WHEN POLITICS SUBSTITUTES FOR RELIGION: Daniel Hannan: How the Left’s hatred devoured its own election campaign. “The Left’s error was its usual one: to assume a moral superiority, to treat conservatism as a kind of mental disorder, to define the campaign as a test of voters’ ‘compassion’. As Ed Miliband kept putting it, ‘This election is about values’. Labour’s core vote lapped it up: plenty of Leftists define their ideology by whom they loathe. But others found it off-putting. In a column shortly before polling day, the actor Tom Conti explained why he had switched sides. ‘Labour, I realised, was built on hatred’.”j

Leftism generally is about hatred, and envy, masquerading as compassion.

PLEASE DRINK MORE SCOTCH. I DON’T PARTICULARLY LIKE SCOTCH, AND DON’T CARE IF THE PRICE GOES UP: Why bourbon’s incredible popularity might actually be a problem.

AS MY LAW PROFESSOR MIKE GRAETZ SAID, LAWYERS ARE PAID A LOT FOR THE SAME REASON PLUMBERS AND GARBAGEMEN ARE PAID A LOT: PEOPLE WOULDN’T DO IT FOR LESS. Lawyers With Lowest Pay Report More Happiness. Likewise, the law jobs people find satisfying are able to attract people without having to pay as much.

My colleague Ben Barton — who has a terrific book on this subject coming out soon — comments: “The headline is a little misleading, since the lowest paid lawyers work as Starbucks baristas right now. Better to say that government/public interest lawyers are happiest. The After the JD Survey actually found that lawyers working in JD required jobs in corporations were the most satisfied with their careers, even ahead of the government lawyers. Unsurprisingly, the worst off were JD holders in non-law jobs.”

LIKE RATS FLEEING A SINKING SHIP:  Liberal pundit Alan Colmes says FBI should investigate Hillary Clinton’s potential conflicts with the Clinton Foundation while serving as Secretary of State.  Ya think, Alan?

DEMS WHO WERE ALREADY ROLLING OUT THE “INFRASTRUCTURE” SHIBBOLETH WILL HAVE TO LOOK ELSEWHERE: Report: Derailed Amtrak train was traveling at more than 100 mph. In a 50 mph zone.

DIARY OF A MAD VOTER: iMessage from Madison to Olivia.

LIFE AMONG THE SAVAGES: Third blogger this year hacked to death in Bangladesh: Witnesses said four masked men chased and attacked him in broad daylight. “Assailants with cleavers and machetes on Tuesday killed another blogger in Bangladesh, the third blogger in that country murdered in as many months, the Committee to Protect Journalists said.”

Too bad he wasn’t armed.

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND:  After NOW President called President Obama “sexist” for saying Elizabeth Warren is a “politician like everybody else,”–which, by the way is redonkulous, since saying a female politician is “like everybody else” is utterly gender-neutral–Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) joined the fight, suggesting that it was calling Warren by her first name that was “disrespectful.”

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has now come to Obama’s rescue, calling the accusation “silliness.”

It’s kind of fun to watch the Democrats get all stuck to their own progressive Tar Baby.

NANOTECHNOLOGY UPDATE: How Nanomaterials Can Help Make Fuel from Sunlight.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON:  The First–and a Half–Amendment.

Among those who attack free expression the most loudly are progressives who do not like politically incorrect speech that does not further their own agendas. The term “illegal alien,” an exact description of foreign nationals who entered and reside in the United States without legal sanction, is now nearly taboo. The effort to ban the phrase is not because it is hateful or inaccurate, but because it does not euphemistically advance the supposedly noble cause of amnesties and open borders. Of course, the politically correct restrictionists have no compunction about smearing their critics with slurs such as xenophobe, racist, or nativist.

Yep–totalitarians do that sort of thing.

ROGER SIMON: Tennis Anyone? Ellison Goes Rubio.

POLL: Put Harriet Tubman On The $20 Bill.

Sure, why not? Get rid of that mass-murdering Democrat Andrew Jackson, and replace him with a gun-toting Republican!

21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: Washington woman says she was ‘well within her rights’ to shoot at husband for not doing chores. I blame our modern culture of female entitlement and impunity.

AND NOBODY CAN BLAME OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS: Democrats embarrass themselves on trade. “Stung by the accusations he usually hurls at conservatives, liberal Democrats cry sexism. . . . Is the ‘war on women’ being waged by the White House, or have Democrats become so accustomed to demonizing their opponents that they can’t engage in civil debates even among themselves? It does not speak well of the Democrats’ ability to persuade and lead. But it does portend a nonstop stream of gender bias claims in the 2016 presidential election.”

BECAUSE #DIVERSITY!:  And, you know, #tolerance!  A thought police diversity officer at Goldsmiths, University of London has once again revealed the modern progressive movements’ ugly, racist core.  I wrote about Bahar Mustafa’s nasty “no white males allowed” event at the university before.  In response to the outrage Mustafa’s previous comments triggered, she now defends herself thus:

TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 734.

CABLE NEWS: Turn Off, Tune Out:

Let’s start with the fact that cable audiences seem to be slowly but surely falling, particularly among younger viewers. There are sometimes quarterly gains, but overall, the trend is down. Fewer cable consumers means a smaller pool who might tune in CNN, MSNBC or Fox News.

People also have wildly more news sources than ever before. During the Rodney King riots on CNN 20 years ago, my whole dorm was glued to the television, because cable news was the only place you could find out what was happening in LA. During the Baltimore riots over the past month, I watched some cable, like many of you. (We boosted their ratings quite a bit.) But I could also listen to the Baltimore police scanner streaming online, get live tweets from people who were there, and read the live updates from the Baltimore Sun, which made its coverage available free. These sources told me more of what was happening, much more quickly, than cable news did; on the TV was yet another anchor remarking that people in Baltimore seemed very angry. I did watch a lot of footage of the riots that came from cable television cameras — but I watched much of it in streaming snippets, not from tuning into the television. When I did that, I did not watch any of their ads or help their ratings. This is a broad problem afflicting more than just the three major cable news networks: When was the last time you turned on the Weather Channel to find out whether it was going to rain today?

And then there’s the change in the way that people watch television. People are becoming more intentional in their viewing; instead of turning on the television to see what’s on, or planning their lives around being home on Sunday evenings at 8, they are seeking out exactly the content they want, at a time that is convenient for them. That means fewer people idly flipping through the channels. That means fewer people deciding to stop a minute to see what the talking heads have to say.

As Paul Farhi argues in the Washington Post, I think it’s going to get worse.

There’s also the fact that cable news is awful. When it’s not talking heads shouting at each other, it’s the same footage being repeated over and over, or stand-ups with people trying to make events seem more interesting than they are. Short term, this may have revved up audiences, but long-term, it’s a turnoff, and so people are turning off.

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT IN “TURMOIL”:   So says Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice N. Patrick Crooks, in a letter to U.S. District Judge James Peterson, who is overseeing former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson’s divisive and frivolous lawsuit against her fellow Justices. Crooks’ unusual letter to the presiding judge comes as a response to fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s recent affidavit filed in the case, in which Bradley (a fellow liberal) supports Abrahamson’s lawsuit and asserts the court is in “upheaval” because of uncertainty over who is Chief Justice of the court.

On April 29, 4 out of 7 Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices voted to oust Abrahamson as Chief Justice and replace her with Justice Patience Roggensack.  The Justices’ power to elect their own Chief Justice is a new power, conferred by the voters of Wisconsin by a 2014 referendum.

It’s unclear what relief Crooks’ was seeking.  He wrote to Judge Peterson,“I know that you are well aware of your authority to act based on your equitable powers. I respectfully request that you exercise such powers to set forth such a transitional plan, in order to address the chaotic situation that exists.”  Just what “equitable” relief Crooks thinks Peterson should exercise is unclear, though presumably it would not include a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the referendum, as Abrahamson has requested.  Judge Peterson has already denied Abrahamson’s request for a temporary restraining order against the new law.

If Judge Peterson is smart, he will grant the State’s motion to dismiss Abrahamson’s lawsuit with prejudice.

Stay tuned.

EUGENE VOLOKH: UVA associate dean Nicole Eramo sues Rolling Stone: an early analysis.

AT AMAZON, fresh deals on bestselling products, updated every hour.

Also, coupons galore in Grocery & Gourmet Food.

Plus, Kindle Daily Deals.

And, Today’s Featured Digital Deal. The deals are brand new every day, so browse and save!

OPERATION CHOKE POINT STRIKES AGAIN: Small Business Owner Says Bank Denied Service Because She Sells Guns. “Some Republican lawmakers allege that banks like SunTrust are actually following guidance handed down to them by federal regulators.” Operation Choke Point is a conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights, and should be treated as such.

ASHE SCHOW: Rolling Stone gang-rape author — still employed.

How does Sabrina Rubin Erdely — the author of the thoroughly discredited Rolling Stone gang-rape story — still have a job?

Erdely was not fired for her erroneous story, even after the Columbia Journalism Review released its damning report on the story. But it seems unlikely she could have a future in journalism.

A lawsuit filed by University of Virginia dean Nicole Eramo — who was vilified in the original Rolling Stone as being “indifferent” to sexual assault accusers —really lays into Erdely and her poor journalism. The lawsuit goes into detail about Erdely’s past articles and their issues, including two other Rolling Stone articles that the author apparently didn’t corroborate.

Erdely’s very first article, which won her an award from Rolling Stone while she was still in college, was completely wrong, according to Erdely herself. Eramo’s lawsuit quotes Erdely as admitting that “just about everything in the story was wrong,” and that because she failed to attend a press conference held by her subject, she just combined facts from other news outlets without verifying the claims.

Erdely’s past failure to verify facts could fit the same pattern as the University of Virginia rape story — narrative first and “facts” later.

When Erdely decided to construct her time-tested narrative of a woman’s rape followed by an institution’s indifference — this time at an American college — she went looking for an alleged victim to fit in to her predetermined story.

Eramo’s lawsuit details some of the other victims Erdely spoke to prior to settling on Jackie at U.Va. and their skepticism of Erdely. Erdely initially wanted to set her story at an Ivy League university, but she couldn’t find a victim who would fit the story she wanted to write. So she settled for a Southern university with a wealthy, white population.

Early on in her process of finding a victim to fit her narrative, Erdely spoke to Alexandra Brodsky at Yale University. At a recent panel in D.C. discussing campus sexual assault, Brodsky said that she “put [Erdely] in touch with a couple of students who had, like, normal rape stories, and none of them were good enough for her.” Brodsky added that it was “unsurprising” to her “that the story [Erdely] eventually decided to publish is one that was, like, literally sensationalized.”

Alex Pinkleton, who was interviewed for the Rolling Stone story, said she was skeptical of Erdely during their talks “because it seemed like she was unwilling to listen to anyone besides Jackie.” Pinkleton added that “[Erdely] did have an agenda and part of that agenda was showing how monstrous fraternities are and blaming the administration for a lot of these sexual assaults.”

Further, Pinkleton said that Erdely kept trying to get her to embellish the sexual assault she had suffered.

She wasn’t reporting. She was being a Social Justice Warrior with a byline. And in Social Justice War, the truth is the first casualty.

DEMOCRATS CAN’T GO TO THE DOGS:   The Blue Dogs, that is.  Emma Dumain at Roll Call has an interesting 20-year retrospective on the Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats in the House.   The Blue Dogs formally began in 1994, as a group of 23 conservative-moderate Southern Democrats.  Dumain observes that today’s Blue Dogs are trying to save the Democrat Party from its radical, progressive ideology:

In 2014, when Republicans shrunk Democratic numbers to their lowest since the end of World War II, a similar faction of fiscally conservative House Democrats came to a similar conclusion: The party’s progressives weren’t speaking to moderate voters.

The current political environment, with its ongoing debate over how Democrats can win elections and ugly fights over the “soul” of the party, makes for interesting parallels to what was going on 20 years ago, when the Blue Dog Coalition was born.

“We’ve learned the same lesson — at least some of us have learned the same lesson,” said Blue Dog Chairman Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. “You can’t continue to ignore big chunks of the American voter because you have certain ideological ideas.”

After 20 years, the Blue Dogs insist their mission is the same — they’re just trying to save the Democratic Party from itself.

Yeah, good luck with that.  The current Democrat Party has no soul, other than “win at all costs.”  While I empathize with the Blue Dogs’ alienation in an Obama-worshipping progressive Democrat Party, their effort to “repackage” their party as “moderate” is putting the cart before the horse in today’s political environment. Before they can convince Southern moderates–particularly white males–that the Democrat party “speaks” for them, the Democrat Party needs to actually speak for them–and at the very least stop being openly hostile to them.

I used to work on the Hill for a Southern Democrat from Texas who, while not a Blue Dog, was truly a moderate.  But that was back in the day, when the Democrat Party was a big tent, that welcomed even (gasp!) conservatives and moderates, at least on fiscal issues.  Those days are long gone, and will continue to be until the Democrat Party stops being the party of division and -isms (racism, sexism, genderism, classism, etc.) and starts putting the interest of America first.  I’m not confident they’re capable of doing this anytime soon, given that their 2016 presidential candidates– Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders–are already pledging fidelity to the “divide and conquer” strategy that has worked so effectively for Obama.

For the indefinite future, the Blue Dogs are stuck in the Democrat dog house.

IT’S COME TO THIS: NOW president: Obama’s Warren critique sexist.

National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill on Wednesday called President Obama’s critique of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sexist.

O’Neill told The Hill she took issue with Obama calling Warren by her first name during an interview with Yahoo News published Saturday.

“Yes, I think it is sexist,” O’Neill said. “I think the president was trying to build up his own trustworthiness on this issue by convincing us that Senator Warren’s concerns are not to be taken seriously. But he did it in a sexist way.”

Obama told Yahoo that Warren was opposing his trade agenda to further her own political brand.

“The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else. And you know, she’s got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that,” Obama told Yahoo.

O’Neill said Obama’s “clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”

“I think it was disrespectful,” O’Neill said.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) suggested Obama’s remarks were sexist earlier Tuesday, according to reports.

They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney, we’d have a sexist President who condescended to the “little ladies.” And they were right!