Archive for 2021

SALENA ZITO: The Kids Aren’t Alright.

One year ago, Lena Carson was pulling straight A’s at the city’s Creative and Performing Arts School across the river from her parent’s home. She also swam every day at the local YMCA in preparation to compete at the annual state competition and enjoyed the everyday social life of a teenager.

Today, she is sitting at home. Again.

It has been nearly a year since she walked into CAPA, a magnet school she had to earn admission to through a portfolio of her work, and interacted with her teachers or friends.

Her daily swims are gone, along with her social life. Her outside activities have diminished to walking the dog around the block. . . .

A bright student who skipped a grade, her straight A’s have dipped to D’s, and Lena says she struggles to complete assignments, not because she can’t but because of the lost will. “I have nothing to look forward to,” she said.

Keeping the Karens happy comes with a lot of collateral damage.

TIME MAG ARTICLE ON OUR PHILOSOPHER-KINGS: Lots of Right-Buzz about that Time Magazine article that details how the Left manipulated the voting process in 2020. Some here on Instapundit and elsewhere argue the article is proof of a massive conspiracy that stole the election from Trump. Others that it minimized alleged voter suppression, thereby allowing what the Left defines as the true will of the people to emerge.

Here’s my take, for what it’s worth: You can make either of the preceding cases in a way worth considering, but the more important point I come away with is seen in this key explanatory paragraph from the article:

“This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. ‘Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,’ says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. ‘But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.’” (emphasis added)

Note the two most important phrases: The participants in the “conspiracy to save the 2020 election” presumed to know what was the “proper outcome of the election” and they had to do what they did because “Democracy is not self-executing,” that is, it cannot be trusted to produce the “proper outcome.”

Most readers here have heard the metaphor of “the ship of state.” Less well-known is that the source of that metaphor is Plato’s “Republic,” in which the case for the rule of philosopher-kings is made. To ensure the safety of the ship of state, the “true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship.”

What the Time Magazine article demonstrates is that the participants in the “conspiracy” actually do believe themselves to be philosopher-kings, though that is undoubtedly the last term they would use to describe themselves. But they clearly believe that they rightfully should steer the ship of state because they know better than the rest of us and because they know better, whatever they do to ensure the “proper outcome” is morally justified. They are, in short, the law.

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEF: Liz Cheney Is a Cancer That Could Kill GOP’s 2022 Hopes. “The fact that she was left in a leadership role gives her relevance she shouldn’t have right now. It will also give her a lot more face time with the advocacy media because everything she’s been saying for a month is a regurgitation of the Dem party line. Her position is virtually indistinguishable from that of Nancy Pelosi’s.”

JOSH BLACKMAN ON THE INCOHERENT LAWPROF LETTER ON IMPEACHMENT:

Presumably, some of the signatories do not agree with this statement. And the inclusion of “regardless of whether” makes it even less clear what “Many” professors are agreeing to. Some professors may think the First Amendment applies to impeachment proceedings. Some professors do not. Some professors think that the First Amendment does not apply, and Trump can be convicted for some reason. And some professors think that the First Amendment applies, and Trump cannot be convicted. But the full sentence makes it even less clear what “many” professors are agreeing to. . . .

I have long been critical of these sorts of group statements. Law professors tend to have very nuanced views. And letters prepared for 100+ professors cannot adequately reflect that nuance. This letter tried to accomplish some nuance by referring to the views of “many” professors. But in doing so, the letter fractured so badly that I’m not even sure what precisely a majority agreed upon. This statement reads like a splintered plurality decision from the Supreme Court where there is a majority that agrees on a single disposition, but there is no single rationale. Alas, this nuance will be lost in public discourse. What matters is that 140 law professors submitted a letter arguing against Trump’s First Amendment defenses.

It’s all about virtue signaling anyway.

GLENN GREENWALD: The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows: The NYT’s Taylor Lorenz falsely accuses a tech investor of using a slur after spending months trying to infiltrate and monitor a new app that allows free conversation.

A new and rapidly growing journalistic “beat” has arisen over the last several years that can best be described as an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance. It is half adolescent and half malevolent. Its primary objectives are control, censorship, and the destruction of reputations for fun and power. Though its epicenter is the largest corporate media outlets, it is the very antithesis of journalism.

I’ve written before about one particularly toxic strain of this authoritarian “reporting.” Teams of journalists at three of the most influential corporate media outlets — CNN’s “media reporters” (Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy), NBC’s “disinformation space unit” (Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny), and the tech reporters of The New York Times (Mike Isaac, Kevin Roose, Sheera Frenkel) — devote the bulk of their “journalism” to searching for online spaces where they believe speech and conduct rules are being violated, flagging them, and then pleading that punitive action be taken (banning, censorship, content regulation, after-school detention). These hall-monitor reporters are a major factor explaining why tech monopolies, which (for reasons of self-interest and ideology) never wanted the responsibility to censor, now do so with abandon and seemingly arbitrary blunt force: they are shamed by the world’s loudest media companies when they do not. . . .

The profound pathologies driving all of this were on full display on Saturday night as the result of a reckless and self-humiliating smear campaign by one of The New York Times’ star tech reporters, Taylor Lorenz. She falsely and very publicly accused Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor Marc Andreessen of having used the “slur” word “retarded” during a discussion about the Reddit/GameStop uprising.

Lorenz lied. Andreessen never used that word. And rather than apologize and retract it, she justified her mistake by claiming it was a “male voice” that sounded like his, then locked her Twitter account as though she — rather than the person she falsely maligned — was the victim.

But the details of what happened are revealing. The discussion which Lorenz falsely described took place on a relatively new audio app called “Clubhouse,” an invitation-only platform intended to allow for private, free-ranging group conversations. It has become popular among Silicon Valley executives and various media personalities (I was invited onto the app a few months ago but never attended or participated in any discussions). But as CNBC noted this week, “as the app has grown, people of more diverse backgrounds have begun to join,” and it “has carved out a niche among Black users, who have innovated new ways for using it.” Its free-speech ethos has also made it increasingly popular in China as a means of avoiding repressive online constraints.

These private chats have often been infiltrated by journalists, sometimes by invitation and other times by deceit. These journalists attempt to monitor the discussions and then publish summaries. Often, the “reporting” consists of out-of-context statements designed to make the participants look bigoted, insensitive, or otherwise guilty of bad behavior. In other words, journalists, desperate for content, have flagged Clubhouse as a new frontier for their slimy work as voluntary hall monitors and speech police.

Fulfilling her ignoble duties there, Lorenz announced on Twitter that Andreessen had said a bad word. During the discussion of the “Reddit Revolution,” she claimed, he used the word “retarded.” She then upped her tattling game by not only including this allegation but also the names and photos of those who were in the room at the time — thus exposing those who were guilty of the crime of failing to object to Andreessen’s Bad Word. . . .

Numerous Clubhouse participants, including Kmele Foster, immediately documented that Lorenz had lied. The moderator of the discussion, Nait Jones, said that “Marc never used that word.” What actually happened was that Felicia Horowitz, a different participant in the discussion, had “explained that the Redditors call themselves ‘retard revolution’” and that was the only mention of that word. . . .

Besides the fact that a New York Times reporter recklessly tried to destroy someone’s reputation, what is wrong with this episode? Everything.

The participants in Clubhouse have tried to block these tattletale reporters from eavesdropping on their private conversations precisely because they see themselves as Stasi agents whose function is to report people for expressing prohibited ideas even in private conversations. As Jones pointedly noted, “this is why people block” journalists: “because of this horseshit dishonesty.” . . .

Just take a second to ponder how infantile and despotic, in equal parts, all of this is. This NYT reporter used her platform to virtually jump out of her desk to run to the teacher and exclaim: he used the r word! This is what she tried for months to accomplish: to catch people in private communications using words that are prohibited or ideas that are banned to tell on them to the public. That she got it all wrong is arguably the least humiliating and pathetic aspect of all of this.

These people are a disgrace to journalism, and to America. They are morally retarded.

And they like it that way.

Plus:

But this is now the prevailing ethos in corporate journalism. They have insufficient talent or skill, and even less desire, to take on real power centers: the military-industrial complex, the CIA and FBI, the clandestine security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley monopolies, the corrupted and lying corporate media outlets they serve. So settling on this penny-ante, trivial bullshit — tattling, hall monitoring, speech policing: all in the most anti-intellectual, adolescent and primitive ways — is all they have. It’s all they are. It’s why they have fully earned the contempt and distrust in which the public holds them. . . .

That’s the purpose, the function, of these lowly accusatory tactics: to control, to coerce, to dominate, to repress. The people who engage in these character-assassinating, censorship-fostering games — especially those who call themselves “journalists” — deserve nothing but intense scorn. And those who are free from their influence and power have a particular obligation to heap it on them. Aside from being what it deserves, that scorn is the only way to neutralize this tactic.

Greenwald and I have had our disagreements, but damn has he nailed it here.

CANCEL CULTURE IS ALL IN YOUR MIND: Twitter banned Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft. “Hoft joins a list of other right-wing accounts that have recently been banned for promoting falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election. The list notably includes Former President Donald Trump and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, among others.”

How are we supposed to figure out what the falsehoods are when we’re not allowed to discuss them?

WALL ST. JOURNAL: Woke Capital’s Political Warning.

Big business has helped Americans weather the pandemic. Retailers stayed open, tech firms made remote work possible, and the pharmaceutical industry is cranking out vaccines. So why did satisfaction with the “size and influence of major corporations” fall 15 points in this year’s annual Gallup poll to a mere 26%?

The collapse came not among Democrats, whose skeptical views were virtually unchanged, but among Republicans. In 2020, 57% of Republicans said they were satisfied with big business. This year the number plummeted to 31%. The likely reason, as NBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald points out, is “the culture war reaching the C-suite.”

Put differently, many Fortune 500 firms took the Black Lives Matter protests as an opportunity to pivot hard to the left, ostentatiously endorsing protests even as they sometimes turned violent. Companies from Amazon to Nike donated large sums to progressive activist groups. Managers started to assign polarizing left-wing political texts to employees and adopted new racial hiring preferences. Brands like Coca-Cola and Eddie Bauer boycotted Facebook to try to pressure it to clamp down on political speech.

All of this did not pass without notice by Americans. Companies weren’t merely donating to their favored political candidates—they’ve done that for decades. They were bypassing the political process and intervening directly to transform highly contested parts of American life.

The firms believe this is good business, and affluent progressive consumers cheer the new political model. But everyone still gets one vote in elections, and the business community may be making a mistake by aggressively antagonizing the very Americans it has long relied on to protect it from government control.

I think Big Business has come to embrace the idea of government control, but I think it will regret that choice.

TO BE FAIR, AMERICA’S “ELITE CLASS” IS GARBAGE:

The idea of the self-constituting citizen, endowed with rights and constrained by law, has been indispensable to the forging of a stable democratic political system in America, legitimizing its institutions and ultimately birthing a cohesive nation bereft of the prerequisite of an underlying common ethnicity. This principle has been the source of America’s unprecedented success for over two centuries.

In contrast, each time in recent history that governments have favored group-based systemic solutions, despotism has followed and, ultimately, the implosion of the state built upon it. And yet this is where America’s elite class seems hell-bent on taking the nation.

Actually, worse than mere garbage. Poison.

BRUCE CARROLL: Parler Struggles Reach A Strange Turning Point. “If Parler does relaunch this week, without its CEO and founder Matze, all eyes will be on the site’s moderation policies.”

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Against Impeachment: Failing to convict Trump for a second time gains the Democrats nothing. “And why do Democrats and the media keep referring to Trump as the first president in history to be impeached twice? They tried once and lost, and now they’re trying again and are almost certain to lose again. At what point does impeachment lose its sting and become just another piece of the political tool kit?” Um, about a year ago.

Plus: “In reality, the animus that energizes the call for impeachment and conviction has its roots long before the events of Jan. 6.” It’s an unconstitutional political show trial. The outcome of impeachment is removal. You can’t remove someone who’s already out of office. And the “incitement” claims are BS that fail as soon as you compare Trump’s statements to the far more over-the-top statements of Democrats for the past four years. And that’s not all, as Kinsley notes:

The single article of the impeachment document accuses Trump of fomenting rebellion against the government. His speech on Jan. 6 encouraged a mob to storm the Capitol. Or that is the argument we will hear repeatedly during an impeachment trial, and it is not an unreasonable interpretation of Trump’s words that day.

