I watched the movie “Society of the Snow,” about the 1972 Andes plane crash and survival

The New Neo Posted on by

First, a bit of background (if you’re unfamiliar with the story of the Andes crash, there may be a few spoilers here). I first read the definitive book on the subject, Alive, when it came out in 1974. I was transfixed by it, and agree with this assessment from The New Republic:

No one will come away unmoved by the book, and no one will be able to put it down. … There is no way of reading Alive without a heightened sense of one’s own life and its value.

The book is not only an extraordinary survival saga, but it has tremendously moving stories involving family, friendship, love, and sacrifice. It is a sort of reverse Lord of the Flies, where the cooperation among the survivors was extremely impressive, and it also contained deeply spiritual and religious elements despite its horrors.

Over the years I’ve read other books on the subject, including several written by the survivors. I’ve watched several documentaries as well. In 1993 an American movie came out on the subject, and although I was looking forward to it immensely I was sharply disappointed. It just didn’t ring true, plus it left out or truncated very important parts of the story, in particular involving the astounding trek by two of the young men who survived the initial crash.

So when I heard recently that there was a newer movie, made in 2023 in the Spanish language, and using previously-unknown Uruguayan and Argentinian actors, I was extremely eager to see it. I had to wait till I was in a certain mood, because the story is a grueling one even to watch, and from the trailer I could see it was very realistically as well as poetically done:

And so I watched the film, and I have mixed feelings about it. I would recommend it, although you need to be prepared for a harrowing journey. Compared to the previous movie it’s better. But compared to the book it simply doesn’t work for me. That surprised me, and I’ve been pondering why I found it ultimately very inferior to the book that some of the survivors thought was already inadequate.

For one thing, I think a book has the ability to give so much more background on the entire situation and the people in it, which deepens the story and its significance. Just to take one example, in the book you learn a great deal about a woman who was one of the initial survivors, Liliana Methol. But in the film she’s almost an afterthought and somewhat of a cipher. There just isn’t enough time to render each person in his or her fullness.

Plus, there are an enormous number of characters, and the actors (who look a great deal like the real life people they are representing) somewhat resemble each other, especially as the movie goes on and many become bearded and all become thinner (the actors were forced to lose weight as the film went on, for the sake of realism). It wasn’t that easy to tell them apart, and I knew a great deal about the characters already.

Films with big casts need to pay particular attention to this potential problem. I think that, for example, The Great Escape (a film favorite of mine although of a very different type), which also had a very big cast, dealt with the numbers more successfully because the protagonists were from different countries, and there were many stars in the cast and that helped the viewers remember who’s who. That movie was also about a half hour longer than Society of the Snow, and although both movies are long they both move along quite quickly because there’s so much to tell. But The Great Escape has more time in which to tell it.

In the book Alive, there’s a great deal of emphasis also on the stories of the families searching for their lost relatives; many did not give up hope, and their tales are especially moving and make the eventual reunions even more poignant and deeply felt. There was virtually none of that in the movie; you merely see reunions with parents and girlfriends which are generic because we don’t have much of the backstory.

There are many exchanges and scenes in the book that seem naturally cinematic, and some are left out of the movie. I don’t know why; it wouldn’t take much to have included them. Instead, there are repetitive scenes of the suffering endured by the survivors and their decline – as well as a tremendous emphasis on the most sensationalistic part of their story, the fact that in order to survive they very reluctantly decided they must eat the bodies of those who had died (and the living made a pact to allow the others to eat them if they died before rescue came), Any movie about this incident must deal with that fact, but I think that after a while this particular movie could have left out some of the redundancy and gone for some more of the background stories.

Most of all, I was surprised that the movie seemed to leave out or gloss over one of the most salient characteristics of the group, which is that they were Catholics and mostly believers, and that their specifically Catholic beliefs helped them endure. That is, many of them explicitly likened their eating the flesh of their dead companions to the Eucharist, although they were well aware of the differences. Instead, in the movie there was a vaguer spirituality that was emphasized. Even the part where, after the survivors returned to civilization and priests told them they would not be condemned by the Church for what they did in extremis – that entire aspect was left out. Instead, there was an almost-throwaway scene in a church at the beginning of the film, with a priest talking about the Host while some of the young men pass notes among them. Unless you already know the plot, you could easily miss its significance.

This omission and de-emphasis seems to me to be a deliberate lessening of the religious message and slant of the entire event, a trend toward the universal rather than the specific. But the specific can have a universal message, and I felt the omission keenly although I’m neither Catholic nor Christian.

The movie caused me to get out my old copy of Alive and start re-reading it. In the introduction, the author writes:

When I returned in October 1973 to show [the survivors] the manuscript of this book, some of them were disappointed by my presentation of their story. They felt that the faith and friendship which inspired them in the cordillera do not emerge from these pages. It was never my intention to underestimate these qualities, but perhaps it would be beyond the skill of any writer to express their own appreciation of what they lived through.

I think that’s an honest assessment; it’s an impossible task. Nevertheless I think that Piers Paul Read came as close to accomplishing it as anyone could. For me, he certainly came closer than any movie could.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) New icky revelations about Graham Platner to go with the old icky revelations about Graham Platner:

Shortly after Graham Platner launched his bid for a Maine Senate seat last year, his wife Amy Gertner told aides that she had seen sexually explicit texts on his phone, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The disclosure, which occurred in late August, came when aides were conducting opposition research. Gertner said she had told the campaign aide about the texts to several women, to make sure they didn’t pose a risk to her husband’s campaign, the WSJ reported.

This occurred in 2025, and the couple had been married in 2024. The texts themselves remain uncharacterized except in the very general sense of being “sexually explicit,” but I wonder if they were the sort of thing that got Anthony Weiner in trouble. Then again, the times they have a-changed. But Platner seems like one of the more repulsive candidates around, and that’s saying something.

(2) Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan won’t be running for president in 2028. I doubt she would have been a strong candidate, and she probably read the writing on the wall about that.

(3) Speaking of Michigan and candidates, the frontrunner for the Democrats, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, has this to say: he “struggles” with the question of whether Israel has the right to exist as “a Jewish state.” More here:

Abdul El Sayed, a progressive Democratic Senate candidate from Michigan, told an audience that he “struggles” to answer questions about whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

My first reaction to people who question whether Israel has “a right to exist” is usually, “Go pound sand.” Israel is a nuclear power with one of the most advanced militaries, economies, and technological infrastructures in the world. And yet, for some reason, and it’s not difficult to guess what that reason is, people are constantly pondering whether a Jewish state should exist. They exist because they fought to exist.
But El Sayed’s reasoning exposes a confused and warped worldview.

“The question becomes,” he goes on, “how do you sustain democracy if you don’t have a Jewish majority? And then to say it’s Jewish by power, are there particular offices that have to be held by Jewish people? If so, what kind of Jewish people?”

First of all, El Sayed has it backward. Israel sustains a democracy because it’s a Jewish state.

I’ll tell you how you don’t “sustain a democracy”: by giving the Palestinians a state or any “right of return” to Israel proper. That would destroy any semblance of “liberal values,” tout de suite.

Ah, so Al-Sayed is a sort of concern troll, worried about the future of Israel as a democracy – the only one in the Middle East, by the way. A Jewish state that has plenty of Muslims and Christians with full rights – unlike all the Muslim states in the area who do not allow Jews in their territory.

More here.

(4) This charming event happened recently, in which an ICE protestor threatened an ICE agent and his family, in no uncertain terms:

ICE Newark rioter: “I HAVE YOUR FACE, MOTHERF***ER”

“Your WHOLE F***ING FAMILY is DEAD!”

“Your KIDS. Your WIFE. ALL DEAD!”

This is the type of TERRORISM Democrats WANT ICE agents to face by de-masking them.

It turns out that free speech has limits, and the protester/threatener was located and arrested by the feds:

The arrest came just hours after Blanche promised the protester, who was captured on video, would be found and arrested.

“That’s a federal crime,” Blanche said on Fox News’ “The Will Cain Show” on Thursday. “Not only threatening the ICE officer — but think about how disgusting this individual is by threatening his wife and his children with death.

The guy doing the threatening was not wearing a mask, which helped authorities to identify him.

(5) Meanwhile, from New Jersey’s governor:

NJ Gov. Mikie Sherrill just caved and is siding with the anti-ICE mob at Delaney Hall. She’s now actively blocking the expansion of ICE operations and setting up a “safe zone” for protesters.

(6) Here’s a courageous woman:

Anila Ali, a Pakistan native turned fearless DC-based civil rights advocate, defiantly told The Post “nothing is deterring me” from marching in the annual event that celebrates the Jewish state – even after a Democratic socialist city councilwoman condemned Ali to hell for showing her support for Jews this week at a rally in front of Gracie Mansion.

The 58-year-old powerhouse founder of the American Muslim & Multifaith Women’s Empowerment Council said she plans to march with a few dozen Muslim supporters, including an imam and children, despite a barrage of intimidation tactics from “nefarious forces” for daring to show solidarity with Israel.

The war in Iran is a Rorschach test

The New Neo Posted on by

Or if you prefer, it’s Schrödinger’s cat.

Take your pick.of metaphors – either way, how the person sees it at the moment is more a reflection of that person’s attitude towards Trump, war, and Iran itself than any reality. Do you think Trump’s a bumbling fool? Then you probably think it’s a foolish and perhaps even evil war. Do you think Trump’s a wily old bastard with many tricks up his sleeve? Then you probably think the war has achieved a great deal towards defanging an active terrorist state bent on the destruction of the West, and you are willing to trust that Trump has no intention of undermining those gains and every intention of extending them, as well as the ability to do so.

If you’re a pacifist or isolationist and thought Trump was one too, you’re probably angry and feel betrayed. And of course, if you think Iran’s a great place and the leaders are heroes who had no evil intent and need nuclear weapons, you’re on their side.

But sooner or later, the inkblot turns into a recognizable picture. Sooner or later, the box is opened and you either observe a live cat or a dead cat. The basic question is: at what point will that happen? Some think it should have happened already. Others are willing to wait.

One of those willing to wait is Roger Kimball, who writes:

Trump held Iran’s head underwater for six weeks. He pulled it up and let it sputter while he offered the mullahs an off-ramp. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio, responding to the press, is right. “The idea that somehow this President, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd!”

Indeed. Trump is waiting impatiently while the Iranians prance and posture. The IRGC tried laying some mines in the Strait of Hormuz and: pow! The US took out the boats involved and destroyed a surface-to-air missile battery in Bandar Abbas that was targeting US warplanes. “These were defensive strikes,” a US spokesman said. “They do not indicate the ceasefire is over.”

What they do indicate is that Trump is serious about his terms.

Kimball also believes that the Iranian regime “may shatter” once “a few cracks appear.” I think “may” is doing a lot of work there. Of course it “may” shatter, but IMHO that will take more than “a few cracks.” A lot more.

Trump isn’t making a deal contingent on the regime shattering; he’s making it contingent on their cooperating on his key points. But is that even possible, and would capitulation be meaningful if they can’t be trusted? I think the answer is “no.” I think this particular regime will never yield on those points and even if they do is not to be trusted. And I think Trump, Rubio, and the rest of the American negotiators know that. That’s why the endgame is a conundrum.

NOTE: Here’s a piece about the Rorschach test. And here’s one about Schrödinger’s cat.

Graham Platner: Susan Collins made me do it!

The New Neo Posted on by

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Platner claims that Susan Collins voted to send him to Iraq; he says that explicitly in the video at the link. He also says the US “destroyed” Iraq, but when I last checked, Iraq was still a functioning country and doing at least somewhat better than it was before the war. As for Afghanistan – which he also says the US “destroyed,” it’s about the same as it was before the war, with the Taliban in charge.

But about Collins:

Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins made a mistake when she voted to “send him to Iraq.”

“We destroyed Iraq and we destroyed Afghanistan, and all the suffering, all the killing, all the dying, all the displacement — we, the United States, did that. And that I’m ashamed of.”

“The anger that I feel is for the people that sent me,” he said.

Sounds a bit John Kerry-esque, doesn’t he?

Collins replies:

“The fact is, that was Platner’s decision to serve,” Collins told The Maine Wire on Thursday, adding, “He was not drafted.”

Additionally, the GOP senator cited Platner’s decision to work for the security company Blackwater, which was investigated by the U.S. government over allegations that it violated international law.

He signed up after the war began, and he re-upped. It was entirely voluntary.

His reply? She made me do it anyway:

Now all these years later, instead of acknowledging that she was wrong, she’s decided that she’s going to blame all of us who — in our late teens and early twenties — signed up to serve our country,” he continued. “That somehow it’s our fault that she and establishment politicians like her, wanted to abuse our willingness to serve, to go send us off to fight in stupid wars that did nothing but make some people very, very rich at the expense of American taxpayer dollars.”

Some facts on Platner’s service – and recall that the Iraq War began in March of 2003:

Platner enlisted in the Marine Corps shortly after graduating from high school in 2003. He attended the Marine Corps School of Infantry, then deployed to Iraq in 2005. He served a total of eight years in the military, including three combat tours in Iraq, in areas including Ramadi and Fallujah. Asked why he served in the Iraq War after protesting it, Platner said, “I thought I could do some good. And I wanted to play soldier. I might have read too much Hemingway.”

After four years in the military, Platner enrolled at George Washington University, funded by the G.I. Bill. Shortly after starting school, he enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard and served an additional tour of duty in the war in Afghanistan. He returned to Washington in 2011, resuming classes at GWU and working as a bartender at the Tune Inn on Capitol Hill. From 2011 to 2016 he alternated between living in DC and military deployments, before withdrawing from GWU and returning to Maine in 2016 for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and other military-related injuries.

In 2018, Platner returned to Kabul, Afghanistan, for about six months as a State Department security contractor with Constellis, where he provided diplomatic security to the US Ambassador to Afghanistan.

By 2016 Platner would have been 31-32 years old.

NOTE: Here’s one of my previous posts about Platner.

See also this post by Ace about Platner.

Trump as long-form master

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an interesting take on Trump:

Trump is the only major American politician of the last forty years who was professionally formed in the long-form unstructured format before he ever entered politics. That is the entire answer. Everything else is downstream of that fact.

The standard explanations (charismatic, natural performer, good instincts) are descriptions of the result rather than explanations of the cause.

Well, sort of. He’s actually a natural at it, and then he also has honed his skills over time. It’s not either/or. But yes, he’s got more experience in the long-form interview, both hostile and friendly, than almost anyone on earth. That’s not an accident. He’s sought celebrity, and been comfortable with it, for pretty much his whole life.

I agree with a great deal of the article – for example, this:

Widely misunderstood. Trump does not actually have no filter. He has a very specific filter, calibrated over decades, that allows him to say things that sound spontaneous and unfiltered while actually being controlled performance. He says transgressive things on purpose, knowing they will land. He floats trial balloons, watches the reaction, and either commits to the position or walks it back depending on the response. The persona of being unfiltered is itself a filter.

Also this:

The credentialed class is the class of people who have internalized the institutional consequences of saying the wrong thing, and who have organized their public speech to avoid those consequences. Trump did not come up through any of those institutions. He came up in New York real estate and tabloid culture, both of which are environments where shame is a vulnerability rather than a discipline, and where the operators who succeed are the ones who have learned to act without it. He says things the credentialed class would be unable to say, not because the things are necessarily wrong, but because the credentialed class has been trained to feel an autonomic flinch before the words leave the mouth. Trump does not have the flinch.

The absence of the flinch is read by the audience as authenticity, and is read by the opposing class as proof of monstrousness.

Yes indeed. But the author follows it with this:

Both readings miss the structural fact: the flinch is a learned behavior of a specific institutional formation, and Trump did not undergo that formation.

