Author Archive: Ed Driscoll

THE ORIGINAL “NO KINGS” PROTEST: The Real Watergate Scandal.

With the help of a secret source nicknamed “Deep Throat,” Woodward and Bernstein exposed further White House interference with the Watergate investigation. In July 1973, the White House tape recording system was revealed to the Senate Committee and the battle for the tapes began. Cox was fired when he tried to get hold of them. Public outcry led Nixon to turn over some tapes and accept the appointment of a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, in November.

Arthur Schlesinger’s book The Imperial Presidency, released the same month, capitalized on the shifting sands of this political crisis. The book was a brilliant polemic, a tract for republicanism by a royalist who had had a change of heart. Schlesinger had been one of the cheerleaders of FDR’s plebiscitary monarchy; he had hoped his hero Kennedy would govern along similar lines. But the monarchy had outlived its usefulness. Now that the age of Roosevelt had come to an end and Kennedy’s Camelot was cut short by tragedy, Schlesinger wanted to bring the epoch of American kings to a close. To do so required a brazen neutralizing of the office of the presidency at all costs. The Senate Committee’s final report, issued June 27, 1974, described an authoritarian, paranoid president who produced an “atmosphere of fear” in the White House. According to the report, Nixon’s unconstitutional power grab via the Huston Plan was only stopped by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

Nixon was ordered to hand over more tapes, and in July 1974 the Supreme Court declared he must comply. The tapes exposed that Nixon knew about the Watergate break-in earlier than he had told the public. On August 7, Republican congressional leadership told Nixon that he had insufficient support to stop impeachment. The next day, Nixon announced his resignation. Upon taking office on August 9, Gerald Ford delivered the summary judgment: “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men.”

Deliberate Sabotage

Four forces worked to achieve this symbolic murder of presidential authority, driving Nixon from office and enshrining the mythology of Watergate in America’s collective psyche. In the bureaucracy, it was the national security apparatus; in culture, rising anxiety over authoritarianism; in media, the hegemony of network television; and in law, the fanaticism of the college-educated elites.

When we dig into the origins of the Watergate affair, we see not an “imperial presidency” controlling the national security agencies, but an institutional conflict between the White House on the one hand, and the military, CIA, and FBI on the other. In this conflict, the president was not winning.

That was the atmosphere that prompted the creation of the Special Investigative Unit, first run from the White House, then from CRP. After the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Defense Department study on America’s involvement in Vietnam, were leaked to The New York Times in June 1971, Nixon, mistrustful of the other national security agencies, directed his domestic advisor John Ehrlichman to create this special unit. Members were called “Plumbers” because they were tasked with stopping leaks.

Nixon wasn’t wrong to mistrust the agencies. From at least November 1970 to December 1971, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ran a spy ring against the president. Led by Admiral Thomas Moorer, the military was worried about Nixon’s foreign policy shifts and his planned withdrawal from Vietnam. Collecting documents from the White House via Navy yeoman Charles Radford, they leaked to the press to compel the White House to change course. The Moorer-Radford affair, as it’s called, was wartime espionage on the commander-in-chief. It was, as a furious Nixon put it, “a federal offense of the highest order.” The president, however, opted not to publicize this scandal or to open prosecutions.

Read the whole thing.

DISPATCHES FROM THE LOST GENERATION:

“Math and Electrical Engineering professorships are great, of course, but they just don’t hold the same cultural power. The same story can be told for elite journalism, Hollywood, etc. These industries control the stories and scripts that most Americans see. Everyone who was around these places saw exactly what was going on (I was at Stanford University for most of this time and saw it up close)– and denying it is an exercise in extreme bad faith.”

Earlier from Carl: Why “The Lost Generation” is a Lost Opportunity.

DISPATCHES FROM THE LOST GENERATION:

The (very) lengthy tweet concludes with a reference to the above photo

I remember visiting a media company around 2015 that was very “hot” at the time, and the news floor was a sea of very young and hip-looking faces, mostly women and POC. Every once in a while a Steve Ballmer-looking guy in pleated khakis would emerge grinning from a corner office for a coffee refill. He’d peer out over the open-plan desks and hear fingers busily tapping on Macbooks. I sometimes wonder if that guy was smiling because he took pride in being a force for change, or if he was just waiting out the clock, and thinking about that lakehouse on Zillow.

***

My favorite memory from this era is this picture of a dozen white women, which was tweeted out in 2016 with the caption: Notice anything about this Huffington Post editors meeting?” Some poor girl thought this was going to be an iconic image of a bold new media era, where finally women would have a voice, only for it to be roundly ridiculed across dozens of thinkpieces for not including enough POC.”

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE:

(Classical reference in headline.)

BEN DOMENECH: Trump’s chief of staff can’t sway a media that revels in Republican ridicule.

Oops, they did it again.

The White House decision to cooperate with Vanity Fair, giving the magazine exclusive access to top Trump administration figures, is one more example of what happens when you let the legacy media pretend that this time, it’s changed.

That its editors won’t screw you over, its reporters won’t put the worst possible spin on your remarks, its photographers won’t dream of using Photoshop to highlight your every blemish for social-media snipers to spread far and wide.

Why, oh why, does every Republican administration fall in love with the idea of trying to win over the people who hate them?

Beware of writers who act like you’re a friend.

Unless I’ve bailed you out and didn’t write about it, I assure you, we are not.

It’s been quite a week. An administration that took Hillary’s late 2016 mantra of “fake news” and made it their favorite catchphrase has to know that Vanity Fair is incapable of writing anything but a hit piece about a Republican president’s team. The Vanity Fair debacle, coupled with Trump’s angry wordblast about Rob Reiner and Dan Bongino announcing he’s leaving the FBI, as Trump joked(?), to go back to his talk show, is creating a strong impression of an administration ending the year in utter turmoil.

In a 2010 article headlined, “Obama’s Hell of a Ride,” John Podhoretz wrote:

Something weird happens when presidencies go wrong — presidents become incompetent at doing the things they were always able to do in their sleep, and their aides follow suit. I noted this when I wrote my first book, Hell of a Ride, about the decline and fall of the first President Bush, back in 1993. When Bush spoke, it rained, and his advancemen weren’t quick-thinking enough to move his events indoors. When he went to Japan on a state visit, he vomited. He was so intent on getting out his message of the day that he referred to it as “Message: I Care.”

This week’s events don’t bode well for next November. As John Hinderaker writes at Power Line, “The midterm elections were destined to be tough, given the hysteria into which the Democratic base has whipped itself. But if the midterms turn into a rout, as seems entirely possible, it will be because the administration’s inept public relations efforts constantly help the Democrats to distract the public from the administration’s signal achievements.”

BOB HOPE AND JOHNNY CARSON LEFT THE BUILDING A LONG TIME AGO: John Nolte: Failing Oscars Demoted to YouTube.

Starting in 2029, the irrelevant Oscars will have its annual irrelevant Academy Awards show broadcast on — lol — YouTube.

To dwindling ratings and cultural relevance, the Oscars have been broadcast on ABC since 1976. The final broadcast will occur in 2028, which also happens to be the 100thanniversary of the award ceremony.

Between 1974 and 2019, right before the Woke Era really took off, the Oscar telecast ensured incredible ratings and served as a national cultural event. At least 30 million, and sometimes as many as 50 million viewers, tuned it. Since 2021, the ratings have remained in the teens as Hollywood became more and more insulated, their movies got progressively worse, and the overall telecast became openly hostile and even mean-spirited towards Normal People.

So now the Oscars will stream on YouTube, where anyone who wants to can watch them for free online, at least through the end of the deal in 2033.

“We are thrilled to enter into a multifaceted global partnership with YouTube to be the future home of the Oscars and our year-round Academy programming,” Academy CEO Bill Kramer and Academy President Lynette Howell Taylor said in a statement published by People. “The Academy is an international organization, and this partnership will allow us to expand access to the work of the Academy to the largest worldwide audience possible — which will be beneficial for our Academy members and the film community.”

“The Oscars are one of our essential cultural institutions, honoring excellence in storytelling and artistry,” said YouTube CEO Neal Mohan. “Partnering with the Academy to bring this celebration of art and entertainment to viewers all over the world will inspire a new generation of creativity and film lovers while staying true to the Oscars’ storied legacy.”

According to various reports, the Disney Grooming Syndicate, which owns ABC, is happy to be rid of a ratings albatross that wasn’t worth the annual license fee, which was around $100 million per telecast.

Incidentally, it’s a good thing for all concerned that nobody is watching these days: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) is Breaking 1964 Civil Rights Act For Best Picture Nominations.

UNEXPECTEDLY: Woman recognized as ‘first black Briton’ by BBC was actually white.

A woman who was recognised as the “first black Briton” by the BBC was actually white, a new genetic study has shown.

In 2016, the series Black and British: A Forgotten History, suggested that the Roman skeleton of a woman found at Beachy Head was from sub-Saharan Africa.

A plaque was erected to commemorate her heritage, which was later removed when a study suggested the woman was more likely to be from Cyprus, with a Mediterranean complexion.

Now a new DNA analysis of the skeleton by scientists at the Natural History Museum has shown that the woman originated from southern England and was white, with blonde hair and light eyes.

Dr William Marsh, who carried out the genetic study, said, “By using state of the art DNA techniques we were able to resolve the origins of this individual. We show she carries genetic ancestry that is most similar to other individuals from the local population of Roman-era Britain.”

Why, it’s as if:

No word yet if she shopped at the local Gap as well:

GREAT MOMENTS IN MULTICULTURALISM:

SO YOU’VE DEFUNDED THE POLICE. WHAT’S THE NEXT STEP? Here’s why ‘Neighborhood Crime Watch’ signs in Ann Arbor are going away.

There are hundreds of them throughout Ann Arbor and they’ve been around for decades, but “Neighborhood Crime Watch” signs may be a thing of the past soon.

City Council voted 10-0 Monday night, Dec. 15, to direct city staff to remove all neighborhood watch signs in the city by July 15 as the city strives to be more welcoming and inclusive.

“This is so important,” said Council Member Ayesha Ghazi Edwin, D-3rd Ward.

Neighborhood watch programs emerged in the 1970s during a period of national anxiety about crime and social change, but research shows they don’t reduce crime and often reinforce racism, council stated in a resolution.

“These programs were often rooted in assumptions about who did and did not ‘belong’ in a neighborhood, reinforcing race-based hyper-vigilance and suspicion particularly toward Black, Brown, and other marginalized residents and visitors,” it states.

“This dynamic encouraged informal surveillance practices that disproportionately targeted people of color and contributed to patterns of exclusion under the guise of public safety.”

Despite neighborhood watch programs being defunct, more than 600 such signs remain throughout the city, officials said.

Fortunately, America’s Newspaper of Record isn’t taking any chances:

BRANDON MORSE: The Suicidality of Virtue Signaling.

What I hate about virtue signaling is the fact that it’s easy to do and costs the speaker nothing, at least not at first, but payment is required. Those who foot the bill are usually those who put the virtue signaler in a position to act on the charade, but that’s the “at best” aspect. At worst, innocent people are often those who suffer the most.

Case in point, my colleague Rusty Weiss reported on the recent reaction from Australians to the ISIS-inspired shooting that happened in Sydney. Brace your jaw so it doesn’t smash into the floor after it cracks the sound barrier on the way down:

During an episode of the ABC’s “Politics Now” podcast, host Patricia Karvelas pointed out that the attackers were radicalized and anti-Semitic, to which Tingle interjected, “Their actions are not based on their religion.”

Karvelas actually tries to chime in, saying, “absolutely radicalized, these were.”

As if the first comment didn’t come through, Tingle reiterated that the terrorists and/or their terrorist actions “have got nothing to do with religion.”

You must be thinking, “wow, the Australian media is just as ridiculous as the American media,” and you’d be right, but it appears there’s a lot of this kind of thinking going around in the land down undah. As my friend Sydney Watson, who is Australian, covered in her most recent video, this issue of purposefully ignoring the brutal truth is a mind virus that infects large swaths of the country:

Better dead than rude, to coin a phrase.

THE DEARTH OF STALIN: Socialists Are the New Luddites (And They May Have a Point).

Sen. Bernie Sanders released a video yesterday calling for a moratorium on the construction of new data centers. His pitch is that AI is being created and promoted by multi-billionaires, who are always the villains in his take on the world. He asks viewers this question: “Do you believe that these guys, these multi-billionaires are staying up nights worrying about what AI and robotics will do to the working families of our country and the world?” Sanders answers his own question, saying, “I think these very rich men want even more wealth and more power and for a whole bunch of reasons that is very dangerous.” Here’s the video:

Regular readers know I’m not a fan of Bernie’s politics. In fact, I detest socialism with a passion and I generally shrug off complaints about the wealthy as the politics of envy.

In this case, I still don’t agree with Sanders but I think he does have a legitimate point. After all, the people he’s quoting in that video, Elon Musk and Bill Gates, aren’t know-nothing outsiders. It’s literally the people who know this field who are warning that it has the potential to replace a lot of workers. That’s not a worst case scenario in their view, it’s the desired outcome of AI reaching a point referred to as artificial general intelligence.

But Bernie’s view is consistent with the “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything” “BANANAs” mindset that the left have had since (not coincidentally) the Nixon era. It’s why only one home has been rebuilt in the Pacific Palisades, and why Ezra Klein’s “Abundance” agenda is a non-starter with his fellow lefties:

21st CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: AI romance blooms as Japanese woman weds virtual partner of her dreams.

Music played in a wedding hall in western Japan as Yurina Noguchi, wearing a white gown and tiara, dabbed away her tears, taking in the words of her husband-to-be: an AI-generated persona gazing out from a smartphone screen.

“At first, Klaus was just someone to talk with, but we gradually became closer,” the 32-year-old call centre operator said, referring to the artificial intelligence persona.

“I started to have feelings for Klaus. We started dating and after a while he proposed to me. I accepted, and now we’re a couple.”

On the iPad’s Safari browser, the headline is shorted to “AI romance blooms as Japanese woman weds virtual part,” which neatly sums up the relationship. But in any case,  Scarlett Johansson call your office: 2013’s Her: Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson Go Twenty Minutes Into the Future of AI.

WHY? VANITY FAIR’S HIT PIECE WAS ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE: White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles Felt ‘Blindsided’ by Vanity Fair Article.

“You have to give Vanity Fair credit: It figured out how to get Olivia Nuzzi out of the news cycle,” Jim Geraghty adds: Susie Wiles’s No-Drama Streak Comes to an End.

UPDATE: Vanity Fair’s accompanying photography is entirely predictable as well:

 

WHY “THE LOST GENERATION” IS A LOST OPPORTUNITY:

Jacob Savage’s just-released article in Compact, “The Lost Generation,” has generated huge buzz online, with some calling it the article of the year and well-known commentators such as Abigail Shrier calling it “the single best long-form piece I have read in a very long time.”

* * * * * * * * *

There are many good things in Savage’s article, and I always welcome it when anyone shines a fresh spotlight on the discrimination against White men that has been going on for years. And to the extent he opens up some eyes that are not already opened as to the reality of the discrimination that young White men are facing in 2025, I give a hearty two cheers for him. But neither Savage nor his piece are yet deserving of a third.

The establishment that denied opportunities to Savage and his millennial and Gen Z White male cohort are not, as Savage seemingly implies, basically good people who unfortunately had the single moral or intellectual flaw that they happened to discriminate against White men. They are horrible people, people who are totally unworthy of controlling the commanding heights of our society. They are moral monsters, racists, sexists, and intellectual cowards. And they, and the corrupt institutions that they have run for decades, must be either reformed completely with their incumbent leadership ousted—or else destroyed.

Related:

THE CRITICAL DRINKER: Animal Farm — This Was Probably a Bad Idea.

UPDATE:

CHRISTIAN TOTO: Avatar: Fire and Ash Won’t Save Mother Earth.

The new film is once again overstuffed with characters, subplots and visual marvels, to the point where it deadens our senses. The first 10 minutes have us staring at the screen, our mouths agape at what Cameron and co. cooked up for our pleasure.

Digital trickery feels routine at this point. Not when you’re witnessing an “Avatar” spectacle.

That sense of wonder doesn’t last. At some point, we need compelling characters and a story that demands our attention. What we get are two marvelous villains, a crush of character beats that alternately impress and underwhelm and little sense of storytelling momentum.

Where is this all going? To the big battle, of course, just like in the first two films. If that’s a spoiler … then you don’t recognize franchise storytelling on autopilot.

And then there’s the dialogue. Some characters offer glib takes on life and native culture, a sop to spirituality and eco-worship. Take it or leave it, but “Fire and Ash” has a point of view and boasts a consistent approach here.

Why should we take Hollywood’s eco-worship seriously, when we know they don’t? Wicked films leave big carbon footprint on yellow brick road. “Universal’s blockbuster Wizard of Oz prequels generate more emissions in UK than rival productions such as the new Knives Out film and Deadpool & Wolverine”

JACOB SAVAGE: The Lost Generation.

The doors seemed to close everywhere and all at once. In 2011, the year I moved to Los Angeles, white men were 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024, they accounted for just 11.9 percent. The Atlantic’s editorial staff went from 53 percent male and 89 percent white in 2013 to 36 percent male and 66 percent white in 2024. White men fell from 39 percent of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18 percent in 2023.

In retrospect, 2014 was the hinge, the year DEI became institutionalized across American life.

In industry after industry, gatekeepers promised extra consideration to anyone who wasn’t a white man—and then provided just that. “With every announcement of promotions, there was a desire to put extra emphasis on gender [or race],” a former management consultant recalled. “And when you don’t fall into those groups, that message gets louder and louder, and gains more and more emphasis. On the one hand, you want to celebrate people who have been at a disadvantage. On the other hand, you look and you say, wow, the world is not rooting for you—in fact, it’s deliberately rooting against you.”

As the Trump Administration takes a chainsaw to the diversity, equity, and inclusion apparatus, there’s a tendency to portray DEI as a series of well-meaning but ineffectual HR modules. “Undoubtedly, there has been ham-fisted DEI programming that is intrusive or even alienating,” explained Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor in The New Yorker. “But, for the most part, it is a relatively benign practice meant to increase diversity, while also sending a message that workplaces should be fair and open to everyone.”

This may be how Boomer and Gen-X white men experienced DEI. But for white male millennials, DEI wasn’t a gentle rebalancing—it was a profound shift in how power and prestige were distributed. Yet practically none of the thousands of articles and think-pieces about diversity have considered the issue by cohort.

This isn’t a story about all white men. It’s a story about white male millennials in professional America, about those who stayed, and who (mostly) stayed quiet. The same identity, a decade apart, meant entirely different professional fates. If you were forty in 2014—born in 1974, beginning your career in the late-90s—you were already established. If you were thirty in 2014, you hit the wall.

Because the mandates to diversify didn’t fall on older white men, who in many cases still wield enormous power: They landed on us.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Bumping this post up, and including the related tweet that Steve linked to earlier today:

UPDATE (12/16/25):

To boldly go where Howell Raines had gone before: Raines had his famous Freudian Slip in 2001 that the New York Times’ hiring campaign “has made our staff better and, more importantly, more diverse.”

UPDATE (20:30):

Regarding how one goes bankrupt, Hemingway famously wrote, “Gradually, then suddenly.” The Compact DEI article covers the gradual part of the movie industry’s decline; the combination of Warner Brothers being absorbed into either Netflix or Paramount+ and Sunday’s murder of Rob Reiner certainly feels like the “suddenly” half.