Author Archive: Ed Driscoll

SONY’S MISTAKE, ACCORDING TO OBAMA:

Michael Lynton was the CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment when it greenlit Seth Rogen’s film The Interview. You’ve most likely never seen it because it displeased the Supreme (Communist) Leader of North Korea and led to North Korea’s hack of the company’s emails, confidential scripts, and his family’s personal information. Sony limited distribution of the film in order to mitigate the damage.

The Wall Street Journal published an excerpt of Lynton’s memoir in its February 21 Review section. In the excerpt Lynton blames the malformation of his character for what he deems a monumental corporate mistake. I was disgusted to read President Obama’s concurrence in Lynton’s assessment:

Eight months later, after it became clear that the North Koreans had hacked Sony, and after the studio had lost its relationships with many of its most important stars—including Will Smith, Adam Sandler and Angelina Jolie—I spoke to President Obama about the whole incident. Unsurprisingly, he asked the right question: “What were you thinking when you made killing the leader of a hostile foreign nation a plot point? Of course that was a mistake.”

I read the excerpt that Saturday. My first thought was I am so glad Obama isn’t president. My second thought, as to both the memoir and Obama’s contribution, was sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut. My third thought was I blame Obama — the Supreme (Communist) Leader sized him up for a chump. I was surprised the Journal published the excerpt without some reflection on its contents. It is pitiful.

Back in 2007 and 2008, then-Senator Obama was frequently compared to JFK. But the real JFK had no problem had no problem with Frank Sinatra and John Frankenheimer making a movie which depicted the assassination of an American presidential candidate at Madison Square Garden:

In an interview [Angela Lansbury] said many people asked her what it was like to work with Frank Sinatra and she always tells them she doesn’t know because they didn’t have any scenes together other than a quick one where they were getting their coats on.

It wasn’t until later she learned that Frank Sinatra was an integral part of making sure the movie was made.

“I know that Frank wasn’t the easiest person for John to work with,” she said. “But they seemed to have an alliance. I think Frank understood what a tremendous opportunity it was for him to play this role. He knew that his friend (President) John Kennedy adored the book. Frank talked to JFK about the role and one of his questions oddly enough was ‘who’s playing the mother?’”

I’ve heard that tale told before with Kennedy asking Sinatra, “Who’s playing the Red Queen?” In any case, as Lloyd Benson would say, Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.

DR. OZ’S PRESCRIPTION: “We learn via X that Dr. Oz has deferred $259.5 million of quarterly federal Medicaid funding in Minnesota to prevent payment of questionable claims while further investigation is completed.”

Much more like this, please.

ROD DREHER: Jesse Jackson: Godfather of the Great Awokening.

In a sense, Jackson never fully recovered from his love child scandal. With Democrats out of the White House through most of the 2000s, he had much less influence. The next Democrat to take the presidency was Barack Obama, who, as the first black president, de facto diminished Jackson’s unique role.

Then again, it could be argued that in the Obama era and beyond there was no need for Jesse Jackson, because his worldview—one based on leveraging identity politics for political and corporate power—had broadly triumphed in elite culture.

In 1987, Jackson joined a student protest at Stanford University, demanding an end to its mandatory “Western Culture” humanities course. “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture’s got to go!” protesters chanted. The students won. In the next academic year, Stanford introduced a multicultural replacement, including non-Western perspectives and those from women and people of color.

That protest, and Jackson’s role in nationalizing its anti-Western goals, drew considerable comment at the time. Within 30 years, though, what was then seen as a radical demand had become the establishment position within all academia, and remains so today.

And:

Though Jesse Jackson was only a shadow of his former activist self at the time of his passing, his significance should not be overlooked. Though the Great Awokening had many sources, the canny and entrepreneurial Reverend Jackson was its godfather. If you seek his monument, look to every corporate HR department and major media institution, and to university programming, and patterns of foundation grant-making over the last 20 years or so.

And, more darkly, look to the rise of identity politics in the younger generation of whites, who are not intimidated by Jackson-style moralizing. A growing number of them openly embrace pro-white racism, violating a taboo on which Jackson’s moral power depended. What was good, financially and politically, for Jesse Jackson, his allies, and his activist descendants may yet prove disastrous for American democracy.

Regarding the “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture’s got to go!” protest at Stanford, in his obit for Jackson at NRO, Dan McLaughlin wrote:

Charity toward the departed suggests leaving off further discussion of Jackson’s public career here, but not without noting the man’s abundant gifts as a public speaker in his prime. As P. J. O’Rourke described Jackson’s convention speech in 1988: “I did, however, want to hear Jesse Jackson speak. He is the only living American politician with a mastery of classical rhetoric. Assonance, alliteration, litotes, pleonasm, parallelism, exclamation, climax and epigram — to listen to Jesse Jackson is to hear everything mankind has learned about public speaking since Demosthenes. Thus Jackson, the advocate for people who believe themselves to be excluded from Western culture, was the only 1988 presidential candidate to exhibit any of it.”

Concurrent with Jackson as Patient Zero in the Great Awokening, from Newt Gingrich to Dubya and Jeb Bush to Trump, Jackson never saw a Republican he couldn’t compare to Hitler, despite wishing to see socialism to go national himself, endorsing Bernie Sanders in 2020.

JOY REID’S TIME TRAVELING HACKERS NOW EMPLOYED BY JIMMY KIMMEL:

Will Kimmel be editing Harper’s or the New York Times after his show goes off the air?

 

DAVID HARSANYI: Yes, Democrats are crazy.

Anyone with a functioning moral compass is horrified by the thought of the government seizing confused children from parents and allowing strangers to mutilate their bodies via “gender-affirming care,” a perverse euphemism for plying children with puberty blockers or hormones, or worse.

During the State of the Union, President Donald Trump proposed that “no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will. Who can believe that we’re even talking about it?” Republicans then stood and clapped when the president introduced Sage Blair, a teenager who the state of Virginia allowed to “transition” while hiding it from her parents. Democrats sat, as they would for most of the president’s speech. “Look, nobody stands up,” Trump said, pointing to the minority party. “These people are crazy.”

Yes, they are. I’m positive most of the politicians sitting on the Democrats’ side of the congressional divide during the State of the Union recognize that children don’t have the maturity, much less the magical ability to choose a gender. I’m sure most of them would be distressed if one of their own demanded to be identified by the wrong sex and asked to be mutilated. But they’re all members of a political party that’s been captured by fringe social science quackery and militant factions of unhinged activists. Democratic Party candidates who fail to embrace gender pseudoscience probably aren’t going to win primaries. And that’s crazy.

Exit quote:

QED:

#HIMTOO? World Economic Forum boss quits after review of Epstein links.

The president and CEO of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Borge Brende, has resigned after a review into his links to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The forum ordered an independent review into Brende over his ties to the disgraced financier following the release of Epstein files by the US Department of Justice.

Brende has acknowledged he dined with Epstein three times between 2018 and 2019 and communicated with him by email and text, but said he was “completely unaware” of his past criminal activity.

2018, huh? Katie Couric, Woody Allen, and George Stephanopoulos Attended Party With Epstein After 2008 Conviction.

Top media figures dined with Jeffrey Epstein after he served 13 months in jail following a plea in which he pleaded guilty to two counts of prostitution in 2008. He had been accused of molesting dozens of girls.

Epstein was arrested on July 6 and charged with sex trafficking; authorities said nude photographs of underage girls were found in his New York mansion after he was arrested.

Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, Woody Allen, and Chelsea Handler were among the media and Hollywood figures who dined with Epstein at his house in New York City in 2010, reported the Daily Beast in 2011. The event? A party for Epstein’s friend Prince Andrew, at the time the fourth in line for the throne in Britain.

And once again:

DON’T BE A GLASSHOLE: Mark Zuckerberg’s Court Appearance Proves Smart Glasses are Problematic.

Arriving at a social media addiction trial in Los Angeles last week, Mark Zuckerberg and his legal team were donning stylish Meta Ray-Bans. The one problem? You’re not allowed to wear smart glasses in court.

The judge “upbraided the Meta team”, according to tech journalist Jacob Ward, who was in the courtroom at the time. He called it “an extraordinary misstep”.

But not everyone was convinced it was a mistake: SFGate called it “supremely odd product placement” while Gizmodo reckons Zuckerberg figured there’s “no such thing as bad press”.

Judge Carolyn Kuhl warned the Los Angeles Superior Court last week that anyone recording proceedings will be held in contempt of court. “If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court,” the judge said. “This is very serious.”

Photography is generally banned in L.A. County’s Superior Court. “Judicial officers have the discretion to place limitations on video recording and photography in their courtroom,” a court spokesperson tells CBS News.

In June of 2019, Christine Rosen of Commentary wrote a lengthy article titled “What Is To Be Done About Facebook?”, in which she noted that “From the company’s earliest days, Facebook’s leaders have adopted a remarkably consistent approach to the exposure of problems and missteps: a mercenary variation of the ‘ask for forgiveness, not permission’ strategy.” Wearing smart glasses in court is entirely consistent with that worldview.

BOTTLE SHOCK: California winery owner gives hottest take yet on why industry is dying.

The owner of a Sonoma County winery believes the industry is dying because Boomers are.

Jon Phillips, the owner of Sonoma County winery Inspiration Vineyards and Winery, told The Post that the population decline of the industry’s top wine-consuming generation has led to a recent downturn in sales.

“A lot of people have a misconception that the Boomers are drinking less,” he said. “This cannot be emphasized enough: it’s not because the Boomers are drinking less, it’s because there are less Boomers.”

Phillips, a Boomer himself at 65 who has produced wine since 1999, says Gen X has been unable to fill the void left by their forebears.

“These were the people that were really responsible for joining wine clubs and Gen X that came after boomers just weren’t really into wine to the same level that the boomers were into wine,” he said.

At one point he struggled with his wine club subscription service, but not because of demand or inferior wine.

“It’s because my customers literally were dying,” he said.

He says in conjunction with the declining Baby Boomer demand is less interest from younger generations like Gen Z and Millennials who have slowly adopted wine. Other factors like tariffs and recent wildfires have hurt wine-growing and producing operations, he added. He also pins new negative messaging concerning alcohol on declining sales.

Jeremy Clarkson writes that for British young people, booze is increasingly being replaced with the stickiest of the icky: “Of course Gen Z loves weed, it’s kale in a Rizla” rolling paper.

Well obviously, health is now an issue because someone with pink armpit hair and a keffiyeh recently decided that if you to go to the pub with your mates and have a couple of pints and a laugh and maybe a kebab on the way home, you may become a red-nosed Tory. Far better to do a downward dog and drink something effervescent from a monk’s limestone well in Nepal. But actually, if you talk to Gen-Z kids, they will tell you that beer at £6 a pint is the main problem. Because £6 may as well be £6 million if you have a student loan to pay off and you’re not prepared to earn a bit extra by going online and putting things in your front bottom.

These kids say they haven’t lost the desire to get a bit of a buzz on with their mates; they’ve simply worked out that weed costs a hell of a lot less than going to the pub and they have a point. One round of drinks for four is £24. A gram of weed is about half that. And remember, they have been told this drug comes from a plant which means it snuggles nicely in the war underbelly of the socialist, woke, anti-meat agenda. It’s kale in a Rizla.

Cheap. Fun. And healthier than booze. But is it? When I was at school no one had mental health issues. There were kids that had what we called ants in their pants and others who were a bit miserable occasionally, but these things could be cured with a bit of light bullying over a nice pint.

Today, you’re weird if you don’t have a mental health issue of some kind. Last year, ten million employees claimed they were suffering from something with a modern acronym. One in five snowflakes and Gen-Z kids actually took time off work because of it. Every year, the cost to the economy is reckoned to be £57 billion.

And worse, as Glenn spotted last week: Adolescent cannabis use linked to doubling risk of psychotic and bipolar disorders.

(Classical reference in headline.)

¡SALUD AL SEÑOR CLOWARD Y A LA SEÑORA PIVEN!

Exit question:

(Alusión clásica en el titular.)

DALILAH’S LAW: U.S. Senator Banks introduces commercial driver’s license-related bill announced by Trump during State of the Union.

Dalilah’s Law, a commercial driver’s license-related bill spoken about at length by President Donald Trump during Tuesday’s State of the Union address, was recently introduced by U.S. Senator Jim Banks, a Republican from Indiana.

The bill, introduced on Wednesday by Banks, prohibits states from issuing commercial driver’s licenses to individuals who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States or holders of certain work visas.

Named after Dalilah Coleman, a first-grade student who was injured in a crash involving a semitruck driven by Partap Sigh, an Indian man who was driving a semi-truck in California, Trump spoke about the introduction of the bill during Tuesday evening’s speech.

“Many, if not most, illegal aliens do not speak English and cannot read even the most basic road signs as to direction, speed, danger or location,” Trump said, according to a transcript of the State of the Union from the American Presidency Project. “That’s why tonight, I’m calling on Congress to pass what we will call the Dalilah Law, barring any state from granting commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.”

Much more like this, please.

GREAT MOMENTS IN ENVIRONMENTALISM: Cuba Becomes The First Country To Reach Net Zero. Shouldn’t We Be Celebrating?

There it was on the front page of Saturday’s New York Times: with a small assist from the United States, the island nation of Cuba has almost entirely ended the use of fossil fuels. Finally, we have the first country in the world to achieve the climate movement’s Holy Grail and nirvana — Net Zero! Or at least a very close approximation. This should be cause for a huge celebration.

You would think that the Times, which has been demanding the elimination of fossil fuels for at least a couple of decades, would be leading the celebrations. But weirdly, now that Cuba has finally shown the way, the Times chooses to put a completely different spin on the achievement. The headline and subheadline are (print edition): “U.S. Choking Oil Deliveries To Cuba Ports; Military Action Brings a Nation to Its Knees.”

The piece reports that the Trump administration is helping Cuba to achieve Net Zero by preventing oil tankers from landing there. Somehow in this piece, that is spun as a bad thing. It has brought Cuba “to its knees.”

The funny thing is that here in the U.S., it was just over a year ago that we had President Biden and an administration full of zealous environmentalists who were using every governmental power at their disposal to force Americans to stop using fossil fuels. By Executive Order 14057 of December 8, 2021, Biden had directed all federal agencies to pursue an aggressive “all of government” operation to achieve “net zero” on an accelerated schedule. Goals number 1 and 2 from that EO are “100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity on a net annual basis by 2030,” and “100 percent zero-emission vehicle acquisitions by 2035.” In 2023, the Department of Transportation released a “Blueprint” for eliminating all carbon emissions from the transportation sector. In 2024 EPA released a plan to eliminate fossil fuels from electricity generation. Similar initiatives were everywhere in the government.

Presumably, Trump helping Cuba reach Net Zero has the backing of the German Greens, who dusted off the Morgenthau Plan to return Deutschland to the Dark Ages,  Scientific American, and Kamala Harris:

ROGER SIMON SCORES EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Sigmund Freud Analyzes the SOTU.

RS: And when President Trump said of the Democrats, “These people are crazy!”… What did you think of that?

SF: “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

RS: You’ve said that before.

SF: In another context, yes.

RS: So you think they are crazy. How’d that happen?

SF: From what I called “the narcissism of small differences.”

RS: Which is?

SF: A common enough occurrence at many dinner tables. Family members, wittingly or not, gradually assert positions—not all that different from those of the others, but enough—from their own egotistical needs and desires, with the deliberately obscured intention of singling themselves out, of taking control, and continue to do so over time until the original normative family position changes, sometimes for the better but more often for the worse.

RS: You’re saying this is the same pattern but writ large?

SF: Indeed… and with possibly catastrophic results. What was, not so long ago, your Democratic Party is pretty much what your Republican Party is today. Social programs and reforms that originally made some sense kept expanding, when a number of Democrats, impelled by this form of narcissism, demanded more and more, building on each other, until reaching the absurdities we see today in the realms of sexuality and identity, among others, that depart from any version of reality and make their holders seem, well, “crazy,” as Donald Trump put it in layman’s terms.… No doubt you read Carlyle on the French Revolution. It’s the prototype.

RS: Democrats are today’s Jacobins?

SF: So far, no guillotines, but beware… Unfortunately, the Republicans aren’t much better, only on the margins. Your entire Congress reeks of corruption. You can even smell it up here.

Read the whole thing.

JD VANCE REVEALS WHAT HE SAW FROM DEMOCRATS DURING THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH THAT MOST VIEWERS DIDN’T:

“First of all, obviously, most Democrats didn’t stand up or clap, and what a shame that is,” Vance said. “What a sad commentary that is on the Democratic Party, that the idea that the American government should stand for American citizens, not illegal aliens. That shouldn’t be controversial, but apparently it was to the Democrats.”

But that wasn’t all.

But I will say, Bill, something that I saw that probably most TV viewers didn’t see was really the cowardice, because there were a few Democrats who sort of politely clapped. They didn’t want to stand up. I guess maybe they were worried about being primaried by the far-left fringe of their party. But they were all looking around. They weren’t actually saying, you know what, I’m going to stand and support this because this is a common-sense, obvious statement. They were all looking around for cues from their colleagues, because they didn’t have the courage to stand on their own.

The pattern continued even as the president introduced his guests, many of whom were hailed as American heroes. They deserved immediate applause, yet several received only muted or delayed reactions from the Democratic side of the chamber. Whether that hesitation stemmed from, as Vice President Vance suggested, fear of a far-left primary challenge or from an entrenched refusal to celebrate anything associated with the president remains an open question.

Perhaps the port side of the aisle were simply too dazzled by the appearance of the man behind Trump:

DEVELOPING: Cuba Shoots Four Dead in Clash With Florida Speedboat.

Cuban forces killed four people and wounded six others who were traveling in a speed boat with Florida tags and opened fire on the island’s border patrol, the government said.

The vessel approached within one nautical mile off the coast of Villa Clara on Wednesday morning, the Ministry of Interior said in a statement. When security forces approached to identify the passengers, the occupants opened fire, injuring the commander of the military vessel.

US and Cuban tensions are running high as Donald Trump’s administration has effectively imposed a naval blockade on the communist-run island, and dramatically reduced its access to fuel. The president has also mused about the collapse of the six-decade-old regime.

Soon:

OLD AND BUSTED: “Land Acknowledgements.”

The New Hotness? Taxpayer Acknowledgements!

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER’S SOTU REBUTTAL WAS JUST PLAIN WEIRD:

Having just watched Democrats beclown themselves at the State of the Union address, a clearly-nervous and fidgety Abigail Spanberger – the new governor of Virginia – had the unenviable task of trying to put a positive spin on her party’s dire and decidedly unpatriotic behavior. Like all Democrats, when faced with espousing how her party’s policies help everyday Americans, she merely resorted to attacking President Trump. The whole thing was pretty weird.

Spanberger had a few reasons to be nervous. She was the follow-up act to Trump’s barnburner of a speech that saw the president celebrate the best of America while also calling out Democrats for their skewed priorities, particularly when it comes to prioritizing illegal immigration over the safety of American citizens.

Secondly, she was under fire from the left for choosing to deliver the official Democrat response from Colonial Williamsburg … because slavery? She knows who put her in the Governor’s Mansion, so she may have been feeling the beady eyes of the radical left on her as she spoke from the House of Burgesses.

Lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes:

CHOOSING SIDES: Trump Got Democrats to Admit That Illegal Aliens Come First, Not You and Your Family.

In other words: Trump Directs and Films the Main Political Advertisement for the Midterms.

UPDATE:

OLD AND BUSTED: “[Alan] Turing had pointed out that, if one could carry out a prolonged conversation with a machine—whether by typewriter or microphones was immaterial—without being able to distinguish between its replies and those that a man might give, then the machine was thinking, by any sensible definition of the word. [The HAL 9000] could pass the Turing test with ease.”

—Arthur C. Clarke, the novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

The New Hotness?

 

OUR MEN’S HOCKEY TEAM’S HISTORIC WIN WAS JUST TOO MUCH FOR SPORTS WRITERS TO BEAR:

The charge against the men’s team seems to be four-fold. First, that, having won the gold, its members declined to address the “tide of fascism in the United States” and instead said gauche hyper-nationalistic things, such as, “This is all about our country right now,” “I love the USA,” “I’m so proud to be American today,” “This is for every American,” “It’s the greatest country in the world,” and “Everyone better be wearing the red, white, and blue for as long as they can.” Second, that during a post-game phone call with a rollicking President Trump, the players didn’t band together on the spot to push back against his supposedly sexist jokes — or apologize later for their complicity. Third, that the team subsequently agreed to go to the White House to celebrate their victory — and, even worse, that it seems excited by that prospect. Fourth, that the FBI director, Kash Patel, went over to Italy to watch the game and then chugged beer with the team in the locker room. Together, the sporting press is keen to inform us, these decisions have “sullied” the USA’s victory and ruined the reputations of its architects for all time.

What nonsense this all is. What narrow, monomaniacal, outlandish, freakish guff. I had a low opinion of sports writers before the last 48 hours, but good grief do I now want to throw the entire corps into a lake. The USA men’s team wins the gold for the first time in 46 years, and the news cycle following that achievement is stocked with fringe, politicized crap. I am reminded in this moment of Margaret Thatcher, berating the press after the recapture of South Georgia during the Falklands War. “Just rejoice at that news,” Thatcher said, “and congratulate our forces and the Marines.” Amen, Maggie. Just rejoice, and congratulate our team. I promise you’ll live through the ordeal. Not everything has to be a campus psychodrama. Not all stories need to “surface the nuances of” this or that. Not every incident that tangentially involves Donald Trump requires his elevation to the star of the tale. It’s okay to be happy that the United States won something, without finding 100 other reasons to be sad, angry, indignant, or confused. There really is no need to stretch to canonize a woman who represents another country when we have our own heroes before our very eyes. Rejoice!

Journalists are not politicians, and there is no need for them to be perfectly representative of the nation. But it might be a good thing for our culture if they weren’t all massive weirdos.

One of the cliches of the newspaper business is to call the sports section the paper’s “candy store” or “toy department.” (Hoping to get a rise out of Bill Parcells in 2004, Mike Wallace of Sixty Minutes told him that he — Parcells — worked in the toy department.) Most sports writers see themselves as capable of crafting far meatier stuff than writing up sports games, and they wouldn’t get hired by their editors if they weren’t leftists, so of course they’re rooting for Eileen Gu and the CCP, and loathe American patriotism in general (scoundrel, last refuge of) and Trump specifically.

Think of the past couple of days as a dry run though, for what’s coming this summer:

UPDATE:

OLD AND BUSTED: “You Have to Break a Few Eggs to Make an Omelette.”

The New Hotness? Forget the omelette, let’s just break some eggs:

As George Orwell famously asked, “‘Yes, but where is the omelette?’, the answer is likely to be: ‘Oh well, you can’t expect everything to happen all in a moment.’”

Or ever.

DISPATCHES FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF FUN CITY: Mamdani Responds to Agitators Hurling Snowballs at NYPD, Immediately Makes It Even Worse.

Mamdani was asked whether he agreed with NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch that the incident in Washington Square Park on Monday was “criminal.”

[…]

PBA President Patrick Hendry called it “unacceptable and outrageous,” saying, “The individuals involved must be identified, arrested and charged with assault on a police officer. And all of our city leaders must speak up to condemn this despicable attack.”

But Hizzoner disagreed.

“I don’t from the videos that I’ve seen,” Mamdani told reporters when pressed about comments from the PBA. “It looks like a snowball fight.”

When asked how he knew those involved were “kids” — as footage appeared to show adults taking part — Mamdani just said: “I can just tell you from the video I saw, it looked like kids in a snowball fight.”

Watch:

Um, no. It wasn’t “kids” causing injuries to police officers, and it wasn’t a mere snowball fight between the people and the officers because the pelting was only coming from one direction, and the officers were clearly overwhelmed.

Imagine being an NYPD officer, having to be out in this weather and face this kind of abuse, and then having Mamdani add insult to injury by acting like it was harmless fun involving children.

Mamdani was on record during the Summer of Love for wanting to defund the police, and demoralizing them into quitting is one way to accomplish just that: What NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s public safety agenda could mean for NYPD.

Mamdani’s views on law enforcement have shifted since 2020. After the 2020 killing of George Floyd, he was among the Democrats calling to defund the police, writing on social media that the NYPD was “racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety.”

He also referred to the department as a “rogue agency,” comments that drew sharp criticism from police unions and city officials.

In a later interview with The New York Times, Mamdani said he owed officers an apology. He has since said he no longer supports cutting the NYPD’s budget and promised to maintain current staffing levels.

Based on his statement today, I’d take him at his word back in 2020.

A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE ARE ANGLING TO BE THE EDITOR OF HARPER’S: New York Times ‘Fact-Checks’ Trump’s State of the Union—Before He Delivers the Address.

Before the State of the Union address, politicians and interest groups from the party opposite the president sometimes offer “prebuttals,” denunciations of the president’s remarks even before they’ve been released or spoken. These anticipatory denunciations of unseen, undelivered remarks are the stuff of speculative, spin-cycle political talking points, not news.

Yet this year, the New York Times broke with precedent and ran a print article headlined “Wobbly Claims on Jobs, Inflation and Crime,” assailing President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech before he even delivered it.

The “fact check” carries the byline of the factually challenged New York Times “fact-check” reporter Linda Qiu. The New York Times uses her pedantically against Trump but not against New York City’s truth-stretching mayor Zohran Mamdani. This latest column is entirely off base when it comes to the substance, attempting to undermine Trump’s claims of progress on inflation, jobs, crime, and immigration. On immigration, the Times rolled out fact-checking terminology—”slightly exaggerated”—that is comical in its demonstration of Times bias. When the Times fact-checkers discover Democrats saying things slightly exaggerated, they call them “mostly true.”

What’s more than slightly exaggerated is any pretension remaining at the Times that the newspaper is nonpartisan rather than totally in the tank for the Democrats.

Time traveling starts at a young age among the left:

Flashback: Media ‘Con Game:’ Predetermined Storylines.

Harper‘s magazine editor Lewis Lapham is being appropriately mocked for a major pre-GOP-convention boner. In the September issue of his magazine, which has been on newsstands for over a week, Lapham writes about the “Republican propaganda mill” and the GOP convention:

“The speeches in Madison Square Garden affirmed the great truths now routinely preached from the pulpits of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal — government the problem, not the solution; the social contract a dead letter; the free market the answer to every maiden’s prayer — and while listening to the hollow rattle of the rhetorical brass and tin, I remembered the question that [Richard] Hofstadter didn’t stay to answer. How did a set of ideas both archaic and bizarre make its way into the center ring of the American political circus?”

That’s right, Lapham wrote about the GOP convention speeches before anyone even stepped to the podium. Lapham has apologized for what he’s calling a “rhetorical invention,” use of “poetic license,” and a “mistake.”

But the only “mistake” Lapham made is in revealing for all to see what has long been known by anyone who pays attention to the news: the major media routinely bring to their coverage of significant political events a predetermined storyline — you might want to call it a “Lapham”. Facts that undermine the storyline are ignored or explained away as aberrations to The Truth. For the editor of Harper‘s and other establishment press figures, it really makes no difference to them what will be said at Madison Square Garden because the Laphams are already set, loaded in the scribblers’ word processors and television anchor tele-prompters and ready to go.

Maybe Lapham employed Joy Reid’s time traveling hackers to pull it off?

THAT’S QUITE A LOT OF DECLINE TO HIDE: Was Climate Change the Greatest Financial Scandal in History?

Environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg recently calculated that across the globe, governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex.

And for what?

Arguably, not a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources. The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy.
Since the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree — as even the alarmists will admit.

In other words, $16 trillion has been spent — a lot of people got very, very rich off the government largesse — but there is not a penny of measurable payoff.

But it’s much worse than that. In economics there is a concept called opportunity cost: What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off?

What if the $16 trillion had been spent on clean water for poor countries? Preventing avoidable deaths from diseases like malaria? Building schools in African villages to end illiteracy? Bringing reliable and affordable electric power to the more than 1 billion people who still lack access? Curing cancer?

Many millions of lives could have been saved.

Yes, but with much fewer private jet trips to Davos. Have some priorities here, man!