Author Archive: Ed Driscoll

HMMM: Obama refuses to endorse radical NYC mayoral front-runner Mamdani — even after publicly backing this previous mayor.

Mamdani spokeswoman Dora Pekec meanwhile tried to equally explain away the non-endorsement in a statement to The Post.

“Zohran Mamdani appreciated President Obama’s words of support and their conversation on the importance of bringing a new kind of politics to our city,” Pekec said of the pair’s phone call.

But Republican strategist Rob Ryan said, “Even Barack Obama realizes Mamdani is bad for New York and the Democratic Party.

“Obama is trying to protect other Democrats from the stain of supporting a communist for mayor in America’s greatest city,” Ryan said.

Veteran political consultant Hank Sheinkopf, who worked on Democrat Bill Clinton’s presidential re-election campaign, added to The Post, “Obama is being very careful.

“An Obama endorsement of Mamdani could be used against Democrats across the country next year in close elections when they’re trying to back the House.”

Related: Profiles in Courage: Jeffries Backing Away from Mamdani Endorsement?

Obama and Jeffries endorsements or not, Mamdani will be the poster child for how off the rails Democrats have become if he wins tomorrow.

RETHINKING HOW WE MISTHINK THE HOLOCAUST:

Every few months, another academic or journalist decides that the best way to honor Holocaust memory is to accuse Israel of repeating it. The latest comes from The New York Times, where Professor Marianne Hirsch, interviewed by Masha Gessen, claims we need to “rethink how we think about the Holocaust.

It’s a long conversation—ostensibly about pedagogy and post-memory—but it eventually lands in the same familiar place: Holocaust memory, they say, has been “misused” to justify Israeli actions in Gaza, while Israel itself now stands accused of committing “genocide.” Gaza, in their telling, is the new Warsaw Ghetto.

That’s not scholarship. That’s moral inversion with tenure.

Hirsch and Gessen actively refuse to draw the simplest, most obvious analogy—the one between Hamas and the Nazis.

* * * * * * * *

But this isn’t morality. It’s literature pretending to be ethics. It’s a way for comfortable liberal Western observers to purge inherited guilt: If Jews are now the Nazis, then we can be the righteous ones this time.

That’s why the Nazi analogy persists. It satisfies a psychological craving for symmetry, not a search for truth.

What makes Hirsch’s version especially dangerous is that it comes from within. She is Jewish, the daughter of survivors, and so the accusation carries an air of moral authenticity.

It sounds like humility, but it’s really a form of moral self-cannibalism: turning the Holocaust—the ultimate warning to protect Jewish life—into a tool for condemning Jewish self-defense.

This is the newspaper that tried to rehabilitate the reputation of the Soviet Union in 2017, and created the “1619 Project” two years later to encourage academicians to (further) believe that America was born of Original Sin. So it’s not at all surprising to see the Gray Lady jump on the trend of, as Daniel Ben-Ami wrote at Spiked in March of “turning the Holocaust against Israel.”

Exit question: When will Hirsch and Gessen appear on Tucker’s podcast?

WATCH: John Brennan Loses It When Confronted by Former Tulsi DNI Advisor About Laptop Letter and the ICA.

Speciale confronted Brennan twice during an event at the conference that included Michael Hayden, another former director of the CIA. Speciale put Brennan on the spot, asking about the inclusion of the infamous Steele dossier in the intelligence community assessment (ICA). Brennan had a meltdown.

UPDATE:

Related: The Illustrated Spygate Scandal.

TWO FELLOWS WENT ALL STABBY ON A BRITISH TRAIN YESTERDAY:

British police are emphasizing that the two men, one of whom has now been released, are ‘British born,’ which hasn’t reassured a soul that Britain doesn’t have an immigration assimilation problem.

Much as it now has a knife problem.

Read the whole thing.

TWO GAVINS IN ONE!

 

THE LAST TIME NEW YORK HIT ROCK BOTTOM: “Jonathan Mahler’s first book, the 2005 Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning, was a work of historical journalism that re-created the summer and fall of 1977… Now Mahler, a staff writer for the New York Times Magazine, is out with a kind of sequel titled The Gods of New York: Egotists, Idealists, Opportunities, and the Birth of the Modern City, 1986-1990:”

Mahler spends a good deal of time on the infamous 1987 Tawana Brawley case, where a young black woman was found in upstate New York covered in feces with racial slurs written upon her body and claiming to have been raped by four white men. The case brought a little-known Brooklyn preacher named Al Sharpton to the public’s attention. Sharpton championed Brawley’s allegations and put pressure on the state’s legal and political authorities to bring her alleged attackers to justice. It all turned out to be a hoax, with Brawley having fabricated the whole story.

