Best Of

CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?

The Millei story is a terribly sad one.

He became President of Argentina with - I believe - genuinely good intentions, and a plan to reverse much of the endemic mismanagement. Unlike his predecessors, he wanted good relations with the UK, and had no interest in the Malvinas.

Unfortunately the world economy stuttered, Argentina caught a cold, and he found himself rapidly heading down a rabbit hole.

I don't really understand these sorts of vague comments about Millei. What do you mean by a rabbit hole? As far as I can see, Millei came in to try to return the Argentinian economy to growth and get the country on a sound financial footing. He had some success - growing faster than China is a remarkable feat. He is now experiencing political headwinds at home, and currency speculators betting against the Argentinian currency abroad, and he's sought support from Trump to help get through it.

What rabbit hole? And more importantly, what would the sage commentors stroking their beards have done differently? Continued with corrupt Peronist Government and hyperinflation?

Not trying to pick on RCS, I see a lot of similar comments.

I didn't mean to be vague, let me be a bit more specific.

Soon after his election, and on the anniversary of their invasion, he gave a speech. It was by far the best speech on the subject by an Argentinian leader: he hoped that by making Argentina rich and prosperous, the people of the Falkland Islands would choose to become Argentinian, and that sovereignty reseted in their hands.

A little economic difficulties arrive... and suddenly he's giving a fire and brimstone speech at the UN about their illegal occupation.

That's going down the populist rabbit hole, rather than looking after his people via economic reforms.

Miliband's got a local problem to deal with first:

Three MPs have criticised plans for a 3,500-acre solar farm between Doncaster and Rotherham.

The project, named Whitestone Solar Farm, would stretch across a number of separate parcels of land and could power 250,000 homes.

However, local MPs John Healey, Sarah Champion and Jake Richards have all raised concerns about the size and location of the scheme.

...


Healey, Labour MP for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, told project developer Green Nation in a letter that the scheme did not meet his expectations, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

"In my view, every project must still meet three tests: it must be proportionate, it must be safe, and it must be fair - Whitestone fails all three," he said.

He said it was "the wrong scale of scheme in the wrong place".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5e246pdgzo

I'm struggling to think of ways in which the solar farm won't be safe... Solar (photovoltaic) panels are -one would think- by far the "safest" form of electricity generation. There's no swinging blades at high height; there's no radioactive byproducts; there's no high pressure, high temperature steam; there's no slag heap.

What is the safety aspect that Mr Healey is concerned about?

I mean, you can take issue regarding their cost or location or the opportunity cost of not using the location for (say) housing. But safety... I mean... what?

"According to cancer biologist David H. Nguyen, PhD, toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic."

https://www.americanexperiment.org/solar-panels-produce-tons-of-toxic-waste-literally/

Hang on.

The vast majority of those chemicals are the ones found in thin film solar panels, not the ones found in silicon photovoltaics.

Thin film solar *was* a big thing: it was cheap, but low efficiency, and was created by using deposition to put down a very thin layer of cadmium telluride (or equivalent) on top of a glass substrate.

But the collapsing price of solar photovoltaics has completely destryoed the thin film solar business.

Silicon tetrachloride is a (theoretical) risk. But it's so far up the manufacturing process, that I would be staggered if any made it into the final product. 

I think I've recommended Asianometry to you before, but if not...

https://youtube.com/@asianometry
https://www.asianometry.com/

2 experienced prosecutors looked at the case against Letitia James and decided it was insufficient to bring charges. One of these was the relevant Attorney for the district. He soon resigned before being sacked. Trump then appointed one of his personal attorneys, Halligan, to the job, someone with zero prosecution experience. She, at Trump’s instruction, launched the case against James.

You have to be drinking deeply from the well of MAGA propaganda to believe any of this is appropriate.

Halligan went to a grand jury to get an indictment. James’s great-niece testified before that jury that she lives in the house and doesn’t pay rent. The jury appears to have refused to support an indictment. It appears Halligan then tried a new grand jury, this time without the niece testifying, and managed to secure an indictment.

I struggle to understand what Trump thinks he's going to achieve with these. I always thought the Trump prosecutions were (politically) incredibly dumb. The same is true of these.

There is no way that Comey isn't going to walk.

I woulde be extremely surprised if Latetia James doesn't get the big NG too.

And there are going to be a whole bunch of real criminals who don't end up being convicted because the US attorneys' offices are hollowed out because all the career prosecutors left rather than pursue doomed cases. How is that a vote winning strategy?

what makes you think he's intending on relying on what the voters think and do?

megan kenyon reposted

Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford
Big exclusive tonight from
@patrickkmaguire
and
@Gabriel_Pogrund


Britain’s most senior civil servant is expected to be ousted within months after losing the confidence of senior figures in Downing Street

No 10 and Whitehall sources have told The Times that Sir Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, is unlikely to survive beyond January as concerns about his performance increase

Your joking....not another one....

As I understand it he was a bonkers choice. They feel they need massive refresh and rejig of how the civil service delivers and so they appointed the most dyed in the wool everything-stays-the-same candidate on the short list.

Time for Antonia Romeo?