It is not accurate to write a headline that says Trump is “not ready to embrace Somaliland independence” when what he actually says in the article indicates that he has no idea what the de facto independent territory is.
| CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
expires: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 22:47:29 GMT
date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 22:47:29 GMT
cache-control: private, max-age=0
last-modified: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 13:56:35 GMT
etag: W/"5edef0af89b781340674ad68802d1750cb69993019fd3fd53db74cb339c7e4b3"
content-encoding: gzip
x-content-type-options: nosniff
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
content-length: 18212
server: GSE
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=2592000,h3-29=":443"; ma=2592000
rubber hose
Saturday, December 27, 2025
Monday, December 22, 2025
Demented President Remembers Greenland
For the past few months, it seemed like President Trump had forgotten about his weird determination to make Greenland part of the United States. But with the appointment of Jeff Landry as Special Envoy for the Illegal Seizure and Annexation of Greenland, I guess that's still on his agenda.
I have always wondered how much of this Greenland obsession is because he is fooled by the distorting effects of the Mercator projection, which makes everything in the far North look much bigger on the map than they actually are. (Greenland can look as big as South America on some maps. But if you look at the square miles of the Island it is pretty close to the size of Saudi Arabia.)
Despite Trump's protests to the contrary, the U.S. has an incredibly good deal with Denmark regarding Greenland right now. Denmark is responsible for the health care, food, and shelter of everyone in Greenland (which can be enormously expensive given its location) and the U.S. gets largely unfettered access to its military base there. If Greenland became part of the U.S., our national security situation would not change a bit (the U.S. would still have its base), but we would get the huge costs of maintaining a bunch of remote and distant civilians settlements. Plus Greenlanders hate the idea of joining the U.S., so the U.S. would also bear the brunt of whatever resistance develops.
The U.S. taking over Greenland over the overwhelming opposition of the locals is one of those ideas that only a total moron would get behind. That's America in 2025-2026!
Sunday, December 21, 2025
What does "cease-fire" mean?
This article epitomizes how the American press deals with every armed conflict that Israel has with its neighbors. In the first sentence it notes that a year ago Israel and Lebanon entered into a cease-fire. But then in the very next sentence it casually mentions that Israel has bombed Lebanese territory "on a near-daily basis."
But does it say that Israel has broken the cease-fire? Or that there isn't a cease-fire anymore? Of course not! The entire thrust of the article is about how Lebanon and Hezbollah must do more the make sure the cease-fire (which hasn't, you know, ceased Israel's fire) holds.
It is pretty clear that the authors of the article know what is going on. At one point it notes that "Hezbollah has said it no longer maintains an 'armed presence' south of the Litani River" but that north of the river, Hezbollah's forces "remain entrenched." What an odd statement, right? Why does the Litani River matter? The article never says what the significance of that river is. It certainly doesn't mention that under the cease-fire agreement Hezbollah was required to withdraw to positions north of that river. So in other words, Hezbollah seems to be abiding by at least some of the cease-fire terms while Israel is not.
Aside mentioning the fact that Israel is killing people in Lebanon on a "near-daily basis", the article also casually drops in that Israel "still occupies several sites inside Lebanese territory, despite having initially agreed to withdraw." Israeli forces haven't left Lebanon and they are still attacking people in Lebanon! I don't think there's any question that if Hezbollah so blatantly violated the terms of a cease-fire agreement that would be the focus of the article. Instead the article is framed by the question of what Hezbollah and the Lebanese government should be doing to make sure this cease-fire (again, not an actual cease-fire) continues to hold when the other side of the conflict seems to be ignoring everything it is required to do.
Most articles about Israel are like this. Reading them sends me into a weird la-la-land, where Israel freely breaks deals it makes, and the facts of how they have broken that deal are mentioned without every pointing out that Israel has, in fact, broken the deal. Instead, the onus is always on Israel's adversaries. Why aren't Israel's neighbors doing more to make sure that Israel, a country that outguns everyone else in the region and is currently being led by a bunch of racist war-enthusiastic zealots, is more safe even as they are being shot by Israel?
Saturday, December 13, 2025
Believe it or not, Trump's peace count is a little suspect
If this ceasefire holds, I bet Trump will add another number to the number of wars he claims to have ended (what would that be? 9? 10? it seems to vary every time he talks), which would be counting the Thailand-Cambodia war twice. That war was one of the 7 original wars he claimed to have ended, except it didn't end, which is why they need a new ceasefire.
Friday, December 12, 2025
How could this happen to the FIFA Peace Prize Laureate?
Oh look, more brutal combat in a war that Trump claims to have solved. This keeps happening, and yet no one questions Trump when he reflexively brings up how he ended seven or eight (or whatever number he is up to now) wars.
Thursday, December 11, 2025
The visa for rich morons
Trump can't create a new category of visa by executive order. So the question is whether the new "Trump Gold Card" is just a re-branded EB-5 visa, or if the administration is going to issue them to anyone who pays the bribe fee without requiring they comply with the requirements of an EB-5 (like creating 10 American jobs). If they ignore the EB-5 requirements than anyone who applies for this thing is in danger of later having their green card declared illegal or revoked by a future administration, and there may be an outside chance that they could be eventually prosecuted for bribery.
If I were a rich foreigner thinking of coming here, it doesn't seem like a smart choice, especially because rich people probably have other options (like the actual EB-5).
Wednesday, December 10, 2025
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)