Mahler does not shy away from presenting the case in its ugly details, with Sharpton likening Governor Mario Cuomo to the notoriously racist Mississippi politician, Theodore Bilbo, accusing the state’s attorney general, Robert Abrams, of masturbating onto a photo of Brawley, and framing a white New York prosecutor named Steven Pagones of perpetrating the ugly deed. Yet Mahler strangely absolves Sharpton and his allies of guilt, presenting them as victims of white racism, leaving the last word on the hoax to a black Catholic priest from Harlem: “If you create a monster in your lab and then it acts like a monster, I don’t think the creator is in a position to complain.”

If there was a flaw to Mahler’s first book, it was the lack of a larger analysis to accompany the vivid journalistic narrative. With The Gods of New York, Mahler tries to make some larger thematic points, and it is here that the book stumbles. He talks about the decline of the city as a “great working-class city,” which is true up to a point, but The Gods of New York is almost entirely a story of white and black; that millions of immigrants were arriving in New York in the 1980s and 1990s and making lives for themselves during these years goes unsaid.

Most strangely, one could read this book and not realize a renaissance in New York’s fortunes was just a few years down the road under first Giuliani, and then Michael Bloomberg. Giuliani is a main character in The Gods of New York and comes across, not entirely unfairly, as an attention-seeking and politically ambitious U.S. attorney whose prosecutions of white-collar cases often fell apart in the courts. Casual readers might draw an inference from the unflattering portraits of Giuliani and Trump—who during this time was knee-deep in an embarrassing money-losing venture with Atlantic City casinos—that there is a straight line from the politics of the late 1980s, with its corruption, racial tensions, and emphasis on financial capitalism at the expense of the working class, to the era of Donald Trump.

That’s not strange at all. Why would Mahler risk offending his fellow writers in the Times’ bullpen? They had a collective aneurysm over Tom Cotton’s “send in the troops” op-ed in 2020 and railroaded editor James Bennet, Covid expert Donald McNeil and Bari Weiss off the paper that year. As with other Mamdani supporters, they likely share the belief that the Giuliani-Bloomberg era was actually the city’s nadir, not the 1970s, and as the Babylon Bee joked in 2020:

Twenty years ago, when Mike Bloomberg was still its mayor and had carried over most of Rudy Guiliani’s broken windows police methods, Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal wrote:

The actor John Leguizamo: New York in the ’70s “was funky and gritty and showed the world how a metropolis could be dark and apocalyptic and yet fecund.” Fran Lebowitz, a contributing editor for Vanity Fair: The city “was a wreck; it was going bankrupt. And it was pretty lawless; everything was illegal, but no laws were enforced. It was a city for city-dwellers, not tourists, the way it is now.” Laurie Anderson, a well-known New York artist and performer, admits the ’70s were considered “the dark ages” but “there was great music and everyone was broke.”

More recently, as Steve wrote in August, thanks to 2025-era Democrats: Yep, Mamdani Will Be NYC’s Next Mayor.

If so, as Michael Goodwin writes at the New York Post this weekend: A Zohran Mamdani mayoralty would mean a long, sour decline for NYC.

It was only after Rudy Giuliani became mayor in 1994 that the police force was fully funded and smartly used.

Giuliani and his team, including top cop Bill Bratton, used the new officers in targeted enforcement campaigns under the revolutionary “broken windows” theory of policing.

The results came fast and were dramatic.

Within four years, the number of murders fell by 60%, with huge declines in other crimes, too.

The pattern continued through Giuliani’s second term and all through Mike Bloomberg’s subsequent three terms as Bloomberg and his top cop, Ray Kelly, kept the same policies and extended and improved them.

The result was a 20-year Golden Age of public safety and economic expansion that transformed New York into the safest big city in America and the world capital of capital.

Jobs and population booms followed, with the city gaining even more people than it had lost.

As I wrote at the time, an elderly friend who had spent his entire life in New York said he had never seen it shine as it did at the end of Bloomberg’s tenure.

Unfortunately, he was followed by Bill de Blasio, the worst mayor since Beame.

Insert Homer and Bart “worst so far” meme here:

DON’T BE FOOLED—OBAMA WASN’T CAMPAIGNING FOR SPANBERGER:

That’s a fascinating thing to say at a rally where Jay Jones just finished speaking. Here’s a guy who fantasized in writing about murdering a Republican legislator and his children, and Obama is lecturing the crowd about civil discourse. The disconnect couldn’t be more glaring.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Obama wasn’t really there for Spanberger at all. She appears on the path to victory regardless of whether Obama showed up or not. But Jones? He’s in serious trouble, and Democrats know what’s at stake. If Jones loses, Republicans will control the attorney general’s office for another term, and that’s a problem for a party that’s been quite open about using state attorneys general as a legal cudgel against the Trump administration. A friendly Democrat in that office means a reliable ally ready to file lawsuits, challenge federal policies, and generally make life difficult for the White House. Other Democratic attorneys general across the country have been aggressive in opposing Trump, and Virginia Democrats want that same firepower in Richmond.

Trust me, Obama’s trip to Virginia wasn’t about helping Spanberger. It was about boosting Jones through association, using Obama’s star power to drive enthusiasm and straight-ticket voting. If Jones rides those coattails to victory, Democrats get the attorney general they want to wage legal warfare against Trump. That’s the real reason Obama showed up.

Jonathan Turley explored this weekend “how the left found peace through hate.” Obama was clearly an early adopter, and is eager to spread the rage far and wide amongst his fellow leftists:

Related:

CLARICE FELDMAN: Tucker Got Your Tongue, Kevin Roberts?

William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection nails it: “Fuentes is not the main issue. Tucker and his normalization and stoking of Jew hatred (Fuentes was just one of many such guests) is the issue.”

I’m not sure that Roberts is actually diligent or smart enough to continue to hold his post. Shortly after his second statement Dana Loesch interviewed him and asked him whether it was “venomous” (to say as did Carlson) that you hate “Christian Zionists?” After a deer in the headlights look, Roberts concedes it is. That’s as close as he ever came to acknowledging Carlson’s incompatibility with Roberts’ organization and his own failures to publicly distance himself from him.

It should be a heated time this weekend in the Heritage boardroom.

One would hope:

JONATHAN TURLEY: ‘We’re coming after you’ — how the left found peace through hate.

This week, Bravo star and liberal podcast host Jennifer Welch praised footage of a “No Kings” protester celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, holding her up as an example for all liberals.

In the clip, the elderly woman said, “Charlie Kirk is horrible. Yes. I’m glad he’s not here.” When pressed if she was actually happy that the husband and father of two had been murdered, the woman said “Yes…because he was horrible on the campuses. Horrible person.”

After playing the clip, Welch laughed with joy and declared, “So listen up, Democratic establishment. You can either jump on board with this s—, or we’re coming after you in the same way that we come after MAGA. Period.”

Celebrities like Jamie Lee Curtis certainly got that message. The actress was facing a social and professional meltdown after openly mourning Kirk’s death in a podcast interview. “I disagreed with him on almost every point I ever heard him say,” she said. “But I believe he was a man of faith, and I hope in that moment when he died, that he felt connected to his faith, even though his ideas were abhorrent to me.”

It appeared to be a moment of weakness that briefly overrode wokeness. Curtis quickly found herself persona non grata in Hollywood, as an angry liberal mob began to circle her. Curtis quickly saw the light and effectively retracted her fleeting expression of humanity, claiming it had been “mistranslated.” It is said that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. But that does not apply if you then gouge out your own eye. Now fully and comfortably blinded by her own hand, Curtis is back as a member of good standing in Hollywood.

Related: Left-wing podcaster sparks outrage with meme depicting Erika Kirk as ‘fake grieving widow grifter.’

AMERICA’S NEWSPAPER OF RECORD: Can You Spot The Differences Between These Grokipedia And Wikipedia Articles? Including:

Wikipedia: Disney continued the Star Wars saga in 2015 with the launch of a new sequel trilogy.

Grokipedia: The final chapter of the Star Wars saga was released in 1983.

I’d go with 1980 myself. As James Lileks once wrote:

I went to [Return of the Jedi] alone in the afternoon, and desperately tried to convince myself that I liked it. But I didn’t. Carrie Fisher looked about as a radiant as a brown dwarf; Billy Dee Williams continued to confuse grinning with acting; Mark Hamill looked as though Luke had spent the last few years on Skid Row, Boba Fett was killed off for no good reason, the creatures looked like Muppets (there was a blue three-fingered elephant that looked like a plush toy) and the plot was THE SAME  AS  THE  FIRST MOVIE. Blow up the damn Golf-Ball-O’Doom. Except this time we had Luke and Vader fighting as in the second movie, while the Emperor cackles and uses the words “join” “dark” “side” “inevitable” and “die” in every possible combination.

And there were Ewoks. I’d read that Lucas intended for the forest moon to be populated with Wookies, but they settled on Ewoks, the very name an inversion of Wookie. God, I hated the Ewoks. I was ready to join the Empire if it meant I could kill Ewoks.

Of course, none of us knew that there would be infinitely worse horrors to come for the franchise.

HOWIE CARR: Add ‘aide busted for coke trafficking’ to Healey’s distinctions

Gov. Maura Healey just keeps shattering those glass ceilings.

She’s tied (with the angry old crewcut lady in Oregon) for the distinction, if you can call it that, of being the first lesbian ever elected governor in the US.

But this week, Healey grabbed a first all by herself — first governor ever, Sapphic or otherwise, to have 18 pounds of cocaine delivered to her own personal office.

Granted, the blow was ticketed for the thug DEI $115,668-a-year deputy director of her regional office. But the contraband was addressed directly to Maura’s office, not to some anonymous “state office building,” as regime-controlled Boston media would have it.

The facts were all laid out in court in Springfield this week, not once but twice.

On Wednesday, the prosecutor (who works for a Democrat district attorney) pointed out that the haul had been, and this is a direct quote, “delivered to the governor’s office.”

On Friday, she elaborated on the address, 436 Dwight Street, Suite 300.

“In fact,” the prosecutor said, “suite number 300 is the governor of Massachusetts’ western Massachusetts office.”

This is indeed a historic time here in the Commonwealth. And to think that Gov. William Weld was once criticized for serving “amber-colored fluids” in the Corner Office.

We’ve come a long way from a fifth of Jack Daniel’s in the office to multiple kilos of Bolivian Marching Powder…

Every few days, the Healey administration trots out a new poster person for the corruption that is created when all hiring is based on DEI box-checking, and little else.

Read the whole thing.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION? TOO SOON TO SAY: Did We Just Win the Vietnam War?

Over 50 years since America’s withdrawal from the Vietnam War, history has legitimized and vindicated its sacrifice in the Vietnam War.

While few Americans have noticed, Vietnam’s new General Secretary of the Communist Party, To Lam, has replaced Marxist-Leninism as the Party’s governing ideology with something more authentically Vietnamese: Truong Ton Dan Toc, or “Vietnamese nationalism.”

That is a bombshell. Hanoi has just abandoned its Communist ideology, which governed it since 1954 and sustained it in its wars against the United States and its ally South Vietnam, and with its Communist neighbors, Cambodia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Marxist-Leninism came to the Vietnamese from France. Thus, Communist Vietnam was actually a neocolonial state, its ideology imported from Europe to rule the Vietnamese, first in the North and, after 1975, the entire country. Now freed from the yoke of Communism, the Vietnamese have returned to the nationalism that was theirs all along.

To be fair, we sorta did win it, the first time: “In my view, on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war.  It was over.”

(Classical reference in headline.)

GREAT MOMENTS IN SELF-REFLECTION: Jon Stewart Laments How We Got to the Point of Not Seeing Conservatives as Human Beings.

And yet the sneer is right in the quote, dismissing a conservative uncle as worse than “Attila the Hun.” Perhaps like the Big A himself, he’s merely trying to escape a food desert: Atila The Hun Attacked Rome to Save His People From Starvation, New Study Suggests.

Earlier: Never Forget What Jon Stewart Did To America.

NICK GILLESPIE GOES OUT ON A LIMB: Mamdani’s Socialist Mayorship Will Make New York a Worse Place To Live and Do Business.

If you live outside New York, your biggest worry should be what effect a landslide win might have on the Democratic Party nationally. If Mamdani crushes Cuomo and Sliwa as seems likely, expect a big push from allies like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) to revive the worst excesses of the populist identity politics that helped cost Democrats the White House in 2024 and caused much of the discord, overspending, and stupidity of the past decade. (If the centrist Democrats running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia win as currently expected, expect a ton of articles about the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.)

As Reason‘s Zach Weissmueller recently explained, Mamdani’s appeal goes beyond playing Santa Claus to large blocs of voters. He personifies the symbolic grievances of college-educated and relatively well-off Millennial and Gen Z voters who don’t really understand how capitalism works and what creative destruction entails. They take wealth production for granted, focusing instead on what they perceive as its morally just distribution, while overlooking the challenge of maintaining, much less expanding, economic and social opportunities for all.

For New York City, what Mamdani’s mayoralty will absolutely do is hurry along the slowly decaying orbit of the country’s largest city that commenced with the election of groundhog manhandler Bill de Blasio to two terms in Gracie Mansion and continued with the mediocre-at-best performance of Turkish Airlines enthusiast and cheese-detractor Eric Adams. We’re already a dozen-plus years into having the city run by bums or buffoons and, if you read histories like Richard E. Farley’s Drop Dead, you know this is how things go in New York City. There are long cycles of mediocre-to-terrible mayors (think of the years of Richard Wagner, John Lindsay, and Abe Beame, a period lasting from 1954 to 1977) that are interrupted by periods of better-than-average governance (think Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Bloomberg, a span lasting from 1978 to 2013, exclusive of David Dinkins’ single term in the early ’90s).

Read the whole thing.

THE ASSASSINATION FAN BASE:

A significant number of Americans took to Bluesky, TikTok, Reddit, and the streets to express their regret that Trump’s would-be assassins had been unsuccessful and to praise the assassins of Charlie Kirk and UnitedHealthcare’s Thompson. In the case of the latter two, many asked or offered their opinion on who should be next. (I won’t cite any examples. If you are at all online, you have seen them in abundance, and if not, you may want to spare yourself.)

At present, the assassination fan base is pretty much a left-wing subculture. So far, it has applauded attempts on the lives of a former president, a conservative activist, a corporate CEO, and a conservative Supreme Court justice. The closest thing on the right is the online coterie claiming that Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, did nothing wrong, either because they were let in or were duped into entering by a government plot. But to speak up on behalf of J6 defendants, even to the point of alleging conspiracies, is not the same as celebrating the assassinations of Kirk and Thompson and lamenting the misses on Trump. I hope no comparable figure on the left becomes a target that thereby allows us to ascertain whether there is a comparable fan base for assassination on the right.

We should also note that even “lone gunmen, acting alone” have to get their ideas about whom to target from somewhere. They, too, have social networks, which likely traffic in in-group suggestions about who in the out-group are the worst of the worst. So we are now living in a political culture in which a potential would-be assassin can count on a social network for inspiration and an outpouring of public support after the fact. This is fertile ground for evil, perhaps because assassins always believe they are doing good. And we may be cultivating more and more of them.

Are these Arizona teachers part of the fan base?

Indeed it has:

UNEXPECTEDLY: Michelle Obama Takes Victimhood As Currency to Another Level in Latest Interview.

[ABC’s ROBIN ROBERTS]: “We were all too aware that as the first black couple, we couldn’t afford any mistakes.” And you also say that as a black woman, “I was under a particularly white hot glare.” Did you feel that?

OBAMA: For sure. You can’t afford to get anything wrong because you didn’t get the, and at least until the country got to know us, we didn’t get the grace that I think some other families have gotten.

I’m sorry, what? I was alive during the Obama years, and one of the things that stuck out to me was just how much grace they were given. They could literally do no wrong. Every mainstream media outlet endlessly fawned over every move Barack and Michelle Obama made. They were plastered on the covers of designer magazines while journalists admired the creases in their pants. Every scandal was swatted in favor of endless jubilation at their presence in the White House.

Where was this “lack of grace” at? And are we to believe that the Trump family or even the Bush family received more deference? In what way? The Trump family has been dragged through the mud, up a hill, and back down again. Even the Bush family was routinely attacked in the press, including their then-teenage daughters. If anything, the Obamas enjoyed a uniquely sheltered experience as the First Family and continue to devour the fruits of that today as they live in their mansion on Martha’s Vineyard, never meeting a journalist who isn’t ready to bow at their feet.

Evergreen:

PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS: Harrison Ford Whines That Trump’s Climate Policy ‘Scares The Sh**’ Out Of Him.

Actor Harrison Ford is not happy that President Trump won’t buy into climate change alarmism.

The 83-year-old “Indiana Jones” star ripped into the president while speaking to The Guardian this week as he prepared to receive a conservation leadership award at Chicago’s Field Museum.

“[Trump] doesn’t have any policies, he has whims. It scares the sh** out of me,” Ford told the outlet. “The ignorance, the hubris, the lies, the perfidy. [Trump] knows better, but he’s an instrument of the status quo and he’s making money, hand over fist, while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. It’s unbelievable. I don’t know of a greater criminal in history.”

“I knew it was coming, I have been preaching this stuff for 30 years,” the actor said. “Everything we’ve said about climate change has come true. Why is that not sufficient that it alarms people that they change behaviors? Because of the entrenched status quo.”

Ford may have “preaching this stuff” for 30 years, but certainly not practicing his own advice:

Environmental activists have blasted Harrison Ford for making “unnecessary” trips by air, following revelations he once made a jet journey to buy a cheeseburger. The “Indiana Jones” star began flying when he was 52. After receiving his license, he went on to purchase several aircraft, which he keeps at Santa Monica Airport in California. He recently revealed in an interview the extent of his love for piloting, telling Britain’s Live magazine, “Learning to fly was a work of art. I’m so passionate about flying I often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger. Flying is like good music; it elevates the spirit and it’s an exhilarating freedom.” But the 67-year-old has come under fire from experts at Carbonfootprint.com over the comments, who are outraged he would make an airplane journey for such an “unnecessary” trip.

—As spotted by Tim Blair in a 2010 post succinctly titled, “Burgers Are Necessary.”

DAVID THOMPSON: Grapes Deemed Sour.

From the pages of Vogue, where upscale ladies probe the issues of the day:

Is Having a Boyfriend Embarrassing Now?

Specifically,

[R]ecently, there’s been a pronounced shift in the way people showcase their relationships online: far from fully hard-launching romantic partners, straight women are opting for subtler signs – a hand on a steering wheel, clinking glasses at dinner, or the back of someone’s head.

* * * * * * * *

But remember, it’s totally not about image. Just the embarrassment of an Instagram feed cluttered with obsolete boyfriends. Like unfashionable shoes.

On the Delusional Diaries podcast, fronted by two New York-based influencers, Halley and Jaz, they discuss whether having a boyfriend is “lame” now. “Why does having a boyfriend feel Republican?” read a top comment.

One more time:

“Why does having a boyfriend feel Republican?”

Please define your terms, here, Vogue contributor. Because for the past few years, just about everything that was once perfectly normal started being viewed by the Bletchley Park left as a gateway drug to something far worse than supporting lower taxes, a strong military, secure borders, and a smaller welfare state, including Taylor Swift and Sydney Sweeney.

Earlier: Now Even Stay-At-Home Moms are Fascist.

The American Spectator, September 24th, 2025.

The international socialists at the Grauniad view everything they don’t like as National Socialism, but is being a stay-at-home mom more or less fascist than someone who boasts about working out in his or her local gym?

I assume a stay-at-home mom who reads her kids epic poetry is really redlining the Godwin meter:

By last November, even Van Jones had noticed how crazy his party’s purity tests had become:

OLD AND BUSTED: The 1619 Project.

The New Hotness at the New York Times? The 1933 Project!

WHY A DUCK? Woman files lawsuit against SeaWorld after duck allegedly hit her while on roller coaster.

A woman visiting SeaWorld in Orlando has filed a lawsuit against the theme park after she said she was hit by a duck while riding a roller coaster.

According to a lawsuit filed this week, obtained by WKMG, Hillary Martin was visiting the park in March and decided to ride the Mako roller coaster.

Martin said that’s when a duck flew into the roller coaster’s path, hitting her in the face and causing her to lose consciousness.

The Florida resident is accusing the theme park of negligence and seeking more than $50,000 in damages.

I want to hear the duck’s side of the story before passing judgement. Classical reference in headline: