powerlineblog--2020-12-14--In Defense of Governor Cuomo

In Defense of Governor Cuomo

I am anything but a fan of New York ’ s Governor Andy Cuomo , but this story is a classic of hit and run feminism : “ Former aide Lindsey Boylan alleges Cuomo ‘ sexually harassed ’ her about looks.
” A former aide to Gov .
Cuomo now running for Manhattan borough president alleged Sunday morning on Twitter that her ex-boss “ sexually harassed ” her for her “ looks ” — but refused to share any more information .
“ Yes , @ NYGovCuomo sexually harassed me for years .
Many saw it , and watched , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I could never anticipate what to expect : would I be grilled on my work ( which was very good ) or harassed about my looks .
Or would it be both in the same conversation ?
This was the way for years.
” Boylan last worked for Cuomo in 2018 , and she says the alleged sexual harassment went on “ for years.
” So why didn ’ t she mention it until now ?
Boylan says she is “ about validating the experience of countless women and making sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were true , and her concern was “ making sure abuse stops , ” why didn ’ t she say something three or four years ago when it might have done some good ?
Lindsey Boylan also refuses to talk to journalists or to explain what , exactly , Cuomo did that constitutes sexual harassment .
It apparently lies in the zone of commenting on her looks .
( Boylan is , in fact , pretty .
So sue me ! )
If the worst Cuomo did was to say “ Hey Lindsey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t in keeping with 21st Century office practices , but it would fall squarely in the category of first world problems .
And if Boylan seriously minded , she shouldn ’ t have waited for years to complain .
Waited , in fact , until she was running for Manhattan borough president .
Call me cynical , but it looks as though Boylan is trying to a ) get publicity , and b ) align herself with the sort of feminism that is dominant in Manhattan by complaining about Cuomo years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of drive-by feminism to which no one should pay any attention .
And after this post , I won ’ t .

I am anything but a fan of New York’s Governor Andy Cuomo, but this story is a classic of hit and run feminism: “Former aide Lindsey Boylan alleges Cuomo ‘sexually harassed’ her about looks.”
A former aide to Gov. Cuomo now running for Manhattan borough president alleged Sunday morning on Twitter that her ex-boss “sexually harassed” her for her “looks” — but refused to share any more information. “Yes, @NYGovCuomo sexually harassed me for years. Many saw it, and watched,” wrote Lindsey Boylan on the platform. “I could never anticipate what to expect: would I be grilled on my work (which was very good) or harassed about my looks. Or would it be both in the same conversation? This was the way for years.”
Boylan last worked for Cuomo in 2018, and she says the alleged sexual harassment went on “for years.” So why didn’t she mention it until now? Boylan says she is “about validating the experience of countless women and making sure abuse stops.” But if her claims were true, and her concern was “making sure abuse stops,” why didn’t she say something three or four years ago when it might have done some good?
Lindsey Boylan also refuses to talk to journalists or to explain what, exactly, Cuomo did that constitutes sexual harassment. It apparently lies in the zone of commenting on her looks. (Boylan is, in fact, pretty. So sue me!) If the worst Cuomo did was to say “Hey Lindsey, you look great!” it wasn’t in keeping with 21st Century office practices, but it would fall squarely in the category of first world problems. And if Boylan seriously minded, she shouldn’t have waited for years to complain.
Waited, in fact, until she was running for Manhattan borough president. Call me cynical, but it looks as though Boylan is trying to a) get publicity, and b) align herself with the sort of feminism that is dominant in Manhattan by complaining about Cuomo years after the fact.
This is the kind of drive-by feminism to which no one should pay any attention. And after this post, I won’t.


powerlineblog--2020-12-13--Word for the Day: “Mediatize”

Word for the Day: “Mediatize”

From time to time for recreation , amusement , and the never-ending quest for self-improvement , I will browse through @ @ @ @ @ Modern English Usage .
Fowler is an unappreciated source of subtle ( and sometimes not @ @ @ @ @ , as well as source of reproach to sloppy writing .
Fowler has a wit @ @ @ @ @ if you pay close attention .
And he often keeps alive archaic words that ought @ @ @ @ @ use .
This morning I ran across his entry for “ mediatize , ” which @ @ @ @ @ I propose this modification for our current circumstances : So we ’ re living in @ @ @ @ @ a “ mediocracy.
” You know—the thing !
It is not a coincidence that “ @ @ @ @ @ ” are easily confused .

From time to time for recreation, amusement, and the never-ending quest for self-improvement, I will browse through Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Fowler is an unappreciated source of subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) social commentary, as well as source of reproach to sloppy writing. Fowler has a wit as dry as a martini if you pay close attention.
And he often keeps alive archaic words that ought to be brought back into use. This morning I ran across his entry for “mediatize,” which he defines as follows:
“To mediatize a ruler is to reduce him to dependence on another State, but without changing his titular dignity.”
I propose this modification for our current circumstances:
To “mediatize” a ruler is to reduce him to dependence on another Fourth Estate, but without changing his titular dignity. Example: Joe Biden.
So we’re living in what ought to be called a “mediocracy.” You know—the thing! It is not a coincidence that “mediacracy” and “mediocrity” are easily confused.


Our Schizophrenic News

NBC News tweeted this on Friday .
Note the unprofessional subhead , which reads like it was written by a snippy high school student : “ Unfounded and baseless , ” but , of course , true .
Now check out this news story by NBC on the very same day , December 11 : We have seen this for the last four years : America ’ s reporters and editors practice a weird sort of epistemology in which anything said by Donald Trump–and I mean everything !
–is false , unsupported , reprehensible , a lie , “ without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even when the things said by Trump are , technically speaking , true .
That the same facts are repeated by others , including those same reporters and editors , doesn ’ t seem to dent their conviction that everything Trump said was a lie .
It will be interesting to see whether some of this insanity , at least , will dissipate when President Trump leaves office , or whether we have witnessed the permanent debasement of what used to be called “ journalism.
” I am betting on the latter .

NBC News tweeted this on Friday. Note the unprofessional subhead, which reads like it was written by a snippy high school student:
“Unfounded and baseless,” but, of course, true. Now check out this news story by NBC on the very same day, December 11:
We have seen this for the last four years: America’s reporters and editors practice a weird sort of epistemology in which anything said by Donald Trump–and I mean everything!–is false, unsupported, reprehensible, a lie, “without evidence,” and so on. Even when the things said by Trump are, technically speaking, true. That the same facts are repeated by others, including those same reporters and editors, doesn’t seem to dent their conviction that everything Trump said was a lie.
It will be interesting to see whether some of this insanity, at least, will dissipate when President Trump leaves office, or whether we have witnessed the permanent debasement of what used to be called “journalism.” I am betting on the latter.


powerlineblog--2020-12-13--How to lose friends & influence people

How to lose friends & influence people

I wrote about Princeton University Professor Joshua Katz in “ Professor Katz ’ s declaration , ” citing his essay @ @ @ @ @ ” Professor Katz has now followed up on his “ declaration ” in remarks to @ @ @ @ @ Buckley , Jr. , Program with a speech titled “ How to lose friends and @ @ @ @ @ course of his remarks Professor Katz cites Matt Taibbi ’ s essay “ The left @ @ @ @ @ and refers to Andrew Sullivan ’ s 2018 observation “ We all live on campus @ @ @ @ @ an exemplary figure with an important story to tell .
This video deserves the widest @ @ @ @ @ ’ s remarks make for a learned cry from the heart by a brave scholar @ @ @ @ @ the asylum of higher education .
In attaching his name to his “ declaration ” @ @ @ @ @ speech , Professor Katz walks in the footsteps of American heroes of old .

I wrote about Princeton University Professor Joshua Katz in “Professor Katz’s declaration,” citing his essay “A declaration of independence.” Professor Katz has now followed up on his “declaration” in remarks to Yale’s William F. Buckley, Jr., Program with a speech titled “How to lose friends and influence people.”
In the course of his remarks Professor Katz cites Matt Taibbi’s essay “The left is now the right” and refers to Andrew Sullivan’s 2018 observation “We all live on campus now.” Professor Katz is an exemplary figure with an important story to tell. This video deserves the widest possible audience.
Professor Katz’s remarks make for a learned cry from the heart by a brave scholar who speaks out from inside the asylum of higher education. In attaching his name to his “declaration” and following up in this speech, Professor Katz walks in the footsteps of American heroes of old.


powerlineblog--2020-12-13--Bill Gates recommends, take 2

Bill Gates recommends, take 2

Back in 2015 I asked the Hudson Institute ’ s John Walters to take a look at Michelle Alexander ’ s dreadful but influential The New Jim Crow : Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness .
Mr. Walters turned his attention to Alexander ’ s book together with his Hudson Institute colleague David Murray .
Subsequently posted in footnoted form on Hudson ’ s site as “ Revisiting ‘ The New Jim Crow , ' ” the essay below was written for us .
I want to add it to my own comments in “ Bill Gates recommends ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TNJC ) is careless .
The carelessness produces misdirection and it undermines the argument .
Facts are stretched , the scholarly apparatus is weak , and the core argument is often contradicted by its own evidence .
Nonetheless , TNJC is a very popular book—rising to The New York Times best-seller list , required reading for incoming students at Brown University , said by the San Francisco Chronicle to be “ the Bible of a social movement.
” Is its power rooted in a deeper truth or in a revealing lie that many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe in the face of an ugly reality ?
Full disclosure : We have lived through and remember the drug and crime problem of the 1980 ’ s onward .
We have done our best to make the problem smaller from positions within the White House , serving for at least a time in every Administration from Reagan to Obama .
We know from personal experience that TNJC is built on falsehood .
We also recognize that those who want to believe TNJC may view our experience as a cover-up of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the hope that open-minded readers can and will judge the facts for themselves .
In a nutshell , TNJC argues that “ [ w ] e have not ended racial caste in America ; we have merely redesigned it.
” From the book jacket : “ By targeting black men through the War on Drugs , and decimating communities of color , the U.S. criminal justice system functions as a contemporary system of racial control—relegating millions to permanent second-class status.
” A primary concern is the loss of the right to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is long .
For a book with scholarly pretentions , it is noteworthy that the book lacks a bibliography , and that its endnote citations are woeful .
Consider that we are told : “ The Reagan administration hired staff to publicize the emergence of crack cocaine in 1985 as part of a strategic effort to build public and legislative support for the war.
” The point is not a minor one , since it is offered in support of a core thesis : when there really wasn ’ t a drug problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve “ social control ” over blacks through “ mass incarceration , ” President Ronald Reagan created and then hyped a crisis using the media .
This claim is found in the Introduction .
Turning to the endnote , however , one finds no documentation , but rather a simple line that Reagan ’ s action “ is discussed in more depth in Chapter 1.
” That ’ s a bit cheesy , but what then happens in Chapter 1 ?
There , after reading about “ code words ” for race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a media offensive to justify the ‘ War on Drugs.
’ ” And there ’ s another endnote which , when pursued , leads nowhere .
It is a reference to the 1992 National Drug Control Strategy—produced after the Reagan Presidency .
This is cat-and-mouse .
It anticipates an unserious , unquestioning reader , one willing to be led .
What about the author ’ s claim that the “ War on Drugs ” was initiated by Reagan ( detractors of Richard Nixon will be disappointed ) , or the even more dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal policy ” in fact turned into “ an actual war.
” How are we to take this hyperbole ?
The author cites fears “ in poor black communities that the War on Drugs was part of a genocidal plan by the government to destroy black people in the United States.
” She calls these “ conspiracy theories , ” but what does the professor actually believe ?
She tells us : “ While the conspiracy theories were initially dismissed as far-fetched , if not loony , the word on the street [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be right , at least up to a point.
” To forward the concept of a policy being “ genocide up to a point ” ( that point being the intent to kill a race and actually trying to do so ) is such extreme overstatement it should be self-discrediting .
Still TNJC plunges forward .
Evidence that the crack epidemic was “ genocidal ” is supposed to be be contained in the claim that “ [ t ] he CIA admitted in 1998 that guerilla armies that it actively supported in Nicaragua @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States.
” The CIA further “ admitted that .
.
.
it blocked law enforcement efforts to investigate illegal drug networks ” funding its covert war .
Whatever the claimed involvement of the CIA , its actual significance—how much illegal drug supply this “ conspiracy ” dumped into American streets—is something the author tellingly declines to explain or quantify .
If you are old enough to remember the Medellin and Cali cartels ( which really did traffic massive amounts of cocaine into the United States during that period ) , you are supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these , in which every development suggests the existence of a full-scale “ plot , ” might incline us to dismissiveness when the author finally gets to actual data .
Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated for drug crimes on a straight per-capita basis .
That ’ s certainly true .
But it ’ s not a phenomenon peculiar to drug statutes ; blacks are incarcerated for ( and , crucially , victims of ) almost every Index crime at depressingly higher per capita rates .
Even though TNJC ’ s attack ostensibly focuses on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately embraces the whole of American criminal justice : it is all “ a tightly networked system of laws , policies , customs , and institutions ” that produces “ mass incarceration ” to achieve “ social control.
” Here , Ms. Alexander quotes Michael Tonry : “ Governments decide how much punishment they want , and these decisions are in no way related to crime rates.
” But this claim that blacks are subordinated and controlled creates an obvious problem .
TNJC must explain away the election of Barack Obama within a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power : “ Many will wonder how a nation that just elected its first black president could have a racial caste system , ” and “ [ i ] t ’ s a fair question , ” she acknowledges .
Indeed , it is .
But her answer is odd : “ [ T ] here is no inconsistency whatsoever between the election of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land and the existence of a racial caste system in the era of colorblindness .
The current system of control depends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disproved or undermined by it.
” We have no idea what exactly that ’ s supposed to mean , but it does seem to suggest that for America , where Ms. Alexander is concerned , it ’ s damned when you do—and double-damned when you don ’ t .
The idea that the state of Mississippi , home to Jarvious Cotton , has deliberately designed its laws to create a systematic racial caste system would have been undeniable 50 years ago .
But has there been no progress since ?
Yes , Mississippi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person convicted of “ murder , rape , bribery , theft , arson , obtaining money or goods under false pretenses , perjury , forgery , embezzlement or bigamy.
” If this is a caste system—unless you consider “ murderer ” and “ arsonist ” perfectly acceptable synonyms for “ African American ” —it ’ s an oddly leaky one .
On its face , instead , Mississippi voting status is determined by conduct .
And while violent crimes may involve clear racial disparities of the sort TNJC is exercised about , disenfranchisement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” financial fraud , and “ embezzlement ” would hardly seem consistent with a conscious “ project ” to create a race-based caste system .
Nor does actual voting behavior sustain Ms. Alexander ’ s case for the existence of such a project .
As the Associated Press reported after the 2012 Presidential election , registered black voters in Mississippi went to the polls at a higher rate than did white voters .
This is not what “ systematic racism ” looks like , as anyone old enough to have witnessed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is the problem of Ms. Alexander ’ s maddeningly slippery rhetoric .
TNJC tells us only that Jarvious Cotton can not vote because , “ like many black men in America , ” he “ has been labeled a felon.
” TNJC does not tell us why he has been so labeled .
It ’ s as if “ labels ” descended willy-nilly , independent of conduct .
In fact , Jarvious Cotton was indicted in Mississippi for the shooting death of 17-year-old Robert Irby , escaped from prison while awaiting trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was subsequently arrested for a marijuana violation—and where fingerprint analysis then “ labeled ” him a fugitive wanted for a capital crime .
Mr. Cotton was later extradited back to Mississippi and convicted of murder by a jury of his peers .
Jarvious Cotton is now out on parole and ineligible to vote in Mississippi , not because he is black , but because he killed someone—which is not the same thing , though TNJC consistently conflates these issues rather than wrestle with the messy and inconvenient details .
Conduct either matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York City Police Commissioner William Bratton asserts that it does .
Bratton argues that blacks and Hispanics “ represent half of our city ’ s population , but 96.9 percent of those who are shot , and 97.6 percent of those who commit the shootings.
” These are terrible , troubling numbers .
Dismissing the underlying phenomenon as a matter of mere “ labels ” is an irresponsible evasion .
Or consider TNJC ’ s fable of the suburbs : We are expected to ignore the fact that black and white middleclass suburbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the primary locus of the criminal conduct at issue : firearms discharges ( detected by automated recorders , not subject to “ implicit bias ” ) , violent-crime-related 911 calls , actual homicide victims—all these things are significantly less common in suburbs , and every sensible person knows that already .
Again we must dismiss actual data when we read that “ The uncomfortable reality is that arrests and convictions for drug offenses—not violent crime—have propelled mass incarceration.
” In state prisons , holding the largest number of incarcerated inmates , only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those incarcerated are violent offenders .
In the substantially smaller federal system , the proportion of drug offenders does approach 50 percent , largely because federal enforcement focuses on major domestic and international traffickers—34 percent of the federal prison population is Hispanic and 23 percent are not U.S. citizens .
TNJC ’ s argument that drug crime , particularly among blacks , has propelled incarceration rates simply does not add up .
But how strong is TNJC ’ s best case about the racial injustice of the drug war ?
The argument is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug arrests when survey data show that their use of drugs is less than that of whites , and even their rate of drug dealing is surpassed by that of whites .
One could refute the specific criminal justice and drug use claims , and we shall try in one case .
But we suspect that this is a trap .
Every effort to rebut will be seen as confirmation of denial , even complicity , in American injustice .
Even invoking the differential victimization of blacks by crime can be dismissed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The primary source for TNJC drug data is a 2006 report , “ Juvenile Offenders and Victims , ” authored by Howard Snyder and Melissa Sickmund ( the author has her as “ Sickman , ” as do other prior sources ) .
It is worth examining these claims with care .
Specifically , the “ stark racial disparities can not be explained by rates of drug crime , ” because blacks are said not to use drugs disproportionately .
In fact , the author argues , “ If there are significant differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they frequently suggest that whites , particularly white youth , are more likely to engage in drug crime than people of color.
” Finally , “ white youth are more likely than black youth to engage in illegal drug sales.
” Do these counterintuitive claims stand up when we look at the full battery of statistics , and not just those hand-picked ?
First , the claims do not comport with the National Survey on Drug Use and Health , the principal data source for drug use among adults .
Based on self-reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a redesign in 2002 until the most recent iteration ( 2013 data ) , black rates of current drug use are not lower than those of whites , Hispanics , and Asians—they exceed them .
TNJC receives more support for ( some ) youth drug use rates , but only for the unwary .
The major long-term survey of youth drug use , the school-based Monitoring the Future ( MTF ) study run by the National Institute on Drug Abuse , shows that for high-school seniors , whites report generally higher illicit drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary , however , before accepting TNJC .
MTF excludes by design youth who are school drop-outs , institutionalized , homeless , or runaways .
Which is precisely the fate of many youth drug users .
That is , given the large disproportion of black youth who have dropped out ( especially drug users ) , they are simply not proportionately present in the sample measuring seniors .
Blacks also report , in this survey , only half the rate of alcohol use , and only one-third the rates of tobacco use , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some skewing by virtue of differential attrition .
Finally , there is the claim concerning drug sellers .
The source for this is the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth , again based on self-reports , that asked whether between the ages of 12-16 , youth had sold drugs .
TNJC seizes on the fact that white youth answered yes in 17 percent of cases , Hispanics in 16 percent , but blacks in only 13 percent of cases .
( The confidence intervals are +/- 2 percentage points , making the four points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close thing . )
The case is stronger when asked of youth who sold drugs at ages 16-17 , only .
For these youth , the disparity does grow : whites reported being 42 percent of those who sold , blacks only 29 percent .
Case closed ?
TNJC leaves off , with the statistic cherry picked .
But what does the next , unmentioned , table show ?
Move forward one year .
For those who sold drugs at age 18-19 , only , the data flip : blacks represent 44 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even greater disparity , but in the opposite direction .
And completely missing is the report ’ s summary of case rates , which subverts TNJC ’ s argument : “ In 2002 , case rates for black juveniles were substantially higher than rates for other juveniles in all offense categories .
.
.
.
[ I ] n 1991 , the drug offense case rate for black juveniles was more than 5.5 times the rate for white juveniles.
” Note that the critical exhibit for TNJC , that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t differentially commit , hinges on the slender reed of a 2006 body of self-report data from juveniles which shows no such thing .
This , as we say , is the book ’ s strongest case .
Once we actually incorporate the reality of criminal conduct , however , the book descends into self-deceptions , more and more difficult to believe .
In fact , its claims contradict our shared experience .
The author should acknowledge that great political pressure for tough law enforcement has come from black communities that suffer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fears , and hopes , of mothers of sons at risk of death from gang involvement .
This decisive truth about law enforcement in America is the real refutation of TNJC .
If you ’ re not troubled yet , you should be .
The popularity of TNJC risks engendering a cycle of violent victimization of our most vulnerable citizens , who must depend on the criminal justice system to be their protector .
The reality of black victimization requires us to strengthen , not condemn and abandon , institutions of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth about our struggle on the streets an urgent duty .
The new students at Brown University , required to confront untrue charges that criminal justice in America is no more than an exercise in deliberate “ mass incarceration , ” should beware lest we fall prey to yet another “ low , dishonest decade.
” John Walters chief operating officer of Hudson Institute and director of Hudson Institute Political Studies .
David W. Murray is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute where he co-directs the Center for Substance Abuse Policy Research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Drug Control Policy during the George W. Bush administration .

Back in 2015 I asked the Hudson Institute’s John Walters to take a look at Michelle Alexander’s dreadful but influential The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Mr. Walters turned his attention to Alexander’s book together with his Hudson Institute colleague David Murray. Subsequently posted in footnoted form on Hudson’s site as “Revisiting ‘The New Jim Crow,'” the essay below was written for us. I want to add it to my own comments in “Bill Gates recommends” yesterday:
This book (hereafter, TNJC) is careless. The carelessness produces misdirection and it undermines the argument. Facts are stretched, the scholarly apparatus is weak, and the core argument is often contradicted by its own evidence.
Nonetheless, TNJC is a very popular book—rising to The New York Times best-seller list, required reading for incoming students at Brown University, said by the San Francisco Chronicle to be “the Bible of a social movement.” Is its power rooted in a deeper truth or in a revealing lie that many of us want to believe or need to believe in the face of an ugly reality?
Full disclosure: We have lived through and remember the drug and crime problem of the 1980’s onward. We have done our best to make the problem smaller from positions within the White House, serving for at least a time in every Administration from Reagan to Obama. We know from personal experience that TNJC is built on falsehood. We also recognize that those who want to believe TNJC may view our experience as a cover-up of the great wrong alleged. But we write with the hope that open-minded readers can and will judge the facts for themselves.
In a nutshell, TNJC argues that “[w]e have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.” From the book jacket: “By targeting black men through the War on Drugs, and decimating communities of color, the U.S. criminal justice system functions as a contemporary system of racial control—relegating millions to permanent second-class status.” A primary concern is the loss of the right to vote.
The specific list of factual misstatements is long. For a book with scholarly pretentions, it is noteworthy that the book lacks a bibliography, and that its endnote citations are woeful.
Consider that we are told: “The Reagan administration hired staff to publicize the emergence of crack cocaine in 1985 as part of a strategic effort to build public and legislative support for the war.” The point is not a minor one, since it is offered in support of a core thesis: when there really wasn’t a drug problem in our cities, in order to achieve “social control” over blacks through “mass incarceration,” President Ronald Reagan created and then hyped a crisis using the media. This claim is found in the Introduction. Turning to the endnote, however, one finds no documentation, but rather a simple line that Reagan’s action “is discussed in more depth in Chapter 1.”
That’s a bit cheesy, but what then happens in Chapter 1? There, after reading about “code words” for race, we find again that Reagan “launched a media offensive to justify the ‘War on Drugs.’” And there’s another endnote which, when pursued, leads nowhere. It is a reference to the 1992 National Drug Control Strategy—produced after the Reagan Presidency.
This is cat-and-mouse. It anticipates an unserious, unquestioning reader, one willing to be led.
What about the author’s claim that the “War on Drugs” was initiated by Reagan (detractors of Richard Nixon will be disappointed), or the even more dramatic claim that Reagan’s “ambitious federal policy” in fact turned into “an actual war.” How are we to take this hyperbole?
The author cites fears “in poor black communities that the War on Drugs was part of a genocidal plan by the government to destroy black people in the United States.” She calls these “conspiracy theories,” but what does the professor actually believe? She tells us: “While the conspiracy theories were initially dismissed as far-fetched, if not loony, the word on the street [i.e., genocide] turned out to be right, at least up to a point.”
To forward the concept of a policy being “genocide up to a point” (that point being the intent to kill a race and actually trying to do so) is such extreme overstatement it should be self-discrediting.
Still TNJC plunges forward. Evidence that the crack epidemic was “genocidal” is supposed to be be contained in the claim that “[t]he CIA admitted in 1998 that guerilla armies that it actively supported in Nicaragua were smuggling illegal drugs into the United States.” The CIA further “admitted that . . . it blocked law enforcement efforts to investigate illegal drug networks” funding its covert war.
Whatever the claimed involvement of the CIA, its actual significance—how much illegal drug supply this “conspiracy” dumped into American streets—is something the author tellingly declines to explain or quantify. If you are old enough to remember the Medellin and Cali cartels (which really did traffic massive amounts of cocaine into the United States during that period), you are supposed to forget them here.
Assumptions like these, in which every development suggests the existence of a full-scale “plot,” might incline us to dismissiveness when the author finally gets to actual data. Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated for drug crimes on a straight per-capita basis. That’s certainly true. But it’s not a phenomenon peculiar to drug statutes; blacks are incarcerated for (and, crucially, victims of) almost every Index crime at depressingly higher per capita rates.
Even though TNJC’s attack ostensibly focuses on drug laws, it’s argument ultimately embraces the whole of American criminal justice: it is all “a tightly networked system of laws, policies, customs, and institutions” that produces “mass incarceration” to achieve “social control.” Here, Ms. Alexander quotes Michael Tonry: “Governments decide how much punishment they want, and these decisions are in no way related to crime rates.”
But this claim that blacks are subordinated and controlled creates an obvious problem. TNJC must explain away the election of Barack Obama within a system allegedly dedicated to keeping blacks from power: “Many will wonder how a nation that just elected its first black president could have a racial caste system,” and “[i]t’s a fair question,” she acknowledges. Indeed, it is. But her answer is odd: “[T]here is no inconsistency whatsoever between the election of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land and the existence of a racial caste system in the era of colorblindness. The current system of control depends on black exceptionalism; it is not disproved or undermined by it.” We have no idea what exactly that’s supposed to mean, but it does seem to suggest that for America, where Ms. Alexander is concerned, it’s damned when you do—and double-damned when you don’t.
Caste or Conduct?
TNJC opens with a compelling anecdote about a man named Jarvious Cotton:
Cotton’s great-great-grandfather could not vote as a slave. His great-grandfather was beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan for attempting to vote. His grandfather was prevented from voting by Klan intimidation. His father was barred from voting by poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon, and is currently on parole.
The idea that the state of Mississippi, home to Jarvious Cotton, has deliberately designed its laws to create a systematic racial caste system would have been undeniable 50 years ago. But has there been no progress since? Yes, Mississippi continues to deny the ballot to any person convicted of “murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretenses, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy.” If this is a caste system—unless you consider “murderer” and “arsonist” perfectly acceptable synonyms for “African American”—it’s an oddly leaky one.
On its face, instead, Mississippi voting status is determined by conduct. And while violent crimes may involve clear racial disparities of the sort TNJC is exercised about, disenfranchisement for typically white-collar offenses like “bribery,” financial fraud, and “embezzlement” would hardly seem consistent with a conscious “project” to create a race-based caste system.
Nor does actual voting behavior sustain Ms. Alexander’s case for the existence of such a project. As the Associated Press reported after the 2012 Presidential election, registered black voters in Mississippi went to the polls at a higher rate than did white voters. This is not what “systematic racism” looks like, as anyone old enough to have witnessed the Civil Rights Movement can confirm.
Then there is the problem of Ms. Alexander’s maddeningly slippery rhetoric. TNJC tells us only that Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because, “like many black men in America,” he “has been labeled a felon.” TNJC does not tell us why he has been so labeled. It’s as if “labels” descended willy-nilly, independent of conduct.
In fact, Jarvious Cotton was indicted in Mississippi for the shooting death of 17-year-old Robert Irby, escaped from prison while awaiting trial, and fled to New York where he was subsequently arrested for a marijuana violation—and where fingerprint analysis then “labeled” him a fugitive wanted for a capital crime. Mr. Cotton was later extradited back to Mississippi and convicted of murder by a jury of his peers.
Jarvious Cotton is now out on parole and ineligible to vote in Mississippi, not because he is black, but because he killed someone—which is not the same thing, though TNJC consistently conflates these issues rather than wrestle with the messy and inconvenient details.
Conduct either matters or it doesn’t. New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton asserts that it does. Bratton argues that blacks and Hispanics “represent half of our city’s population, but 96.9 percent of those who are shot, and 97.6 percent of those who commit the shootings.” These are terrible, troubling numbers. Dismissing the underlying phenomenon as a matter of mere “labels” is an irresponsible evasion.
Or consider TNJC’s fable of the suburbs:
From the outset, the drug war could have been waged primarily in overwhelmingly white suburbs or on college campuses. SWAT teams could have rappelled from helicopters in gated suburban communities and raided the homes of high school lacrosse players known for hosting coke and ecstasy parties after their games….Suburban homemakers could have been placed under surveillance and subjected to undercover operations designed to catch them violating laws regulating the use and sale of prescription “uppers.” All of this could have happened as a matter of routine in white communities, but it did not. Instead, when police go looking for drugs, they look in the hood.
We are expected to ignore the fact that black and white middleclass suburbs are not, by any objective measure, the primary locus of the criminal conduct at issue: firearms discharges (detected by automated recorders, not subject to “implicit bias”), violent-crime-related 911 calls, actual homicide victims—all these things are significantly less common in suburbs, and every sensible person knows that already.
The Drug Data
Again we must dismiss actual data when we read that “The uncomfortable reality is that arrests and convictions for drug offenses—not violent crime—have propelled mass incarceration.” In state prisons, holding the largest number of incarcerated inmates, only 16 percent are drug offenders—54 percent of those incarcerated are violent offenders.
In the substantially smaller federal system, the proportion of drug offenders does approach 50 percent, largely because federal enforcement focuses on major domestic and international traffickers—34 percent of the federal prison population is Hispanic and 23 percent are not U.S. citizens. TNJC’s argument that drug crime, particularly among blacks, has propelled incarceration rates simply does not add up.
But how strong is TNJC’s best case about the racial injustice of the drug war? The argument is that blacks are treated unjustly by disproportionate drug arrests when survey data show that their use of drugs is less than that of whites, and even their rate of drug dealing is surpassed by that of whites.
One could refute the specific criminal justice and drug use claims, and we shall try in one case. But we suspect that this is a trap. Every effort to rebut will be seen as confirmation of denial, even complicity, in American injustice. Even invoking the differential victimization of blacks by crime can be dismissed as pretext sustaining the system of injustice.
The primary source for TNJC drug data is a 2006 report, “Juvenile Offenders and Victims,” authored by Howard Snyder and Melissa Sickmund (the author has her as “Sickman,” as do other prior sources).
It is worth examining these claims with care.
Specifically, the “stark racial disparities cannot be explained by rates of drug crime,” because blacks are said not to use drugs disproportionately. In fact, the author argues, “If there are significant differences in the surveys to be found, they frequently suggest that whites, particularly white youth, are more likely to engage in drug crime than people of color.” Finally, “white youth are more likely than black youth to engage in illegal drug sales.”
Do these counterintuitive claims stand up when we look at the full battery of statistics, and not just those hand-picked?
First, the claims do not comport with the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the principal data source for drug use among adults. Based on self-reports, it shows that every year since a redesign in 2002 until the most recent iteration (2013 data), black rates of current drug use are not lower than those of whites, Hispanics, and Asians—they exceed them.
TNJC receives more support for (some) youth drug use rates, but only for the unwary. The major long-term survey of youth drug use, the school-based Monitoring the Future (MTF) study run by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, shows that for high-school seniors, whites report generally higher illicit drug use rates than blacks.
Caution is necessary, however, before accepting TNJC. MTF excludes by design youth who are school drop-outs, institutionalized, homeless, or runaways. Which is precisely the fate of many youth drug users. That is, given the large disproportion of black youth who have dropped out (especially drug users), they are simply not proportionately present in the sample measuring seniors.
Blacks also report, in this survey, only half the rate of alcohol use, and only one-third the rates of tobacco use, compared to white youth, further suggesting some skewing by virtue of differential attrition.
Finally, there is the claim concerning drug sellers. The source for this is the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, again based on self-reports, that asked whether between the ages of 12-16, youth had sold drugs.
TNJC seizes on the fact that white youth answered yes in 17 percent of cases, Hispanics in 16 percent, but blacks in only 13 percent of cases. (The confidence intervals are +/- 2 percentage points, making the four points between black and white reports a pretty close thing.)
The case is stronger when asked of youth who sold drugs at ages 16-17, only. For these youth, the disparity does grow: whites reported being 42 percent of those who sold, blacks only 29 percent.
Case closed? TNJC leaves off, with the statistic cherry picked. But what does the next, unmentioned, table show? Move forward one year. For those who sold drugs at age 18-19, only, the data flip: blacks represent 44 percent, whites only 28 percent; an even greater disparity, but in the opposite direction.
And completely missing is the report’s summary of case rates, which subverts TNJC’s argument: “In 2002, case rates for black juveniles were substantially higher than rates for other juveniles in all offense categories. . . . [I]n 1991, the drug offense case rate for black juveniles was more than 5.5 times the rate for white juveniles.”
Note that the critical exhibit for TNJC, that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned for drug trafficking crimes that they don’t differentially commit, hinges on the slender reed of a 2006 body of self-report data from juveniles which shows no such thing.
This, as we say, is the book’s strongest case. Once we actually incorporate the reality of criminal conduct, however, the book descends into self-deceptions, more and more difficult to believe. In fact, its claims contradict our shared experience.
The author should acknowledge that great political pressure for tough law enforcement has come from black communities that suffer disproportionate victimization. It has come from the fears, and hopes, of mothers of sons at risk of death from gang involvement. This decisive truth about law enforcement in America is the real refutation of TNJC.
If you’re not troubled yet, you should be. The popularity of TNJC risks engendering a cycle of violent victimization of our most vulnerable citizens, who must depend on the criminal justice system to be their protector. The reality of black victimization requires us to strengthen, not condemn and abandon, institutions of law and order. TNJC makes telling the truth about our struggle on the streets an urgent duty.
The new students at Brown University, required to confront untrue charges that criminal justice in America is no more than an exercise in deliberate “mass incarceration,” should beware lest we fall prey to yet another “low, dishonest decade.”
John Walters chief operating officer of Hudson Institute and director of Hudson Institute Political Studies. David W. Murray is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute where he co-directs the Center for Substance Abuse Policy Research. They both served in the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the George W. Bush administration.


powerlineblog--2020-12-14--Call Me “Doktor” Chill, Not “Doctor” Jill

For many years in my early adulthood I ’ d explain to my extended and very practical family that I only wanted to get an impractical Ph.D so I could get good tables at restaurants by calling in and making a reservation for “ Doctor Hayward.
” The family immediately got the joke .
My grandfather , a man with an eighth grade education who went on to start what eventually became the largest GM dealership in the LA area in the early postwar years , actually used to phone restaurants and make reservations under the name “ Dr .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ d get better tables and superior service .
He was a martini-drinking , chain-smoking , fancy silk suit man , so it may ahve worked in those days , though family lore doesn ’ t record whether he tipped appropriately .
I suspect not .
I know he used to put cheap whisky in Chivas Regal bottles , which never failed to fool party guests who ’ d go on and on about how Chivas Regal was the only whisky to drink , but who couldn ’ t detect the cheap hootch they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other time I ’ ll have to tell the story of gramps and my dad launching fabricated weather-balloon UFOs at a flying saucer convention held out in the California desert in the late 1960s .
Lots of martinis those nights . )
I ’ d almost forgotten about all this until the dustup over the weekend about Joseph Epstein ’ s Wall Street Journal article chiding putative First Lady Jill Biden for insisting on being called “ Doctor ” on account of her Ed.D degree .
You ’ d think a U.S .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurant tables without this pretension .
Imagine what seats the Bidens will be able to get now .
( If they can find an open restaurant . )
While no one in academia will admit it , an Ed.D degree is regarded at about the level of an MBA , if that .
And how many lawyers demand to be called “ doctor ” because their degree is actually a “ Juris Doctor ” ?
“ Excuse me , your honor , but that ’ s Doctor Dershowitz to you !
” Yeah—not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left—and the Biden inner circle—has gone to DefCon1 over this insult to Doctor Jill Biden .
The WSJ ’ s Paul Gigot pushes back nicely in a column Monday .
Good for him .
For the record , I ’ m still somewhat embarrassed merely to be called professor , and on the rare occasions when someones has presumed to call me “ Doctor Hayward , ” I usually disavow the term .
Hypothetical : Suppose “ Doctor Biden ” is dining in a restaurant some time and a nearby diner is suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls out , “ Is there is doctor in the house ?
” Will “ Doctor ” Jill Biden answer the call ?
If I ’ d ever actually reserved a table under “ doctor ” and someone was choking , I guess I ’ d have to say , “ Well , you see , I ’ m a Doctor of Philosophy , and as philosophy teaches that there ’ s a time to live and a time to die .
.
.
” For what it ’ s worth , my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the old St. Johns/University of Chicago protocol , in which I am “ Mr .
Hayward , ” and all the students are “ Mr .
Smith ” or “ Ms .
Jones.
” Admittedly this is a little tricky now in the age of exponentially expanding pronouns , but the point is , this modicum of formality not only treats students with an unaccustomed respect , but keeps a baseline of seriousness amidst a sometimes chaotic and free-flowing dialogue ( at least in small seminars ) , and also conveys a certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ atmosphere of classical education .
Students like it , by the way .
It ’ s kinda chill , they might say .
I know very few professors ( actually none ) who insist on being called “ doctor.
” ( To be fair , Henry Kissinger , who insisted on being called “ Dr .
Kissinger ” when he joined the Nixon White House in 1969 , is one of the authors of this pretension .
I ” m sure being compared to Kissinger will be a comfort to Jill Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ called “ doctor ” is of a piece with the insatiable neediness of many public figures .
If that ’ s what they need to have self-esteem , well , the paradox is obvious .
Why not just go all the way and demand to be referred to with the German form , “ Doktor.
” Fits with Joe Biden ’ s broader governing ideology .
Also : I ’ ll bet the Bidens don ’ t tip very well when “ Doctor ” Jill and The Thing We Know are out to @ @

For many years in my early adulthood I’d explain to my extended and very practical family that I only wanted to get an impractical Ph.D so I could get good tables at restaurants by calling in and making a reservation for “Doctor Hayward.” The family immediately got the joke. My grandfather, a man with an eighth grade education who went on to start what eventually became the largest GM dealership in the LA area in the early postwar years, actually used to phone restaurants and make reservations under the name “Dr. Schulz,” presuming that he’d get better tables and superior service.
He was a martini-drinking, chain-smoking, fancy silk suit man, so it may have worked in those days, though family lore doesn’t record whether he tipped appropriately. I suspect not. I know he used to put cheap whisky in Chivas Regal bottles, which never failed to fool party guests who’d go on and on about how Chivas Regal was the only whisky to drink, but who couldn’t detect the cheap hootch they had in their glass. (Some other time I’ll have to tell the story of gramps and my dad launching fabricated weather-balloon UFOs at a flying saucer convention held out in the California desert in the late 1960s. Lots of martinis those nights.)
I’d almost forgotten about all this until the dustup over the weekend about Joseph Epstein’s Wall Street Journal article chiding putative First Lady Jill Biden for insisting on being called “Doctor” on account of her Ed.D degree. You’d think a U.S. Senator and Vice President could get good restaurant tables without this pretension. Imagine what seats the Bidens will be able to get now. (If they can find an open restaurant.) While no one in academia will admit it, an Ed.D degree is regarded at about the level of an MBA, if that. And how many lawyers demand to be called “doctor” because their degree is actually a “Juris Doctor”? “Excuse me, your honor, but that’s Doctor Dershowitz to you!” Yeah—not even that guy.
The identity politics left—and the Biden inner circle—has gone to DefCon1 over this insult to Doctor Jill Biden. The WSJ’s Paul Gigot pushes back nicely in a column Monday. Good for him.
For the record, I’m still somewhat embarrassed merely to be called professor, and on the rare occasions when someones has presumed to call me “Doctor Hayward,” I usually disavow the term. Hypothetical: Suppose “Doctor Biden” is dining in a restaurant some time and a nearby diner is suddenly in distress. The host or hostess calls out, “Is there is doctor in the house?” Will “Doctor” Jill Biden answer the call? If I’d ever actually reserved a table under “doctor” and someone was choking, I guess I’d have to say, “Well, you see, I’m a Doctor of Philosophy, and as philosophy teaches that there’s a time to live and a time to die. . .”
For what it’s worth, my practice in the classroom is to emulate the old St. Johns/University of Chicago protocol, in which I am “Mr. Hayward,” and all the students are “Mr. Smith” or “Ms. Jones.” Admittedly this is a little tricky now in the age of exponentially expanding pronouns, but the point is, this modicum of formality not only treats students with an unaccustomed respect, but keeps a baseline of seriousness amidst a sometimes chaotic and free-flowing dialogue (at least in small seminars), and also conveys a certain kind of equality which is the notional atmosphere of classical education. Students like it, by the way. It’s kinda chill, they might say. I know very few professors (actually none) who insist on being called “doctor.” (To be fair, Henry Kissinger, who insisted on being called “Dr. Kissinger” when he joined the Nixon White House in 1969, is one of the authors of this pretension. I’m sure being compared to Kissinger will be a comfort to Jill Biden.)
The insistence on Jill Biden being called “doctor” is of a piece with the insatiable neediness of many public figures. If that’s what they need to have self-esteem, well, the paradox is obvious. Why not just go all the way and demand to be referred to with the German form, “Doktor.” Fits with Joe Biden’s broader governing ideology. Also: I’ll bet the Bidens don’t tip very well when “Doctor” Jill and The Thing We Know are out to dinner.


powerlineblog--2020-12-15--Goodbye to the Indians

Goodbye to the Indians

The Cleveland Indians baseball club has announced that it will change the team ’ s name .
This is the team ’ s statement , on Twitter : Here are my thoughts on portions of the statement : The purpose of any such review is obvious .
The moment it began , the Indians nickname was doomed .
Well , it ’ s easier than winning a World Series .
I know of no evidence that one sports team name unifies a community more than another .
I suppose the Cleveland team will soon be known as the Bears , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Crimson , or another color .
How exactly will such names be unifying ?
I doubt that the team heard from anyone other than Native American activists for whom squashing Indian nicknames is a career .
And what “ detrimental effects ” did the Indians ’ name have on “ tribal communities ” ?
Needless to say , none are specified .
I am pretty sure there have been no such detrimental effects , which is why polls have shown , repeatedly , that most Native Americans like Indian sports nicknames and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politics has always been about the exercise of power .
That is the whole point .
What is odd about our contemporary politics is how small the stakes often are .
Activists have forced universities and professional sports franchises to do away with Indian nicknames on the theory that they are somehow demeaning .
They aren ’ t , in fact , as most Native Americans recognize .
But that isn ’ t the point .
The point is the raw exercise of power , even in such a modest sphere .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much , the activists always get their way .
It seems clear that Native American-derived sports names will soon be extinct .
Who suffers as a result ?
Indians , mostly .
In this case , Cleveland baseball fans will get over it in time .
But the suppression of Indian nicknames doesn ’ t elevate Native Americans in any way ; it simply contributes toward making them more invisible than they already are .
In Ohio , Native Americans represent 0.002 of the population .
Sports team names account for most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our culture .
Soon that positive recognition will be gone .
This is doubly unfortunate in that Westerns , the other sphere of popular entertainment where Indians have figured prominently , are also going the way of the dinosaur .
The Indian tribes , in their remarkable variety , are collectively heading for oblivion .
Chalk up another win for leftist activism .

The Cleveland Indians baseball club has announced that it will change the team’s name. This is the team’s statement, on Twitter:
Here are my thoughts on portions of the statement:
Since July, we have conducted an extensive process to learn how our team name affected different constituencies and whether it aligned with our organizational values.
The purpose of any such review is obvious. The moment it began, the Indians nickname was doomed.
We believe our organization is at its best when we can unify our community and bring people together–and we believe a new name will allow us to do this more fully.
Well, it’s easier than winning a World Series. I know of no evidence that one sports team name unifies a community more than another. I suppose the Cleveland team will soon be known as the Bears, or some other animal; or perhaps the Crimson, or another color. How exactly will such names be unifying?
Team Owner and Chairman Paul Dolan said, “Hearing firsthand the stories and experiences of Native American people, we gained a deep understanding of how tribal communities feel about the team name and the detrimental effects it has on them.”
I doubt that the team heard from anyone other than Native American activists for whom squashing Indian nicknames is a career. And what “detrimental effects” did the Indians’ name have on “tribal communities”? Needless to say, none are specified. I am pretty sure there have been no such detrimental effects, which is why polls have shown, repeatedly, that most Native Americans like Indian sports nicknames and don’t want them changed.
Politics has always been about the exercise of power. That is the whole point. What is odd about our contemporary politics is how small the stakes often are. Activists have forced universities and professional sports franchises to do away with Indian nicknames on the theory that they are somehow demeaning. They aren’t, in fact, as most Native Americans recognize. But that isn’t the point. The point is the raw exercise of power, even in such a modest sphere. Since no one on the other side cares much, the activists always get their way. It seems clear that Native American-derived sports names will soon be extinct.
Who suffers as a result? Indians, mostly. In this case, Cleveland baseball fans will get over it in time. But the suppression of Indian nicknames doesn’t elevate Native Americans in any way; it simply contributes toward making them more invisible than they already are. In Ohio, Native Americans represent 0.002 of the population. Sports team names account for most of the positive impressions that Indians–a tiny minority–receive in our culture. Soon that positive recognition will be gone.
This is doubly unfortunate in that Westerns, the other sphere of popular entertainment where Indians have figured prominently, are also going the way of the dinosaur. The Indian tribes, in their remarkable variety, are collectively heading for oblivion.
Chalk up another win for leftist activism.


powerlineblog--2020-12-14--What will Biden’s policy be on Israel and Saudi Arabia?

Anne Gearan has an article in today ’ s Washington Post about Joe Biden and his likely approach to Israel and Saudi Arabia .
I classify it as mostly good news , if true .
I ’ m thinking , for example , of this passage : I ’ m not sure Biden has much choice in these matters , but I ’ m also not sure that a Barack Obama wouldn ’ t try to undercut the deals and/or made Israel pay a price for our moving of the embassy .
There is also this : The Golan Heights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the chaos in Syria , including an Iranian military presence , it would be insane for the U.S. to oppose the annexation .
But that doesn ’ t mean an Obama wouldn ’ t do it .
I was also glad to read this : Why the U.S. should waste its time offering peace plans is beyond me .
Even Trump got bogged down a little in this , thanks to his son-in-law .
Once , the conventional wisdom ( which we at Power Line always disputed ) was that a settlement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinians was the key to good U.S. relations with the Middle East .
But now the U.S. has good relations with most of the region without any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians .
Our relations with Iran are poor , of course .
But no intelligent person thinks this has anything much to do with the Palestinians , and even Biden now may share this understanding .
Speaking of Iran , this passage from Gearan contains good and bad news : If true , it ’ s good that Biden recognizes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in U.S. Middle East policy .
Trying to settle that conflict is a fool ’ s errand on a matter well outside our national interest .
On the other hand , if Biden wants to “ pacify ” Iran , that ’ s disturbing .
Iran can not be pacified .
Gearan has some cautionary news for those who hope to see the Iran nuclear deal revived : In the case of the international nuclear deal with Iran , the most notable instance in which Biden has said he would reverse Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not simply rejoin the deal that Trump left and that Iran has now abrogated .
Much of his Middle East policy will revolve around trying to rehabilitate and eventually replace the deal , although there is little indication now that Iran would go along or that Israeli opposition to such diplomacy could be overcome .
For Iran to enter a new deal with Biden would require “ pacification ” to a degree that could only be obtained on terms massively favorable to the mullahs .
No treaty offering such terms could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the new deal could be abrogated in less than four years .
Thus , the bribes would have to be all the more enticing .
It ’ s not clear that even Biden and his team would make concessions of that magnitude to Iran .
The Post ’ s reporting on Saudi Arabia is skewed wildly ( if understandably ) by the Saudis ’ killing of the paper ’ s columnist .
Clearly , the Post hopes for a reversal of our friendly relations with the Kingdom .
Gearan notes that Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game on confronting the Saudis on human rights issues , for example .
She expresses no opinion on whether this amounts to anything much more than talk .
It likely would under an Obama , but I question whether it will under Biden .
Obama ’ s pivot fizzled out not because it was wrong to focus on Asia , but because the policies associated with the move weren ’ t serious enough about China .
Unfortunately , a Biden pivot would likely be just as unserious .

Anne Gearan has an article in today’s Washington Post about Joe Biden and his likely approach to Israel and Saudi Arabia. I classify it as mostly good news, if true.
I’m thinking, for example, of this passage:
Biden has welcomed diplomatic deals among Israel and three Arab neighbors that Trump helped midwife and that are bitterly opposed by the Palestinian Authority. Biden also has said he will not revisit the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
I’m not sure Biden has much choice in these matters, but I’m also not sure that a Barack Obama wouldn’t try to undercut the deals and/or made Israel pay a price for our moving of the embassy.
There is also this:
[Biden] appears unlikely to revoke U.S. backing for Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, which like the embassy move was a political gift requested by Netanyahu and granted by Trump.
The Golan Heights tower over Northern Israel. With all of the chaos in Syria, including an Iranian military presence, it would be insane for the U.S. to oppose the annexation. But that doesn’t mean an Obama wouldn’t do it.
I was also glad to read this:
Biden is unlikely to offer his own peace plan anytime soon, said people who have advised his campaign or discussed foreign policy priorities with him over the past several months.
Why the U.S. should waste its time offering peace plans is beyond me. Even Trump got bogged down a little in this, thanks to his son-in-law.
Once, the conventional wisdom (which we at Power Line always disputed) was that a settlement of Israel’s dispute with the Palestinians was the key to good U.S. relations with the Middle East. But now the U.S. has good relations with most of the region without any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Our relations with Iran are poor, of course. But no intelligent person thinks this has anything much to do with the Palestinians, and even Biden now may share this understanding.
Speaking of Iran, this passage from Gearan contains good and bad news:
One person who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations noted that Biden is more interested in pacifying Iran and thinks the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has skewed the U.S. approach to the region.
If true, it’s good that Biden recognizes the outsized role the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has played in U.S. Middle East policy. Trying to settle that conflict is a fool’s errand on a matter well outside our national interest.
On the other hand, if Biden wants to “pacify” Iran, that’s disturbing. Iran cannot be pacified.
Gearan has some cautionary news for those who hope to see the Iran nuclear deal revived:
In the case of the international nuclear deal with Iran, the most notable instance in which Biden has said he would reverse Trump, the ground has shifted profoundly. Biden cannot simply rejoin the deal that Trump left and that Iran has now abrogated. Much of his Middle East policy will revolve around trying to rehabilitate and eventually replace the deal, although there is little indication now that Iran would go along or that Israeli opposition to such diplomacy could be overcome.
(Emphasis added)
For Iran to enter a new deal with Biden would require “pacification” to a degree that could only be obtained on terms massively favorable to the mullahs. No treaty offering such terms could be ratified by the Senate, which means that the new deal could be abrogated in less than four years. Thus, the concessions bribes would have to be all the more enticing.
It’s not clear that even Biden and his team would make concessions of that magnitude to Iran.
The Post’s reporting on Saudi Arabia is skewed wildly (if understandably) by the Saudis’ killing of the paper’s columnist. Clearly, the Post hopes for a reversal of our friendly relations with the Kingdom.
Gearan notes that Biden and Antony Blanken have talked a good game on confronting the Saudis on human rights issues, for example. She expresses no opinion on whether this amounts to anything much more than talk. It likely would under an Obama, but I question whether it will under Biden.
Gearan ends on this note:
[S]ome of Biden’s advisers want him to pay less attention to the Middle East overall and more attention to Asia. The Obama administration tried something similar, only to see its “pivot to Asia” largely fizzle out.
Obama’s pivot fizzled out not because it was wrong to focus on Asia, but because the policies associated with the move weren’t serious enough about China. Unfortunately, a Biden pivot would likely be just as unserious.


powerlineblog--2020-12-14--Dem Diversity Blues (2)

Dem Diversity Blues (2)

Two days ago we reported on how the intersectional diversicrats are wreaking havoc on Joe Biden ’ s selections for senior appointments , and today the New York Times returns to the subject to confirm one of the victims of the diversicrats : Mary Nichols , who had been the obvious choice to run the EPA until she ran afoul of the racial justice fanatics .
Claims of ‘ Bleak ’ Environmental Justice Record Appear to Fell a Biden Favorite When Joseph R. Biden , Jr. won the presidential election , his top candidate to lead the nation ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mary D. Nichols , California ’ s clean air regulator and arguably the country ’ s most experienced climate change official , was seen as a lock to run the Environmental Protection Agency .
Now Mr. Biden ’ s team is scrambling to find someone else , according to several people who have spoken with the presidential transition team .
The chief reason : This month , a group of more than 70 environmental justice groups wrote to the Biden transition charging that Ms. Nichols has a “ bleak track record in addressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited Ms. Nichols ’ s role in pushing California ’ s cap-and-trade program , which is designed to broadly reduce pollution of planet-warming greenhouse gases — but disproportionately does so at the expense , the groups said , of communities of color by exposing them to more pollutants like smog and soot .
* .
.
.
While Mr. Biden had expected that Ms. Nichols would be criticized by Republicans for her history of pushing tough regulations on industries , he was caught off guard by the intense objections to Ms. Nichols from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across Mary Nichols 30 years ago , when she was with the Natural Resources Defense Council , and was shocked at how radical and power mad she is .
I wonder whether environmental groups will take any lessons from this , for I can assure you that the old mainline groups like EDF , NRDC , the Sierra Club , etc.
, all love Nichols and want her as head of the EPA .
But they are terrified of the racial justice groups , even though they know that most of their claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Nichols are unfounded or grossly exaggerated .
But live by the green exaggeration , I guess you die by it too .
I ’ m sure whoever Biden finds will be just as bad ideologically , but I believe the scuttling of the highly experienced and capable Nichols is a win for our side .
* For the record , “ smog ” and “ soot ” ( soot ?
—who still uses that term ? )
levels in California continue to fall , even in poor neighborhoods .
Chaser : This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The influence of those groups , and Mr. Biden ’ s reactions to their push , appears to be another signal of the increasing tensions between the left and moderate factions of the Democratic Party .
Mr. Biden has already been subject to criticism from the left for some of his cabinet picks , even as he explicitly attempts to build a cabinet of racial and gender diversity .

Two days ago we reported on how the intersectional diversicrats are wreaking havoc on Joe Biden’s selections for senior appointments, and today the New York Times returns to the subject to confirm one of the victims of the diversicrats: Mary Nichols, who had been the obvious choice to run the EPA until she ran afoul of the racial justice fanatics.
Claims of ‘Bleak’ Environmental Justice Record Appear to Fell a Biden Favorite When Joseph R. Biden, Jr. won the presidential election, his top candidate to lead the nation’s most powerful environmental agency appeared clear: Mary D. Nichols, California’s clean air regulator and arguably the country’s most experienced climate change official, was seen as a lock to run the Environmental Protection Agency. Now Mr. Biden’s team is scrambling to find someone else, according to several people who have spoken with the presidential transition team. The chief reason: This month, a group of more than 70 environmental justice groups wrote to the Biden transition charging that Ms. Nichols has a “bleak track record in addressing environmental racism.” The environmental justice groups cited Ms. Nichols’s role in pushing California’s cap-and-trade program, which is designed to broadly reduce pollution of planet-warming greenhouse gases — but disproportionately does so at the expense, the groups said, of communities of color by exposing them to more pollutants like smog and soot.* . . . While Mr. Biden had expected that Ms. Nichols would be criticized by Republicans for her history of pushing tough regulations on industries, he was caught off guard by the intense objections to Ms. Nichols from liberals.
Heh. I first ran across Mary Nichols 30 years ago, when she was with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and was shocked at how radical and power mad she is. I wonder whether environmental groups will take any lessons from this, for I can assure you that the old mainline groups like EDF, NRDC, the Sierra Club, etc., all love Nichols and want her as head of the EPA. But they are terrified of the racial justice groups, even though they know that most of their claims about “environmental racism” in California under Nichols are unfounded or grossly exaggerated. But live by the green exaggeration, I guess you die by it too. I’m sure whoever Biden finds will be just as bad ideologically, but I believe the scuttling of the highly experienced and capable Nichols is a win for our side.
* For the record, “smog” and “soot” (soot?—who still uses that term?) levels in California continue to fall, even in poor neighborhoods.
Chaser: This from the Times story is comedy gold:


powerlineblog--2020-12-15--Why the Future is Trumpist (1)

Why the Future is Trumpist (1)

Some day I believe honest historians ( both of them ) will conclude that Trump ’ s administration was the most consequential and effective one-term presidency in American history , whose legacy will last for a long time .
The best comparison would be Lincoln , who never got to serve his second term .
Most one-term incumbents who are defeated lose because they have been abject failures , which Trump most assuredly wasn ’ t ( which is why , unlike all past defeated incumbents who lost votes , Trump got 10 million more than his initial election ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominate the political scene in the background as Teddy Roosevelt did from 1909 – 1912 and then run again in 2024 , but I argue that Trumpism will dominate the scene for a long time to come , and that any successful GOP presidential nominee will need to be a Trumpist .
I go further , in fact , and believe the shuffling of the issue map and the realignment of voting coalitions are as substantial as FDR and the New Deal—and it took FDR four terms to effect that change .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and will culminate with an article offering a wider field theory of Trump that I argue still escapes even many sympathetic Trump observers .
Let ’ s start today with just the single issue of China ( or “ Chy-nah , ” as Trump likes to enunciate it ) .
I was struck by some recent survey findings from Pew Research displayed in the chart below .
You can see that public opinion toward China has turned sharply negative all around the world over the last few years .
Trump did that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden will have to deal with .
Biden—and craven corporate America that doesn ’ t want to see its lucrative Chinese market shrink—may try to go back to business as usual .
But it will come at a political cost .
Trump forever shattered the complacency of the China-accommodationists of both parties over the last 20 years .
And even though Trump ’ s actually policies toward China were a mixed bag , there are clear signs he rattled the Chinese leadership , and contributed to some of the internal tensions and problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times over the weekend notes some significant changes in China ’ s international lending practices .
China ’ s government control banks were lending massively ( more than the World Bank and its affiliates in many years ) to promote their “ belt and road ” strategy that aimed to secure markets for China .
But this was the epitome of predatory lending .
When a developing country was unable to make payments on loans , China would convert the debt into equity , and thus extend their ownership of foreign infrastructure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ In any case , as this chart shows , China ’ s lending has suddenly dried up .

Some day I believe honest historians (both of them) will conclude that Trump’s administration was the most consequential and effective one-term presidency in American history, whose legacy will last for a long time. The best comparison would be Lincoln, who never got to serve his second term. Most one-term incumbents who are defeated lose because they have been abject failures, which Trump most assuredly wasn’t (which is why, unlike all past defeated incumbents who lost votes, Trump got 10 million more than his initial election).
Trump may or may not purposely dominate the political scene in the background as Teddy Roosevelt did from 1909 – 1912 and then run again in 2024, but I argue that Trumpism will dominate the scene for a long time to come, and that any successful GOP presidential nominee will need to be a Trumpist. I go further, in fact, and believe the shuffling of the issue map and the realignment of voting coalitions are as substantial as FDR and the New Deal—and it took FDR four terms to effect that change.
This series will explain where and why, and will culminate with an article offering a wider field theory of Trump that I argue still escapes even many sympathetic Trump observers.
Let’s start today with just the single issue of China (or “Chy-nah,” as Trump likes to enunciate it). I was struck by some recent survey findings from Pew Research displayed in the chart below. You can see that public opinion toward China has turned sharply negative all around the world over the last few years. Trump did that. And it will leave a residue that Biden will have to deal with. Biden—and craven corporate America that doesn’t want to see its lucrative Chinese market shrink—may try to go back to business as usual. But it will come at a political cost. Trump forever shattered the complacency of the China-accommodationists of both parties over the last 20 years.
And even though Trump’s actual policies toward China were a mixed bag, there are clear signs he rattled the Chinese leadership, and contributed to some of the internal tensions and problems facing the Chinese system. The Financial Times over the weekend notes some significant changes in China’s international lending practices. China’s government control banks were lending massively (more than the World Bank and its affiliates in many years) to promote their “belt and road” strategy that aimed to secure markets for China. But this was the epitome of predatory lending. When a developing country was unable to make payments on loans, China would convert the debt into equity, and thus extend their ownership of foreign infrastructure. You might even call this imperialism. In any case, as this chart shows, China’s lending has suddenly dried up.


powerlineblog--2020-12-15--They Stole It Fair And Square

They Stole It Fair And Square

My goodness , Scott certainly stirred up our readership yesterday with his “ limp noodle ” confession about the election .
At the risk of annoying many readers further , I ’ ll offer my observations on the matter which lead to my conclusion about why , and , more importantly , how to move on from here .
In rank order of provocation : • The Democrats stole the election fair and square .
Of course I don ’ t mean that literally ; what I mean is that the election was effectively stolen months ago before any ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors and state courts such Pennsylvania ) changed the voting rules to allow expanded mail-in voting , and the cascade of related vulnerabilities that followed .
Republican legislatures that went along with these COVID-induced panic changes were foolish if not derelict in their duty .
And the Trump campaign was negligent in not fighting against this months ago .
President Trump was correct to warn about this outcome .
Why wasn ’ t his campaign better organized to resist this months ago ?
( I know they did file a few lawsuits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it wasn ’ t enough . )
I suspect the long-rumored campaign infighting and attention to other things distracted Trump ’ s senior campaign managers from paying sufficient attention to this .
• Fraud is very easy in our election system .
Remember that our elections are run by part-timers , amateurs , and volunteers on the county level in America—and we have over 3,000 counties .
In such a diffuse system it is easy to conjure up a few dozen votes here , a few hundred votes there .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glory of self-government in America that we actually conduct our elections in this decentralized way involving tens of thousands of citizen volunteers .
It is also astounding that we use such a vulnerable and chaotic system to choose our president .
• So the problem with vote fraud is that a remedy is difficult to apply .
There aren ’ t good remedies .
If a race is within a few hundred votes or less , a recount or ballot challenges can work to reverse the outcome , though not often .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot is inside the ballot box and counted , it is very hard to get it back out of the box and un-counted .
Fraudulent ballots need to be intercepted before they reach the ballot box .
It is likely not possible to disqualify enough ballots to change the outcome in three states , which is what Trump would need .
The statistical anomalies of this election are good circumstantial evidence of vote fraud , but exactly which ballots , or which vote totals , do you change , and how ?
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result on circumstantial evidence and affidavits of incorrect polling place procedure alone .
( I reserve judgment for the time being about the Dominion computer system question . )
And the thorough fact-finding necessary for judicial intervention would take time that we haven ’ t got .
This is why both the Constitution and most state election statutes make the legislatures the arbiters of presidential election results .
• What is to be done ?
Step one is for Republicans to get better at “ ballot harvesting ” themselves .
Game theory would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they have in some places .
Two years ago the California GOP was shocked when it lost several congressional seats due to late-arriving ballots that had been harvested by Democrats under the new rules .
The GOP got several of those seats back in this election , in part because the California GOP figured out that both parties can play at this game .
Like gerrymandering , which became an offense to democracy for liberals only when Republicans got good at it , if Republicans get good at finding more votes Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make elections more transparent and secure .
• What else is to be done ?
Game theory ( and justice ) would also recommend payback to Democrats for their embrace of the Russia hoax and their “ Resistance ” stance that Trump was an illegitimate president .
What goes around comes around .
The prudent course will be to cast a shadow over Biden ’ s presidency .
If the GOP holds the Senate , there should be extensive committee investigations into election fraud .
Trump ’ s interim attorney general should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the matter and include Hunter Biden in the charge .
Make Biden dismiss the special counsel , which will not be cost-free .
State legislatures and state attorneys general should conduct relentless investigations .
Prudence dictates that Republicans will be better off going on offense against the weakest incoming president in modern American history , rather than thinking a show of legislative force , either by the states or by Congress , to reject the certified results of an election can succeed .
The showing of the GOP down ballot displays strength , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seething with division under the surface .
Time to exploit these divisions .
Trump ’ s defeat is both bitter and tragic—tragic because it took COVID-19 to take him down .
Maybe this was no coincidence , but the fact that he almost prevailed in spite of circumstances and the most hostile media attacks ever faced by a president is amazing .
Later today I ’ ll start a new series here on the case for optimism—why our future is Trumpist .
In short , many of Trump ’ s victories and effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you look at the political positions of the two parties right now , I like our chances a lot better .
Stay tuned .

My goodness, Scott certainly stirred up our readership yesterday with his “limp noodle” confession about the election. At the risk of annoying many readers further, I’ll offer my observations on the matter which lead to my conclusion about why, and, more importantly, how to move on from here. In rank order of provocation:
• The Democrats stole the election fair and square. Of course I don’t mean that literally; what I mean is that the election was effectively stolen months ago before any ballots were cast when legislatures (and sometimes governors and state courts such Pennsylvania) changed the voting rules to allow expanded mail-in voting, and the cascade of related vulnerabilities that followed. Republican legislatures that went along with these COVID-induced panic changes were foolish if not derelict in their duty. And the Trump campaign was negligent in not fighting against this months ago. President Trump was correct to warn about this outcome. Why wasn’t his campaign better organized to resist this months ago? (I know they did file a few lawsuits, a few of which had some effect, but it wasn’t enough.) I suspect the long-rumored campaign infighting and attention to other things distracted Trump’s senior campaign managers from paying sufficient attention to this.
• Fraud is very easy in our election system. Remember that our elections are run by part-timers, amateurs, and volunteers on the county level in America—and we have over 3,000 counties. In such a diffuse system it is easy to conjure up a few dozen votes here, a few hundred votes there. Or worse. It is at once a glory of self-government in America that we actually conduct our elections in this decentralized way involving tens of thousands of citizen volunteers. It is also astounding that we use such a vulnerable and chaotic system to choose our president.
• So the problem with vote fraud is that a remedy is difficult to apply. There aren’t good remedies. If a race is within a few hundred votes or less, a recount or ballot challenges can work to reverse the outcome, though not often. The plain fact is that once a fraudulent ballot is inside the ballot box and counted, it is very hard to get it back out of the box and un-counted. Fraudulent ballots need to be intercepted before they reach the ballot box. It is likely not possible to disqualify enough ballots to change the outcome in three states, which is what Trump would need. The statistical anomalies of this election are good circumstantial evidence of vote fraud, but exactly which ballots, or which vote totals, do you change, and how?
No court is going to overturn an election result on circumstantial evidence and affidavits of incorrect polling place procedure alone. (I reserve judgment for the time being about the Dominion computer system question.) And the thorough fact-finding necessary for judicial intervention would take time that we haven’t got. This is why both the Constitution and most state election statutes make the legislatures the arbiters of presidential election results.
• What is to be done? Step one is for Republicans to get better at “ballot harvesting” themselves. Game theory would recommend this. There is some evidence that they have in some places. Two years ago the California GOP was shocked when it lost several congressional seats due to late-arriving ballots that had been harvested by Democrats under the new rules. The GOP got several of those seats back in this election, in part because the California GOP figured out that both parties can play at this game. Like gerrymandering, which became an offense to democracy for liberals only when Republicans got good at it, if Republicans get good at finding more votes Democrats might actually have to agree to reforms to make elections more transparent and secure.
• What else is to be done? Game theory (and justice) would also recommend payback to Democrats for their embrace of the Russia hoax and their “Resistance” stance that Trump was an illegitimate president. What goes around comes around. The prudent course will be to cast a shadow over Biden’s presidency. If the GOP holds the Senate, there should be extensive committee investigations into election fraud. Trump’s interim attorney general should appoint a special counsel to look into the matter and include Hunter Biden in the charge. Make Biden dismiss the special counsel, which will not be cost-free. State legislatures and state attorneys general should conduct relentless investigations.
Prudence dictates that Republicans will be better off going on offense against the weakest incoming president in modern American history, rather than thinking a show of legislative force, either by the states or by Congress, to reject the certified results of an election can succeed. The showing of the GOP down ballot displays strength, not weakness. The Democratic Party is seething with division under the surface. Time to exploit these divisions.
Trump’s defeat is both bitter and tragic—tragic because it took COVID-19 to take him down. Maybe this was no coincidence, but the fact that he almost prevailed in spite of circumstances and the most hostile media attacks ever faced by a president is amazing. Later today I’ll start a new series here on the case for optimism—why our future is Trumpist. In short, many of Trump’s victories and effects will not be easily swept away. If you look at the political positions of the two parties right now, I like our chances a lot better. Stay tuned.


powerlineblog--2020-12-15--Biden on ethics:  It will be different this time

The Washington Post has an amusing story about the ethics rules the Biden administration may implement .
According to the Post , “ Biden is preparing to step back into the Oval Office with radically different expectations about how he will handle the relationship between his official power and his family ’ s private interests.
” Different than what ?
Than this , for example : The last time Joe Biden worked in the White House , his son-in-law , Howard Krein , mentioned that executives from his health-care start-up firm would be visiting Washington .
The vice president promptly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which included Krein ’ s brother , Steven , and President Barack Obama in the Oval Office .
“ He knew about StartUp Health and was a big fan of it , ” Howard Krein , the husband of Biden ’ s daughter Ashley , told the Philadelphia Business Journal in 2015 .
“ He asked for Steve ’ s number and said , ‘ I have to get them up here to talk with Barack.
’ ” And different , supposedly , than anything Hunter Biden was involved with .
This time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , my family will not be involved in any business , any enterprise that is in conflict with or appears to be in conflict.
” ( Emphasis added ) That ’ s easy for Biden to say now .
He and his family have already enriched themselves beyond their wildest dream by trading off of Joe ’ s influence and position as vice president .
But you never know .
A guy like Hunter Biden will always want to eat .
So many strip club VIP lounges , so little time .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is under investigation for doing just that — I doubt he would be deterred by the letter of his father ’ s ethics rules .
The Post ’ s article takes a self-referential turn near the end when it quotes slippery Richard Painter : During the administration of George W. Bush , White House lawyers used to refer to the “ Washington Post test , ” which asked , “ Did the behavior in question risk a front-page story in the newspaper ?
” But Richard Painter , a former ethics lawyer for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as media consumption habits have become more partisan .
The question now , he said , has a lower bar : Does the Biden administration want to risk a 10-minute segment on a conservative outlet like Fox News , which may have a different standard for running a story ?
Painter is right about this much : The Washington Post test won ’ t suffice in a Biden administration .
There is almost no behavior unethical enough for the Post to report if it involves a favored Democrat .
Norm Eisen , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ethics and government reform , said Biden should be given the time and space to work out how he structures the new family barriers .
“ Having personally worked with him , I also know him to be individually of the utmost personal integrity , ” Eisen said .
“ So I take him at his word when he says he will make sure there is an appropriate distance between family members and the government.
” Tony Bobulinski could not be reached for comment .

The Washington Post has an amusing story about the ethics rules the Biden administration may implement. According to the Post, “Biden is preparing to step back into the Oval Office with radically different expectations about how he will handle the relationship between his official power and his family’s private interests.”
Different than what? Than this, for example:
The last time Joe Biden worked in the White House, his son-in-law, Howard Krein, mentioned that executives from his health-care start-up firm would be visiting Washington. The vice president promptly arranged a meeting between the group, which included Krein’s brother, Steven, and President Barack Obama in the Oval Office. “He knew about StartUp Health and was a big fan of it,” Howard Krein, the husband of Biden’s daughter Ashley, told the Philadelphia Business Journal in 2015. “He asked for Steve’s number and said, ‘I have to get them up here to talk with Barack.’”
And different, supposedly, than anything Hunter Biden was involved with.
This time, says Biden, “My son, my family will not be involved in any business, any enterprise that is in conflict with or appears to be in conflict.” (Emphasis added)
That’s easy for Biden to say now. He and his family have already enriched themselves beyond their wildest dream by trading off of Joe’s influence and position as vice president.
But you never know. A guy like Hunter Biden will always want to eat. So many strip club VIP lounges, so little time.
If Hunter violated federal law — and he is under investigation for doing just that — I doubt he would be deterred by the letter of his father’s ethics rules.
The Post’s article takes a self-referential turn near the end when it quotes slippery Richard Painter:
During the administration of George W. Bush, White House lawyers used to refer to the “Washington Post test,” which asked, “Did the behavior in question risk a front-page story in the newspaper?” But Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer for Bush, said the question has shifted as media consumption habits have become more partisan. The question now, he said, has a lower bar: Does the Biden administration want to risk a 10-minute segment on a conservative outlet like Fox News, which may have a different standard for running a story?
(Emphasis added)
Painter is right about this much: The Washington Post test won’t suffice in a Biden administration. There is almost no behavior unethical enough for the Post to report if it involves a favored Democrat.
The article concludes on a comical note:
Norm Eisen, who served as the special assistant to Obama for ethics and government reform, said Biden should be given the time and space to work out how he structures the new family barriers. “Having personally worked with him, I also know him to be individually of the utmost personal integrity,” Eisen said. “So I take him at his word when he says he will make sure there is an appropriate distance between family members and the government.”
Tony Bobulinski could not be reached for comment.


powerlineblog--2020-12-15--Biden rubs it in

Biden rubs it in

Joe Biden took a victory lap and rubbed it in big time in remarks posted here by RealClearPolitics ( video @ @ @ @ @ occasion of his remarks was the Electoral College vote certification .
Clearing his throat throughout @ @ @ @ @ the opposition .
Joel Pollak captures something of the tone in “ Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ Bridges to Trump ’ s America.
” ( I don ’ t think “ phlegmatic @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Phlegmy ” would be more like it . )
Biden could not have @ @ @ @ @ but that ’ s okay .
This is not how it ’ s done and @ @ @ @ @ to “ unite ” behind the regime of left-wing hacks and retreads for whom he @ @ @ @ @ .
And the lecture comes particularly poorly from one of the protagonists in the Russia @ @ @ @ @ undermine the Trump administration from well before day one .
We won ’ t forget @ @ @

Joe Biden took a victory lap and rubbed it in big time in remarks posted here by RealClearPolitics (video and text). The occasion of his remarks was the Electoral College vote certification. Clearing his throat throughout, he sought to humiliate the opposition.
Joel Pollak captures something of the tone in “Biden’s Phlegmatic, Divisive Speech Burns Bridges to Trump’s America.” (I don’t think “phlegmatic” is the right word. “Phlegmy” would be more like it.)
Biden could not have been much more ungracious, but that’s okay. This is not how it’s done and we decline in any event to “unite” behind the regime of left-wing hacks and retreads for whom he will serve as front man. And the lecture comes particularly poorly from one of the protagonists in the Russia hoax that successfully sought to undermine the Trump administration from well before day one. We won’t forget that either.


powerlineblog--2020-12-15--Coronavirus in one state (138)

Coronavirus in one state (138)

I believe that our current wave of the epidemic in Minnesota peaked around the time Governor Walz imposed the current shutdown regime on November 18 in Executive Order 20-99 .
Kevin Roche set forth his argument to this effect in the Star Tribune column “ COVID ’ s fall surge peaked before Walz order.
” The shutdown regime has imposed great harm on many businesses throughout the state .
Contrary to the assertions of state authorities , there has been no post-Thanksgiving surge in cases .
The irrationality is obvious and the pain is immense .
Last week some 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would open later this week regardless of Governor Walz ’ s determination whether or not to continue the shutdown regime in its current form .
See , for example , MplsStPaul ’ s “ Restaurants Plan to Defy Orders and Open Up Next Week.
” Walz ’ s determination was first set for this past Friday , then deferred to Monday , and is now moved to tomorrow .
His subjects await word from on high .
The uncertainty hung over yesterday ’ s Minnesota Department of Health press briefing ( audio below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current situation continues to place us at “ high risk ” and in “ a precarious state.
” Yet the panoply of certain harms inflicted by the shutdown regime go unmentioned .
Walz has staged no dog and pony show featuring its victims .
Monarchical rule has diminished respect for the “ law ” expressed in edicts while the press continues its loyal service to the regime .

I believe that our current wave of the epidemic in Minnesota peaked around the time Governor Walz imposed the current shutdown regime on November 18 in Executive Order 20-99. Kevin Roche set forth his argument to this effect in the Star Tribune column “COVID’s fall surge peaked before Walz order.” The shutdown regime has imposed great harm on many businesses throughout the state. Contrary to the assertions of state authorities, there has been no post-Thanksgiving surge in cases.
The irrationality is obvious and the pain is immense. Last week some 100 restaurants throughout the state announced that they would open later this week regardless of Governor Walz’s determination whether or not to continue the shutdown regime in its current form. See, for example, MplsStPaul’s “Restaurants Plan to Defy Orders and Open Up Next Week.”
Walz’s determination was first set for this past Friday, then deferred to Monday, and is now moved to tomorrow. His subjects await word from on high.
The uncertainty hung over yesterday’s Minnesota Department of Health press briefing (audio below). The authorities insist that the current situation continues to place us at “high risk” and in “a precarious state.” Yet the panoply of certain harms inflicted by the shutdown regime go unmentioned. Walz has staged no dog and pony show featuring its victims. Monarchical rule has diminished respect for the “law” expressed in edicts while the press continues its loyal service to the regime.