TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 1094.
Archive for 2016
May 7, 2016
DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: “We suspect that all the new rhetoric about ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘micro-aggressions’ may be motivated in large part by a grubby desire for power masquerading as a desire for justice (and sweetened, of course, by the gratifying limelight of notoriety). But the unifying trope has also relied heavily on that invocation of safety. Many readers, we’d wager, will remember that pathetic Yale female, who, in the midst of screaming obscenities at the Master of her college, demanded that he step down from his position because he had failed to create ‘a place of comfort, a home’ for students. Never mind that every one of the campuses that has made headlines is, physically, among the safest and most pampered environments ever contrived by the ingenuity of mankind. That’s one of the things that $65,000-plus per annum gets you: not only a large dollop of moral smugness but also a lavishly protected environment—Pampers, so to speak, for the spirit if not for the body…‘We are,’ as G. K. Chesterton observed in another context, ‘on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.’”
Related: Teach For America: Math is the ‘Domain of Old, White Men.’
Update: I linked to Betsy Newmark as part of the her daily news aggregation for the above passage, but it originally appeared in the New Criterion.
JOHN SCHINDLER: The Double Standard Of Donald And The Spies: Trump will be briefed on classified information, but it’s Clinton who walks free for major crimes.
Predictably, the news that Mr. Trump will soon be getting intelligence briefings has driven his critics to gloating on social media about what a security risk the likely GOP nominee is, based on his tendency to speak freely on almost any subject. It’s clear that few of Mr. Trump’s social media critics have any experience with intelligence briefings or secrecy rules themselves.
More seriously, Mr. Trump’s political opponents have joined the fray, deriding him as a security risk. Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, denounced Mr. Trump as having “no moral or ethical grounding,” adding, “he wouldn’t think twice of taking classified information and putting it out in the public realm if he thought it served his political purposes.”
There is no small irony in this, given that the Democrats’ likely nominee, Hillary Clinton, is a proven security risk of a serious kind. This column has reported in detail on Ms. Clinton’s troubles with our nation’s secrecy laws, the year-long scandal known as EmailGate that is currently under far-reaching investigation by the FBI. More than a thousand of the “unclassified” emails on Ms. Clinton’s private server of bathroom infamy were actually classified, with at least 22 of them being top secret, the highest official classification level.
Some of those top secret emails include incredibly sensitive information about intelligence sources and methods, such as details about our spies operating abroad under deep cover. Other emails Ms. Clinton and her staff considered unclassified actually included top secret-plus intelligence reports, including verbatim lifting of highly classified information, a felonious sort of plagiarism.
There is every reason to think that multiple foreign intelligence services had access to Ms. Clinton’s unencrypted email. The Romanian hacker who was extradited to the United States for his successful cracking into Ms. Clinton’s email in 2013 stated, “it was easy… easy for me, for everybody.” If a lone Balkan hacker was able to do this, imagine how simple a task this would have been for the Russian and Chinese intelligence services, with their thousands of highly trained cyber experts.
Nevertheless, the mainstream media continues to low-ball the national security implications of EmailGate, resorting to wordsmithing to obfuscate what Ms. Clinton and her staff we really up to at the State Department. The Obama White House has followed suit, insisting that, despite the FBI investigation into EmailGate, Ms. Clinton represents no security risk, and she should receive intelligence briefings as the putative Democratic nominee—while they seem less certain that Mr. Trump should get them too.
The Washington Post has now joined the fray, with assertions that Mr. Trump may represent an unacceptable security risk, bolstered by comments from former top intelligence officials indicating that giving Mr. Trump access to any secrets may be a bad idea.
Furthermore, The Daily Beast has alleged that the Intelligence Community is up in arms about giving classified presentations to Mr. Trump, based on his well-honed tendency to speak off the cuff, plus his occasional indulgence of conspiracy theories. There’s no doubt that plenty of individuals in the Intelligence Community loathe Mr. Trump and hope he never becomes president. However, there’s nothing like a consensus among our spies that the putative GOP nominee is a security risk.
