Sinwar Killed
Plus: Cognitive repairment, creative voting from Brooklynites, who we vote for here at Reason, and more...
A massive IDF victory: Yesterday, Israeli forces confirmed that they killed Hamas' leader, Yahya Sinwar, on Wednesday. Sinwar was believed to be directing the terrorist group's military operations.
He was killed in a firefight between Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and Hamas militants, along with two others. DNA samples, plus dental records and fingerprints, confirmed that the initially unidentified body was, in fact, Sinwar. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refrained from declaring victory; the dozens of remaining hostages must still be returned, and Netanyahu (along with his political allies) maintain that total elimination of Hamas is still the goal.
Hamas leaders who remain, whose whereabouts are in some cases unknown but who are believed to be alive, include Khaled Mashal, a former political leader of Hamas; Khalil al-Hayya, the deputy leader of Hamas in Gaza (who hides out in Qatar); Mousa Abu Marzouk, who exercises political influence; and Mohammad Deif, the commander of Hamas's military, per The New York Times.
Still, some Israelis and Gazans hope that this means an end to the war is in sight; with Hamas' capacity utterly crippled, and some of its most crucial leaders assassinated, it's clear that the IDF is accomplishing a huge part of what it set out to do, even if stopping now would mean stopping short of Netanyahu's promised annihilation.
Elon Musk on the stump: "This election, I think, is going to decide the fate of America, and along with the fate of America, the fate of Western civilization," said Musk yesterday at a Pennsylvania town hall in support of Donald Trump. He's hit the campaign trail for Trump, and he's given a little shy of $75 million over the course of three months to his pro-Trump super PAC—an interesting about-face since he had formerly said, back in March, that he would not be giving any money to a presidential candidate this time around.
It's not totally clear what changed, especially since Musk had served on Trump's business advisory councils years ago, quitting in June 2017 over the president's withdrawal from the Paris climate accords. Obviously Musk is on the receiving end of government contracts that affect his SpaceX operations, and is beholden to regulations that affect the performance of his companies Tesla and Starlink; he has every incentive to favor an administration that will make it easier for him to make money. But also, Trump clearly flatters him, and may in fact be taking his insights quite seriously. Trump has mentioned appointing Musk "Secretary of Cost-Cutting" or giving him some other position in his administration.
Tomorrow night through Monday, I will be giving a series of talks throughout Pennsylvania.
If you'd like to attend one of my talks, there's no attendance fee. You just need to have signed our petition supporting free speech & right to bear arms & have voted in this election. https://t.co/2cjdY7oPtB
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 16, 2024
The explicit Musk entry into politics—first with the takeover of X and now with the Trump campaigning—means lefty environmentalists can't stomach the man anymore. "Self-identified Democrats have soured on Tesla since 2022, and that trend accelerated over the past few months, according to survey data from Morning Consult Intelligence, with unfavorable views rising to the highest level since polling began in 2016," reports Bloomberg. "On the flip side, Republicans' views of Tesla have improved." TLDR, no one has any principles, everyone is up for grabs.
As for the Harris campaign, a super PAC supporting her has started running ads that claim "billionaires like Musk can buy their way into policy change," per Bloomberg. To some degree, this is concerning. To some degree, this has always been true. And to some degree, the policies favored by Musk—slashing of regulations that hinder innovation in the space or EV industries—would just be good policies to pursue, provided it's not about entrenching his companies as deserving of special treatment while nonincumbents get screwed.
The weave, or something else? In Prescott Valley, Arizona, this past Sunday, Donald Trump spoke at one of his own rallies, but seemed to miss the plot to a greater degree than he perhaps had before. He's always been an artful rambler—he calls his speaking style "the weave"—but this speech involved more Bidenesque slipups indicative of failing cognition.
"He complained that if he mispronounced one word he would be accused of being 'cognitively impaired,'" reported The New York Times following the event. "Then, he botched the phrase by saying President [Joe] Biden was the one who was 'cognitively repaired' and referred to the election as three and a half months away, not three and a half weeks."
Scenes from New York: And now, from The New York Times, a story that will make you mad, about Brooklynites literally importing their politics elsewhere by voting using their second homes' addresses:
"Lauren B. Cramer has raised two daughters in Brooklyn, where she lives and commutes into Manhattan as a lawyer. Allen Zerkin, an adjunct professor of public service, lives just a few miles away. So does Heather Weston, an entrepreneur.
But come this Election Day, all three Brooklynites—along with five other members of their households—plan to cast their ballots to support Democrats much farther afield in closely divided swing districts in New York's Hudson Valley.
They are part of a growing set of affluent, mostly left-leaning New Yorkers taking advantage of an unusual quirk in state law that allows second-home owners to vote from their country cottages, vacation homes and Hamptons houses that just happen to dot some of the most competitive congressional districts in the country."
Don't say SFNY doesn't deliver! This is, of course, legal activity (provided they don't vote twice), but imagine how The Times would cover it if the politics were reversed and it were those loathsome Republicans doing this to swing districts that were possibly about to turn blue.
QUICK HITS
- Who are Reason staffers voting for in 2024? Read to get mad at—or delight in?—my answer, which bears shocking resemblance to that of the esteemed J.D. Tuccille.
- How's hurricane recovery going in North Carolina and Florida? For whatever reason, a lot of the mainstream media seems to have moved on from this story, but we continue to believe it's important. Zach Weissmueller and I spoke with the United Cajun Navy's Brian Trascher for our show, Just Asking Questions:
- Who would you like to see on future episodes of Just Asking Questions? Your favorite podcasting team will be in Miami for an undisclosed Thiel-world event in just a week and a half; anyone within tech or venture capital you think we should speak to? DMs are open, email is liz.wolfe@reason.com.
- "More than a half century after Neil Armstrong's giant leap for mankind, Artemis was intended to land astronauts back on the moon," reports Bloomberg. "It has so far spent nearly $100 billion without anyone getting off the ground, yet its complexity and outrageous waste are still spiraling upward. The next US president should rethink the program in its entirety."
- Ostensibly tweeted in relation to the Bret Baier interview (covered yesterday):
This is one of the things that concerns me about a Harris presidency--the major news media actually SCOLDS journalists who ask difficult questions of her. There is an open anti-accountability campaign to protect her from scrutiny. When she has power, that'll be very dangerous.
— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) October 17, 2024
