October 31, 2026

A LITTLE WEEKEND READING:

Posted at 9:07 am by Stephen Green

TRUE.

Posted at 9:00 am by Glenn Reynolds

DISPATCHES FROM THE OCCUPIED ZONES: Anti-Gunner Vandalizes 9/11 Memorial To Spread His Hatred for Guns. “Neither the NYPD nor the NYFD were willing to comment publicly about a wanton act of vandalism that occurred this week at Ground Zero of the 9/11 Memorial.  Calls and emails to both agencies were not returned. It’s not too difficult to figure out why.”

Posted at 8:35 am by Stephen Green

SOME PEOPLE ARE POISON. THEY’RE USUALLY LEFTIST PEOPLE.

Posted at 8:30 am by Glenn Reynolds

“I HAD SPENT YEARS DISMISSING THOSE WARNINGS BECAUSE THEY CAME FROM REPUBLICANS.”

Posted at 8:00 am by Glenn Reynolds

HMM:

Related:

It is entirely acceptable.

Posted at 7:19 am by Glenn Reynolds

MUST-FLEE TV: Dan Rather on Trump’s First Amendment Assault, Bari Weiss’ ‘Wreckage’ of CBS News and How His Doc ‘Rather’ Is Now Streaming for Free on YouTube.

As seen in the doc, Rather isn’t slowing down: He continues to write a Substack newsletter, “Steady,” and has plenty of thoughts about the state of the media — and that includes what has happened to his longtime alma mater, CBS News.

“Rather” details his controversial 2006 exit from CBS News*, but also the highlights of his legendary 44-year career with the network (also depicted via never-before-seen footage in the doc). So Rather’s take on what has happened to CBS News under new owner Skydance carries weight. To sum it up, he’s not a fan.

“What’s happened at CBS News is sad,” he said. “It is in many ways a disaster, not just for the people who work at CBS News — and there’s still a lot of really good people working there. But this is a further example of big billionaire corporate power in bed with powerful people and the presidency to get control of these operations for their benefit.

* CTRL-F “Bush” brings back zero results in Variety’s article.

But why is a showbiz tabloid covering Dan Rather and CBS News? As “George MF Washington” explored in July: How Hollywood Lost the Hollywood Press. “Because now the business of the business isn’t deals or box office results so much as controversy… and that controversy, which is primarily centered on culture war issues and political agitation, is bad for The Business. In Hollywood, the political current runs almost entirely in one ideological direction. And while Hollywood itself may not notice because progressive views are commonplace inside the industry, to millions of potential ticket buyers in flyover country, the Trades now reinforce a perception that Hollywood is talking to itself rather than to America. The Trades engage with the business of cultural and political controversy in two ways…. by harvesting controversy and by creating controversy.”

Posted at 7:14 am by Ed Driscoll

WHEN THEY FACE BLOODY REVOLUTIONS, I WILL NOT SYMPATHIZE:

Posted at 7:04 am by Glenn Reynolds

I HAVE HEARD THIS FROM UNDERGRADUATES WHO ARE SEARCHING FOR JOBS:

Posted at 7:00 am by Glenn Reynolds

THEY HAVE A STRONGER STOMACH THAN I. I QUIT READING IT ALMOST TWO DECADES AGO:  Neo-kremlinologists still find value in The E-Communist, er, I mean The Economist.

For us neo-kremlinologists, the magazine has been unduly generous in the last week, providing two interesting snapshots into the neuroses and instincts of the lumpenintelligentsia at the present moment. Before I go any further, it is important to add that these people are not uniformly specious or slow on the uptake — like the Soviet intelligentsia in the 1970s, it includes many highly intelligent and perceptive people, who may be thoughtful or even forthright about the crises that beset us, but only discreetly and on an individual basis. In the atmosphere of stultifying intellectual conformity that they inhabit, what matters is what they feel comfortable discussing and admitting to one another in public, because it is that which shapes the direction of policy. And it is on that that the Economist‘s cachet can be helpful, by virtue of the freedom it lends its unbylined writers to think aloud.

It was the more recent of the two articles that has garnered the most attention. An article titled “Do immigrants from some countries commit more sex crimes?” on 25th October admitted that, yes, they do. The piece was accompanied by a graphic showing — on a logarithmic scale — the rate at which immigrants in Britain were convicted of sexual crimes, by nationality, relative to that of British nationals. The graphic showed very clearly that nationals of countries in non-EU Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East were substantially more likely to be convicted of sexual crimes than British nationals, with people from Afghanistan way out ahead of any other group. EU nationals, meanwhile, were slightly less likely to be convicted of such offences, and East Asians and Australasians even more underrepresented in the statistics. People from the Americans and the Caribbean were, on average, roughly equal to British nationals in their prolificness.

Posted at 3:00 am by Sarah Hoyt