Hillary is an insider. For insiders, almost anything is forgivable.
EVER GET THE FEELING YOU’VE BEEN CHEATED? The Washington Post on “Why the Ben Rhodes profile in the New York Times Magazine is just gross — Absurdity, self-regard, hypocrisy, chumminess between writer and subject — it’s all there.”
Here’s a flashback to Newsweek’s Obama cover stories between July 2007 and July 2008, back when the magazine was still owned by the Washington Post. Absurdity, self-regard, hypocrisy, chumminess between magazine, parent company and subject — it’s all there. Hey, rubes!
I’M NOT SURE HOW BANANAS CONSTITUTE A CRIME, BUT THIS IS LOOKING MORE AND MORE LIKE A HOAX, AND A COVERUP BY THE ADMINISTRATION: As Clemson U. refuses to identify banana bandits, talk of hate-crime hoax mounts.
HURRAY FOR FRACKING: “OPEC is Dead.”
That statement was uttered by an OPEC official during its meeting in Vienna this week, by a delegate that, according to Reuters, sources represented a non-Gulf Arab member. And it doesn’t just seem to sum up the cartel’s frustrations on its inability to affect oil prices. It very well might be true. . . .
When we’re talking about OPEC, the only member that really matters is Saudi Arabia. Of the 32.25 million barrels of oil per day (mbpd) that OPEC produced in April, the Saudis contributed 10.12 mbpd, more than double the next most productive member (Iraq). Riyadh is the only member capable of realistically reigning back its output enough to affect the market, and historically has seemed willing to do most of the heavy lifting for the cartel in times of low prices.
Times have changed, though, and the country’s new man-behind-the-throne—the 31 year old deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman—has little interest in ceding Saudi market share in pursuit of higher prices while the rest of OPEC gets a free ride. This shift in thinking has been motivated in no small part by burgeoning non-OPEC supplies, upstart American shale production chief among them, which have threatened to dilute the effect of an OPEC production cut (as oil prices creep up, so too will U.S. output as more shale plays once again become profitable).
The global oil market is no longer dominated by a psychology of scarcity, but rather one of abundance.
The frackers may just save Western Civiization. God knows our political leaders aren’t up to the job.
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!
ASKING THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: Is Donald Trump “The Sex Pistols Candidate?”
WHY ARE DEMOCRAT-RUN INSTITUTIONS SUCH CESSPITS OF NARROW-MINDED CULTURAL STEREOTYPING? Bob Costas’ French stereotyping angers boating world:
Bob Costas roiled the waters at the opening press conference for the New York leg of the prestigious Louis Vuitton America’s Cup World Series when he asked respected French skipper Franck Cammas, “Does the French team have plenty of wine and cheese onboard?”
* * * * * * * *
One attendee said, “Is Costas next going to ask Sir Ben Ainslie [five-time Olympic gold medalist and skipper of the British Land Rover BAR team] if he’s loaded his boat with beer and Yorkshire pudding? These skippers are serious athletes.” Thankfully Costas didn’t ask.
To be fair though, at least Costas’ stereotyping is now becoming more expansive and international, a nice change of pace from his usual pattern of stereotyping the citizens of America’s red states.
GEORGE ORWELL, CALL YOUR OFFICE, PART DEUX: “3 Wapo writers win joint MSM Omerta Prize 4 describing Trump/Ryan issue differences & omitting immigration #noteasy,” Mickey Kaus tweets.
SO IT’LL BE A CLOSE RACE, THEN: The Most Hated Candidate For President Usually Wins.
Since 1984, the candidate with the higher strong unfavorable rating has won. Ronald Reagan was more strongly disliked than Walter Mondale; George H. W. Bush was more strongly disliked than Michael Dukakis; Bill Clinton was more strongly disliked than Bob Dole; George W. Bush was more strongly disliked than John Kerry; Barack Obama was more strongly disliked than John McCain and Mitt Romney.
There have only been two occasions where the more disliked person lost: In 1992 and 2000. George H. W. Bush had higher strong unfavorable ratings but lost to Bill Clinton and Al Gore had higher strong unfavorable than George W. Bush but lost.
Well, they both had the “wimp factor” to contend with.
DOING TIME ON THE DAILY SHOW: Gavin McInnes explains what goes on behind the scenes, as the Viacom-owned show does “everything they accuse James O’Keefe of doing,” slicing and dicing footage and cutting in eye-rolling reactions from the host recorded after the interview is concluded, all designed to make the show’s conservative guests look as eeeeevil as they think their audience expects them to be, fresh meat to be “destroyed!” and “demolished!” by the host:
Though I’m confident I can discuss feminism and economics with clarity, I don’t actually know soccer players’ names, so when Minhaj asked me to name a few, I joked, “Bobby Daniels, Ziggler Norris, and a guy known to everyone as Junebug.” The last name was used to make it extra clear I was kidding. They had no idea. I know this because after the interview I told them they were made-up names and they were surprised. In the interview the correspondent was impressed with the names and called them “deep cuts.” In the edit they stick in a face where Minhaj sarcastically feigns interest like I’m an idiot. This is all over the interview. When you’re done talking, they capture a series of correspondent reactions they can put in later and they include this exasperated brow-pinching thing you do when you’re talking to a complete moron. On top of these edits, they add in voice-over where Minhaj can sound tough and yell, “You’re 0 for 2, Gavin” and “If you’re going to make up a name, you need to do better than Junebug.” Yeah, I know. That’s what a joke is.
Of course, the editing and voice-over are only the beginning. They had a team of researchers handling The Daily Show’s side of the argument. In the interview, the producer Stacey Angeles had her iPad ready to further Google any contradictions. “I want my information to be correct,” barked Minhaj at her when he appeared to be losing. His lap had a pile of notes on it, but they weren’t sufficient. They also had weeks afterward to carefully select a morsel that makes their argument look good. In the end, they were forced to pretend my joke was serious and put all their eggs in that basket. It was everything they accuse James O’Keefe of doing.
That’s been the experience of virtually everyone on the right who has appeared on the show, whether their interrogator was Jon Stewart, or current host Trevor Noah. In 2014, Megan McArdle’s assessment of the process was succinct: “Don’t Ever Appear on ‘The Daily Show.’”
At a minimum, as Glenn suggested in September of 2008 when Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC received a similar ransom note editing technique, “Bring Your Own [Video] Camera” to have your own documentation of the interview, which McArdle strongly suggests as well.
CLAUDIA ROSETT: Meet the Flimflam Man Behind Obama’s Foreign Policy ‘Narrative:’
When it comes to foreign policy, President Obama has spent more than seven years now living the dream. And I mean dream, as in fantasy — a trip to an alternate universe. Never mind the dangerous and in some cases deadly realities that increasingly beset the rest of the planet. For the White House, it’s been one glorious fiction after another. Russia was a “reset.” Libya was a success. So was the pivot to Asia. The tide of war is receding. There was a red line in Syria (until there wasn’t). The Iran nuclear program is now “exclusively peaceful.” America’s standing in the world is now — according to a White House tally of nameless surveys — higher than when Obama took office.
Remarkable. But don’t credit Obama alone for the creative talent behind these fictions. In a story just posted by The New York Times Magazine, veteran reporter David Samuels brings us a long, appalling and masterfully reported look behind the scenes at influential White House senior staffer Ben Rhodes, “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru.” Rhodes, 38, serves as assistant to the president, deputy national security advisor for strategic communications and speechwriting, and oversees, as the White House web site tells us, “President Obama’s national security communications, speechwriting and global engagement.”
In a 2014 Firewall video, Bill Whittle told his viewers that if you feel like you’re being gaslighted by this administration, it’s no coincidence — you’re being gaslighted by this administration. With the clocking running out on Obama, nice of Rhodes to confirm he was one of its chief B.S. artists.
NEWT’S A SMART GUY, BUT ISN’T HE PAST HIS SELL-BY DATE? The Case for Gingrich as Trump’s Running Mate.
The presumptive Republican nominee says he’ll very likely want someone with much more traditional experience in politics and public service than his — a person who would command immediate attention in Congress, be skilled at shaping and advancing a legislative program, be a partner in governing and be prepared to become a worthy president at a moment’s notice.
Newt Gingrich is among a very few prominent figures who not only readily fits all those criteria, but also sounds eager to be asked and could actually help Trump’s chances in November.
The former speaker of the House was an avatar of today’s confrontational conservatism, but he nonetheless negotiated some of the biggest bipartisan deals of the 1990s. His ability to sell himself as both career insurgent and inside player sustained a serious run for president four years ago. His standing in both the Washington establishment and with the elite on the right would allow him to raise many millions of dollars for the fall campaign.
Well, possibly.
YOU STAY CLASSY, VINCENTE FOX: Former Mexican President says Trump voters are ‘lazy,’ drink too much beer.
GEORGE ORWELL, CALL YOUR OFFICE: Sources: Obama transparency official stepping down.
Mentioning “sources” in the headline is a nice touch when referencing the administration that hilariously promised to be “The most transparent administration ever.”
And coming soon as this recent NewsBusters headline amusing highlights, “DNC Chair: Hillary Has Provided the Most Transparency ‘Other Than the Private Server.'”
HUMAN SACRIFICE, DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER, MASS HYSTERIA: Some Liberals Support Trump, While Some Republicans Consider Clinton.
MAN NOBODY VOTED FOR ANNOUNCES WHO HE WON’T VOTE FOR: Jeb Bush: I won’t vote for Trump or Clinton.
Jeb Bush will not vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in the presidential election, he announced Friday, saying that he doesn’t think either one will “put us on a better course.”
“In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life,” Bush wrote in a Facebook post.
“For Republicans, there is no greater priority than ensuring we keep control of both chambers of Congress. I look forward to working hard for great conservatives in the Senate and House in the coming months.”
Bush slammed both parties’ front-runners as unfit for the White House.
Sorry, Jeb, but this comes across as sour grapes. Now if you’d taken my advice in January, or better still, my advice from last year, Trump probably wouldn’t be the nominee, and your words would carry a lot more weight. But you ran an ego-driven campaign long past the point at which a sensible person would have dropped out.
EMBRACE THE HEALING POWER OF ‘AND:’ Barack Obama: Incompetent or Malevolent?
OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY GURU BEN RHODES IS THE ‘BLOB’ HE HATES:
Poor Ben Rhodes. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy message guru inhabits a world filled with groupthinkers and militarists. If only he could reason with them. But the establishment doesn’t care for reason. So Rhodes must create an echo chamber, spinning stories to the press and shading the truth to prevent our nation’s next disaster.
* * * * * * *
If Rhodes and Obama really want to challenge the foreign policy establishment, I suggest they dig up the second inaugural address from George W. Bush. In 2005, he boldly proclaimed that it would no longer be U.S. policy to support dictatorships for the sake of stability, that his administration would support democratic movements all over the world. Bush never implemented that bold vision — in part because the foreign policy establishment had turned on him over his Iraq war. Mandarins such as Baker and Hamilton, with the help of a young Ben Rhodes, did their best to leave Iraq to the mercies of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Bush declined their advice at the time and surged troops. It would take the election of Barack Obama to put in place the establishment’s vision for the Middle East. We are now living with those consequences.
Read the whole thing.
HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: SIU braces for enrollment drop in the fall, points fingers at Springfield. You didn’t used to worry so much about losing students to other states, but now everyone is fighting for enrollment.
May 6, 2016
ROUNDING UP THE LATEST ON daily aspirin.
THE MOTORWEEK RETRO REVIEW: ’85 CHRYSLER K WAGON (VIDEO):
Trigger warning: Watching an ’85 K-Car screeching through slalom cones and looking like it could tip at any moment is not for the faint of heart.