GOP Second Debate

This debate was a sad affair. Within minutes of starting, the moderators had lost control. The participants interrupted each other and that made them all appear to be arguing children.

The first part of the debate was all about illegal immigration at the southern border. All of them saw that as the leading issue for Americans. None of them offered a reasonable solution. In all of America’s history the illegal entry has not been curtailed. Most of those entering the country are running away from places that make their lives miserable. They have decided it is worth the gamble. The question not asked or answered is how can people be induced to stay in their home countries. That is a subject does not fit into a presidential debate.

Discussions about abortion and health care were limited with none of the debaters offering solutions.

Balancing the federal budget received attention with current and former governors pointing out that they had done it in their states. None told us how they would do it if they became president.

Skipped or given little attention was the war in Ukraine or Social Security and Medicare.

Attacks on Donald Trump were limited which I found surprising.

Vox.com wrote “The candidates who showed up at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California engaged in a largely vapid exchange of canned lines and talking points, repeatedly attempting to create “moments” that didn’t quite land.”

Watching a re-run of an old movie on TCM or the Hallmark Channel would at least be entertaining.

An El Niño winter is coming. Here’s what that could mean for the US

California is a likely victim of substantial rain. NOAA has provided this graph.

Three Questions Biden Should Ask Netanyahu at Wednesday’s Meeting

By Thomas L. Friedman

New York Times Opinion Columnist

This is the shortest column I’ve ever written — because it doesn’t take long to get things in focus:

President Biden, you are meeting Wednesday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, for the first time since he returned to office in December. He’s formed the most extreme government in Israel’s history and yet your administration is considering forging a complex partnership with his coalition and Saudi Arabia. There are enormous potential benefits and risks for the United States. I hope you won’t proceed without getting satisfactory answers from Netanyahu on three key questions — so we know just what Israel, and just which Bibi, we’re dealing with:

1. Prime Minister Netanyahu, your government’s coalition agreement is the first in Israel’s history to define the annexation of the West Bank as one of its goals — or, as it says, applying Israeli “sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.” But you earlier supported the Trump Middle East peace plan that proposed dividing the West Bank, with Israel controlling roughly 30 percent and the Palestinian state getting roughly 70 percent, albeit with tight security guarantees and no contiguity. Do you intend to annex the West Bank, or will you negotiate its future disposition with the Palestinians? Yes or no? We need to know. Because if you intend to annex, all your normalization agreements with Arab states will collapse, and we will not be able to defend you in the United Nations from charges of building an apartheid state.

2. Bibi, you told your first cabinet meeting last December that your top priorities include stopping Iran’s nuclear program, as well as expanding Israel’s growing relations with the Arab world. But we saw you decide instead to prioritize a judicial coup to strip the Israeli Supreme Court of its ability to hold your government accountable. That, in turn, distracted your military leadership, fractured your air force and elite fighting units, bitterly divided your society and weakened your diplomatic alliances from Washington to Europe. Iran, meanwhile, moved in with a diplomatic offensive, patching up its ties with all your Arab neighbors and eating your lunch. Why should we make confronting Iran’s nuclear program our priority when you haven’t?

3. Prime Minister, the Saudis are ready to do something hard — normalize relations with Israel. We are doing something hard to help facilitate that — forging a mutual defense treaty with Saudi Arabia. What hard things are you ready to do vis-à-vis the Palestinians to complete the deal? It feels to us that you don’t want to take any political risks — that you want everyone to do something hard except you.

Bibi, you’re out of focus for the American people. We need to know: Who are you now?

The Jewish High Holydays

As we are celebrating another Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, it is a good time to talk about the singularly most important play/musical about Judaism. Fiddler on the Roof.

No creative work by or about Jews has ever won the hearts and imaginations of Americans so thoroughly as the musical Fiddler on the Roof.

Everyone enjoys this show, whose musical numbers—“Tradition,” “Sunrise, Sunset,” “If I Were a Rich Man,” “To Life,” “Matchmaker,” and others—not only enliven Jewish weddings but are commonly understood to represent something essential about Jews and Jewishness. Jeremy Dauber opens his new biography of Sholem Aleichem with Fiddler because Fiddler is how the beloved Yiddish author is known—if he is known at all—to English readers. “Forget Sholem Aleichem,” writes Dauber, “there’s no talking about Yiddish, his language of art, without talking about Fiddler on the Roof. There’s no talking about Jews without talking about Fiddler.” And Dauber ends the book by tracing the stages through which Sholem Aleichem’s stories of Tevye the Dairyman and his daughters were transformed by successive translators and directors into what, by the time the movie version of Fiddler was released in 1971, the New Yorker’s normally severe critic Pauline Kael would call “the most powerful movie musical ever made.”

My grandfather was a dairyman in Ukraine too. He brought his family to America around the year 1905. That was the year fictional Tevye brought his family to America.

Key takeaways from the 2023 G20 summit in New Delhi

The G20 summit proved that the largest economies in the world could agree on lots of mundane things. Essentially nothing of consequence was accomplished.

Leaders of the world’s 20 big economies ended a summit in the Indian capital on Sunday overcoming deep divisions over the war in Ukraine to produce a consensus document and move forward on issues such overhauling institutions like the World Bank.

They also formally admitted the African Union to the bloc to make the grouping more representative.

SOFTER LANGUAGE ON UKRAINE WAR

G20 nations agreed that states cannot grab territory by force and highlighted the suffering of the people of Ukraine, but avoided direct criticism of Russia for the war. The declaration was seen as an apparent softening from the position that the G20 took last year when it condemned Russia for the war and demanded that it withdraw from Ukraine.

AFRICAN UNION INSIDE THE CLUB

The 55-member African Union was formally made permanent member of the G20, on par with the European Union, in order to make the grouping more representative. Until now only South Africa was a member of the G20. The entry of the AU would provide greater voice to the Global South within the G20 where the G7 countries have long played a dominant role.

U.S., SAUDI, INDIA JOIN HANDS FOR TRANSPORT CORRIDOR

Leaders of the United States, India and Saudi Arabia among others announced plans to set up rail and ports links between the Middle East and South Asia and eventually to Europe which U.S. President Joe Biden said was a “real big deal.”

INCREMENTAL PROGRESS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The G20 leaders agreed to pursue tripling renewable energy capacity globally by 2030 and accepted the need to phase-down unabated coal power, but stopped short of setting major climate goals.

Sad News from Minnesota

There Should be an Age Limit for our Government Leaders

If you are an old news reporter (Andrea Mitchell is 76, Wolf Blitzer is 75), an old entertainer (Mick Jagger is 80) or an old plumber some might say things like “Why don’t you call it a day and retire?” Of course there is no harm if you continue to work.

But there are jobs that you are not allowed to have due to age. Commercial airlines cannot employ pilots after they reach the age of 65. Firefighters, law enforcement, and air traffic controllers have maximum age limits due to the stress in those jobs. What about those elected to office in government?

2024 Republican presidential candidate, former Governor Nikki Haley, weighed in on Senator Mitch McConnell’s recent health scare on Thursday, saying “It’s sad. No one should feel good about seeing that.” Haley went on to say that the Senate was the most privileged nursing home in the country, and she reiterated her support for mental competency tests for politicians over the age of 75.

Senator Mitch McConnell is 81. Senator Dianne Feinstein is 90. Senator Charles Grassley is 89. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is 83. There are three members of the House of Representatives over 80 years old. President Joe Biden is 80.

While all of these people have the perspective of many years of experience they also live sheltered lives today. Photo Ops do not make them knowledgeable about the impact of natural disasters. Nor do visits to factories and schools make them knowledgeable.

This report about Biden is concerning

“I have no home to go to,” said Biden, who lives at the White House on weekdays and spends most weekends in Delaware, where he has two homes.

Asked Sunday if he was saying that he’s homeless, Biden said that was not the case.

“No, I’m not homeless,” he said. “I just have one home. I have a beautiful home. I’m down here for the day because I can’t go home home.”

Donald Trump is 77. He will be 78 if elected in 2024. That is too old for the job of leader of the free world!

Just as we amended the constitution to limit presidents to two terms we now need to limit the number of terms someone can serve in the House of Representatives and the Senate. We also need an age limit for members of the Supreme Court, congress and the presidency. 75 seems like a reasonable limit.

This can only be done when congress rises above its own self interest.