Here’s where I have the same objection I had at the beginning: it’s not just a learned behavior, it’s in sync with Trump’s personality, although it’s also a behavior that’s been honed and refined through practice.

It occurs to me that Spencer Pratt has had some of this type of practice. Not as much as Trump but more than most, having been on reality TV a great deal. And he also didn’t come up through the normal political paths, so he didn’t learn the pussy-footing obfuscation and the art of talking while saying nothing. Here’s an example of Pratt’s skills:

Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether people without X can access these tweets and videos. If you can’t see the second one, this might help:

It’s LA, and I doubt Pratt can win. But it would be astounding if he did.

Mamdani won’t deign to attend the Israel parade in New York: the origin and spread of the “genocide” charge

The New Neo Posted on by

And really, why would he?

The story:

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani won’t be attending the city’s annual Israel Day Parade on Sunday, a break from decades-long tradition, despite attending other events celebrating the city’s diverse cultural landscape.

Since 1964, every mayor in the city has attended the Jewish celebration, which comes amid record levels of antisemitism …

Which his election has aided and abetted.

More:

Mamdani indicated that he would not attend as a matter of political principle. …

Despite his stance against Israel, the mayor has participated in other celebrations, including this year’s St. Patrick’s Day celebration, during which he compared the historic plight of the Irish to the “genocide” in Palestine amid Israel’s war with Hamas.

That’s a very popular stance in Ireland itself – the Orwellian confusion/inversion about who’s really seeking genocide, and about who really is the “colonizer.” It’s classic stuff which has caught on tremendously in recent years, as decades of propaganda launched by the USSR (see this), decades of academic indoctrination, recent increases in Muslim immigration to Western countries, constant lies in the MSM, and post-10/7 internet anti-Semitic smears have all combined to create a perfect storm. This has allowed someone like Mamdani to be elected the mayor of New York in the first place.

Israel-haters claim they’re not anti-Semitic, only anti-Israel. “Can’t we even criticize Israel?” they ask disingenuously, because of course they can. Israelis criticize Israel. But when “criticism” is over-the-top Orwellian lies and reversals of the truth, and when similar logic is applied to no other nation on earth – then anti-Israel sentiment is actually Jew-hatred. Mamdani normalizes it, but why would that be surprising, because it originated on the left in Soviet Russia.

In this 2024 post I quoted this article, and that quote bears repeating now:

The claim that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians is among the longest-running lies told about Israel. “Genocide Israeli style”; “Zionist-engineered genocide”; “the ‘final solution’ of the Palestinian question”—these may look like snippets from some recent campus proclamation, but they are not. They appeared in a Soviet pamphlet titled “Zionists Count on Terror.” Published in 1984 by Novosti, a Soviet foreign propaganda arm masquerading as a news agency, this pocket-sized brochure was meant to promote the Soviet view of Israel and Zionism to English-language audiences.

You can read more of the history in this post. Suffice to say the lessons the Soviets taught have been well-learned, and are now rampant among younger Americans and even with some who supposedly used to be on the right (Tucker, I’m talking about you).

Meanwhile, from yesterday:

Jewish New Yorkers, beware.

The same rabid anti-Israel activists who have harassed Jews at synagogues in recent weeks in violent protests, flown the flag of Hamas and Hezbollah and stomped on the Israeli flag are returning to the streets tonight at Time Square in midtown Manhattan to rage-bait Israelis and Jews attending a “Jerusalem Real Estate Expo” at Times Square.

The protest underscores how anti-Israel activist groups are continuing to escalate their pressure campaigns against pro-Israel and Jewish events across the city, despite mounting criticisms of antisemitism. Earlier this week, Jewish and Muslim leaders led a protest at Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s residence at Gracie Mansion, asking that he address the growing antisemitism in the city.

Note that at least some Muslims are against the anti-Jewish anti-Israel harassment. I assume those Muslims will be targeted as well.

More:

Community leaders say these protests put more pressure on Mamdani who joined anti-Israel protests many times before he ran for the mayor’s office. In college, he was a founding member of his school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which also seeks “the return” of Palestinians to modern-day Israel and a one-state solution that claims modern-day Israel for Palestinians, essentially destroying the state of Israel.

Exactly.

And in Brooklyn, there’s trouble in yuppie enclave Park Slope [emphasis mine]:

Israeli-made products were ripped from the shelves of the lefty Park Slope Food Coop just hours after being banned in a historic vote — prompting scores of Jewish shoppers to threaten to quit the member-run market in revolt.

Tuesday’s boycott vote — which drew over 7,000 members and passed with an overwhelming 67% in favor — went into effect immediately, with the Israeli products vanishing from the shelves by Wednesday morning. …

The nasty food fight — over about 10 goods like hummus, herbs, matzo and peanut puffs — drew condemnation from even the most liberal residents in the leafy Brooklyn enclave. …

Coop member Ramon Maislen told The Post that an informal survey prior to the vote suggested up to 1,000 members would leave if the ban passed. The market has about 15,000 members total. …

The controversy has been brewing at the Union Street coop for years, with BDS supporters claiming Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and demanding all products from the country be barred.

Sound familiar? It should.

And this ploy should feel familiar, too [emphasis mine]:

And Tuesday’s vote meeting only compounded the controversy, as it was immediately preceded by a successful vote to lower the threshold required to ban coop products from 75% in favor to 51%.

Without that threshold vote, the ban would not have passed — leaving Jewish members feeling cheated, a feeling which was also reinforced by the alleged lack of public discussion ahead of the final vote.

You may think this is a tempest in a teapot. But it’s not. It’s part of the death of a thousand cuts, proceeding apace in many countries.

Did Trump say he doesn’t care about the midterms?

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes indeed, he did say that. As commenter “huxley” writes:

Trump had better know what he is doing. Maybe he’s got it worked out that Iran collapses economically real soon. Still, it seems he is cutting it pretty close. He may say he doesn’t care about the midterms, but a lot of Americans care more about the economy than Iran.

Indeed they do, although a lot of people care about both. But gas prices are certainly more up close and personal.

What did Trump actually say, in context? This:

President Donald Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday that he isn’t concerned about making a deal soon with Iran, adding that he doesn’t “care about the midterms” in what he said he thinks is the regime’s calculation that he has to negotiate a deal before what are expected to be highly-competitive elections in November.

“They thought they were going to out-wait me, you know. ‘We’ll out-wait him. He’s got the midterms.’ I don’t care about the midterms. Look what happened last night, that was a prelude to the midterms. People understand it,” Trump said, likely referencing his endorsed candidate, Ken Paxton, winning the Senate Republican runoff in Texas. …

“Mr. President, you’ve said that you’re in no rush to make a deal, but with gas prices that are still high across the country, people are paying more for travel. Does that give you more urgency to make a deal? Why doesn’t it?” ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott asked Trump during the Cabinet meeting.

“Well, I’ll tell you, the primary urgency, I’ve said this, it wasn’t covered properly, but the primary urgency is that we can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump responded.

It’s very clearly a message to Iran that they shouldn’t believe he’s under pressure to cave because of concerns about the midterms. The press and the Trump opposition are eager to convey the message as one that says “he doesn’t care about you, he doesn’t care that you have to pay more for gas, he simply doesn’t care.” But clearly he cares; he just prioritizing the message to the Iranian leadership that they shouldn’t believe he will cave because of the midterms. Note the eagerness of questioner Rachel Scott of ABC (although she’s harely alone) to indicate that he must cave.

Trump also said this:

…[W]e’re not talking about any easing of sanctions or giving money. No sanctions, no money, no nothing,” Trump said. “We have control of money that they claim is theirs. We’ll keep control of that money. And when they behave properly and when they do what’s right, we’ll let them have their money. But right now, we’re not doing that … One thing is not contingent on the other.” …

On the status of negotiations, Trump said on Wednesday he’s “not satisfied” and that Iran is “negotiating on fumes.”

“We’re not satisfied with it, but we will be. We will be. Either that or we’ll have to just finish the job,” Trump said.

The question I would like to see answered is: so why continue to negotiate? Haven’t you given this enough time? I don’t know the true answer, but I listed my guesses in this recent post.

E. Jean Carroll is being investigated by the DOJ

The New Neo Posted on by

Why is Carroll being investigated at this late date? Apparently it’s for conspiracy and perjury about who funded her:

According to [Byron] York, the probe appears to zero in on the very origins of Carroll’s case – a story that traces back to a swanky Manhattan ‘Resistance party’ where anti-Trump operatives, deep-pocketed donors, and eager lawyers cooked up the defamation lawsuit that later ballooned into a full-blown battery claim under New York’s specially tailored Adult Survivors Act.

Carroll’s story of rape never passed the smell test, for a host of reasons I and many others have written about before. You can read York’s own effort from 2023 here. In summary: her accusations against Trump were incredibly weak and both politically and financially motivated, in addition to being a reflection of Carroll’s quest for notoriety.

But her accusations aren’t the issue now except tangentially. The issue is her funding:

If you don’t have access to X:

There’s also this, which downplays the perjury aspect and focuses on other irregularities and possible charges:

The probe is focused on a trust founded by billionaire Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, whose nonprofit helped pay some of Carroll’s legal costs, two sources said. Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, is an outspoken critic of Trump.

The crimes under investigation are possible money laundering, obstruction, and conspiracy, one of the sources said. Investigators are also looking into a possible perjury charge against Carroll related to her testimony in the lawsuits, the source said, but it’s not the main focus of the probe.

Will a prosecution come from this? I doubt it, but it’s possible.

“You can’t go back” – the fall of Constantinopole

The New Neo Posted on by

I just learned that tomorrow is the 573rd anniversary of the fall of Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire was no more, and the great city was now in the hands of the Ottoman Empire, as a result of military conquest after a siege of close to two months. It was both a religious turning point and a more general historical turning point:

The attacking Ottoman Army, significantly outnumbered Constantinople’s defenders …

The fall of Constantinople and of the Byzantine Empire was a watershed moment of the Late Middle Ages, marking the effective end of the Roman Empire, a state which began in roughly 27 BC and had lasted nearly 1,500 years. For many modern historians, the fall of Constantinople marks the end of the medieval period and the beginning of the early modern period. The city’s fall also stood as a turning point in military history. Since ancient times, cities and castles had depended upon ramparts and walls to repel invaders. The walls of Constantinople, especially the Theodosian walls, protected Constantinople from attack for 800 years and were noted as some of the most advanced defensive systems in the world at the time. However, these fortifications were overcome by Ottoman infantry with the support of gunpowder, specifically from cannons and bombards, heralding a change in siege warfare.

But I first learned about this as a child through a rather silly song, popular in 1953. I was exceedingly young, but popular music nevertheless still seeped down to me, and the song was very catchy:

“Istanbul (Not Constantinople)” is a 1953 novelty song, with lyrics by Jimmy Kennedy and music by Nat Simon. It was written on the 500th anniversary of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. The lyrics humorously refer to the official renaming of the city of Constantinople to Istanbul. The song’s original release, performed by The Four Lads, was certified as a gold record.

The lyrics can be found here, and they treat the whole thing like a light joke. Back in 1953 it must have seemed that way to most of the Western world. But who’s laughing now? An excerpt:

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it’s Turkish delight on a moonlit night
(Oh) every gal in Constantinople
(Oh) lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
(Oh) so if you’ve a date in Constantinople
(Oh) she’ll be waiting in Istanbul …

So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can’t go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks’

Actually, it’s everybody’s business these days – and by “it” we’re not talking about Constantinople/Istanbul per se. We’re talking about the Muslim world versus the Christian world (and the Jews, of course). We’re talking about various kinds of conquest and not just the military kind – perhaps not even primarily the military kind. The siege involves the human mind, and it’s been going on far longer than two months. The main fronts are academia, the press, and politics.

NOTE: Here’s the original song: