Remembering Dick Allen

Dick Allen , the outstanding slugger , died on Monday .
His obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer is here .
Fortunately , the Philadelphia Phillies finally got around to honoring their former superstar during a game this September , just in time .
After that event , I wrote this appreciation of Allen : Allen , who yesterday became the first Phillie not in the Hall of Fame to have his number retired by the team , was an immense talent and a major star .
From 1964 through 1967 , he was as good a hitter as anyone in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that only Hank Aaron was as good during that stretch .
Allen was no slouch in 1969-69 , either .
In ’ 68 , the year of the pitcher , he hit 33 home runs and drove in 90 runs .
In ’ 69 , playing only three-quarters of the season , he produced nearly identical totals .
But Allen was unpopular with a portion of the fan base .
The problem began when , in 1965 , he fought with teammate Frank Thomas after the popular veteran taunted him , asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , another Muhammad Clay ?
” The Phillies released Thomas , and the fans turned on Allen .
From that point on , some fans booed Allen incessantly .
He began wearing a batting helmet at all time for protection from projectiles being thrown at him .
Allen also had occasional disciplinary problems .
In July 1967 , he arrived late for a night game and in no condition to play .
Manager Gene Mauch had to bench him .
In 1968 , after Allen again arrived late for a game , Mauch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he goes or I go .
The Phillies fired Mauch .
In 1969 , the new manager , Bob Skinner , had to deal with Allen ’ s tardiness , including a missed airline flight .
Allen claimed the booing didn ’ t bother him , but he also expressed a desire to move on from Philadelphia .
In 1967 , he stated : When the Phillies finally traded Allen after the 1969 season , they got a bit more : Tim McCarver , Curt Flood , and Joel Hoerner .
Byron Browne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Cookie Rojas going to St. Louis .
When Flood refused to report to the Phillies , St. Louis sent minor leaguer Willie Montanez to Philadelphia .
Montanez became the teams starting first baseman in 1971 .
Liberated from Philadelphia , Allen had a great first four months of the season for the Cardinals , whose fans greeted his arrival with much enthusiasm .
He was the National League ’ s starting first baseman in the 1970 all star game .
However , Allen tore his hamstring in August and barely played the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injury can keep an athlete sidelined for six weeks .
However , rumors surfaced that the Cardinals thought Allen was “ jaking it.
” The team denied the rumors , but as soon as the season ended , they dealt him to the Dodgers for Ted Sizemore and Bob Stinson .
Sizemore was a good player and added value to the Cardinals batting second behind stolen-base king Lou Brock .
However , Allen might have been expected to fetch more on the trade market .
Allen had a productive season in Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one year to the Chicago White Sox for Tommy John and utility infielder Steve Huntz .
This was a classic trade that helped both teams .
John became a mainstay of the Dodgers pitching staff .
Allen was the American League ’ s MVP in 1972 and nearly carried the White Sox to the AL West title that year .
Allen was having another outstanding season in 1973 until he was injured in late June .
He had a productive 1974 season , but , plagued by more injuries , he announced his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” though , and said he would like to return to the Phillies .
He was dealt to Philadelphia for minor leaguers and in May of 1975 , he replaced Montanez whom the Phillies had just traded .
The Phillies were on the rise .
Allen wasn ’ t a consistently productive player , and in 1976 he briefly went AWOL .
Nonetheless , Allen became a mentor for young emerging stars like Mike Schmidt .
It was Schmidt who paid passionate tribute to Allen at the ceremony in Philadelphia yesterday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black man who refused to be treated as a second-class citizen .
He played in front of home fans that were products of that racist era [ with ] racist teammates and different rules for whites and Blacks .
Fans threw stuff at him and thus Dick wore a batting helmet throughout the whole game .
They yelled degrading racial slurs .
They dumped trash in his front yard at his home .
In general , he was tormented and it came from all directions .
And Dick rebelled .
My friends , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dick Allen out of the Hall of Fame .
Imagine what Dick could ’ ve accomplished as a player in another era , on another team , left alone to hone his skills , to be confident , to come to the ballpark every day and just play baseball .
Schmidt ’ s comments gloss over a fair amount of unprofessional behavior by Allen , not all of which occurred during his time in Philadelphia .
However , there ’ s no doubt that the treatment of Allen in Philadelphia was abhorrent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the mistreatment , he would have performed even better than he did .
As for the Hall of Fame , you can make the case .
During the period from 1964-1974 , Allen had the fifth-most home runs ( 319 ) behind only four Hall of Famers : Hank Aaron ( 391 ) , Harmon Killebrew ( 336 ) , Willie Stargell ( 335 ) and Willie McCovey ( 327 ) .
His .940 OPS during that time was second to Aaron ’ s .941 .
However , the other four all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more games than Allen .
His career WAR ( wins above replacement ) — better than Stargell ’ s but worse than the other three — suggests that he ’ s a borderline candidate for Cooperstown .
However , he ’ s not a borderline candidate to have his number retired by the Phillies .
I ’ m happy that Dick Allen finally received this deserved honor .
I may have understated the case for Allen ’ s inclusion in the Hall of Fame .
His obituary in the Inquirer points out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 165 OPS+ ( a stat that combines on-base percentage and slugging percentage and normalizes it by accounting for factors like ballparks ) was better than that of Hank Aaron , Harmon Killebrew , and Willie McCovey ( not all of whom were not in their prime throughout that period , though ) .
It also observes that from 1880 to 1990 , 24 players registered a slugging percentage of .510 or better over at least 6,300 plate appearances .
Allen is the only one not in the Hall of Fame .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , but the committee meeting to vote on his candidacy was postponed due to the pandemic .
At least he lived long enough to get his big day during a Phillies game .

Dick Allen, the outstanding slugger, died on Monday. His obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer is here.
Fortunately, the Philadelphia Phillies finally got around to honoring their former superstar during a game this September, just in time. After that event, I wrote this appreciation of Allen:
Allen, who yesterday became the first Phillie not in the Hall of Fame to have his number retired by the team, was an immense talent and a major star. From 1964 through 1967, he was as good a hitter as anyone in baseball. Indeed, I’d say that only Hank Aaron was as good during that stretch.
Allen was no slouch in 1969-69, either. In ’68, the year of the pitcher, he hit 33 home runs and drove in 90 runs. In ’69, playing only three-quarters of the season, he produced nearly identical totals.
But Allen was unpopular with a portion of the fan base. The problem began when, in 1965, he fought with teammate Frank Thomas after the popular veteran taunted him, asking “who are you trying to be, another Muhammad Clay?”
The Phillies released Thomas, and the fans turned on Allen. From that point on, some fans booed Allen incessantly. He began wearing a batting helmet at all time for protection from projectiles being thrown at him.
Allen also had occasional disciplinary problems. In July 1967, he arrived late for a night game and in no condition to play. Manager Gene Mauch had to bench him.
In 1968, after Allen again arrived late for a game, Mauch gave the Phillies an ultimatum — either he goes or I go. The Phillies fired Mauch. In 1969, the new manager, Bob Skinner, had to deal with Allen’s tardiness, including a missed airline flight.
Allen claimed the booing didn’t bother him, but he also expressed a desire to move on from Philadelphia. In 1967, he stated:
I’d like to get out of Philadelphia. I don’t care for the people or their attitude, although they don’t bother me or my play. But maybe the Phillies can get a couple of broken bats and shower shoes for me.
When the Phillies finally traded Allen after the 1969 season, they got a bit more: Tim McCarver, Curt Flood, and Joel Hoerner. Byron Browne also went to Philadelphia with Jerry Johnson and Cookie Rojas going to St. Louis. When Flood refused to report to the Phillies, St. Louis sent minor leaguer Willie Montanez to Philadelphia. Montanez became the teams starting first baseman in 1971.
Liberated from Philadelphia, Allen had a great first four months of the season for the Cardinals, whose fans greeted his arrival with much enthusiasm. He was the National League’s starting first baseman in the 1970 all star game. However, Allen tore his hamstring in August and barely played the rest of the season.
A hamstring injury can keep an athlete sidelined for six weeks. However, rumors surfaced that the Cardinals thought Allen was “jaking it.”
The team denied the rumors, but as soon as the season ended, they dealt him to the Dodgers for Ted Sizemore and Bob Stinson. Sizemore was a good player and added value to the Cardinals batting second behind stolen-base king Lou Brock. However, Allen might have been expected to fetch more on the trade market.
Allen had a productive season in Los Angeles, but the Dodgers traded him after one year to the Chicago White Sox for Tommy John and utility infielder Steve Huntz. This was a classic trade that helped both teams.
John became a mainstay of the Dodgers pitching staff. Allen was the American League’s MVP in 1972 and nearly carried the White Sox to the AL West title that year.
Allen was having another outstanding season in 1973 until he was injured in late June. He had a productive 1974 season, but, plagued by more injuries, he announced his retirement in September.
Allen “unretired,” though, and said he would like to return to the Phillies. He was dealt to Philadelphia for minor leaguers and in May of 1975, he replaced Montanez whom the Phillies had just traded.
Philadelphia fans welcomed him back with a standing ovation.
The Phillies were on the rise. Allen wasn’t a consistently productive player, and in 1976 he briefly went AWOL. Nonetheless, Allen became a mentor for young emerging stars like Mike Schmidt.
It was Schmidt who paid passionate tribute to Allen at the ceremony in Philadelphia yesterday. He said:
Dick was a sensitive Black man who refused to be treated as a second-class citizen. He played in front of home fans that were products of that racist era [with] racist teammates and different rules for whites and Blacks. Fans threw stuff at him and thus Dick wore a batting helmet throughout the whole game. They yelled degrading racial slurs. They dumped trash in his front yard at his home. In general, he was tormented and it came from all directions. And Dick rebelled. My friends, these [negative] labels have kept Dick Allen out of the Hall of Fame. Imagine what Dick could’ve accomplished as a player in another era, on another team, left alone to hone his skills, to be confident, to come to the ballpark every day and just play baseball.
Schmidt’s comments gloss over a fair amount of unprofessional behavior by Allen, not all of which occurred during his time in Philadelphia. However, there’s no doubt that the treatment of Allen in Philadelphia was abhorrent, and it’s possible that, without the mistreatment, he would have performed even better than he did.
As for the Hall of Fame, you can make the case. During the period from 1964-1974, Allen had the fifth-most home runs (319) behind only four Hall of Famers: Hank Aaron (391), Harmon Killebrew (336), Willie Stargell (335) and Willie McCovey (327). His .940 OPS during that time was second to Aaron’s .941.
However, the other four all had more productive years and played many more games than Allen. His career WAR (wins above replacement ) — better than Stargell’s but worse than the other three — suggests that he’s a borderline candidate for Cooperstown.
However, he’s not a borderline candidate to have his number retired by the Phillies. I’m happy that Dick Allen finally received this deserved honor.
I may have understated the case for Allen’s inclusion in the Hall of Fame. His obituary in the Inquirer points out that during his first ten seasons, Allen’s 165 OPS+ (a stat that combines on-base percentage and slugging percentage and normalizes it by accounting for factors like ballparks) was better than that of Hank Aaron, Harmon Killebrew, and Willie McCovey (not all of whom were not in their prime throughout that period, though).
It also observes that from 1880 to 1990, 24 players registered a slugging percentage of .510 or better over at least 6,300 plate appearances. Allen is the only one not in the Hall of Fame.
Allen might have made the Hall this year, but the committee meeting to vote on his candidacy was postponed due to the pandemic.
At least he lived long enough to get his big day during a Phillies game.
RIP.


powerlineblog--2020-12-09--Hillbilly Elegy, the movie

Hillbilly Elegy, the movie

Hillbilly Elegy by J.D .
Vance is one the most worthwhile books I ’ ve read in recent years .
It ’ s a riveting account of Vance ’ s family as it moved from the hills of Kentucky to an Ohio steel town — Middletown — where it struggled to fulfill some semblance of the American Dream .
Hillbilly Elegy is also a sociological study of Middletown and its “ hill ” population .
The story had special resonance for me because one of my best friends at law school was from Middletown , where his father was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s economic anchor .
I visited Middletown briefly in 1975 .
At that time , Middletown was prosperous .
However , it fell on hard times due to the American steel industry crisis of the 1990s .
The economic hollowing out had a devastating impact on Middletown ’ s working class .
One impact was drug addiction on a large scale .
In a sense , the story is a familiar one , replicated throughout the rust belt .
Yet , key aspects of the story — especially its human side — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , until Vance published his book .
Now , “ Hillbilly Elegy ” is a movie .
I watched it last night on Netflix .
The film , a Ron Howard production , removes virtually all of the book ’ s sociology .
It focuses entirely on the story of Vance , his mother , and his maternal grandmother .
The plot centers on the mother ’ s addiction and Vance ’ s quest , while a student at Yale law school , to obtain a summer clerkship with a prestigious law firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help his mother who has just overdosed .
We learn almost nothing about Middletown and very little about its hillbilly population .
There is no indication that the mother ’ s addiction is part a drug epidemic , although we can infer this .
What we get is a Hollywood melodrama .
It ’ s not really a bad movie in my opinion , but it ’ s not a worthwhile one .
If you read the book , there ’ s not much reason to see the movie unless you like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t read the book , you might enjoy the movie , depending on your tastes , but you won ’ t get much out of it .
The film has not received favorable reviews from critics — far from it — although the audience reviews are pretty good .
Glenn Reynolds thinks the critics ’ negativity is politically based .
That seems odd because , with the sociology removed , “ Hillbilly Elegy ” is almost devoid of political content .
However , Reynolds correctly observes that “ these days , everything coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reynolds may be wrong is in his claim that the very depiction of hill people — “ deplorables ” — in a sympathetic light upsets liberal film critics .
That ’ s not what I take away from the reviews I ’ ve read .
The review on Roger Ebert.com is similar to my thinking about the movie , but more sympathetic .
The reviewer gives it two-and-a-half stars ( half a star more than I would have ) , and writes : The film version of J.D .
Vance ’ s memoir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so encumbered by cultural baggage and expectations that it ’ s hard to appreciate what it actually is—along with the things it does well , which are numerous , and understated enough to vanish in the haze of the zeitgeist .
It ’ s not a great or even particularly distinctive movie , but it ’ s heartfelt and plain-spoken enough that it might connect with viewers whose families have dealt with addiction and recovery , domestic abuse , financial deprivation , and other problems highlighted in the story .
.
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in making sweeping statements about the historical roots of white , working class , Republican Rust Belt grievances against so-called “ Blue America.
” .
.
.
.
I wanted a bigger , bolder , more imaginative take on this material than “ Hillbilly Elegy ” is willing or able to deliver .
But there ’ s still a lot to like here .
.
.
This critic panned the film , but on cinematic grounds , not for being sympathetic to “ deplorables.
” This left-wing critic hated that the film didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s family on corporate greed and conservative public policies .
He also complains that the filmmakers are elitists who “ lack empathy for the working class.
” Right or wrong , this grievance isn ’ t based on contempt by the critic for “ deplorables.
” Vox ’ s critic calls Hillbilly Elegy “ possibly the worst movie I ’ ve seen in years.
” She complains that it ’ s “ distractingly Hollywoodified , a rich person ’ s idea of what it is like to be a poor person , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular kind of liberal guilt by reifying the very thing that caused the guilt in the first place.
” I ’ m not sure what this critic means , exactly , by the last part of that sentence , but she is not looking down on the white working class .
In fact , she associates herself with that class , and with Vance , saying that her family origins are similar to his and that she too was the first in her family to attend college — and at an “ elite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depiction of the white working class off key .
So did conservative Kyle Smith in his review for NRO .
He argued that , while Vance ’ s book rings true in this regard , the movie adaptation does not .
Finally , consider the Washington Post ’ s review called , ungrammatically , “ Hillbilly Elegy is almost laughably bad — if it weren ’ t so melodramatic.
” The critic complains that the film speaks out of both sides of its mouth : There is no contradiction here .
It might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Vance ’ s position , both perseverance and nerdlike qualities were needed to succeed .
( Actually , I think that ’ s the case for many of us . )
In the passage I quoted , the Post ’ s critic is trying to find political lessons in a film that has drained them from the book .
Later , though , he acknowledges that the film “ eschews theories ” and he complains about that .
It ’ s a rather incoherent review that , per Reynolds , does take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But after reading at least a dozen critical reviews , I don ’ t find that the critics ’ quarrel with “ Hillbilly Elegy ” is based on unhappiness that hillbillies are portrayed sympathetically .
Instead , the complaints , when not purely cinematic , tend to be that the portrayal lacks depth and nuance — a grievance that ’ s not without basis .

Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance is one the most worthwhile books I’ve read in recent years. It’s a riveting account of Vance’s family as it moved from the hills of Kentucky to an Ohio steel town — Middletown — where it struggled to fulfill some semblance of the American Dream.
Hillbilly Elegy is also a sociological study of Middletown and its “hill” population. The story had special resonance for me because one of my best friends at law school was from Middletown, where his father was an executive with Armco Steel, the town’s economic anchor. I visited Middletown briefly in 1975.
At that time, Middletown was prosperous. However, it fell on hard times due to the American steel industry crisis of the 1990s. The economic hollowing out had a devastating impact on Middletown’s working class. One impact was drug addiction on a large scale.
In a sense, the story is a familiar one, replicated throughout the rust belt. Yet, key aspects of the story — especially its human side — were unfamiliar to many, including me, until Vance published his book.
Now, “Hillbilly Elegy” is a movie. I watched it last night on Netflix.
The film, a Ron Howard production, removes virtually all of the book’s sociology. It focuses entirely on the story of Vance, his mother, and his maternal grandmother. The plot centers on the mother’s addiction and Vance’s quest, while a student at Yale law school, to obtain a summer clerkship with a prestigious law firm even as he becomes preoccupied with trying to help his mother who has just overdosed.
We learn almost nothing about Middletown and very little about its hillbilly population. There is no indication that the mother’s addiction is part a drug epidemic, although we can infer this.
What we get is a Hollywood melodrama. It’s not really a bad movie in my opinion, but it’s not a worthwhile one. If you read the book, there’s not much reason to see the movie unless you like to grumble. If you haven’t read the book, you might enjoy the movie, depending on your tastes, but you won’t get much out of it.
The film has not received favorable reviews from critics — far from it — although the audience reviews are pretty good. Glenn Reynolds thinks the critics’ negativity is politically based.
That seems odd because, with the sociology removed, “Hillbilly Elegy” is almost devoid of political content. However, Reynolds correctly observes that “these days, everything coming from the left is political.”
Where Reynolds may be wrong is in his claim that the very depiction of hill people — “deplorables” — in a sympathetic light upsets liberal film critics. That’s not what I take away from the reviews I’ve read.
The review on Roger Ebert.com is similar to my thinking about the movie, but more sympathetic. The reviewer gives it two-and-a-half stars (half a star more than I would have), and writes:
The film version of J.D. Vance’s memoir “Hillbilly Elegy” arrives on Netflix so encumbered by cultural baggage and expectations that it’s hard to appreciate what it actually is—along with the things it does well, which are numerous, and understated enough to vanish in the haze of the zeitgeist. It’s not a great or even particularly distinctive movie, but it’s heartfelt and plain-spoken enough that it might connect with viewers whose families have dealt with addiction and recovery, domestic abuse, financial deprivation, and other problems highlighted in the story. . . . “Hillbilly Elegy” has little interest in making sweeping statements about the historical roots of white, working class, Republican Rust Belt grievances against so-called “Blue America.”. . . . I wanted a bigger, bolder, more imaginative take on this material than “Hillbilly Elegy” is willing or able to deliver. But there’s still a lot to like here. . .
This critic panned the film, but on cinematic grounds, not for being sympathetic to “deplorables.”
This left-wing critic hated that the film didn’t blame the woes of Vance’s family on corporate greed and conservative public policies. He also complains that the filmmakers are elitists who “lack empathy for the working class.” Right or wrong, this grievance isn’t based on contempt by the critic for “deplorables.”
Vox’s critic calls Hillbilly Elegy “possibly the worst movie I’ve seen in years.” She complains that it’s “distractingly Hollywoodified, a rich person’s idea of what it is like to be a poor person, a tone-deaf attempt to assuage a very particular kind of liberal guilt by reifying the very thing that caused the guilt in the first place.”
I’m not sure what this critic means, exactly, by the last part of that sentence, but she is not looking down on the white working class. In fact, she associates herself with that class, and with Vance, saying that her family origins are similar to his and that she too was the first in her family to attend college — and at an “elite institution.”
However, she finds the depiction of the white working class off key. So did conservative Kyle Smith in his review for NRO. He argued that, while Vance’s book rings true in this regard, the movie adaptation does not.
Finally, consider the Washington Post’s review called, ungrammatically, “Hillbilly Elegy is almost laughably bad — if it weren’t so melodramatic.” The critic complains that the film speaks out of both sides of its mouth:
From one side of its mouth, the film tries to suggest that the values J.D. was imbued with — perseverance, self-sufficiency — fueled his success. . .From the other side of its mouth, the film hints that J.D. is who he is because he’s something of an anomaly: a chubby, ambitious, fact-spewing nerd. . . .
There is no contradiction here. It might be the case that, for someone in Vance’s position, both perseverance and nerdlike qualities were needed to succeed. (Actually, I think that’s the case for many of us.)
In the passage I quoted, the Post’s critic is trying to find political lessons in a film that has drained them from the book. Later, though, he acknowledges that the film “eschews theories” and he complains about that.
It’s a rather incoherent review that, per Reynolds, does take a brief shot at “Appalachian values.” But after reading at least a dozen critical reviews, I don’t find that the critics’ quarrel with “Hillbilly Elegy” is based on unhappiness that hillbillies are portrayed sympathetically.
Instead, the complaints, when not purely cinematic, tend to be that the portrayal lacks depth and nuance — a grievance that’s not without basis.


California’s Energy Fantasies

As everyone knows , California prides itself on being greener-than-thou .
Especially when it comes to energy .
California has mandated that it aims to double its “ green energy ” by the year 2030 , and to be totally carbon-free by 2050 .
The chief means for accomplishing this are more wind and solar power , and electricity storage ( think big big batteries ) .
Already California is experiencing rolling blackouts on high-demand days in the summer and fall .
And beyond that , it appears California already can ’ t meet its basic electricity needs .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unit of the Department of Energy ) earlier this week : California was the largest net electricity importer of any state in 2019 Electricity routinely flows between the Lower 48 states and , to a lesser extent , between the United States and Canada and Mexico .
Electricity generation exceeds electricity consumption in 25 states , and excess electricity is transmitted across state lines—almost 10 % of U.S. electricity generation is traded among states .
In 2019 , California ’ s net electricity imports were the largest in the country at 70.8 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of the state ’ s total electricity supply .
Pennsylvania ’ s electricity exports were the largest of any state in 2019 , at 70.5 million MWh , or 24 % of total supply .
This little detail is important : California utilities partly own and import power from several power plants in Arizona and Utah .
.
.
Although EIA data do not show which fuel sources were used to generate electricity traded between states , the generation profiles of exporting states in the State Electricity Profiles provide an estimate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both Arizona and Utah still have a fair bit of coal-fired electricity , and as electrons are fungible in the power grid , it is fair to conclude that California ’ a boast of being “ low-emission ” in its electricity system is partially fraudulent .

As everyone knows, California prides itself on being greener-than-thou. Especially when it comes to energy. California has mandated that it aims to double its “green energy” by the year 2030, and to be totally carbon-free by 2050. The chief means for accomplishing this are more wind and solar power, and electricity storage (think big big batteries).
Already California is experiencing rolling blackouts on high-demand days in the summer and fall. And beyond that, it appears California already can’t meet its basic electricity needs.
From the Energy Information Administration (the statistical unit of the Department of Energy) earlier this week:
California was the largest net electricity importer of any state in 2019 Electricity routinely flows between the Lower 48 states and, to a lesser extent, between the United States and Canada and Mexico. Electricity generation exceeds electricity consumption in 25 states, and excess electricity is transmitted across state lines—almost 10% of U.S. electricity generation is traded among states. In 2019, California’s net electricity imports were the largest in the country at 70.8 million megawatthours (MWh), or 25% of the state’s total electricity supply. Pennsylvania’s electricity exports were the largest of any state in 2019, at 70.5 million MWh, or 24% of total supply.
This little detail is important:
California utilities partly own and import power from several power plants in Arizona and Utah. . . Although EIA data do not show which fuel sources were used to generate electricity traded between states, the generation profiles of exporting states in the State Electricity Profiles provide an estimate of the fuel mix for exported electricity.
Both Arizona and Utah still have a fair bit of coal-fired electricity, and as electrons are fungible in the power grid, it is fair to conclude that California’a boast of being “low-emission” in its electricity system is partially fraudulent.


FNC sheds viewers

Fox News has hemorrhaged daytime viewers since election night .
Stories by Axios and the AP go into some details , reporting a surge in viewers to CNN since the election .
The AP story relates that Fox daytime viewership is down 10 percent compared to a year ago .
In prime time , however , Fox News still dominates .
According to Axios , Fox said it had its highest-rated November ever .
What happened ?
I wrote about it incessantly in the immediate aftermath of the election — here ( November 7 ) , here ( November 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and here ( November 13 ) .
Fox News lost the trust of its core audience — I speak as a former member — on election night .
Fox News has yet to answer for what happened on election night — its call of net gains for Democrats in the House early in the evening , before polls had even closed in California and its call of Arizona for Biden when the outcome was seriously in doubt .
Whatever happened to Arnon Mishkin ?
He appears to have been secreted into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rests on its right to remain silent .
My own inquiry to Fox News senior corporate communications executive Irena Briganti — see my November 13 post — has gone unanswered .
Throw in the performance of Chris Wallace at the first presidential debate and since then on Fox News Sunday .
If we never see his face again it will be too soon .
What a pompous fraud .
With so many prominent conservative pundits on the payroll as contributors , Fox has been spared a fair share of the criticism that might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How do you win back trust that has been squandered ?
I think you begin with a frank accounting to viewers .
The silence doesn ’ t cut it .

Fox News has hemorrhaged daytime viewers since election night. Stories by Axios and the AP go into some details, reporting a surge in viewers to CNN since the election. The AP story relates that Fox daytime viewership is down 10 percent compared to a year ago. In prime time, however, Fox News still dominates. According to Axios, Fox said it had its highest-rated November ever.
What happened? I wrote about it incessantly in the immediate aftermath of the election — here (November 7), here (November 8), here (November 9), and here (November 13). Fox News lost the trust of its core audience — I speak as a former member — on election night.
Fox News has yet to answer for what happened on election night — its call of net gains for Democrats in the House early in the evening, before polls had even closed in California and its call of Arizona for Biden when the outcome was seriously in doubt. Whatever happened to Arnon Mishkin? He appears to have been secreted into a witness protection program while Fox News itself rests on its right to remain silent. My own inquiry to Fox News senior corporate communications executive Irena Briganti — see my November 13 post — has gone unanswered.
Throw in the performance of Chris Wallace at the first presidential debate and since then on Fox News Sunday. If we never see his face again it will be too soon. What a pompous fraud. With so many prominent conservative pundits on the payroll as contributors, Fox has been spared a fair share of the criticism that might help it understand what it has done.
How do you win back trust that has been squandered? I think you begin with a frank accounting to viewers. The silence doesn’t cut it.


powerlineblog--2020-12-10--Coronavirus in one state (136)

Coronavirus in one state (136)

If you have time to take in one video on COVID-19 , I recommend the Power Point presentation by Kevin Roche immediately below .
Kevin originally gave the presentation via Zoom to the Edina Morningside Rotary Club .
I watched it live on December 1 thanks to the kind invitation of Dan Hunt and found it to be among the most educational presentations I have seen on the epidemic .
Constrained by time from completing his presentation on December 1 , Kevin has now finished it up for the video he posted to YouTube yesterday .
Silence !
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recordings of the Minnesota press briefings on the planned rollout of the vaccine in Minnesota below .
The point of these two presentations was to foster trust in the vaccine and the plan of distribution ( which is to follow CDC guidance ) .
On Tuesday Governor Walz convened the briefing — this one by Power Point as well — along with Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm , Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann , and Dr. Jill Amsberry , a pediatrician representing the Minnesota Medical Association .
This presentation focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the initial presentation with yet another briefing on the rollout of the vaccine , this one featuring state legislative leaders from both parties .
The interest in this one is not high either .
If you have found inspiration of any kind in Governor Walz ’ s twisted rhetorical flights , however , I direct your attention to his praise of President Trump ’ s role in Operation Warp Speed at about 10:30 .
Recognizing that fairness obligated him to take the good with the bad , Walz reflected : “ We don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose because you decide to not.
” That ’ s what the man said .
Yesterday Commissioner Malcolm and Director Ehresmann held the regularly scheduled MDH briefing .
They continue to await evidence of the dreaded Thanksgiving effect on the course of the epidemic .
Despite the 82 new deaths attributed to the epidemic yesterday — 51 of the 82 among residents of long-term care facilities — they are tentatively optimistic about the moderation of the current wave of the epidemic .

If you have time to take in one video on COVID-19, I recommend the Power Point presentation by Kevin Roche immediately below. Kevin originally gave the presentation via Zoom to the Edina Morningside Rotary Club. I watched it live on December 1 thanks to the kind invitation of Dan Hunt and found it to be among the most educational presentations I have seen on the epidemic. Constrained by time from completing his presentation on December 1, Kevin has now finished it up for the video he posted to YouTube yesterday. Silence!
In the interest of completeness I have posted video recordings of the Minnesota press briefings on the planned rollout of the vaccine in Minnesota below. The point of these two presentations was to foster trust in the vaccine and the plan of distribution (which is to follow CDC guidance). On Tuesday Governor Walz convened the briefing — this one by Power Point as well — along with Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm, Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann, and Dr. Jill Amsberry, a pediatrician representing the Minnesota Medical Association. This presentation focused on the vaccine distribution plan.
Walz followed the initial presentation with yet another briefing on the rollout of the vaccine, this one featuring state legislative leaders from both parties. The interest in this one is not high either. If you have found inspiration of any kind in Governor Walz’s twisted rhetorical flights, however, I direct your attention to his praise of President Trump’s role in Operation Warp Speed at about 10:30. Recognizing that fairness obligated him to take the good with the bad, Walz reflected: “We don’t just get to pick and choose because you decide to not.” That’s what the man said.
Yesterday Commissioner Malcolm and Director Ehresmann held the regularly scheduled MDH briefing. They continue to await evidence of the dreaded Thanksgiving effect on the course of the epidemic. Despite the 82 new deaths attributed to the epidemic yesterday — 51 of the 82 among residents of long-term care facilities — they are tentatively optimistic about the moderation of the current wave of the epidemic.


powerlineblog--2020-12-10--What’s in a name change?

What’s in a name change?

The Falls Church School Board has voted to rename Thomas Jefferson Elementary School and George Mason High School .
The vote was unanimous .
The new names apparently haven ’ t been selected yet .
In the early 1980s , I coached youth basketball games at George Mason High .
All of the Black players on my teams felt inspired , the school ’ s name notwithstanding .
One of them averaged 40 points per game .
None of the Black players on my teams felt unsafe or even uncomfortable at George Mason .
If anyone felt uncomfortable , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guard some of them .
Changing the name of these schools will have no impact on any student who attends them .
No one ’ s performance will improve .
No one will experience less malevolent conduct .
Parents ’ conduct won ’ t change either , and that ’ s what is required if student performance is to improve .
Parents will be no more inclined to support and inspire their kids even with the banishment of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason .
The name changes aren ’ t about safety , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What are they about ?
It ’ s easy to say they are about virtue signaling and that ’ s true as far as it goes .
But just how do the name changes signal virtue ?
No one supposes that members of the school board approve of slavery or whatever other evil practices Jefferson and Mason might have indulged in .
The name changes are really about appeasement .
Radicals want to topple the American system .
They claim , ridiculously , that it is “ White supremacist.
” As guilty as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t on board with overthrowing our system .
Neither are most Blacks .
I doubt that the Falls Church School Board wants to topple the system .
But to appease the militants , liberals are more than happy to topple symbolically the founders of the American system .
When those statues fall and those names change , it ’ s a pretend toppling .
One is tempted to laugh it off .
But symbols aren ’ t meaningless .
Symbolically throwing overboard the author of one of America ’ s two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it is an erosion .
For the American left , that ’ s the next best thing .

The Falls Church School Board has voted to rename Thomas Jefferson Elementary School and George Mason High School. The vote was unanimous. The new names apparently haven’t been selected yet.
School Board chair Greg Anderson explained:
Our schools must be places where all students, staff, and community members feel safe, supported, and inspired.
In the early 1980s, I coached youth basketball games at George Mason High. All of the Black players on my teams felt inspired, the school’s name notwithstanding. One of them averaged 40 points per game.
None of the Black players on my teams felt unsafe or even uncomfortable at George Mason. If anyone felt uncomfortable, it was the White players who had to guard some of them.
Changing the name of these schools will have no impact on any student who attends them. No one’s performance will improve. No one will experience less malevolent conduct.
Parents’ conduct won’t change either, and that’s what is required if student performance is to improve. Parents will be no more inclined to support and inspire their kids even with the banishment of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason.
The name changes aren’t about safety, support, inspiration, or performance. What are they about?
It’s easy to say they are about virtue signaling and that’s true as far as it goes. But just how do the name changes signal virtue? No one supposes that members of the school board approve of slavery or whatever other evil practices Jefferson and Mason might have indulged in.
The name changes are really about appeasement. Radicals want to topple the American system. They claim, ridiculously, that it is “White supremacist.”
As guilty as some White liberals may feel, they aren’t on board with overthrowing our system. Neither are most Blacks. I doubt that the Falls Church School Board wants to topple the system.
But to appease the militants, liberals are more than happy to topple symbolically the founders of the American system. When those statues fall and those names change, it’s a pretend toppling.
One is tempted to laugh it off. But symbols aren’t meaningless. Symbolically throwing overboard the author of one of America’s two foundational documents isn’t
a revolution, but it is an erosion. For the American left, that’s the next best thing.


powerlineblog--2020-12-10--Radical Son, Then and Now

Radical Son, Then and Now

David Horowitz ’ s classic memoir Radical Son was called by George Gilder “ the first great autobiography of his generation , ” and P.J .
O ’ Rourke described it as “ one of the best political memoirs I ’ ve ever read.
” Post Hills Press has just published a second edition of Radical Son with a new preface by the author .
What follows is David ’ s new preface , which focuses on the murder that is at the heart of his story and shows how the racial demagoguery and violence of our own time is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past .
Of all the books I have written—and there have been many—Radical Son is the one that has touched the most people , and touched them the most deeply .
I think the reason for this is that it describes a personal odyssey through the political labyrinths of our times .
Its narrative addresses the psychological and religious dimensions of what it means to be a radical and to harbor utopian dreams of re-creating the world and making it just .
Secular radicals have variously called these dreams of a heaven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ communism , ” or “ social justice.
” These fantasies are consolations for the flawed world in which we actually find ourselves , and can not escape .
Their seductive power is so great as to have lured legions of intelligent and otherwise compassionate individuals into supporting movements and regimes that are among the cruelest and most oppressive in all human history .
Radical Son is an account of my journey into the heart of this radical evil , and of my release from the illusions that led me there .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my radical generation , of which I am aware , that pursues the gut-wrenching interrogations that writing a witness like this required .
Others had second thoughts , and wrote political repudiations of the movement they had served .
But none examined the human consequences of those political beliefs and their rejection , or the internal struggles they provoked .
There was a severe injunction against an honest confrontation with the past .
To leave the Left as I did was to turn against human hope and promise , and to join instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When I was thirty-six years old and publicly announced my departure in an article called “ Goodbye to All That , ” which I wrote with my friend and political fellow traveler Peter Collier , I lost every friend I had acquired in my life until then , and countless platforms for my work .
It was why Whittaker Chambers famously said in Witness that he had left the winning side for the losing side .
The “ winning ” side was the side with the ideas—however delusional and destructive—that people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an earthly redemption was a hard hope to beat .
Armed with such ideas , the radical generation of the Sixties was able to engineer a turning point in America ’ s political life whose ramifications are still shaking the nation ’ s political foundations sixty years later .
I wrote Radical Son in the years 1993–1995 , following the fall of Soviet Communism and the exposure of its crimes , which included the impoverishment of whole continents under the yoke of socialist policies that did not and could not work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I wrote triumphantly : “ The collapse of Communism and the progressive future reveals how the moral language of politics has been hijacked by radicals .
The fallen angels of the progressive Left—Marxist and socialist—have been exposed as the reactionary ghosts of an oppressive past .
It is the ideological adversaries of the Left who float on the wave of a future that is free.
” I was wrong .
The Left did not die or reform itself in the face of the human catastrophes it had helped to create .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take this lesson to heart as I had myself .
I was wrong that the nation would finally free itself from those destructive delusions .
I had underestimated the power of a crypto-religion .
It is twenty-three years now since the publication of this autobiography , and the messianic Left is stronger and more influential than ever before .
In 2016 , Senator Bernie Sanders , a lifelong supporter of Communist dictators and causes , was poised to win the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nomination until he was stopped by the Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party nominees had assembled themselves for the 2020 presidential election , their principal themes were the Marxist formulas that had failed on such an epic scale , and that Sanders had successfully introduced into the political mainstream .
The thoughtless radicalism of the Sixties had not died with the tyrannies it promoted .
Well before the Communist collapse , the Left had already begun what its leaders referred to as , “ the long march through the institutions , ” itself an homage to the mass murderer Mao whose “ Long March ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
The New Left ’ s long march had begun in Chicago with the riot Tom Hayden staged in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention .
Its purpose was to destroy the electoral chances of Hubert Humphrey because he was an anti-Communist liberal .
This debacle was followed by the infiltration of the Democratic Party by the same street radicals who had sabotaged its electoral chances .
They proceeded to create “ radical caucuses ” as platforms for their goal , which was the eventual takeover and transformation of the Party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the election of a lifelong veteran of their ranks , Barack Obama .
Of even greater long-term consequence was a parallel offensive , which eventually transformed America ’ s liberal arts colleges into one-party Marxist states .
This led to the subversion of America ’ s cultural and media institutions and their transformation into partisan advocates for the radical Left .
During these years , I wrote six books analyzing and chronicling this phenomenon : Uncivil Wars : The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery , ( 2001 ) ; The Professors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2007 ) , One-Party Classroom , ( 2009 ) , Reforming Our Universities , ( 2010 ) and The Left in the University , ( 2017 ) , which was published as Volume 7 in a series of 9 I have written about these developments , called The Black Book of the American Left .
To sum up these developments : while Communism had been vanquished , outside the lands of the Iron Curtain—and particularly in America—there was no triumphant dancing on Communism ’ s grave , and no mea culpa by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western Europe , a renascent Left explained away the atrocities and catastrophes it had supported by saying that what took place in Russia wasn ’ t “ real socialism.
” Real socialism hadn ’ t been tried , and therefore hadn ’ t failed .
Nothing could capture the invincible arrogance of leftists so clearly as this pathetic sophistry to cover up their crimes .
Liberalism had given way to a cultural Marxism , which denied the very idea of the individual and revived Marx ’ s class war as a war against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity politics ” was itself racist , and obliterated the fundamental principles of America ’ s democracy which is based on individual equality , individual freedom , and individual accountability .
Races and genders are not mentioned in the Constitution for good reason .
Because the Founders intended to create a society composed of equals .
The Left ’ s long march through the institutions had created an infrastructure of support for these anti-American currents , which were dedicated to the destruction of the very foundations of America ’ s constitutional order .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story of my engagement with a murderous street gang , the Black Panther Party , whom the Left had raised to national prominence and anointed as “ the vanguard of the revolution ” and “ America ’ s Vietcong.
” I had become involved with the Panthers out of a kind of radical innocence , which caused me to judge them according to their synchronicity with the radical ideas I had embraced .
Like other progressives , I ignored—or was simply blind to—the warning signs and actions that kept others at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Without understanding whom I had become involved with , I recruited a forty-two-year-old woman who worked for me , named Betty Van Patter , to help their cause , not realizing that one day they would kill her , and alter my life forever .
Although I survived my own encounters with Betty ’ s killers , I paid a terrible price for my blindness , whose consequences were painful for me to describe in print .
I was willing to embarrass myself and bare my wounds because the truth they revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Few episodes better illuminated how “ idealistic ” radicals like myself could become involved with criminal actors and events .
Few stories were so revealing of how corrupted our educational and cultural institutions had become through their openness to radicals and their hatreds , and also their support for the criminal activities and agendas associated with them .
Readers of the original edition of Radical Son will be familiar with the terrible events that changed my life , and also with the investigations I conducted on my own to learn the true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foolishly served .
In the course of these inquiries , I discovered a very different reality from the political mythologies that the Panthers used to cover their tracks .
Underneath the pretense that they were a party of the people defending the oppressed against the powerful , they were in fact a criminal gang that preyed on poor communities and murdered more than a dozen people , all but one of them black .
I collected this information from news stories and reporters I knew , and checked it with what I knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I had put my experiences with the Party behind me , a memoir appeared , whose insider account of the Party ’ s activities made it a perfect measure of what had happened to the country , and to the Left I had turned my back on .
The memoir was called Will You Die With Me ?
and was written by Flores Forbes , who had been the head of the Panther ’ s team of internal enforcers , which my informants had referred to as “ The Squad.
” Flores Forbes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney ’ s office believe murdered Betty Van Patter .
Because police were unable to get other members of The Squad to talk , however , no one was ever charged in the case .
Forbes ’ s book corroborated the investigations I had conducted by myself and reported in Radical Son .
Although Forbes ’ s memoir remains loyal to the mythology of the Black Panther Party and to its leader , “ my prince , Huey Newton , ” virtually every page of his book testifies to the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that their ethical code was that of common thugs and killers , masked by their political aura .
The case that eventually sent Forbes to prison was an attempt to assassinate Crystal Gray , a black prostitute who had witnessed Newton ’ s murder of another prostitute named Kathleen Smith , who was eighteen years old and also black .
She had made the mistake of calling Newton “ baby , ” which enraged him , prompting him to pull a small pistol from his shirt and kill her .
Newton was charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date had been set .
In an aside that sheds a rare light on the thought processes by which gangsters like Forbes bend their “ revolutionary ” principles to the service of criminal ends , he recalls a passage from Frantz Fanon ’ s revolutionary classic , Wretched of the Earth .
“ [ Fanon ] states that it is the oppressed people ’ s right to believe that they should kill their oppressor in order to obtain their freedom , ” writes Forbes .
“ We just modified it to mean anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The assassination of Crystal Gray was planned for the day before the trial hearings were scheduled to begin .
Forbes and his partner showed up in the early morning hours at the humble apartment complex in Richmond , California , where Gray lived .
But they made a fatal mistake and broke in the door of a forty-eight-year-old black bookkeeper who reached for her weapon and began firing .
In the ensuing melee , Forbes was wounded , and inadvertently shot and killed his partner .
After fleeing the scene , he recruited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Malloy , to help him as he fled to Las Vegas .
Although Forbes pretends the assassination attempt was entirely his idea , this makes no sense .
It was not how the party functioned , or how Forbes related to his leader .
Forbes ’ s fiction is transparently designed to protect Newton who was behind the whole plot .
When Forbes and Malloy reached Vegas , Newton sent two other members of The Squad to catch up with them and kill Malloy .
Nelson Malloy was not a gangster , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined the Panthers in response to their political appeals .
Newton feared that Malloy would talk and link him to the crime .
The Panthers shot Malloy twice in the back and buried him in a shallow grave by the side of the road , thinking he was dead .
However , passing tourists heard his moans and dug him up .
He survived but was permanently paralyzed from the neck down .
Forbes was on the run for three years , housed , hidden , and cared for by radical lawyers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and regarded him as a “ political fugitive.
” After three years of flight , Forbes grew tired of being unable to contact friends and family .
Calculating that he was only facing a few years in jail for killing his friend , he turned himself in and was convicted of “ felony murder , ” for which he was made to serve five years in Vacaville and Soledad prisons .
Following his release , he was able , with the help of his radical networks and his status as a revolutionary hero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ San Francisco State University , and then a full scholarship to NYU , where he became an urban planner and was welcomed into the Democratic power structure in New York .
One incident in Forbes ’ s upward climb throws a particularly clear light on the political attitudes of the time .
Through contacts he was able get a job in the office of the Manhattan Borough President , a Democrat .
Four months into the job he received a call from the New York City Department of Investigation , who informed him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his FBI inquiry .
The following conver sation then took place : “ I see you have had about eight major felony arrests , two felony convictions that involve use of a firearm , with one resulting in a felony murder conviction and one prison term .
Well , what were you doing to compile such a record ?
” “ I was a member of the Black Panther Party in California for ten years.
” “ Oh , okay .
That answers that .
Now let ’ s move on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publication of Will You Die With Me ?
, Forbes attempted an autobiographical sequel .
It ’ s title , Invisible Men : A Modern Slave Narrative in an Era of Mass Incarceration , was an implausible attempt to portray his post-prison success as part of the saga of black oppression .
The book came with an introductory preface by Communist Party historian and UCLA professor Robin D.G .
Kelley , attacking prisons as a modern form of slavery , a common trope of the anti-American Left .
In his narrative , Forbes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he suffered as a result of his crimes as an injustice to him .
He exhibits no remorse for his victims and no appreciation for the short jail time he spent for plotting the assassination of Crystal Gray or killing his friend , or for the cold-blooded , botched execution attempt which ruined the life of the ambulance driver , Nelson Malloy , who tried to help him .
The fantasy of the “ revolution ” he served by committing violent crimes , mainly against vulnerable black people who were not political , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pride .
Equally revealing is his continuing adoration for the criminal who recruited him to the Panthers when he was sixteen , made him a gangster , murdered an eighteen-year-old black woman , and ordered him to assassinate another .
Flores Forbes ’ s story is emblematic of what America ’ s political culture has become .
His title today is Associate Vice President of Strategic Planning and Program Implementation at Columbia University , where he is a pillar of the academic community .
Meanwhile , those of us who worked to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” charade to light are persona non-grata among administrators and faculty at Columbia , which happens to be my own alma mater .
And this travesty is not confined to one Ivy League school .
There are academic tributes and shrines to Panther gangsters at UCLA , Stanford , UC Santa Cruz , UC Berkeley , the Smithsonian , and numerous similar institutions across the country .
This is a pretty fair measure of the Left ’ s institutional ascendance in America in the wake of the mayhem its radical activists have created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Radical Son was written as a witness to the dark undercurrents of American politics and to their enduring power in the nation ’ s life .
It has definitely had an impact .
Whether the revelations contained in its narrative can seriously affect the course of this history is unlikely .
But as long as the book has open-minded readers , the possibility exists that new generations will be able to put together these lessons with others , and perhaps affect the outcome .
Or maybe just one individual will have been affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to avoid experiences as painful as I had to endure .
That would be sufficient reward for the ordeals of writing it .
If you have not read Radical Son , I highly recommend it .
You can buy the second edition here .

David Horowitz’s classic memoir Radical Son was called by George Gilder “the first great autobiography of his generation,” and P.J. O’Rourke described it as “one of the best political memoirs I’ve ever read.” Post Hills Press has just published a second edition of Radical Son with a new preface by the author. What follows is David’s new preface, which focuses on the murder that is at the heart of his story and shows how the racial demagoguery and violence of our own time is inextricably linked to the political nightmares of the past.
Of all the books I have written—and there have been many—Radical Son is the one that has touched the most people, and touched them the most deeply. I think the reason for this is that it describes a personal odyssey through the political labyrinths of our times. Its narrative addresses the psychological and religious dimensions of what it means to be a radical and to harbor utopian dreams of re-creating the world and making it just. Secular radicals have variously called these dreams of a heaven on earth, “socialism,” “communism,” or “social justice.” These fantasies are consolations for the flawed world in which we actually find ourselves, and cannot escape. Their seductive power is so great as to have lured legions of intelligent and otherwise compassionate individuals into supporting movements and regimes that are among the cruelest and most oppressive in all human history. Radical Son is an account of my journey into the heart of this radical evil, and of my release from the illusions that led me there.
There is no other account by members of my radical generation, of which I am aware, that pursues the gut-wrenching interrogations that writing a witness like this required. Others had second thoughts, and wrote political repudiations of the movement they had served. But none examined the human consequences of those political beliefs and their rejection, or the internal struggles they provoked.
There was a severe injunction against an honest confrontation with the past. To leave the Left as I did was to turn against human hope and promise, and to join instead the forces of darkness—so my ex-comrades believed. When I was thirty-six years old and publicly announced my departure in an article called “Goodbye to All That,” which I wrote with my friend and political fellow traveler Peter Collier, I lost every friend I had acquired in my life until then, and countless platforms for my work. It was why Whittaker Chambers famously said in Witness that he had left the winning side for the losing side. The “winning” side was the side with the ideas—however delusional and destructive—that people were willing to die for. The promise of an earthly redemption was a hard hope to beat. Armed with such ideas, the radical generation of the Sixties was able to engineer a turning point in America’s political life whose ramifications are still shaking the nation’s political foundations sixty years later.
I wrote Radical Son in the years 1993–1995, following the fall of Soviet Communism and the exposure of its crimes, which included the impoverishment of whole continents under the yoke of socialist policies that did not and could not work. In the prologue to the original edition, I wrote triumphantly: “The collapse of Communism and the progressive future reveals how the moral language of politics has been hijacked by radicals. The fallen angels of the progressive Left—Marxist and socialist—have been exposed as the reactionary ghosts of an oppressive past. It is the ideological adversaries of the Left who float on the wave of a future that is free.”
I was wrong. The Left did not die or reform itself in the face of the human catastrophes it had helped to create. I was wrong in assuming that leftists would take this lesson to heart as I had myself. I was wrong that the nation would finally free itself from those destructive delusions. I had underestimated the power of a crypto-religion.
It is twenty-three years now since the publication of this autobiography, and the messianic Left is stronger and more influential than ever before. In 2016, Senator Bernie Sanders, a lifelong supporter of Communist dictators and causes, was poised to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination until he was stopped by the Clinton machine. By the time the Democratic Party nominees had assembled themselves for the 2020 presidential election, their principal themes were the Marxist formulas that had failed on such an epic scale, and that Sanders had successfully introduced into the political mainstream.
The thoughtless radicalism of the Sixties had not died with the tyrannies it promoted. Well before the Communist collapse, the Left had already begun what its leaders referred to as, “the long march through the institutions,” itself an homage to the mass murderer Mao whose “Long March” had concluded with his conquest of state power. The New Left’s long march had begun in Chicago with the riot Tom Hayden staged in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention. Its purpose was to destroy the electoral chances of Hubert Humphrey because he was an anti-Communist liberal. This debacle was followed by the infiltration of the Democratic Party by the same street radicals who had sabotaged its electoral chances. They proceeded to create “radical caucuses” as platforms for their goal, which was the eventual takeover and transformation of the Party. This goal was accomplished forty years later with the election of a lifelong veteran of their ranks, Barack Obama.
Of even greater long-term consequence was a parallel offensive, which eventually transformed America’s liberal arts colleges into one-party Marxist states. This led to the subversion of America’s cultural and media institutions and their transformation into partisan advocates for the radical Left. During these years, I wrote six books analyzing and chronicling this phenomenon: Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery, (2001); The Professors, (2004), Indoctrination U. (2007), One-Party Classroom, (2009), Reforming Our Universities, (2010) and The Left in the University, (2017), which was published as Volume 7 in a series of 9 I have written about these developments, called The Black Book of the American Left.
To sum up these developments: while Communism had been vanquished, outside the lands of the Iron Curtain—and particularly in America—there was no triumphant dancing on Communism’s grave, and no mea culpa by its progressive allies. In America and Western Europe, a renascent Left explained away the atrocities and catastrophes it had supported by saying that what took place in Russia wasn’t “real socialism.” Real socialism hadn’t been tried, and therefore hadn’t failed. Nothing could capture the invincible arrogance of leftists so clearly as this pathetic sophistry to cover up their crimes.
Liberalism had given way to a cultural Marxism, which denied the very idea of the individual and revived Marx’s class war as a war against racial and gender oppression. This “identity politics” was itself racist, and obliterated the fundamental principles of America’s democracy which is based on individual equality, individual freedom, and individual accountability. Races and genders are not mentioned in the Constitution for good reason. Because the Founders intended to create a society composed of equals. The Left’s long march through the institutions had created an infrastructure of support for these anti-American currents, which were dedicated to the destruction of the very foundations of America’s constitutional order.
At the center of Radical Son is the story of my engagement with a murderous street gang, the Black Panther Party, whom the Left had raised to national prominence and anointed as “the vanguard of the revolution” and “America’s Vietcong.” I had become involved with the Panthers out of a kind of radical innocence, which caused me to judge them according to their synchronicity with the radical ideas I had embraced. Like other progressives, I ignored—or was simply blind to—the warning signs and actions that kept others at a distance, including the black community itself. Without understanding whom I had become involved with, I recruited a forty-two-year-old woman who worked for me, named Betty Van Patter, to help their cause, not realizing that one day they would kill her, and alter my life forever. Although I survived my own encounters with Betty’s killers, I paid a terrible price for my blindness, whose consequences were painful for me to describe in print. I was willing to embarrass myself and bare my wounds because the truth they revealed could serve as a warning to others. Few episodes better illuminated how “idealistic” radicals like myself could become involved with criminal actors and events. Few stories were so revealing of how corrupted our educational and cultural institutions had become through their openness to radicals and their hatreds, and also their support for the criminal activities and agendas associated with them.
Readers of the original edition of Radical Son will be familiar with the terrible events that changed my life, and also with the investigations I conducted on my own to learn the true nature of a cause I had so foolishly served. In the course of these inquiries, I discovered a very different reality from the political mythologies that the Panthers used to cover their tracks. Underneath the pretense that they were a party of the people defending the oppressed against the powerful, they were in fact a criminal gang that preyed on poor communities and murdered more than a dozen people, all but one of them black. I collected this information from news stories and reporters I knew, and checked it with what I knew from my Panther contacts.
Long after I had put my experiences with the Party behind me, a memoir appeared, whose insider account of the Party’s activities made it a perfect measure of what had happened to the country, and to the Left I had turned my back on. The memoir was called Will You Die With Me? and was written by Flores Forbes, who had been the head of the Panther’s team of internal enforcers, which my informants had referred to as “The Squad.” Flores Forbes was also the individual the Oakland District Attorney’s office believe murdered Betty Van Patter. Because police were unable to get other members of The Squad to talk, however, no one was ever charged in the case.
Forbes’s book corroborated the investigations I had conducted by myself and reported in Radical Son. Although Forbes’s memoir remains loyal to the mythology of the Black Panther Party and to its leader, “my prince, Huey Newton,” virtually every page of his book testifies to the fact that the Panthers were a black mafia, and that their ethical code was that of common thugs and killers, masked by their political aura.
The case that eventually sent Forbes to prison was an attempt to assassinate Crystal Gray, a black prostitute who had witnessed Newton’s murder of another prostitute named Kathleen Smith, who was eighteen years old and also black. She had made the mistake of calling Newton “baby,” which enraged him, prompting him to pull a small pistol from his shirt and kill her. Newton was charged with the crime, and a trial date had been set.
In an aside that sheds a rare light on the thought processes by which gangsters like Forbes bend their “revolutionary” principles to the service of criminal ends, he recalls a passage from Frantz Fanon’s revolutionary classic, Wretched of the Earth. “[Fanon] states that it is the oppressed people’s right to believe that they should kill their oppressor in order to obtain their freedom,” writes Forbes. “We just modified it to mean anyone who’s in our way.”
The assassination of Crystal Gray was planned for the day before the trial hearings were scheduled to begin. Forbes and his partner showed up in the early morning hours at the humble apartment complex in Richmond, California, where Gray lived. But they made a fatal mistake and broke in the door of a forty-eight-year-old black bookkeeper who reached for her weapon and began firing. In the ensuing melee, Forbes was wounded, and inadvertently shot and killed his partner. After fleeing the scene, he recruited the Panthers’ ambulance driver, Nelson Malloy, to help him as he fled to Las Vegas.
Although Forbes pretends the assassination attempt was entirely his idea, this makes no sense. It was not how the party functioned, or how Forbes related to his leader. Forbes’s fiction is transparently designed to protect Newton who was behind the whole plot. When Forbes and Malloy reached Vegas, Newton sent two other members of The Squad to catch up with them and kill Malloy. Nelson Malloy was not a gangster, but one of many idealistic young people who joined the Panthers in response to their political appeals. Newton feared that Malloy would talk and link him to the crime. The Panthers shot Malloy twice in the back and buried him in a shallow grave by the side of the road, thinking he was dead. However, passing tourists heard his moans and dug him up. He survived but was permanently paralyzed from the neck down.
Forbes was on the run for three years, housed, hidden, and cared for by radical lawyers and activists who inhabited the same revolutionary fantasy and regarded him as a “political fugitive.” After three years of flight, Forbes grew tired of being unable to contact friends and family. Calculating that he was only facing a few years in jail for killing his friend, he turned himself in and was convicted of “felony murder,” for which he was made to serve five years in Vacaville and Soledad prisons. Following his release, he was able, with the help of his radical networks and his status as a revolutionary hero, to obtain a college degree from San Francisco State University, and then a full scholarship to NYU, where he became an urban planner and was welcomed into the Democratic power structure in New York.
One incident in Forbes’s upward climb throws a particularly clear light on the political attitudes of the time. Through contacts he was able get a job in the office of the Manhattan Borough President, a Democrat. Four months into the job he received a call from the New York City Department of Investigation, who informed him that they had just received the results of his FBI inquiry. The following conver sation then took place:
“I see you have had about eight major felony arrests, two felony convictions that involve use of a firearm, with one resulting in a felony murder conviction and one prison term. Well, what were you doing to compile such a record?”
“I was a member of the Black Panther Party in California for ten years.”
“Oh, okay. That answers that. Now let’s move on to your taxes.”
Seven years after the publication of Will You Die With Me?, Forbes attempted an autobiographical sequel. It’s title, Invisible Men: A Modern Slave Narrative in an Era of Mass Incarceration, was an implausible attempt to portray his post-prison success as part of the saga of black oppression. The book came with an introductory preface by Communist Party historian and UCLA professor Robin D.G. Kelley, attacking prisons as a modern form of slavery, a common trope of the anti-American Left.
In his narrative, Forbes makes clear that he regards the inconveniences he suffered as a result of his crimes as an injustice to him. He exhibits no remorse for his victims and no appreciation for the short jail time he spent for plotting the assassination of Crystal Gray or killing his friend, or for the cold-blooded, botched execution attempt which ruined the life of the ambulance driver, Nelson Malloy, who tried to help him. The fantasy of the “revolution” he served by committing violent crimes, mainly against vulnerable black people who were not political, remains for Forbes a source of inordinate pride. Equally revealing is his continuing adoration for the criminal who recruited him to the Panthers when he was sixteen, made him a gangster, murdered an eighteen-year-old black woman, and ordered him to assassinate another.
Flores Forbes’s story is emblematic of what America’s political culture has become. His title today is Associate Vice President of Strategic Planning and Program Implementation at Columbia University, where he is a pillar of the academic community. Meanwhile, those of us who worked to bring the criminal reality of the “revolutionary” charade to light are persona non-grata among administrators and faculty at Columbia, which happens to be my own alma mater.
And this travesty is not confined to one Ivy League school. There are academic tributes and shrines to Panther gangsters at UCLA, Stanford, UC Santa Cruz, UC Berkeley, the Smithsonian, and numerous similar institutions across the country. This is a pretty fair measure of the Left’s institutional ascendance in America in the wake of the mayhem its radical activists have created and the atrocities they have committed.
Radical Son was written as a witness to the dark undercurrents of American politics and to their enduring power in the nation’s life. It has definitely had an impact. Whether the revelations contained in its narrative can seriously affect the course of this history is unlikely. But as long as the book has open-minded readers, the possibility exists that new generations will be able to put together these lessons with others, and perhaps affect the outcome. Or maybe just one individual will have been affected by this book in such a way as to avoid experiences as painful as I had to endure. That would be sufficient reward for the ordeals of writing it.
If you have not read Radical Son, I highly recommend it. You can buy the second edition here.


powerlineblog--2020-12-10--Dems oppose appeals court nominee because he is White

Tom Kirsch is President Trump ’ s nominee to fill the seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated by Justice Barrett .
Kirsch is well qualified for the judgeship , and his nomination has received approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee .
However , some Senate Democrats are opposing Kirsch because he is White .
For example , Sen. Blumenthal says the Seventh Circuit lacks “ diversity , ” and that if Kirsch is confirmed , the court will continue to be all-White .
The NAACP , in opposing Kirsch , goes so far as to call the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The charge is absurd .
There are nine judges on the Seventh Circuit .
They are a diverse group , as I show below .
However , none is Black ( the lone Black resigned a few years ago ) .
The same is true of the court ’ s four senior judges .
Blacks make up about 12 percent of the U.S. population and about 5 percent of America ’ s lawyers ( a closer approximation than raw population of the qualified “ pool ” for court of appeals judges ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( thirteen if you count the federal circuit ) .
Thus , as a statistical matter , one would expect that , in the absence of racial preferences for Blacks ( i.e .
race discrimination ) , a few courts of appeals would lack a Black judge .
In fact , looking at just the Seventh Circuit , one can ’ t say that Blacks are statistically underrepresented on that court considering the pool of qualified candidates and the number of judges .
It ’ s also worth noting that President Trump proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pacold was editor-in-chief of the University of Chicago Law Review .
She clerked for two U.S. Court of Appeals judges and for Justice Thomas .
She was a litigation partner at a prestigious law firm and Deputy General Counsel of the United States Department of the Treasury .
Pacold would have been the court ’ s first Asian-American judge .
However , Senator Durbin said “ no ” on her .
( She is now a U.S. District Court judge , confirmed by a vote of 87-3 . )
Asians make up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , about the same percentage as Blacks .
If the Democrats cared about racial diversity , Pacold would be on the Seventh Circuit .
And if diversity means more than just counting by race , the Seventh Circuit is quite diverse .
It consists of : Four women — Chief Judge Diane Sykes and Judges Diane Wood , Ilana Rovner , and Amy St. Eve An immigrant who fled the Nazis — Rovner Three former state court judges — Kanne , Sykes , and Judge Michael Brennan Three former U.S. district court judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eve Two former law professors — Judge Frank Easterbrook and Wood Two former prosecutors — Brennan and St. Eve Three lawyers from private practice — Judge Michael Scudder , Judge David Hamilton , and Kanne Three former government lawyers — Rovner , Wood , and Scudder One Jew — Rovner ( plus Judge Flaum until he recently took Senior status ) Four graduates of regional law schools — Sykes , Rovner , Wood , and Kanne Moreover , until 2017 , the Court had a Black judge — Ann Claire Williams .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half a year , decided to go into private practice .
President Trump replaced Judge Williams with Judge St. Eve , whom the Senate confirmed by a vote of 91-0 .
No one argued that St. Eve should be rejected because her ascension would leave the court without a Black judge .
No one should make that argument now in the case of Tom Kirsch .
Joe Biden will have the opportunity to nominate a racially “ diverse ” judge for the Seventh Circuit to fill the vacancy left by Judge Flaum .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so by nominating Judge Martha Pacold , the Asian-American district court judge discussed above .
She ’ s non-doctrinaire , as her Senate confirmation with only three “ no ” votes suggests .
Biden will be strongly disinclined to nominate Pacold .
However , if Republicans hold the Senate and Biden wants to diversify the Seventh Circuit , avoid a nasty fight , and display a little bipartisanship , nominating her would be a good way to score that trifecta .

Tom Kirsch is President Trump’s nominee to fill the seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated by Justice Barrett. Kirsch is well qualified for the judgeship, and his nomination has received approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
However, some Senate Democrats are opposing Kirsch because he is White. For example, Sen. Blumenthal says the Seventh Circuit lacks “diversity,” and that if Kirsch is confirmed, the court will continue to be all-White.
The NAACP, in opposing Kirsch, goes so far as to call the Seventh Circuit “a segregated court.” The charge is absurd.
There are nine judges on the Seventh Circuit. They are a diverse group, as I show below. However, none is Black (the lone Black resigned a few years ago). The same is true of the court’s four senior judges.
Blacks make up about 12 percent of the U.S. population and about 5 percent of America’s lawyers (a closer approximation than raw population of the qualified “pool” for court of appeals judges). There are twelve U.S. courts of appeals (thirteen if you count the federal circuit).
Thus, as a statistical matter, one would expect that, in the absence of racial preferences for Blacks (i.e. race discrimination), a few courts of appeals would lack a Black judge. In fact, looking at just the Seventh Circuit, one can’t say that Blacks are statistically underrepresented on that court considering the pool of qualified candidates and the number of judges.
It’s also worth noting that President Trump proposed nominating Martha Pacold to the Seventh Circuit. Pacold was editor-in-chief of the University of Chicago Law Review. She clerked for two U.S. Court of Appeals judges and for Justice Thomas. She was a litigation partner at a prestigious law firm and Deputy General Counsel of the United States Department of the Treasury.
Pacold would have been the court’s first Asian-American judge. However, Senator Durbin said “no” on her. (She is now a U.S. District Court judge, confirmed by a vote of 87-3.)
Asians make up 4.7 percent of America’s lawyers, about the same percentage as Blacks. If the Democrats cared about racial diversity, Pacold would be on the Seventh Circuit.
And if diversity means more than just counting by race, the Seventh Circuit is quite diverse. It consists of:
Four women — Chief Judge Diane Sykes and Judges Diane Wood, Ilana Rovner, and Amy St. Eve
A single mother — Sykes
An immigrant who fled the Nazis — Rovner
A veteran — Judge Michael Kanne
Three former state court judges — Kanne, Sykes, and Judge Michael Brennan
Three former U.S. district court judges — Rovner, Kanne, and St. Eve
Two former law professors — Judge Frank Easterbrook and Wood
Two former prosecutors — Brennan and St. Eve
Three lawyers from private practice — Judge Michael Scudder, Judge David Hamilton, and Kanne
Three former government lawyers — Rovner, Wood, and Scudder
A former in-house counsel — St. Eve
Four Protestants — Wood, Easterbrook, Kanne, and St. Eve
Three Catholics — Sykes, Brennan and Scudder
One Jew — Rovner (plus Judge Flaum until he recently took Senior status)
Five graduates of elite law schools — Easterbrook, Hamilton, Brennan, Scudder, St. Eve
Four graduates of regional law schools — Sykes, Rovner, Wood, and Kanne
Moreover, until 2017, the Court had a Black judge — Ann Claire Williams. She took senior status and then, after half a year, decided to go into private practice.
President Trump replaced Judge Williams with Judge St. Eve, whom the Senate confirmed by a vote of 91-0. No one argued that St. Eve should be rejected because her ascension would leave the court without a Black judge. No one should make that argument now in the case of Tom Kirsch.
Joe Biden will have the opportunity to nominate a racially “diverse” judge for the Seventh Circuit to fill the vacancy left by Judge Flaum. It would be great if he did so by nominating Judge Martha Pacold, the Asian-American district court judge discussed above. She’s non-doctrinaire, as her Senate confirmation with only three “no” votes suggests.
Biden will be strongly disinclined to nominate Pacold. However, if Republicans hold the Senate and Biden wants to diversify the Seventh Circuit, avoid a nasty fight, and display a little bipartisanship, nominating her would be a good way to score that trifecta.


powerlineblog--2020-12-10--Michigan Dem threatens Trumpers [UPDATED]

Cynthia Johnson is a Democratic member of the Michigan House of Representatives .
In a video earlier this week ( see below ) , she made this threat : So this is just a warning to you Trumpers .
Be careful .
Walk lightly .
We ain ’ t playing with you .
Enough of the shenanigans .
Enough is enough .
And for those of you who are soldiers , you know how to do it .
Do it right .
Be in order .
Make them pay .
I love y ’ all .
Her statement is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It reminds me of the Black Panthers , except those thugs weren ’ t elected officials .
Johnson ’ s fellow Michigan Democrats condemned her statement , and Johnson has been stripped of all committee assignments .
However , Johnson ’ s defenders suggest that she was only talking about hitting “ Trumpers ” in the pocketbook .
It ’ s true that she mentions that .
But the phrases “ we ain ’ t playing with you ” and “ those of you who are soldiers ” undermine the “ pocketbook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow Dem legislators aren ’ t buying it .
Johnson ’ s defenders also say she received death threats .
I don ’ t doubt it .
Anyone who brings it strong to the public debate in this era is liable to get such threats .
Even I received a few during the contentious days of George W. Bush ’ s presidency .
The receipt of death threats does not excuse a public official who incites violence against political opponents .
However , I suspect that , when all is said and done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partial excuse .
Authorities will “ walk lightly , ” to use Johnson ’ s phrase .
How widely shared are Johnson ’ s views on how to deal with “ Trumpers ” ?
Widely enough to produce riots and physical attacks on peaceful demonstrators .
With these views now being espoused by an elected official , we can expect them to spread .
Arguably , the U.S. is in a “ cold civil war.
” There are those who would prefer a hot one .
Cynthia Johnson seems to be one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s authoritarian governor is “ walking lightly.
” Gretchen Whitmer says it was an overreaction to strip Johnson of her committee assignments .
Whitmer insists that Johnson has “ been through a lot ” and has had a loved one in the hospital .
So now , apparently , there ’ s now a “ been through a lot ” defense to inciting violence against political opponents — when a Democrat is doing the inciting .
I doubt the defense applies to business owners on the verge of bankruptcy who fail to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders .

Cynthia Johnson is a Democratic member of the Michigan House of Representatives. In a video earlier this week (see below), she made this threat:
So this is just a warning to you Trumpers. Be careful. Walk lightly. We ain’t playing with you. Enough of the shenanigans. Enough is enough. And for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it. Do it right. Be in order. Make them pay. I love y’all.
Her statement is a clear incitement to violence against “Trumpers.” It reminds me of the Black Panthers, except those thugs weren’t elected officials.
Johnson’s fellow Michigan Democrats condemned her statement, and Johnson has been stripped of all committee assignments.
However, Johnson’s defenders suggest that she was only talking about hitting “Trumpers” in the pocketbook. It’s true that she mentions that. But the phrases “we ain’t playing with you” and “those of you who are soldiers” undermine the “pocketbook” defense. Even Johnson’s fellow Dem legislators aren’t buying it.
Johnson’s defenders also say she received death threats. I don’t doubt it. Anyone who brings it strong to the public debate in this era is liable to get such threats. Even I received a few during the contentious days of George W. Bush’s presidency.
The receipt of death threats does not excuse a public official who incites violence against political opponents. However, I suspect that, when all is said and done, it will be treated as a partial excuse. Authorities will “walk lightly,” to use Johnson’s phrase.
How widely shared are Johnson’s views on how to deal with “Trumpers”? Widely enough to produce riots and physical attacks on peaceful demonstrators. With these views now being espoused by an elected official, we can expect them to spread.
Arguably, the U.S. is in a “cold civil war.” There are those who would prefer a hot one. Cynthia Johnson seems to be one of them.
UPDATE: Already, Michigan’s authoritarian governor is “walking lightly.” Gretchen Whitmer says it was an overreaction to strip Johnson of her committee assignments.
Whitmer insists that Johnson has “been through a lot” and has had a loved one in the hospital. So now, apparently, there’s now a “been through a lot” defense to inciting violence against political opponents — when a Democrat is doing the inciting.
I doubt the defense applies to business owners on the verge of bankruptcy who fail to comply with Whitmer’s draconian lockdown orders.


Swill this

The story of the Chinese Mata Hari who embedded herself in Rep. Eric Swalwell ’ s world — emphasis on bed — is impacting , as Drudge used to put it .
The New York Post reports , for example : “ Swalwell mum on sex with China spy , but family remains Facebook friends with honeytrap.
” Swalwell was of course a prime retailer of the Russia hoax and the impeachment farce over the past four years .
The regnant cliché about Democrats and projection applies in spades to this vile lout .
Indeed , Swalwell is proof positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his buddy Jim Sciutto at CNN to unleash these howlers ( emphasis added , video below ) : You know , just over six years ago , I was told about this individual , and then I offered to help , and I did help .
And I was thanked by the FBI for my help , and that person is no longer in the country .
And I was a little surprised to read about my cooperation in that story because the story says that , you know , there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part , and all I did was cooperate .
And the FBI said that yesterday , but the wrongdoing here , Jim , is that at the same time this story was being leaked out is the time that I was working on impeachment on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees .
And if this is a country where people who criticize the president are going to have law enforcement information weaponized against them , that ’ s not a country that any of us want to live in .
And I hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this information… Again , I can ’ t talk too much about the details of the case even though others may have violated their oath I ’ m not going to violate mine , but the Axios story made it absolutely clear that no information was ever shared , except , Jim , the people who did share classified information were the people who leaked this story .
And to do that against a critic of the president , they may think that they ’ re going to silence me .
They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are going to do is they are going to make others think twice when they are asked to sit down and provide defensive information about people like this .
I hope none of my colleagues ever find themselves in the position that I find myself in by having to sit down with the FBI because someone who had helped the campaign was trying to do this .
But I hope every person would want to help their country just as I did .
Axios reporter Jonathan Swan commented on Swalwell ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Swan observed that Swalwell ’ s claim is “ risible.
” He exhorted viewers to use their common sense : Even Swalwell acknowledges that he first found out Axios was on this in 2019 .
I know my colleague — his timeline ’ s wrong .
He says July 2019 , it ’ s not July .
But [ the Axios reporter who broke the story has ] been working on this for more than a year .
So , just anyone who has any passing understanding of how Trumpworld works , do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some opposition research and then patiently wait [ ed ] a year , beyond an election , for the very well-respected China correspondent to report it out in a nuanced fashion ?
I mean , give me a break .
It ’ s completely absurd .
Axios covered Swalwell ’ s CNN appearance here .
Axios also commented via Twitter ( below ) .

The story of the Chinese Mata Hari who embedded herself in Rep. Eric Swalwell’s world — emphasis on bed — is impacting, as Drudge used to put it. The New York Post reports, for example: “Swalwell mum on sex with China spy, but family remains Facebook friends with honeytrap.”
Swalwell was of course a prime retailer of the Russia hoax and the impeachment farce over the past four years. The regnant cliché about Democrats and projection applies in spades to this vile lout. Indeed, Swalwell is proof positive of its veracity.
Swalwell appeared yesterday with his buddy Jim Sciutto at CNN to unleash these howlers (emphasis added, video below):
You know, just over six years ago, I was told about this individual, and then I offered to help, and I did help. And I was thanked by the FBI for my help, and that person is no longer in the country. And I was a little surprised to read about my cooperation in that story because the story says that, you know, there was never a suspicion of wrongdoing on my part, and all I did was cooperate. And the FBI said that yesterday, but the wrongdoing here, Jim, is that at the same time this story was being leaked out is the time that I was working on impeachment on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. And if this is a country where people who criticize the president are going to have law enforcement information weaponized against them, that’s not a country that any of us want to live in. And I hope it is investigated as to who leaked this information… Again, I can’t talk too much about the details of the case even though others may have violated their oath I’m not going to violate mine, but the Axios story made it absolutely clear that no information was ever shared, except, Jim, the people who did share classified information were the people who leaked this story. And to do that against a critic of the president, they may think that they’re going to silence me. They are not going to silence me but what they are going to do is they are going to make others think twice when they are asked to sit down and provide defensive information about people like this. I hope none of my colleagues ever find themselves in the position that I find myself in by having to sit down with the FBI because someone who had helped the campaign was trying to do this. But I hope every person would want to help their country just as I did.
Axios reporter Jonathan Swan commented on Swalwell’s spin last night on Fox News. Swan observed that Swalwell’s claim is “risible.” He exhorted viewers to use their common sense:
Even Swalwell acknowledges that he first found out Axios was on this in 2019. I know my colleague — his timeline’s wrong. He says July 2019, it’s not July. But [the Axios reporter who broke the story has] been working on this for more than a year. So, just anyone who has any passing understanding of how Trumpworld works, do we really think that they put out some opposition research and then patiently wait[ed] a year, beyond an election, for the very well-respected China correspondent to report it out in a nuanced fashion? I mean, give me a break. It’s completely absurd.
Axios covered Swalwell’s CNN appearance here. Axios also commented via Twitter (below).
Axios reached out to Congressman Swalwell multiple times, but he never agreed to an interview, and he has not disputed any part of our reporting. Our journalism is independent, nonpartisan, and never politically motivated. https://t.co/mCsuGZ796J — Nicholas Johnston (@AxiosNick) December 9, 2020
Video via streiff/Redstate, transcript via Tim Haims/RCP.