But meanwhile, federal prosecutors are fanning across the Internet, tracking down and indicting leaders of the mob, which appears to have been far more organized and pre-planned than we thought initially. Every bit of evidence that the rampage was actually a plot undermines the case that Trump’s somewhat ambiguous words shortly before the event are responsible for causing it. You can argue that the rampage was planned or you can argue that Trump caused it. You can’t argue both.

Well, you can, and lots of people are.

I hope Kinsley’s right and it’s also bad for the Democrats politically, because such idiocy needs to carry a price or it will be engaged in again.

And, ironically, even on conviction Congress lacks the power to stop Trump from running again, as noted by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman:

Under the disqualification clause, can Congress prospectively bar an impeached officer from being elected to Congress or to the presidency?

If the House impeaches a president, vice president or officer of the United States, then that defendant is tried by the Senate. If the Senate tries and convicts (by a two-thirds vote), then the convicted party (if still in office) is removed. The Senate may also impose a second punishment on the convicted party. Under the disqualification clause, Congress may bar the convicted party from prospectively holding “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” This provision grants Congress the power to prevent a convicted party from being appointed to a federal position, but does nothing to prevent a convicted party from being elected to the House, Senate or the presidency.

Congress has disqualified only three impeached officers (all federal judges) from holding future office, and none have subsequently run for elected federal positions. As a result, we have no substantial law here and little commentary. We have already explained that Justice Joseph Story indicated that elected officials did not fall under the scope of the Constitution’s general “officer of the United States “and “Office … under the United States” language. This latter language is at least as wide as the disqualification clause’s “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” language. Story’s position is also supported by Hamilton’s roll of officers. Of course, we also believe the practice of George Washington and other founders who succeeded him as president confirms that the “Office … under the United States” language in the foreign emoluments clause does not reach the presidency. The same result should apply here. An impeached, tried, convicted, removed and disqualified defendant is barred from being an appointed federal officer, and not barred from being an elected official.

This has gotten insufficient attention.

Related: New Evidence and Arguments About the Scope of the Impeachment Disqualification Clause: A Response to the House of Representatives’ Managers’ Trial Memorandum. “Assuming the legality of late impeachment in the current circumstances, House managers may be able to seek a conviction for its expressive function, and they can seek disqualification as a bar against Trump’s holding appointed federal positions in the future. The scope of Senate disqualification is a different issue. We have put forward our position over the course of more than a decade: the better view is that the Senate cannot bar Trump from running for and holding elected federal positions. Let the People decide.”

AMERICA’S NEWSPAPER OF RECORD: Innovative Marketing Geniuses Consider Running A Super Bowl Ad About Social Justice.

Related: Watch Bruce Springsteen’s First Ad Ever, for Super Bowl Commercial, Calling for ‘Unity.’

Interesting choice of a unity-oriented pitchman:

QED:

Of course, this is yet another reminder that we the home viewers aren’t the target audience for blockbuster Super Bowl ads — they’re there to win Clios and pad their directors’ demo reels.

UPDATE: James Lileks adds:

A few [of the Super Bowl commercials] were silly and light, but the overall impression was somber, dour, downbeat, with unconvincing assurances that everything would be fine and we were all in this together and we would come out okay. Here’s Bruce Springsteen looking haunted as he drives around the storyboards for Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road,” ending up at a church, where he lights a candle to pray for American reunification, and oh yes please buy a Jeep.

At the end I was not moved by his pleas, and more concerned that he lit a candle in a deserted church made of wood, and then left without blowing it out. Was that wise? Did the church burn down? Does it matter? A celebrity wants us to come together, and did so with his trademark croak of pained sincerity, and since we know he is the friend and bard of the Common Man, it doesn’t matter if a specific church burns down. It was a lovely gesture.

Plus some thoughts on the bizarre halftime show: “Last year: EMPOWERMENT AND SEX AND SEX EMPOWERMENT! This year: faceless people moving in mass to choreographed steps, then dissolving into random panic. There was something wrong about it, like some dank gas blown up through a fissure, filling balloons that looked like the humans who populate the shadows of a nightmare.”

More: Reddit Ad Runs Five Seconds, But Makes Its Point Against Wall Street And Robinhood.

Give Robinhood credit for having the chutzpah to advertise on the Super Bowl after its GameStop debacle: Robinhood’s very bad Super Bowl ad made some people real mad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dd8cZfSIK0&feature=youtu.be