hotair--2020-07-15--Sessions went down fast, hard, and... gracefully

The GOP Senate primary runoff election in Alabama last night was called a lot sooner than I ’ d expected .
It went pretty much the way all of the early indicators suggested when we previewed the final stretch of the race .
Tommy Tuberville had been leading by double digits in the final independent polling conducted last week and it appears that those numbers were solid .
NBC News was able to call the race fairly early despite the larger than normal number of absentee ballots and questions about how high the turnout would be in the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeff Sessions , whom President Donald Trump ousted in 2018 , lost his bid to reclaim his old U.S. Senate seat from Alabama .
Sessions conceded Tuesday night and urged Alabamians to stand behind former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville as the Republican nominee .
The Associated Press called the primary contest for Tuberville , who had been endorsed by Trump , at around 8:20 p.m. local time .
Polls closed at 7 p.m .
Sessions congratulated Tuberville in a speech to supporters in Mobile .
“ He is our Republican nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must stand behind him in November.
” The same poll that accurately predicted Tuberville ’ s margin of victory in the primary runoff also showed him with a significant lead over Democratic incumbent Doug Jones .
As we discussed over the weekend , that may turn out to be an extremely significant factor for 2020 .
The Democrats have to pick up either three or four seats in the upper chamber ( depending on whether or not Trump wins a second term ) and losing Jones ’ seat makes that an even steeper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked last night was , “ how Sessions will handle an embarrassing defeat.
” Well , now we know .
In the fashion of old-school party politics , he congratulated Tuberville and reminded his supporters that his opponent is now the nominee and everyone needs to stand behind him in November .
He handled the entire affair with grace and still stayed loyal to Trump despite the bashing he took .
( Associated Press ) Jeff Sessions took the stage Tuesday night near the Alabama gulf coast with the same certitude he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across town almost five years ago .
Donald Trump ’ s vision , the former attorney general declared anew , is right for America… “ Let me say this about the president and our relationship .
I leave with no regrets , ” the 73-year-old Sessions said .
“ I was honored to serve the people of Alabama in the Senate and I was extraordinarily proud of the accomplishments we had as attorney general.
” That includes , he emphasized , stepping away from the Russia investigation .
Donald Trump has never gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Russia , Russia , Russia investigation , a decision that Sessions said last night that he still has no regrets over .
And many of the President ’ s supporters were clearly put off by that call as well .
But in the end , we should at least appreciate Jeff Sessions ’ ability to keep looking at the bigger picture and take the high road .
He ’ s focused on making sure the President gets four more years in office because they obviously share a great deal in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden is the mirror opposite of those aspirations .
And he ’ s going to campaign for Tuberville because he knows that we need to hold on to the Senate as well , and defeating Doug Jones will be crucial in that effort .
Jeff Sessions is 73-years-old now , and though he seems to remain in fine health , it will be no surprise if this turns out to be his final trip to the political rodeo .
He ’ s put in a lifetime of service and has chosen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For that , I think we can all afford to let bygones be bygones and offer him one final tip of the hat before he heads out the door .

The GOP Senate primary runoff election in Alabama last night was called a lot sooner than I’d expected. It went pretty much the way all of the early indicators suggested when we previewed the final stretch of the race. Tommy Tuberville had been leading by double digits in the final independent polling conducted last week and it appears that those numbers were solid. NBC News was able to call the race fairly early despite the larger than normal number of absentee ballots and questions about how high the turnout would be in the middle of a COVID-19 uptick.
Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whom President Donald Trump ousted in 2018, lost his bid to reclaim his old U.S. Senate seat from Alabama. Sessions conceded Tuesday night and urged Alabamians to stand behind former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville as the Republican nominee. The Associated Press called the primary contest for Tuberville, who had been endorsed by Trump, at around 8:20 p.m. local time. Polls closed at 7 p.m. Sessions congratulated Tuberville in a speech to supporters in Mobile. “He is our Republican nominee,” Sessions said. “We must stand behind him in November.”
The same poll that accurately predicted Tuberville’s margin of victory in the primary runoff also showed him with a significant lead over Democratic incumbent Doug Jones. As we discussed over the weekend, that may turn out to be an extremely significant factor for 2020. The Democrats have to pick up either three or four seats in the upper chamber (depending on whether or not Trump wins a second term) and losing Jones’ seat makes that an even steeper hill to climb.
The question Allahpundit asked last night was, “how Sessions will handle an embarrassing defeat.” Well, now we know. In the fashion of old-school party politics, he congratulated Tuberville and reminded his supporters that his opponent is now the nominee and everyone needs to stand behind him in November. He handled the entire affair with grace and still stayed loyal to Trump despite the bashing he took. (Associated Press)
Jeff Sessions took the stage Tuesday night near the Alabama gulf coast with the same certitude he’d displayed on another, bigger stage across town almost five years ago. Donald Trump’s vision, the former attorney general declared anew, is right for America… “Let me say this about the president and our relationship. I leave with no regrets,” the 73-year-old Sessions said. “I was honored to serve the people of Alabama in the Senate and I was extraordinarily proud of the accomplishments we had as attorney general.” That includes, he emphasized, stepping away from the Russia investigation.
Donald Trump has never gotten over Sessions’ decision to recuse himself from the Russia, Russia, Russia investigation, a decision that Sessions said last night that he still has no regrets over. And many of the President’s supporters were clearly put off by that call as well. But in the end, we should at least appreciate Jeff Sessions’ ability to keep looking at the bigger picture and take the high road. He’s focused on making sure the President gets four more years in office because they obviously share a great deal in terms of conservative policy agenda points and because Joe Biden is the mirror opposite of those aspirations. And he’s going to campaign for Tuberville because he knows that we need to hold on to the Senate as well, and defeating Doug Jones will be crucial in that effort.
Jeff Sessions is 73-years-old now, and though he seems to remain in fine health, it will be no surprise if this turns out to be his final trip to the political rodeo. He’s put in a lifetime of service and has chosen to go out on a high note. For that, I think we can all afford to let bygones be bygones and offer him one final tip of the hat before he heads out the door.


hotair--2020-07-14--Trump on the Confederate flag: Look, people love it

Displaying the flag is freedom of speech , he says , which is true , but Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the anthem was also freedom of speech .
Where was this argument on Kaepernick ’ s behalf when the NFL decided to ban anthem protests before games a la NASCAR deciding to ban rebel flags at races ?
Also , it ’ s not really true that “ people ” like the Confederate flag .
Some people do .
More people don ’ t .
The majority of black people don ’ t , for understandable reasons .
When you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like , got ta be careful not to carve them out by implication .
The bottom line on the great flag debate is this : Any state where there ’ s apt to be a strong swell of sentiment on behalf of Confederate symbolism is a state that was already in Trump ’ s pocket .
For everyone else , including those who otherwise might not be beyond his reach electorally due to pocketbook issues , it ’ s just more grist for the “ he ’ s divisive !
” mill .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ soundbite from his interview with Catherine Herridge today , though .
His thoughts on reopening schools topped it : I don ’ t know that anyone ’ s dying from the fact that kids aren ’ t able to go to school .
What he means , I think , is that some parents who could otherwise return to work are being forced to stay home and care for their children since schools aren ’ t there to do it for them .
That loss of income is bound to hurt families in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , the generous unemployment benefits backed by Trump and the GOP have helped rescue them from disaster .
Is he suggesting here that it ’ s time to cut off those benefits and nudge parents to prioritize work over keeping schools closed for safety reasons ?
Here ’ s what he ’ s up against in terms of public opinion .
Axios didn ’ t ask parents to compare the health risks from COVID if schools reopen to the health risks from having to stay home with their kids throughout the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say from this data that parents disagree with the president ’ s priorities .
But we can say that they view reopening schools as pretty risky : Under those circumstances , where they ’ re worried about their kids ’ health and their own , hectoring them that keeping schools closed is some sort of Democratic plot to destroy him in November seems ill-advised .
He ’ d be better off showing them this study from Germany , which found that not only are schools not a major risk for spreading the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of “ brake ” on community spread because they ’ re less likely to get infected .
On the other hand , there ’ s this ominous result from Israel in which modified schooling was going well until the government decided to fully reopen , and then… The announcement followed a more cautious experiment of several weeks in which only children in the first , second , and third grades were brought back to classrooms , and taught in small , non-intersecting groups called “ capsules.
” Hagai Levine , an epidemiologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Community Medicine of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem , and chairman of the Israeli Association of Public Health Physicians , said : “ There was no measurable increase in contagion ” while the capsules for young children were being tried out… Then , Levine says , “ contrary to our advice , the government decided to open the entire system all at once on May 17 .
What happened next was entirely predictable.
” On June 3 , two weeks after schools opened , more than 244 students and staff were found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to know what Trump ’ s contingency plan is if/when some school somewhere reopens up and eventually there ’ s an outbreak among the faculty — not the kids , necessarily , but the adults , who are at greater risk of death from infection .
That ’ s apt to convince some other schools across the country to close up shop and switch to virtual learning , as flawed as that is .
Some teachers might go on strike because they feel that sufficient precautions aren ’ t in place at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the White House ’ s move when that happens ?
Just go out to the mics and repeat ad nauseam , “ We have to reopen ” ?
Or tell them that they have to think of themselves as pioneers , who endured hardships like occasional cannibalism in order to make America great ?
I ’ ll leave you with this last bit from the Herridge interview , in which POTUS notes accurately that police kill more white suspects than black suspects .
That ’ s a good defense to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not so good a defense to the charge that police are too violent .

Displaying the flag is freedom of speech, he says, which is true, but Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the anthem was also freedom of speech. Where was this argument on Kaepernick’s behalf when the NFL decided to ban anthem protests before games a la NASCAR deciding to ban rebel flags at races?
President Trump tells @CBS_Herridge where he stands on the Confederate flag: “All I say is freedom of speech. It’s very simple. My attitude is freedom of speech.” pic.twitter.com/3Sjd0upAK2 — CBS News (@CBSNews) July 14, 2020
Also, it’s not really true that “people” like the Confederate flag. Some people do. More people don’t. The majority of black people don’t, for understandable reasons.
When you make pronouncements about what “people” like, gotta be careful not to carve them out by implication.
In our June poll, 35% saw flag as more about Southern pride, 38% more about racism, rest not sure. Among Black Americans: 5% Southern pride, 83% racism.https://t.co/ZAmSn2001M https://t.co/K53Wdl0jpo — Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) July 14, 2020
The bottom line on the great flag debate is this: Any state where there’s apt to be a strong swell of sentiment on behalf of Confederate symbolism is a state that was already in Trump’s pocket. For everyone else, including those who otherwise might not be beyond his reach electorally due to pocketbook issues, it’s just more grist for the “he’s divisive!” mill.
This wasn’t the most important soundbite from his interview with Catherine Herridge today, though. His thoughts on reopening schools topped it:
CBS: "What do you tell parents and teachers who feel that it's unsafe to go back?" Trump: "… You should find yourself a new person whoever's in charge … because children and parents are dying from that trauma, too. They're dying because they can't do what they're doing." pic.twitter.com/hzCt5wrMTN — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 14, 2020
I don’t know that anyone’s dying from the fact that kids aren’t able to go to school. What he means, I think, is that some parents who could otherwise return to work are being forced to stay home and care for their children since schools aren’t there to do it for them. That loss of income is bound to hurt families in all sorts of ways. Until now, though, the generous unemployment benefits backed by Trump and the GOP have helped rescue them from disaster. Is he suggesting here that it’s time to cut off those benefits and nudge parents to prioritize work over keeping schools closed for safety reasons?
Here’s what he’s up against in terms of public opinion. Axios didn’t ask parents to compare the health risks from COVID if schools reopen to the health risks from having to stay home with their kids throughout the fall, so we can’t say from this data that parents disagree with the president’s priorities. But we can say that they view reopening schools as pretty risky:
Under those circumstances, where they’re worried about their kids’ health and their own, hectoring them that keeping schools closed is some sort of Democratic plot to destroy him in November seems ill-advised. He’d be better off showing them this study from Germany, which found that not only are schools not a major risk for spreading the virus but that kids may act as a sort of “brake” on community spread because they’re less likely to get infected. On the other hand, there’s this ominous result from Israel in which modified schooling was going well until the government decided to fully reopen, and then…
The announcement followed a more cautious experiment of several weeks in which only children in the first, second, and third grades were brought back to classrooms, and taught in small, non-intersecting groups called “capsules.” Hagai Levine, an epidemiologist at the Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and chairman of the Israeli Association of Public Health Physicians, said: “There was no measurable increase in contagion” while the capsules for young children were being tried out… Then, Levine says, “contrary to our advice, the government decided to open the entire system all at once on May 17. What happened next was entirely predictable.” On June 3, two weeks after schools opened, more than 244 students and staff were found to test positive for COVID-19.
I want to know what Trump’s contingency plan is if/when some school somewhere reopens up and eventually there’s an outbreak among the faculty — not the kids, necessarily, but the adults, who are at greater risk of death from infection. That’s apt to convince some other schools across the country to close up shop and switch to virtual learning, as flawed as that is. Some teachers might go on strike because they feel that sufficient precautions aren’t in place at their school to guarantee safety. What’s the White House’s move when that happens? Just go out to the mics and repeat ad nauseam, “We have to reopen”? Or tell them that they have to think of themselves as pioneers, who endured hardships like occasional cannibalism in order to make America great?
I’ll leave you with this last bit from the Herridge interview, in which POTUS notes accurately that police kill more white suspects than black suspects. That’s a good defense to the charge that police are systemically racist, not so good a defense to the charge that police are too violent.


hotair--2020-07-14--Hollywood is "quite mad" with "ridiculous... politically correct [expletive]," says ... Oliver Stone

Hollywood is "quite mad" with "ridiculous... politically correct [expletive]," says ... Oliver Stone?

No kidding !
When Mr .
Conspiracy Theory can ’ t make a major studio film due to “ politically correct [ expletive ] , ” you know the industry has run off the rails .
Oliver Stone spoke with the New York Times late last week about the difficulties of working in Hollywood , and why he hasn ’ t done a major film in years .
Stone told David Marchese that his main complaint is with studios ’ marketing efforts , which have taken over all other considerations in filmmaking .
However , Stone also said that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerged , in which political correctness keeps morphing and contradicting itself : You had about a 10-year period , starting with “ Salvador ” and “ Platoon ” and going up to “ Natural Born Killers ” or “ Nixon , ” when your films felt like these major statements on the country and the culture .
When that zeitgeist-y period ended , which it inevitably does for artists , did it change how you approached your work ?
I recognize the impact I had , but at the same time I enjoyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 1999 I did “ Any Given Sunday.
” I get so much attention for that .
“ World Trade Center ” was one of my most successful films financially .
So the parade continued .
The problem is in Hollywood .
It ’ s just so expensive — the marketing .
Everything has become too fragile , too sensitive .
Hollywood now — you can ’ t make a film without a Covid adviser .
You can ’ t make a film without a sensitivity counselor .
It ’ s ridiculous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes its mind every five , 10 , two months about what it ’ s trying to keep up with .
It ’ s politically correct [ expletive ] , and it ’ s not a world I ’ m anxious to run out into .
I ’ ve never seen it quite mad like this .
It ’ s like an “ Alice in Wonderland ” tea party .
Mediaite picked up on the “ fragility ” quote late yesterday , which seems perfectly positioned to combat the cancel-culture frenzy of late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone himself might not volunteer as a combatant in that platoon , however .
Sensing that Marchese had taken this too much as his issue , Stone tried to walk it back immediately : In what respect ?
Oh , David , don ’ t go there .
That ’ s going to be your headline .
You know , I just read something about how films are going to be very expensive to make now , because you need to take all these precautions , and a 50-day shoot becomes a 60-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s what I ’ m talking about .
The rest of the interview contains some fascinating exchanges between Stone and Marchese , especially on his recent documentary on Russia .
Marchese wondered whether Stone had considered why Vladimir Putin showed so much interest in working with him .
Did Stone act as a “ useful idiot ” ?
Stone bristled at the suggestion , and ended up half-defending Donald Trump on the Russia-collusion conspiracy theory : Putin is obviously a canny politician .
What do you suspect he believed he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I think his intention , as he forthrightly says again and again in the documentary , was : Let ’ s talk .
Let ’ s be mature .
Let ’ s be adults in the room .
Could it have been something else maybe ?
There ’ s that term “ the useful idiot.
” First of all , you should just look at the documentary .
I ’ ve seen it .
Where is it clear that I ’ m an idiot ?
I think it ’ s a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that when we started , which was in 2014 roughly , the relationship with the United States was not as bad as it would become .
Things got much worse .
In 2017 , we went back to him , and you have on the record what he says about Donald Trump and the American election .
I don ’ t think Russia has the desire or the money to spend on “ destabilizing ” an entire election .
And how can you even compare it to what we ’ ve done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have to be equal for them to both be evil .
We ’ re getting too much onto Putin .
That ’ s not in this book .
A conspiracy theory that even Oliver Stone can ’ t buy ?
Go figure .
Stone isn ’ t the only one speaking out about cancel culture in the entertainment industry .
Comedian and actor Ricky Gervais calls it a “ new weird sort of fascism , ” and says that even The Office probably couldn ’ t get made with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nine-minute mark , before which Gervais vents about American attitudes on health care that show he ’ s not exactly a conservative .
Unlike the New York Times , however , Gervais prefers a robust debate over the “ outrage mobs ” : “ There ’ s this new weird sort of fascism of people thinking they know what you can say and what you can ’ t and it ’ s a really weird thing… that there ’ s this new trendy myth that people who want free speech want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s just isn ’ t true , it protects everyone , ” Gervais said .
“ If you ’ re mildly left-wing on Twitter , you ’ re suddenly Trotsky , right ?
If your mildly conservative , if you ’ re Hitler and if your centrist and you look at both arguments , you ’ re a coward , ” he continued .
Ricky Gervais is an avid freedom of speech supporter , and though he supports some curtailments of it in the form of libel and slander laws , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech that some people might find offensive .
“ Just because you ’ re offended it doesn ’ t mean you ’ re right , ” he said .
Someone should paint that quote in the street in front of A.G. Sulzberger ’ s office .

No kidding! When Mr. Conspiracy Theory can’t make a major studio film due to “politically correct [expletive],” you know the industry has run off the rails. Oliver Stone spoke with the New York Times late last week about the difficulties of working in Hollywood, and why he hasn’t done a major film in years. Stone told David Marchese that his main complaint is with studios’ marketing efforts, which have taken over all other considerations in filmmaking.
However, Stone also said that an “Alice in Wonderland” environment has emerged, in which political correctness keeps morphing and contradicting itself:
You had about a 10-year period, starting with “Salvador” and “Platoon” and going up to “Natural Born Killers” or “Nixon,” when your films felt like these major statements on the country and the culture. When that zeitgeist-y period ended, which it inevitably does for artists, did it change how you approached your work? I recognize the impact I had, but at the same time I enjoyed doing the films I did afterward. In 1999 I did “Any Given Sunday.” I get so much attention for that. “World Trade Center” was one of my most successful films financially. So the parade continued. The problem is in Hollywood. It’s just so expensive — the marketing. Everything has become too fragile, too sensitive. Hollywood now — you can’t make a film without a Covid adviser. You can’t make a film without a sensitivity counselor. It’s ridiculous. Why is that ridiculous? The Academy changes its mind every five, 10, two months about what it’s trying to keep up with. It’s politically correct [expletive], and it’s not a world I’m anxious to run out into. I’ve never seen it quite mad like this. It’s like an “Alice in Wonderland” tea party.
Mediaite picked up on the “fragility” quote late yesterday, which seems perfectly positioned to combat the cancel-culture frenzy of late — and not just in Hollywood. Stone himself might not volunteer as a combatant in that platoon, however. Sensing that Marchese had taken this too much as his issue, Stone tried to walk it back immediately:
In what respect? Oh, David, don’t go there. That’s going to be your headline. You know, I just read something about how films are going to be very expensive to make now, because you need to take all these precautions, and a 50-day shoot becomes a 60-day shoot, and social distancing for actors. That’s what I’m talking about.
The rest of the interview contains some fascinating exchanges between Stone and Marchese, especially on his recent documentary on Russia. Marchese wondered whether Stone had considered why Vladimir Putin showed so much interest in working with him. Did Stone act as a “useful idiot”? Stone bristled at the suggestion, and ended up half-defending Donald Trump on the Russia-collusion conspiracy theory:
Putin is obviously a canny politician. What do you suspect he believed he had to gain by talking with you? I think his intention, as he forthrightly says again and again in the documentary, was: Let’s talk. Let’s be mature. Let’s be adults in the room. Could it have been something else maybe? There’s that term “the useful idiot.” First of all, you should just look at the documentary. I’ve seen it. Where is it clear that I’m an idiot? I think it’s a very articulate dialogue. I would also point out that when we started, which was in 2014 roughly, the relationship with the United States was not as bad as it would become. Things got much worse. In 2017, we went back to him, and you have on the record what he says about Donald Trump and the American election. I don’t think Russia has the desire or the money to spend on “destabilizing” an entire election. And how can you even compare it to what we’ve done in other countries? But two evils don’t have to be equal for them to both be evil. We’re getting too much onto Putin. That’s not in this book.
A conspiracy theory that even Oliver Stone can’t buy? Go figure.
Stone isn’t the only one speaking out about cancel culture in the entertainment industry. Comedian and actor Ricky Gervais calls it a “new weird sort of fascism,” and says that even The Office probably couldn’t get made with the BBC now. The discussion starts around the nine-minute mark, before which Gervais vents about American attitudes on health care that show he’s not exactly a conservative. Unlike the New York Times, however, Gervais prefers a robust debate over the “outrage mobs”:
“There’s this new weird sort of fascism of people thinking they know what you can say and what you can’t and it’s a really weird thing… that there’s this new trendy myth that people who want free speech want to say awful things all the time. It’s just isn’t true, it protects everyone,” Gervais said. “If you’re mildly left-wing on Twitter, you’re suddenly Trotsky, right? If your mildly conservative, if you’re Hitler and if your centrist and you look at both arguments, you’re a coward,” he continued. Ricky Gervais is an avid freedom of speech supporter, and though he supports some curtailments of it in the form of libel and slander laws, he ultimately cautioned against the criminalization of speech that some people might find offensive. “Just because you’re offended it doesn’t mean you’re right,” he said.
Someone should paint that quote in the street in front of A.G. Sulzberger’s office.


hotair--2020-07-16--Seattle city council member suggests layoffs by race if police budget is slashed, Chief Best says no

Last week Ed wrote about the push to cut Seattle ’ s police budget by 50 percent .
In response to that , Police Chief Carmen Best released a video to her department warning that some budget cuts were probably coming .
“ I will fiercly advocate that we focus on realistic , responsible solutions not political gestures or pandering or political posturing , ” Best said .
She continued , “ I do not believe we should ask the people of Seattle to test out a theory that crime goes away if police go away .
That is completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was even tweeted out by the White House : In addition to the video , Chief Best sent a letter to Mayor Durkan warning that dramatic cuts would require the layoff of hundreds of officers .
The letter details some of the ways those cuts would impact the department : “ We would have to significantly cut or eliminate Bike Units , Foot Beats , Community Policing Teams , and Anti-Crime Teams.
” In addition there would be significant cuts to investigators of violent crime , sexual assault burglary , domestic abuse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ department also pointed out that cutting staff would result in a less diverse work force .
It produced a graph based upon standard last-hired , first-fired practice of the department which pointed out how many officers from each minority group would probably wind up being fired if the cuts go through : Monday , apparently in response to this graphic and the possibility that a lot of diversity would be lost , City Council member Lisa Herbold , who supports the 50 % cut , suggested that perhaps the police could lay off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Herbold thinks Chief Best can and should argue for firing more senior white officers in order to maintain the more recently hired “ BIPOC officers.
” Wouldn ’ t firing people based on skin color violate federal anti-discrimination law ?
Herbold obviously believes it would not but Chief Best says her lawyers are telling her differently .
“ It is illegal to make layoffs based on race and so I ’ m not sure where she is getting her legal advice from but the persons who are advising us are making sure we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that , ” Best said in an interview with a local news station .
Here ’ s the report featuring Chief Best , who remains a lone voice of sanity among officials in the city of Seattle .
Below that is Chief Best ’ s statement to her department about the coming cuts .

Last week Ed wrote about the push to cut Seattle’s police budget by 50 percent. In response to that, Police Chief Carmen Best released a video to her department warning that some budget cuts were probably coming. “I will fiercly advocate that we focus on realistic, responsible solutions not political gestures or pandering or political posturing,” Best said. She continued, “I do not believe we should ask the people of Seattle to test out a theory that crime goes away if police go away. That is completely reckless.” That phrase made news and was even tweeted out by the White House:
"I do not believe we should ask the people of Seattle to test out a theory that crime goes away if police go away. That is completely reckless," said Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best. City Council has advocated her department’s budget be cut 50 percent. https://t.co/RNfTyFWYBw — The White House 45 Archived (@WhiteHouse45) July 13, 2020
In addition to the video, Chief Best sent a letter to Mayor Durkan warning that dramatic cuts would require the layoff of hundreds of officers. The letter details some of the ways those cuts would impact the department: “We would have to significantly cut or eliminate Bike Units, Foot Beats, Community Policing Teams, and Anti-Crime Teams.” In addition there would be significant cuts to investigators of violent crime, sexual assault burglary, domestic abuse, fraud, etc.
The public affairs department also pointed out that cutting staff would result in a less diverse work force. It produced a graph based upon standard last-hired, first-fired practice of the department which pointed out how many officers from each minority group would probably wind up being fired if the cuts go through:
Cuts this deep mean we would lose more than 50% of our (BIPOC) officers. These officers’ life experiences make us a better department and community. 4/4 https://t.co/r0JgDaTEu1 pic.twitter.com/4UbecEXPpM — Seattle Police Dept. (@SeattlePD) July 10, 2020
Monday, apparently in response to this graphic and the possibility that a lot of diversity would be lost, City Council member Lisa Herbold, who supports the 50% cut, suggested that perhaps the police could lay off officers by race:
This means Chief doesn’t have to fire the newest hired first. Chief says firing BIPOC members of the SPD would be harmful & I agree. I know she can argue just as convincingly that maintaining the employment of BIPOC officers is in the interest of efficient operations of the SPD. — Lisa Herbold (@Lisa_Herbold) July 13, 2020
In short, Herbold thinks Chief Best can and should argue for firing more senior white officers in order to maintain the more recently hired “BIPOC officers.” Wouldn’t firing people based on skin color violate federal anti-discrimination law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Herbold obviously believes it would not but Chief Best says her lawyers are telling her differently.
“It is illegal to make layoffs based on race and so I’m not sure where she is getting her legal advice from but the persons who are advising us are making sure we understand that it’s illegal to do that,” Best said in an interview with a local news station. Here’s the report featuring Chief Best, who remains a lone voice of sanity among officials in the city of Seattle. Below that is Chief Best’s statement to her department about the coming cuts.


hotair--2020-07-16--De Blasio: We can't fully reopen schools, so we'll open day care centers instead

Let ’ s see if we get this straight .
New York City ’ s schools can ’ t fully reopen because of the continuing high risk of transmission of COVID-19 in classrooms .
However , that traps parents — especially economically vulnerable single parents and two-income families — from being able to earn a living .
NYC mayor Bill de Blasio has an idea to solve that conundrum ( via Twitchy ) : New York ’ s public schools plan to offer a mix of in-person classes and remote learning when a new school year starts — with students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week , in order to cut the number of people in buildings and prevent the spread of the coronavirus .
That ’ s expected to create a major crunch for working parents with no one to watch their kids on the days they ’ re not in school .
The mayor rolled out plans to expand city-sponsored child care programs so 100,000 children from preschool through eighth grade will have a place to go on their off days .
There are 1.1 million students in the city ’ s public school system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So many parents have also said they can ’ t make it work if they don ’ t get more child care , ” de Blasio said .
“ We ’ ve been trying to find every way to create new child care — and to build it from scratch , honestly , because we ’ re having to create something that didn ’ t exist before on this scale.
” Bear with us for a moment , because this does make some logical sense , but still fails overall .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risks involved in keeping a number of children in an indoor room with an adult or two for an extended period of time .
NYC has at least allowed for a partial school reopening ( which is better than some cities like Los Angeles ) , but will restrict classes to only three days a week .
That is because of a crucial capacity limit of 15 students per classroom in order to moderate the transmission risk , which is the somewhat-missing context .
Reopening for a maximum of three days per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Blasio seems to have proposed — doesn ’ t really help parents , especially those in lower-income jobs that can ’ t be done remotely .
They need their children in supervised environments for all five weekdays , which de Blasio acknowledged today .
With classroom capacity cut roughly in half due to the capacity restriction , he has to find other facilities for the other two or more days per pupil .
So why not add capacity for teaching and keep students in classes all five days ?
Instead , de @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use as … indoor day-care centers with adult supervision as babysitters .
No , I ’ m not kidding : This makes no sense at all , even if classroom capacity is the issue , an argument that de Blasio himself never made in his presser outlining this proposal .
Right now , NYC likely has a lot of empty spaces the city could sublease for classroom space .
Hire more teachers — the union would love that — and spread the kids out to keep them in an educational environment instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more structure , and therefore less risk of transmission-enhancing mischief , than eight hours of babysitting does .
Here ’ s de Blasio trying to explain his plan and its logistical challenges .
What he never gets around to explaining is why five-day-a-week school is riskier than three-day-a-week school is , and why the education establishment is going to spend so much money on creating a largely non-educational warehousing environment for New York City ’ s children .

Let’s see if we get this straight. New York City’s schools can’t fully reopen because of the continuing high risk of transmission of COVID-19 in classrooms. However, that traps parents — especially economically vulnerable single parents and two-income families — from being able to earn a living. NYC mayor Bill de Blasio has an idea to solve that conundrum (via Twitchy):
New York’s public schools plan to offer a mix of in-person classes and remote learning when a new school year starts — with students going to school one to three days a week, in order to cut the number of people in buildings and prevent the spread of the coronavirus. That’s expected to create a major crunch for working parents with no one to watch their kids on the days they’re not in school. The mayor rolled out plans to expand city-sponsored child care programs so 100,000 children from preschool through eighth grade will have a place to go on their off days. There are 1.1 million students in the city’s public school system, the largest in the nation. “So many parents have also said they can’t make it work if they don’t get more child care,” de Blasio said. “We’ve been trying to find every way to create new child care — and to build it from scratch, honestly, because we’re having to create something that didn’t exist before on this scale.”
Bear with us for a moment, because this does make some logical sense, but still fails overall. The issue for reopening schools fully relates to the risks involved in keeping a number of children in an indoor room with an adult or two for an extended period of time. NYC has at least allowed for a partial school reopening (which is better than some cities like Los Angeles), but will restrict classes to only three days a week. That is because of a crucial capacity limit of 15 students per classroom in order to moderate the transmission risk, which is the somewhat-missing context.
Reopening for a maximum of three days per week per pupil — which is what de Blasio seems to have proposed — doesn’t really help parents, especially those in lower-income jobs that can’t be done remotely. They need their children in supervised environments for all five weekdays, which de Blasio acknowledged today. With classroom capacity cut roughly in half due to the capacity restriction, he has to find other facilities for the other two or more days per pupil.
So why not add capacity for teaching and keep students in classes all five days? Instead, de Blasio proposes to find new capacity to use as … indoor day-care centers with adult supervision as babysitters. No, I’m not kidding:
De Blasio said City Hall staffers are looking at sites like libraries and community centers to house the new child care programs. He said organizations that already provide after-school care under contract to the city will be asked if they can expand their services.
This makes no sense at all, even if classroom capacity is the issue, an argument that de Blasio himself never made in his presser outlining this proposal. Right now, NYC likely has a lot of empty spaces the city could sublease for classroom space. Hire more teachers — the union would love that — and spread the kids out to keep them in an educational environment instead of day care. Actual education provides much more structure, and therefore less risk of transmission-enhancing mischief, than eight hours of babysitting does.
Here’s de Blasio trying to explain his plan and its logistical challenges. What he never gets around to explaining is why five-day-a-week school is riskier than three-day-a-week school is, and why the education establishment is going to spend so much money on creating a largely non-educational warehousing environment for New York City’s children.


hotair--2020-07-16--Steve Doocy: Don't overlook the possibility that secret Trump voters just aren't responding to polls

Steve Doocy: Don't overlook the possibility that secret Trump voters just aren't responding to pollsters right now

A legit point , and it ’ s not just pollsters who are mindful of it .
The people being polled are aware of it too .
Apparently this has been a recurring theme on Fox News today : Monmouth ’ s poll of Pennsylvania yesterday showing Biden up big was headlined “ Biden Leads But Many Anticipate Secret Trump Vote.
” The topline number had him ahead of Trump , 53/40 , but when people were asked who they thought would actually win the state , the numbers shrank all the way down to a 46/45 advantage — for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with the question , “ Do you think there are so-called secret voters in your community who support Donald Trump but wont tell anyone about it , or not really ?
” Nearly 50 percent said yes , and it wasn ’ t just optimistic Republicans who thought so : By comparison , just 18 percent thought there were secret Biden voters out there .
It ’ s hard to believe that anyone who lived through the shock of the 2016 election would doubt that there ’ s a meaningful number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be connecting with pollsters for whatever reason .
Maybe pollsters aren ’ t finding them .
Maybe they have an aversion to answering questions from pollsters on principle .
( “ Suppression polls !
” ) Maybe they ’ re just embarrassed to tell a pollster right now that they ’ re still pro-Trump given the difficult time he ’ s had lately but intend to show up on Election Day for him regardless .
I wouldn ’ t bet on Biden to cover half of the 13-point spread Monmouth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s one thing to say “ yes , there are secret Trump voters out there ” and another to say “ yes , there are enough secret Trump voters out there to hand him a second term.
” Nate Cohn of the Times has a post up today about that , noting that it would take a big polling miss — bigger than 2016 — to turn what looks to be a comfortable Biden victory right now into a narrow Trump win .
The key , says Cohn , is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistakes last cycle , especially the core mistake of undersampling white voters without a college degree .
That ’ s Trump ’ s base ; they turned out for him in droves four years ago .
Underestimate their support for POTUS and your poll is destined to miss .
So pollsters are taking care this time not to underestimate them .
Perhaps most important , many pollsters now weight their sample to properly represent voters without a college degree .
The failure of many state pollsters to do so in 2016 is widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls underestimated Mr. Trump ’ s support .
Voters without a four-year college degree are far less likely to respond to telephone surveys — and far likelier to support Mr. Trump .
By our estimates , weighting by education might move the typical poll by as much as four points in Mr. Trump ’ s direction .
Though many state pollsters still do not weight by education , far more do than four years ago .
The Monmouth poll is one example .
The final Monmouth poll of Pennsylvania in 2016 , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would have shown her with a two-point lead , 47 percent to 45 percent , if it had been weighted by education , according to Patrick Murray , director of the poll .
That alone covers about half of the difference between the actual result and the final Monmouth poll , and it ’ s a reason to have more confidence in the new Monmouth poll .
There are also fewer undecided voters this year , Cohn points out , which means less uncertainty around the topline numbers .
And pollsters are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout this time , having learned from 2016 that the tremendous support from black voters for the Democratic nominee in 2008 and 2012 may have been unique to Obama and won ’ t be repeated .
All of this is a long way of saying that pollsters agree with Doocy — there are secret Trump voters out there , probably a lot of them , possibly even a game-changing amount if antipathy to polls has spread so widely on the right that most Trumpers just won ’ t answer the phone for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree with Doocy , pollsters are doing what they can to account for those voters .
Their polls should be more accurate this time because of that .
They might even be too conservative in estimating the size of Biden ’ s lead at the moment .
New from Gallup : Double-digit leads for Democrats on party ID aren ’ t unheard of , says Gallup , but they ’ re rare and historically have presaged blue waves .
Interestingly , it doesn ’ t appear to be the pandemic that caused the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They held steady throughout April and May , when New York was being ravaged by COVID-19 , and only collapsed in June , a month when we had a ( relative ) respite from mass infection .
What must have driven voters towards Democrats were the protests following the death of George Floyd .
Various polls since then have showed broad support for Black Lives Matter and police reform .
Since those are issues championed by the left , swing voters may have swung around towards identifying as Democrats in solidarity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the wide gap between Democrats and Republicans might shrink as those issues recede a bit over the next few months .
But maybe not : Although the pandemic apparently didn ’ t drive this change in partisanship , it may cement the change if it persists deep into fall .
That is , someone who moved from independent to Democratic because they identify with the protesters might “ lock in ” to that new identity if the spread of COVID-19 gets worse on Trump ’ s watch .
Having finally found the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hat , a swing voter will need some persuading to take it off again .
Containing the virus might provide that reason .
It ’ s hard to see right now what else might .

A legit point, and it’s not just pollsters who are mindful of it. The people being polled are aware of it too.
Here's Steve Doocy ranting for a full minute about how the polls are probably all wrong because of secret Trump voters. pic.twitter.com/6lWOFfVL4E — Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) July 16, 2020
Apparently this has been a recurring theme on Fox News today:
Fox's John Roberts today: "Could there be enough secret Trump voters in the battleground states to take him across the finish line?" pic.twitter.com/xN39BiY2ub — Lis Power (@LisPower1) July 16, 2020
Monmouth’s poll of Pennsylvania yesterday showing Biden up big was headlined “Biden Leads But Many Anticipate Secret Trump Vote.” The topline number had him ahead of Trump, 53/40, but when people were asked who they thought would actually win the state, the numbers shrank all the way down to a 46/45 advantage — for Trump. Monmouth explored that by following up with the question, “Do you think there are so-called secret voters in your community who support Donald Trump but wont tell anyone about it, or not really?” Nearly 50 percent said yes, and it wasn’t just optimistic Republicans who thought so:
By comparison, just 18 percent thought there were secret Biden voters out there. It’s hard to believe that anyone who lived through the shock of the 2016 election would doubt that there’s a meaningful number of people who support Trump but who might not be connecting with pollsters for whatever reason. Maybe pollsters aren’t finding them. Maybe they have an aversion to answering questions from pollsters on principle. (“Suppression polls!”) Maybe they’re just embarrassed to tell a pollster right now that they’re still pro-Trump given the difficult time he’s had lately but intend to show up on Election Day for him regardless. I wouldn’t bet on Biden to cover half of the 13-point spread Monmouth’s set for him in Pennsylvania.
But it’s one thing to say “yes, there are secret Trump voters out there” and another to say “yes, there are enough secret Trump voters out there to hand him a second term.” Nate Cohn of the Times has a post up today about that, noting that it would take a big polling miss — bigger than 2016 — to turn what looks to be a comfortable Biden victory right now into a narrow Trump win. The key, says Cohn, is that pollsters have learned from some of their mistakes last cycle, especially the core mistake of undersampling white voters without a college degree. That’s Trump’s base; they turned out for him in droves four years ago. Underestimate their support for POTUS and your poll is destined to miss. So pollsters are taking care this time not to underestimate them.
Perhaps most important, many pollsters now weight their sample to properly represent voters without a college degree. The failure of many state pollsters to do so in 2016 is widely considered one of the major reasons the polls underestimated Mr. Trump’s support. Voters without a four-year college degree are far less likely to respond to telephone surveys — and far likelier to support Mr. Trump. By our estimates, weighting by education might move the typical poll by as much as four points in Mr. Trump’s direction. Though many state pollsters still do not weight by education, far more do than four years ago. The Monmouth poll is one example. The final Monmouth poll of Pennsylvania in 2016, which showed Mrs. Clinton up four percentage points, would have shown her with a two-point lead, 47 percent to 45 percent, if it had been weighted by education, according to Patrick Murray, director of the poll. That alone covers about half of the difference between the actual result and the final Monmouth poll, and it’s a reason to have more confidence in the new Monmouth poll.
There are also fewer undecided voters this year, Cohn points out, which means less uncertainty around the topline numbers. And pollsters are being more cautious about expecting blockbuster African-American turnout this time, having learned from 2016 that the tremendous support from black voters for the Democratic nominee in 2008 and 2012 may have been unique to Obama and won’t be repeated. All of this is a long way of saying that pollsters agree with Doocy — there are secret Trump voters out there, probably a lot of them, possibly even a game-changing amount if antipathy to polls has spread so widely on the right that most Trumpers just won’t answer the phone for them anymore. But precisely because they do agree with Doocy, pollsters are doing what they can to account for those voters. Their polls should be more accurate this time because of that.
They might even be too conservative in estimating the size of Biden’s lead at the moment. New from Gallup:
Double-digit leads for Democrats on party ID aren’t unheard of, says Gallup, but they’re rare and historically have presaged blue waves. Interestingly, it doesn’t appear to be the pandemic that caused the bottom to fall out here for Republicans. They held steady throughout April and May, when New York was being ravaged by COVID-19, and only collapsed in June, a month when we had a (relative) respite from mass infection. What must have driven voters towards Democrats were the protests following the death of George Floyd. Various polls since then have showed broad support for Black Lives Matter and police reform. Since those are issues championed by the left, swing voters may have swung around towards identifying as Democrats in solidarity.
If that’s what happened here then the wide gap between Democrats and Republicans might shrink as those issues recede a bit over the next few months. But maybe not: Although the pandemic apparently didn’t drive this change in partisanship, it may cement the change if it persists deep into fall. That is, someone who moved from independent to Democratic because they identify with the protesters might “lock in” to that new identity if the spread of COVID-19 gets worse on Trump’s watch. Having finally found the motivation to put on one party’s hat, a swing voter will need some persuading to take it off again. Containing the virus might provide that reason. It’s hard to see right now what else might.


hotair--2020-07-16--NY Times: What lies beneath anti-racism training is an attack on capitalism, rationalism and excelle

NY Times: What lies beneath anti-racism training is an attack on capitalism, rationalism and excellence

The NY Times has published a lengthy feature titled “ ‘ White Fragility ’ Is Everywhere .
But Does Antiracism Training Work ?
” That title is misleading in some ways because the piece only briefly touches on the question of whether training sessions held by people like Robin DiAngelo ( author of White Fragility ) work .
The answer to that question is that there ’ s no real evidence they do and maybe some evidence that they are likely to create a backlash .
But none of that research seems to penetrate the bubble in which people like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more interesting about the piece is it ’ s gradual focus on what it is the anti-racism trainers identify was the fundamentals of white supremacy .
As the piece argues , these anti-racism sessions , run by DiAngelo and a competitor of sorts named Glenn Singleton , aren ’ t just about forcing white people to interrogate their own history and privilege , they are ultimately about taking on some pretty fundamental ideas that are seen as ultimately hostile to racial progress .
One of those is science or more broadly , rationalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly beneath or openly on the surface of DiAngelo ’ s and Singleton ’ s teaching is a set of related ideas about the essence and elements of white culture .
For DiAngelo , the elements include the “ ideology of individualism , ” which insists that meritocracy is mostly real , that hard work and talent will be justly rewarded .
White culture , for her , is all about habits of oppressive thought that are taken for granted and rarely perceived , let alone questioned .
One “ unnamed logic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent co-author , the education professor Ozlem Sensoy , in a 2017 paper published in The Harvard Educational Review , “ is the presumed neutrality of White European Enlightenment epistemology.
” The paper is an attempt to persuade universities that if they want to diversify their faculties , they should put less weight on conventional hiring criteria .
The modern university , it says , “ with its ‘ experts ’ and its privileging of particular forms of knowledge over others ( e.g.
, written over oral , history over memory , rationalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and elevated positivistic , White Eurocentric knowledge over non-White , Indigenous and non-European knowledges.
” Such academic prose isn ’ t the language of DiAngelo ’ s workshops or book , but the idea of a society rigged at its intellectual core underpins her lessons .
Singleton , who holds degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford , and who did stints in advertising and college admissions before founding what ’ s now known as Courageous Conversation in 1992 , talks about white culture in similar ways .
There is the myth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communication over other forms , ” he told me , is “ a hallmark of whiteness , ” which leads to the denigration of Black children in school .
Another “ hallmark ” is “ scientific , linear thinking .
Cause and effect.
” He said , “ There ’ s this whole group of people who are named the scientists .
That ’ s where you get into this whole idea that if it ’ s not codified in scientific thought that it can ’ t be valid.
” He spoke about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how humanity works that never had that scientific-hypothesis construction ” and so aren ’ t recognized .
“ This is a good way of dismissing people .
And this , ” he continued , shifting forward thousands of years , “ is one of the challenges in the diversity-equity-inclusion space ; folks keep asking for data .
How do you quantify , in a way that is scientific — numbers and that kind of thing — what people feel when they ’ re feeling marginalized ?
” For Singleton , society ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this marginalization .
Another antiracism trainer named Marcus Moore who works for Singleton ’ s company even cites clocks and “ mechanical time ” as part of white supremacy : Behind a lot of this talk is the awareness of the achievement gap in schools between white kids and black kids .
The fundamental question is whether this gap exists because black kids are less well prepared to succeed or because the game is somehow rigged by white people .
DiAngelo and her comrades have fully embraced the latter view .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Times ’ piece takes a detour to consider the story of Leslie Chislett a white woman who has worked in different education departments trying to expand the number of minority kids in gifted and talented programs and to make sure every school offered AP classes to help raise expectations .
But the value of individual academic excellence isn ’ t shared by antiracism trainers .
Chislett wound up in an antiracism training course run by Darnisa Amante-Jackson .
She recorded some of what Amante-Jackson said , which the Times admits is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a training in January 2019 run by Amante-Jackson , which Chislett recorded , Amante-Jackson sounded notes that were anti-intellectual by mainstream standards , declaring that “ this culture says you have to be most expert ; you have to be perfect ; it has to be said perfectly.
” She continued , “ The more degrees you have , the more expert you are .
I think back — the most brilliant people in my life don ’ t even have diplomas from middle school .
But we have been taught that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve got letters behind their name .
All of that is coming from the water ” — the water of white supremacy .
“ Eighty-eight percent of the entire world are people of color , ” she claimed earlier in the session , “ but 96 percent of the world ’ s historical content is white.
” She went on to present “ some characteristics of whiteness , ” prominent among them “ an obsession with the written word .
If it ’ s not written down , it doesn ’ t exist.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that proper English , rational thought , the written word and even clocks are all ways in which white supremacy operates to hold minorities back you ’ re not going to be terribly interested in seeing students pursue excellence in schools that focus on reading , writing and arithmetic .
Chislett pointed to the obvious absurdity of people with these views being involved in an “ Advanced Placement for All ” effort at schools : The author of the Times ’ piece asked Robin DiAngelo about this apparently inconsistency and her reaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into metaphor but when pressed , she suggested the real problem was capitalism , i.e .
a system where rationalism and excellence matters : With DiAngelo , my worries led us to discuss her Harvard Educational Review paper , which cited “ rationalism ” as a white criterion for hiring , a white qualification that should be reconsidered .
Shouldn ’ t we be hiring faculty , I asked her , who fully possess , prize and can impart strong reasoning skills to students , because students will need these abilities as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In answering , she returned to the theme of unconscious white privilege , comparing it to the way right-handed people are unaware of how frequently the world favors right-handedness .
I pulled us away from the metaphorical , giving the example of corporate law as a lucrative profession in which being hired depends on acute reasoning .
She replied that if a criterion “ consistently and measurably leads to certain people ” being excluded , then we have to “ challenge ” the criterion .
“ It ’ s the outcome , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism .
Then she said abruptly , “ Capitalism is so bound up with racism .
I avoid critiquing capitalism — I don ’ t need to give people reasons to dismiss me .
But capitalism is dependent on inequality , on an underclass .
If the model is profit over everything else , you ’ re not going to look at your policies to see what is most racially equitable.
” While I was asking about whether her thinking is conducive to helping Black people displace white people on high rungs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our badly flawed world , it seemed that she , even as she gave workshops on the brutal hierarchies of here and now , was entertaining an alternate and even revolutionary reality .
She talked about top law firms hiring for “ resiliency and compassion.
” DiAngelo ’ s fellow antiracism trainers became positively utopian when asked the same question .
Singleton “ invoked , instead , a journey toward ‘ a new world , a world , first and foremost , where we have elevated the consciousness , where we pay attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And Amante-Jackson described her idea of a better education system “ built around students ’ ‘ telling their stories and listening to the stories of others ’ and creating ‘ in us the feeling that we belong to each other as people . '
” This is utopian bulls**t and allowing this to takeover the public schools would be a disaster for students and for society as a whole .
Do you want to be treated by a doctor who spent a lifetime learning that science and rationalism are white supremacist values ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trial by someone hired for their resiliency and compassion rather than their familiarity with the law ?
The author eventually quotes a black economist from Harvard named Ron Ferguson who chuckled at the ideas being presented by the antiracism trainers .
“ You can try to be competitive by equipping yourself to run the race that ’ s already scheduled , or you can try to change the race .
There may be some things about the race I ’ d like to change , but my priority is to get people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s already scheduled , ” he said .
DiAngelo it seems wasn ’ t asked to explicitly respond to that idea but it ’ s not hard to imagine what her response would be .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised if she were to suggest that Ferguson was himself propagating white supremacy .
I recommend reading the entire piece which is overall quite warm toward Robin DiAngelo and her project .
But the examination of what DiAngelo and the other antiracism trainers have in common is thorough enough that it reveals some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those should be of concern to everyone currently jumping on the White Fragility bandwagon .

The NY Times has published a lengthy feature titled “‘White Fragility’ Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work?” That title is misleading in some ways because the piece only briefly touches on the question of whether training sessions held by people like Robin DiAngelo (author of White Fragility) work. The answer to that question is that there’s no real evidence they do and maybe some evidence that they are likely to create a backlash. But none of that research seems to penetrate the bubble in which people like DiAngelo thrive.
What’s much more interesting about the piece is it’s gradual focus on what it is the anti-racism trainers identify was the fundamentals of white supremacy. As the piece argues, these anti-racism sessions, run by DiAngelo and a competitor of sorts named Glenn Singleton, aren’t just about forcing white people to interrogate their own history and privilege, they are ultimately about taking on some pretty fundamental ideas that are seen as ultimately hostile to racial progress. One of those is science or more broadly, rationalism and the concept of objectivity:
Running slightly beneath or openly on the surface of DiAngelo’s and Singleton’s teaching is a set of related ideas about the essence and elements of white culture. For DiAngelo, the elements include the “ideology of individualism,” which insists that meritocracy is mostly real, that hard work and talent will be justly rewarded. White culture, for her, is all about habits of oppressive thought that are taken for granted and rarely perceived, let alone questioned. One “unnamed logic of Whiteness,” she wrote with her frequent co-author, the education professor Ozlem Sensoy, in a 2017 paper published in The Harvard Educational Review, “is the presumed neutrality of White European Enlightenment epistemology.” The paper is an attempt to persuade universities that if they want to diversify their faculties, they should put less weight on conventional hiring criteria. The modern university, it says, “with its ‘experts’ and its privileging of particular forms of knowledge over others (e.g., written over oral, history over memory, rationalism over wisdom)” has “validated and elevated positivistic, White Eurocentric knowledge over non-White, Indigenous and non-European knowledges.” Such academic prose isn’t the language of DiAngelo’s workshops or book, but the idea of a society rigged at its intellectual core underpins her lessons. Singleton, who holds degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford, and who did stints in advertising and college admissions before founding what’s now known as Courageous Conversation in 1992, talks about white culture in similar ways. There is the myth of meritocracy. And valuing “written communication over other forms,” he told me, is “a hallmark of whiteness,” which leads to the denigration of Black children in school. Another “hallmark” is “scientific, linear thinking. Cause and effect.” He said, “There’s this whole group of people who are named the scientists. That’s where you get into this whole idea that if it’s not codified in scientific thought that it can’t be valid.” He spoke about how the ancient Egyptians had “ideas about how humanity works that never had that scientific-hypothesis construction” and so aren’t recognized. “This is a good way of dismissing people. And this,” he continued, shifting forward thousands of years, “is one of the challenges in the diversity-equity-inclusion space; folks keep asking for data. How do you quantify, in a way that is scientific — numbers and that kind of thing — what people feel when they’re feeling marginalized?” For Singleton, society’s primary intellectual values are bound up with this marginalization.
Another antiracism trainer named Marcus Moore who works for Singleton’s company even cites clocks and “mechanical time” as part of white supremacy:
In Hartford, Moore directed us to a page in our training booklets: a list of white values. Along with “ ‘The King’s English’ rules,” “objective, rational, linear thinking” and “quantitative emphasis,” there was “work before play,” “plan for future” and “adherence to rigid time schedules.” Moore expounded that white culture is obsessed with “mechanical time” — clock time — and punishes students for lateness. This, he said, is but one example of how whiteness undercuts Black kids. “The problems come when we say this way of being is the way to be.” In school and on into the working world, he lectured, tremendous harm is done by the pervasive rule that Black children and adults must “bend to whiteness, in substance, style and format.”
Behind a lot of this talk is the awareness of the achievement gap in schools between white kids and black kids. The fundamental question is whether this gap exists because black kids are less well prepared to succeed or because the game is somehow rigged by white people. DiAngelo and her comrades have fully embraced the latter view.
But there are unavoidable outcomes of that view. The Times’ piece takes a detour to consider the story of Leslie Chislett a white woman who has worked in different education departments trying to expand the number of minority kids in gifted and talented programs and to make sure every school offered AP classes to help raise expectations.
“The availability of A.P. classes,” she told me, “communicates to kids that it is possible for them to exceed the regular curriculum and can help teachers see that many kids have the potential to succeed at college-level course work. It’s about creating a culture of high expectations.”
But the value of individual academic excellence isn’t shared by antiracism trainers. Chislett wound up in an antiracism training course run by Darnisa Amante-Jackson. She recorded some of what Amante-Jackson said, which the Times admits is “anti-intellectual by mainstream standards.”
During a training in January 2019 run by Amante-Jackson, which Chislett recorded, Amante-Jackson sounded notes that were anti-intellectual by mainstream standards, declaring that “this culture says you have to be most expert; you have to be perfect; it has to be said perfectly.” She continued, “The more degrees you have, the more expert you are. I think back — the most brilliant people in my life don’t even have diplomas from middle school. But we have been taught that you can only value people when they’ve got letters behind their name. All of that is coming from the water” — the water of white supremacy. “Eighty-eight percent of the entire world are people of color,” she claimed earlier in the session, “but 96 percent of the world’s historical content is white.” She went on to present “some characteristics of whiteness,” prominent among them “an obsession with the written word. If it’s not written down, it doesn’t exist.”
Obviously if you’re teaching people that proper English, rational thought, the written word and even clocks are all ways in which white supremacy operates to hold minorities back you’re not going to be terribly interested in seeing students pursue excellence in schools that focus on reading, writing and arithmetic. Chislett pointed to the obvious absurdity of people with these views being involved in an “Advanced Placement for All” effort at schools:
“It’s absurd,” she said about much of the training she’s been through. “The city has tens of millions invested in A.P. for All, so my team can give kids access to A.P. classes and help them prepare for A.P. exams that will help them get college degrees, and we’re all supposed to think that writing and data are white values? How do all these people not see how inconsistent this is?”
The author of the Times’ piece asked Robin DiAngelo about this apparently inconsistency and her reaction was interesting. At first she retreated into metaphor but when pressed, she suggested the real problem was capitalism, i.e. a system where rationalism and excellence matters:
With DiAngelo, my worries led us to discuss her Harvard Educational Review paper, which cited “rationalism” as a white criterion for hiring, a white qualification that should be reconsidered. Shouldn’t we be hiring faculty, I asked her, who fully possess, prize and can impart strong reasoning skills to students, because students will need these abilities as a requirement for high-paying, high-status jobs? In answering, she returned to the theme of unconscious white privilege, comparing it to the way right-handed people are unaware of how frequently the world favors right-handedness. I pulled us away from the metaphorical, giving the example of corporate law as a lucrative profession in which being hired depends on acute reasoning. She replied that if a criterion “consistently and measurably leads to certain people” being excluded, then we have to “challenge” the criterion. “It’s the outcome,” she emphasized; the result indicated the racism. Then she said abruptly, “Capitalism is so bound up with racism. I avoid critiquing capitalism — I don’t need to give people reasons to dismiss me. But capitalism is dependent on inequality, on an underclass. If the model is profit over everything else, you’re not going to look at your policies to see what is most racially equitable.” While I was asking about whether her thinking is conducive to helping Black people displace white people on high rungs and achieve something much closer to equality in our badly flawed world, it seemed that she, even as she gave workshops on the brutal hierarchies of here and now, was entertaining an alternate and even revolutionary reality. She talked about top law firms hiring for “resiliency and compassion.”
DiAngelo’s fellow antiracism trainers became positively utopian when asked the same question. Singleton “invoked, instead, a journey toward ‘a new world, a world, first and foremost, where we have elevated the consciousness, where we pay attention to the human being.'” And Amante-Jackson described her idea of a better education system “built around students’ ‘telling their stories and listening to the stories of others’ and creating ‘in us the feeling that we belong to each other as people.'”
This is utopian bulls**t and allowing this to takeover the public schools would be a disaster for students and for society as a whole. Do you want to be treated by a doctor who spent a lifetime learning that science and rationalism are white supremacist values? Do you want to be represented at a trial by someone hired for their resiliency and compassion rather than their familiarity with the law?
The author eventually quotes a black economist from Harvard named Ron Ferguson who chuckled at the ideas being presented by the antiracism trainers. “You can try to be competitive by equipping yourself to run the race that’s already scheduled, or you can try to change the race. There may be some things about the race I’d like to change, but my priority is to get people prepared to run the race that’s already scheduled,” he said.
DiAngelo it seems wasn’t asked to explicitly respond to that idea but it’s not hard to imagine what her response would be. I wouldn’t be surprised if she were to suggest that Ferguson was himself propagating white supremacy.
I recommend reading the entire piece which is overall quite warm toward Robin DiAngelo and her project. But the examination of what DiAngelo and the other antiracism trainers have in common is thorough enough that it reveals some of the worrisome underlying values they share. Those should be of concern to everyone currently jumping on the White Fragility bandwagon.


hotair--2020-07-16--Whodunit solved? Yesterday's cryptocurrency-scam hack on Twitter sure looks like an inside job

Just how did hackers get to so many high-profile Twitter accounts at once in yesterday ’ s cryptocurrency-scam disruption ?
Vice has an answer , and it won ’ t bolster confidence in the social-media platform .
According to its sources and screenshots received by Vice subsidiary Motherboard , the hack was an inside job : A Twitter insider was responsible for a wave of high profile account takeovers on Wednesday , according to leaked screenshots obtained by Motherboard and two sources who took over accounts .
On Wednesday , a spike of high profile accounts including those of Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Barack Obama , Uber , and Apple tweeted cryptocurrency scams in an apparent hack .
“ We used a rep that literally done all the work for us , ” one of the sources told Motherboard .
The second source added they paid the Twitter insider .
Motherboard granted the sources anonymity to speak candidly about a security incident .
A Twitter spokesperson told Motherboard that the company is still investigating whether the employee hijacked the accounts themselves or gave hackers access to the tool .
The accounts were taken over using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the sources , as well as screenshots of the tool obtained by Motherboard .
One of the screenshots shows the panel and the account of Binance ; Binance is one of the accounts that hackers took over today .
According to screenshots seen by Motherboard , at least some of the accounts appear to have been compromised by changing the email address associated with them using the tool .
In all , Vice has four sources all saying the same thing .
And it makes a lot more sense than a brute-force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into one prominent blue-check account might not be terribly difficult ; it ’ s tough to imagine that Joe Biden adheres strictly to the best practices , for instance , although the Secret Service probably forces Donald Trump ( not hacked , notably , in this instance ) to do so .
But to get to so many and exploit them all at once would have taken months to coordinate , if not years .
The resource and opportunity costs would have made such a project completely impractical .
Rather than attack multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scammers chose to solve the Gordian knot by simply cutting right through it .
They paid off an insider , who opened a single point of failure .
At least , that ’ s what Vice ’ s sources say , and it makes the most sense .
Twitter is acknowledging it too , although they ’ re not sure whether the insider got paid off or was part of the hacking team : Twitter told Motherboard that it ’ s still investigating whether its employee allowed hackers to access the tool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounts themselves .
The company referred The Post ’ s questions to its Wednesday statement on the attack , which acknowledged that hackers “ successfully targeted some of our employees with access to internal systems and tools , ” and used that access to take control of high-profile accounts owned by Apple , Uber , Kanye West and others .
San Francisco-based Twitter said it has moved to limit access to its internal systems and tools while it investigates the incident , which it called “ a coordinated social engineering attack.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malicious activity they may have conducted or information they may have accessed , ” Twitter said in a series of tweets .
Still to be explained , however , is what the hackers actually gained from this .
Reportedly they scammed people out of around $ 100,000 worth of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies , but that ’ s a rather paltry sum for all that effort .
The Washington Post reports that security experts are breathing a sigh of relief that money was all they apparently got : There have been hacks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey last year .
But the widespread nature of this attack suggested an unusually broad access to internal controls .
While it was unclear how the attacks originated or why they went on for hours , some cybersecurity experts speculated that someone may have gained access to internal Twitter controls that allowed them to take over and post on the accounts .
“ This is massive , ” said cybersecurity expert Rachel Tobac , the CEO of SocialProof Security .
“ This is most likely the largest attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are extremely lucky that these attackers are monetarily motivated and not sowing mass chaos all over the world.
” The Hill ’ s Saagar Enjeti made the same point shortly after the blue-checks were freed from their digital cages : One solution to that would be to demand better security from Twitter .
( Josh Hawley has already demanded some answers from Jack Dorsey about how Twitter plans to prevent this in the future . )
Perhaps even better , the rest of us can stop taking Twitter so seriously , or at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tweet represents actual reality .
This hack might actually produce that kind of result , an unintended consequence of this scam project .
Would it be an “ unintended ” consequence , though ?
It ’ s tough to say without any firm understanding of the intent behind this hack .
One hundred grand isn ’ t exactly an afterthought , but it ’ s not that much money for a whole lot of risk , especially when its operation was practically guaranteed to point back to an internal source .
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we haven ’ t heard the last of the gunfire , either .

Just how did hackers get to so many high-profile Twitter accounts at once in yesterday’s cryptocurrency-scam disruption? Vice has an answer, and it won’t bolster confidence in the social-media platform. According to its sources and screenshots received by Vice subsidiary Motherboard, the hack was an inside job:
A Twitter insider was responsible for a wave of high profile account takeovers on Wednesday, according to leaked screenshots obtained by Motherboard and two sources who took over accounts. On Wednesday, a spike of high profile accounts including those of Joe Biden, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Uber, and Apple tweeted cryptocurrency scams in an apparent hack. “We used a rep that literally done all the work for us,” one of the sources told Motherboard. The second source added they paid the Twitter insider. Motherboard granted the sources anonymity to speak candidly about a security incident. A Twitter spokesperson told Motherboard that the company is still investigating whether the employee hijacked the accounts themselves or gave hackers access to the tool. The accounts were taken over using an internal tool at Twitter, according to the sources, as well as screenshots of the tool obtained by Motherboard. One of the screenshots shows the panel and the account of Binance; Binance is one of the accounts that hackers took over today. According to screenshots seen by Motherboard, at least some of the accounts appear to have been compromised by changing the email address associated with them using the tool.
In all, Vice has four sources all saying the same thing. And it makes a lot more sense than a brute-force attack on Twitter, too. Hacking into one prominent blue-check account might not be terribly difficult; it’s tough to imagine that Joe Biden adheres strictly to the best practices, for instance, although the Secret Service probably forces Donald Trump (not hacked, notably, in this instance) to do so. But to get to so many and exploit them all at once would have taken months to coordinate, if not years. The resource and opportunity costs would have made such a project completely impractical.
Rather than attack multiple points of potential failure, however, the scammers chose to solve the Gordian knot by simply cutting right through it. They paid off an insider, who opened a single point of failure. At least, that’s what Vice’s sources say, and it makes the most sense.
Twitter is acknowledging it too, although they’re not sure whether the insider got paid off or was part of the hacking team [see update below]:
Twitter told Motherboard that it’s still investigating whether its employee allowed hackers to access the tool or used it to take over the accounts themselves. The company referred The Post’s questions to its Wednesday statement on the attack, which acknowledged that hackers “successfully targeted some of our employees with access to internal systems and tools,” and used that access to take control of high-profile accounts owned by Apple, Uber, Kanye West and others. San Francisco-based Twitter said it has moved to limit access to its internal systems and tools while it investigates the incident, which it called “a coordinated social engineering attack.” “We’re looking into what other malicious activity they may have conducted or information they may have accessed,” Twitter said in a series of tweets.
Still to be explained, however, is what the hackers actually gained from this. Reportedly they scammed people out of around $100,000 worth of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, but that’s a rather paltry sum for all that effort. The Washington Post reports that security experts are breathing a sigh of relief that money was all they apparently got:
There have been hacks of high-profile individual accounts on Twitter before, including Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey last year. But the widespread nature of this attack suggested an unusually broad access to internal controls. While it was unclear how the attacks originated or why they went on for hours, some cybersecurity experts speculated that someone may have gained access to internal Twitter controls that allowed them to take over and post on the accounts. “This is massive,” said cybersecurity expert Rachel Tobac, the CEO of SocialProof Security. “This is most likely the largest attack I’ve ever seen. We are extremely lucky that these attackers are monetarily motivated and not sowing mass chaos all over the world.”
The Hill’s Saagar Enjeti made the same point shortly after the blue-checks were freed from their digital cages:
Today it's a crypto scam. But this is really serious. Imagine if these were political extremists or hackers trying to ignite war with North Korea or Iran. Or an insider trading plot to crash the economy with false information What a nightmare https://t.co/NtSNXpCvy3 — Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) July 15, 2020
One solution to that would be to demand better security from Twitter. (Josh Hawley has already demanded some answers from Jack Dorsey about how Twitter plans to prevent this in the future.) Perhaps even better, the rest of us can stop taking Twitter so seriously, or at least demand some verification before assuming that a tweet represents actual reality. This hack might actually produce that kind of result, an unintended consequence of this scam project.
Would it be an “unintended” consequence, though? It’s tough to say without any firm understanding of the intent behind this hack. One hundred grand isn’t exactly an afterthought, but it’s not that much money for a whole lot of risk, especially when its operation was practically guaranteed to point back to an internal source. Maybe we dodged a bullet, but maybe we haven’t heard the last of the gunfire, either.
Update: Twitter denies that the hack came from the inside, or at least denies that they have determined anything like that:
Twitter has denied that any of its employees participated in a massive platform breach aimed at scamming users, instead blaming a social engineering attack that allowed the perpetrator to access an administrative control panel. “Our investigation is still ongoing,” the company said in a statement posted on its public “support” account. “We detected what we believe to be a coordinated social engineering attack by people who successfully targeted some of our employees with access to internal systems and tools. We know they used this access to take control of many highly-visible (including verified) accounts and Tweet on their behalf. We’re looking into what other malicious activity they may have conducted or information they may have accessed and will share more here as we have it.”
If outsiders can access those tools, it’s an even bigger problem.


hotair--2020-07-16--Did the Lincoln Project get Brad Parscale fired?

Nah , not really .
I think Ed ’ s right that it was the debacle in Tulsa that sealed the deal , although Parscale may have been axed even if that rally had never taken place .
Lately he ’ s been in the same position as a baseball manager whose team has dropped 10 games out of first place over the past month .
It ’ s not his fault that his star player has been striking out every time he comes to the plate , but you can ’ t fire the player .
To shake things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or rather , the nominal skipper .
No one believes that Parscale was in charge of the campaign in any meaningful way .
A source told the Daily Beast that Parscale was effectively demoted weeks ago , with new campaign manager Bill Stepien and advisor Jason Miller taking the lead on strategy while Parscale shifted his focus to data , which is his wheelhouse .
( “ Difference [ tonight ] is that it ’ s now official in everyone ’ s titles.
” ) If so , that complicates the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aiming for since the past few weeks under Stepien ’ s leadership haven ’ t produced any meaningful improvement in polling .
The slugger ’ s still in a slump .
Stepien can ’ t hit the ball for him : Doug Deason , a Dallas investor and top Trump donor , said he had been anticipating the change for several days .
“ The need was there , the president recognized it , and pulled the trigger quickly , ” he said .
Mr. Deason said he hoped Mr. Stepien would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tweets by asking him to run them through a “ fact checking team ” before sending them .
“ I love most of his tweets , but some have been pretty far out there lately , and others make pointless attacks , ” he said .
That ’ s not gon na happen , my man .
I doubt Stepien will even try to ride herd on the president ’ s stream-of-consciousness .
He might succeed for a week or two , just as John Kelly succeeded very early on as chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Wing , but ultimately chaos will reign .
Trump will always assert his will in the end .
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting tidbit , though , about when he began having doubts about his campaign-manager-turned-data-guy : Two people involved in the campaign said the decision was inevitable .
Mr. Parscale built his reputation on his data collection and lacked the deeper knowledge of running a national campaign .
He also drew attention for his allocation of campaign resources and the income that he drew , affording him property and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drawing some concerns from Mr. Trump was a May advertisement from the Lincoln Project , a bipartisan group working to defeat the president in November .
The ad suggested that the campaign manager was getting rich off Mr. Trump .
Mr. Parscale has denied the accusations .
Reporters have claimed for years that Trump resents when a deputy profits from their association , whether in terms of eclipsing him in media prestige ( e.g.
, Steve Bannon ) or in making bank ( Parscale ) .
What ’ s funny about the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his skin is that that ’ s exactly what the LP intended to do .
Some of their ads are pure psy ops aimed at irritating the president himself more so than moving voters .
George Conway spoke openly about that to the Daily Beast not long ago , noting that Trump ’ s own campaign had taken to running ads in the deep-blue TV market of Washington , D.C. in the hope that the president himself would see them and be cheered by them .
They spent good money for a morale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , thought Conway , if they ’ re willing to do that to build up Trump ’ s morale , we ’ re willing to do it to tear it down : The Lincoln Project represents a limited constituency , given that President Trump has received exceedingly high approval numbers among Republicans in poll after poll .
But the group and its D.C.-targeted messages have managed to get under the president ’ s skin .
And according to George Conway , a Lincoln Project co-founder and the husband of White House counselor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea from the Trump campaign , and specifically from Brad Parscale , the former top Trump digital aide who now runs the president ’ s re-election effort .
“ [ H ] is people had bought ads in the District of Columbia—which you don ’ t do in a presidential election !
There are no persuadable voters in the District of Columbia , ” Conway said in a May interview with The Daily Beast podcast The New Abnormal , co-hosted by his fellow Lincoln Project founder Rick Wilson .
“ That stuck in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I was thinking , ‘ Well , why can ’ t you just run an ad on the cable provider for the White House , so that some certain individual would see it ?
’ ” I wonder if the group ’ s super-rich Democratic donors thought that was a good use of their money .
Probably : When you hate Trump and have money to burn , a grand trolling of the president may be worth a few hundred thou .
We already know from Trump ’ s own tweets that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lincoln Project .
What we didn ’ t know until today ’ s WSJ story is whether any shots they ’ ve taken at him have influenced his behavior .
In light of Parscale ’ s demotion , the answer would appear to be yes .
We ’ re all inured to insane political developments by now but we should take a second for that .
Drink in the idea of Kellyanne Conway ’ s husband , backed by megabucks liberals , running an attack ad against Trump ’ s campaign manager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sour the president on him — and having it work like a charm .
If George Conway and Rick Wilson can swing a psy op as effectively as that , God only knows what , say , Chinese intelligence is capable of .
The LP should be careful what it wishes for , though .
The Trump campaign under Parscale ’ s ( nominal ) management just had a disastrous six weeks .
Now Stepien gets a crack at righting the ship .
They ended up maneuvering POTUS into elevating a more competent @ @

Nah, not really. I think Ed’s right that it was the debacle in Tulsa that sealed the deal, although Parscale may have been axed even if that rally had never taken place. Lately he’s been in the same position as a baseball manager whose team has dropped 10 games out of first place over the past month. It’s not his fault that his star player has been striking out every time he comes to the plate, but you can’t fire the player.
To shake things up, the skipper has to go.
Or rather, the nominal skipper. No one believes that Parscale was in charge of the campaign in any meaningful way.
“Jared Kushner was the campaign manager yesterday, is the campaign manager today and will be the campaign manager tomorrow. Brad (Parscale) took the bullet for Jared,” a source close to the White House tells me following Trump campaign shake-up. — Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) July 16, 2020
A source told the Daily Beast that Parscale was effectively demoted weeks ago, with new campaign manager Bill Stepien and advisor Jason Miller taking the lead on strategy while Parscale shifted his focus to data, which is his wheelhouse. (“Difference [tonight] is that it’s now official in everyone’s titles.”) If so, that complicates the “reboot” narrative the White House is aiming for since the past few weeks under Stepien’s leadership haven’t produced any meaningful improvement in polling. The slugger’s still in a slump. Stepien can’t hit the ball for him:
Doug Deason, a Dallas investor and top Trump donor, said he had been anticipating the change for several days. “The need was there, the president recognized it, and pulled the trigger quickly,” he said. Mr. Deason said he hoped Mr. Stepien would be able to better restrain Mr. Trump’s tweets by asking him to run them through a “fact checking team” before sending them. “I love most of his tweets, but some have been pretty far out there lately, and others make pointless attacks,” he said.
That’s not gonna happen, my man. I doubt Stepien will even try to ride herd on the president’s stream-of-consciousness. He might succeed for a week or two, just as John Kelly succeeded very early on as chief of staff in imposing discipline in the West Wing, but ultimately chaos will reign. Trump will always assert his will in the end.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting tidbit, though, about when he began having doubts about his campaign-manager-turned-data-guy:
Two people involved in the campaign said the decision was inevitable. Mr. Parscale built his reputation on his data collection and lacked the deeper knowledge of running a national campaign. He also drew attention for his allocation of campaign resources and the income that he drew, affording him property and flashy cars, the people said. Drawing some concerns from Mr. Trump was a May advertisement from the Lincoln Project, a bipartisan group working to defeat the president in November. The ad suggested that the campaign manager was getting rich off Mr. Trump. Mr. Parscale has denied the accusations.
Reporters have claimed for years that Trump resents when a deputy profits from their association, whether in terms of eclipsing him in media prestige (e.g., Steve Bannon) or in making bank (Parscale). What’s funny about the idea of the Lincoln Project ad getting under his skin is that that’s exactly what the LP intended to do. Some of their ads are pure psy ops aimed at irritating the president himself more so than moving voters. George Conway spoke openly about that to the Daily Beast not long ago, noting that Trump’s own campaign had taken to running ads in the deep-blue TV market of Washington, D.C. in the hope that the president himself would see them and be cheered by them. They spent good money for a morale booster for their audience of one. Well, thought Conway, if they’re willing to do that to build up Trump’s morale, we’re willing to do it to tear it down:
The Lincoln Project represents a limited constituency, given that President Trump has received exceedingly high approval numbers among Republicans in poll after poll. But the group and its D.C.-targeted messages have managed to get under the president’s skin. And according to George Conway, a Lincoln Project co-founder and the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, the group got the idea from the Trump campaign, and specifically from Brad Parscale, the former top Trump digital aide who now runs the president’s re-election effort. “[H]is people had bought ads in the District of Columbia—which you don’t do in a presidential election! There are no persuadable voters in the District of Columbia,” Conway said in a May interview with The Daily Beast podcast The New Abnormal, co-hosted by his fellow Lincoln Project founder Rick Wilson. “That stuck in my mind,” Conway recalled. “I was thinking, ‘Well, why can’t you just run an ad on the cable provider for the White House, so that some certain individual would see it?’”
I wonder if the group’s super-rich Democratic donors thought that was a good use of their money. Probably: When you hate Trump and have money to burn, a grand trolling of the president may be worth a few hundred thou. We already know from Trump’s own tweets that he’s keeping an eye on the Lincoln Project. What we didn’t know until today’s WSJ story is whether any shots they’ve taken at him have influenced his behavior. In light of Parscale’s demotion, the answer would appear to be yes.
We’re all inured to insane political developments by now but we should take a second for that. Drink in the idea of Kellyanne Conway’s husband, backed by megabucks liberals, running an attack ad against Trump’s campaign manager in the idle hope that it might sour the president on him — and having it work like a charm. If George Conway and Rick Wilson can swing a psy op as effectively as that, God only knows what, say, Chinese intelligence is capable of.
The LP should be careful what it wishes for, though. The Trump campaign under Parscale’s (nominal) management just had a disastrous six weeks. Now Stepien gets a crack at righting the ship. They ended up maneuvering POTUS into elevating a more competent aide.