuit of national interest." The chaos wrought by the Iraq war spurred the mullahs to implement a costly strategy of "forward defense," i.e., empowering and arming Shiite militias across the border, who targeted American troops, and in Lebanon, where Hezbollah, whose leader vowed loyalty to Khamenei, menaced Israelis.

Soon thereafter, the ayatollahs invested heavily in shoring up the regime in Syria led by Basher al-Assad, a member of a Shiite offshoot, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, a Shiite group destabilizing another impoverished Arab country. Both adventures led the Islamic Republic more deeply into military and economic dependence on Russia. In parallel, the clerics cleverly advanced their nuclear ambitions diplomatically and scientifically, as a 2015 international agreement appeared more or less to ratify Iran’s self-proclaimed right to enrich uranium. And, at home, the regime continued to batter a struggling democratic opposition.

Things began to turn in 2018, when President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal and successfully targeted the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Russia’s war in Ukraine drained Moscow’s resources and commitments to Tehran. Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel resulted in the pulverization of Hezbollah, which in turn collapsed the regime in Syria. Stripped of its proxies, the Islamic Republic’s leadership, nuclear sites, and ballistic missile facilities proved fatally vulnerable to Israeli airborne attacks in June. And now the regime itself teeters; the cause has subverted the nation.

Perhaps the most apt metaphor illustrating how the clerics’ slavish devotion to its genocidal ideology sabotages its objectives can be found in the "Doomsday Clock" the regime established in central Tehran, counting down the moments until 2040 when Israel will be destroyed. That clock went offline in 2021 amid massive nationwide power outages, and it was destroyed by an Israeli missile last month.

Apart from this basic misperception, Iran’s Grand Strategy suffers from other mischaracterizations. Nasr writes that "on October 7, 2023, the Palestinian group Hamas launched an audacious attack on Israeli towns and kibbutzim" without acknowledging what kind of group Hamas is (terroristic, bloodthirsty, merciless) or what kind of "audacious" attack it launched (a massacre of hundreds of women, children, elderly, and other innocent Israelis).

He also trumpets the "bold manifestation of the ascendance of the Axis of Resistance" that was "formed and backed by Iran" and that stretches through Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon without noting that Israel has over the past two years systematically dismantled and humbled that Axis. (Elsewhere, he labels as terrorism some of Iran’s activities abroad.) Less consequentially, yet embarrassingly, he also misattributes to John Lewis Gaddis Isaiah Berlin’s famous metaphor of the hedgehog and the fox.

To his credit, Nasr challenges the regnant progressive assumption that the Western powers engineered the 1953 coup that ousted the leftist prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh. "There is," he argues, "sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the idea that Washington and London acted as puppet masters deftly manipulating the street." He’s also unafraid to fault Mossadegh himself for his stubborn refusal to compromise. And he’s willing to criticize the regime for its repeated suppression of human rights, recognizing the "yawning chasm between state and society."

Indeed, Nasr does identify one notable Iranian leader who managed to unify the nation in a manner that was "nothing short of miraculous," but that leader was no mullah. He was Reza Shah Pahlavi, who in the 1920s "restored Iran’s territorial integrity, ended the chaos and decay, and built fundamental institutions for a modern state to propel commerce and industrialization."

Then, too, at times Nasr appears to appreciate how the mullahs’ ideology has reigned supreme. "The Islamic Republic’s wrongheaded pursuit of independence," Nasr admits, "only accentuated the very security concerns that Iran had long worried about." These words were written before Israel laid waste to the regime’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs in the Twelve Day War.

Hopefully now, at long last, the brave people of Iran shake off the ideological straitjacket the mullahs have used to restrain their subjects and achieve the freedom and prosperity they so richly deserve. Then, and only then, can Iran again become a normal country.

Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History
by Vali Nasr
Princeton University Press, 408 pp., $35

Michael M. Rosen is an attorney and writer in Israel, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of Like Silicon From Clay: What Ancient Jewish Wisdom Can Teach Us About AI.

The post Twilight of the Mullahs? appeared first on .

Posted by Jay Nordlinger

Man is a ranking animal. He is not content for there to be a multiplicity of greats, all of roughly equal worth. No, there must be a No. 1, a No. 2, a No. 3... Man must rank.

When I was in college, I took a class from the anthropologist Richard Wrangham. I can’t remember what compelled him to say it, but he said, "Anthropologists are not ranked like tennis players, you know."

Who is currently the No. 1 in tennis, by the way? Jannik Sinner. But that doesn’t mean he’s the GOAT, i.e., the Greatest of All Time. That would be Federer, or Djokovic, or Nadal. Or Laver, or Serena…

The ranking fever certainly exists in music. Mozart or Beethoven? Or Bach? In the middle of the 20th century, who was the No. 1 pianist, Rubinstein or Horowitz? Who was the No. 1 soprano, Callas or Tebaldi? A little later, who was the No. 1 tenor, Pavarotti or Domingo?

Couldn’t you appreciate them all, for their various gifts? No fair. The ranking imperative must prevail.

The sports world is aflame with ranking. In basketball, who is the GOAT, Michael or LeBron? In golf, is it Jack or Tiger?

I always say, "I’m not a ranker," sometimes as a prelude to going ahead and ranking anyway. This parlor game is hard to resist. Generally, though, I’m of the school that says, "All an athlete can do is dominate his era. He can’t compete against those who have come before him and he can’t compete against those who will come after. All he can do is dominate his own time."

Bobby Jones, the golf legend, said essentially the same thing. He said it in 1953, when Ben Hogan was dominating the world of golf (as Jones himself once had). Michael Arkush quotes Jones more than once—agreeing with him and kicking against him at the same time.

He does it in his new book, The Golf 100: A Spirited Ranking of the Greatest Players of All Time. He starts with No. 100 and counts down to No. 1. Such ranking is "an impossible task," as he readily concedes. But this does not daunt or deter him.

There is subjectivity involved, needless to say. But there is also a method to the author’s madness. He has a point system. He awards 2,000 points for each victory in a major, 500 points for second place, 250 for third…

"Major"? Yes, there are four major tournaments, namely the U.S. Open, the British Open, the Masters, and the PGA. In days gone by, the U.S. Amateur and the British Amateur were considered majors.

We used to say that Jack Nicklaus had 20 majors—18 "professional majors" and 2 U.S. Ams. But if Jack has 20, Tiger Woods has 18: 15 professional ones and 3 U.S. Ams. You know when people started saying Jack had 18, instead of 20? About the time Tiger came along, I think.

In The Golf 100, Michael Arkush says that Jack still regards his record as 20—20 majors. And Arkush agrees with him. Which is fine with me: except, in that case, you have to bump Tiger up three.

I have long been uncomfortable with "majoritis," as I call it: a concentration on majors as the be-all, end-all in golf. They are important, yes, but there are other tournaments, other measures, too.

Take Colin Montgomerie. He never won a major—but he finished second in five of them. He won 54 professional tournaments. He was the leading player on the European Tour in eight seasons, including seven in a row.

I think of the players who have won one major, only. I would disparage none of them (heaven knows). But Montgomerie was a better player, and had a better career, than many of them. Most of them? Possibly.

But I could get lost in the weeds of a parlor game…

Arkush, a veteran sportswriter, begins with John McDermott, his No. 100. McDermott won the U.S. Open in 1911 and again the next year. And the author’s No. 1? Is it Jack or Tiger? We’ll get to that soon.

But look: You can ignore all the ranking, if you wish. The ranking is just a "hook," a gimmick, if you like. Arkush has produced a collection of 100 articles about golfers: brief lives, mini-bios. They are wonderful. They are full of charm and intelligence. Arkush has read widely, and he has interviewed many of the players themselves.

His tone is conversational, as when he introduces his No. 8, "The Haig": "I love the stories about the larger-than-life Walter Hagen. Check out this one, for starters."

Years ago—55 years ago—there was a movie called Five Easy Pieces. Arkush offers 100 breezy pieces, and they go down easy.

The story of John McDermott is actually more poignant than breezy. After his golf glory, when he was still in his mid-20s, he was confined to a mental institution. The following passage is one of the most affecting in the book:

In 1928, Hagen played with him on a short six-hole course on the hospital grounds. His swing, according to Hagen, was "as fluid as ever."

Roberto De Vicenzo (No. 99) is best known for a mistake, unfortunately: He signed an incorrect scorecard at the 1968 Masters, costing him a chance to win in a playoff. But Arkush reminds us that De Vicenzo won the British Open the year before. At the age of 44, he beat the defending champion, Jack Nicklaus, by two strokes. Jack was in his prime, age 27. Roberto De Vicenzo was an amazing golfer.

Practitioners in one field can remind you of practitioners in another. Arkush quotes Ben Hogan (No. 4), who, in his retirement, said that he had seldom taken a day off practice. If he took three days off, it took him a long while to get back to form. "I had to practice and play all the time."

I thought of the aforementioned pianist Vladimir Horowitz: "If I take a day off practicing, I know it. If I take two days off, my colleagues know it. If I take three days off, the public knows it."

May I report that Mr. Arkush shares many of my biases, and crotchets, and that this delights me? He knows that the Senior Tour is really "the Senior Tour," no matter that they call it "the Champions Tour." He knows the person you are paired with in a tournament is your "playing partner," not acceding to the modern "fellow competitor."

He is irreligious about the Masters. The authorities at that tournament insist that you refer to the gallery, or the spectators, as "patrons." Arkush thinks this is silly. And he thinks the FedEx Cup is a farce.

Last but not least—oh, not least—he calls the British Open "the British Open," not "the Open Championship." He will say "the Open"—about either the U.S. tournament or the British one—when the context is clear.

Halleloo.

I have some bones to pick. I’ll give you two. In his section on Tom Watson (No. 12), Arkush writes, "Watson also made a key discovery during an event later that year in Japan"—a discovery about his swing. What it was, Arkush does not disclose.

And in my opinion, he makes too much sport of Jean van de Velde, for his meltdown on the final hole of the 1999 British Open. (He does this when writing about Padraig Harrington, his No. 96.) Yes, van de Velde blew a three-shot lead. But his up-and-down from the bunker, to get into a playoff, was one of the bravest up-and-downs we have ever seen, given what had transpired.

In the spirit of David Letterman, let’s go to the Top Ten. For Arkush, No. 10 is Harry Vardon. No. 9 is Byron Nelson. No. 8 is Hagen, No. 7 Sam Snead. Nos. 6 through 3 are Mickey Wright, Arnold Palmer, Hogan, and Jones.

So, Jack or Tiger? A common view is this: Tiger Woods played the best golf that has ever been played (in the 2000 U.S. Open, for example, where he beat the field by 15 shots). But Nicklaus, overall, had the better career. He is the greater "champion."

Pivot to another game for a second. In September 2024, during its 100th-anniversary gala, the World Chess Federation crowned Magnus Carlsen the GOAT. When he stepped to the podium, the man himself demurred.

"I am of course happy to get this award," said Carlsen, "but in my personal opinion, I still think Garry had a better chess career than I have." (That would be Garry Kasparov, Carlsen’s great predecessor.) "I understand why I got this award, but he was more deserving."

Back to Jack and Tiger. Michael Arkush shares the above-stated "common view." His No. 1 is Jack. He also says that Tiger "underachieved"—did not get the most out of his talent, owing to injuries, etc.—which I believe is true.

But, oh, what he achieved. Can we start with six straight U.S. Golf Association tournaments? Three U.S. Juniors and three U.S. Ams? And that is before he reaches the pros…

You may wonder about my own view of Jack versus Tiger. Forgive me for playing what may seem like dodgeball, but I don’t really know. I go back and forth. They are both so great—in a league of their own, practically.

Over and over, Arkush pleads that his list, his ranking, is imperfect. But again, you can ignore the ranking, as I (largely) did. The Golf 100 is a splendid book about golf and its outstanding figures.

The Golf 100: A Spirited Ranking of the Greatest Players of All Time
by Michael Arkush
Doubleday, 384 pp., $30

Jay Nordlinger writes at Onward and Upward on Substack and is the music critic of the New Criterion.

The post A Ranking of Major Proportions appeared first on .

Profile

ave_pequena: (Default)
ave_pequena

July 2024

S M T W T F S
 1234 56
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Page Summary

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags