hotair--2020-07-07--Scientist: Aliens are out there, but incredibly rare

Not too long ago , we looked at a recent study estimating that there are at least three dozen ( and possibly “ thousands ” ) of alien civilizations in our galaxy capable of communicating .
Now another voice has popped up in the debate , claiming that alien civilizations are actually “ few and far between.
” Considering that there are so many things we don ’ t know about the rest of our galaxy ( or even our own solar system , for that matter ) it ’ s understandable that different scientists might deliver different findings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ back like this , I immediately wonder why they arrive at such wildly different conclusions .
But here ’ s the hilarious part .
Both reports are talking about the same study .
This new one is coming to us from Seth Shostak , a senior astronomer for the SETI Institute in Mountain View , California .
Let ’ s see what he has to say on the subject .
According to a new analysis from scientists at the University of Nottingham in England we don ’ t have a lot of alien @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers published a paper in the Astrophysical Journal arguing that the Milky Way — which sports an estimated several hundred billion stars — could host as few as 36 alien societies .
That ’ s a surprisingly tiny number , although the authors also make a second , more generous analysis in which they say that the count might be as many as a thousand .
Either way , their conclusion is that , like stick-shift cars , extraterrestrial civilizations are few and far between .
The implication is that our nearest cosmic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away .
The reason Seth finds this both surprising and worthy of mention is that such a reality about the relative rarity of civilizations in the galaxy would make human beings “ extraordinarily special.
” In the past , every time we ’ ve come to the conclusion that we ’ re somehow unique or the center of the universe ( a view that was still popular until the 1500s and beyond ) , we ’ ve turned out to be spectacularly wrong .
The further we look into the depths of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we exist in orbit around a rather commonplace star lurking out in one of the unfashionable arms of an equally unremarkable galaxy , as Douglas Adams once observed .
Seth does take exception to one aspect of the assumptions used to generate these estimates .
The authors of the original study employed something known as the principle of mediocrity .
Specifically , because we ’ ve been using radio and radar waves for approximately a century and are now working on moving on to better technology ( quantum communications ) , then most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phases at roughly the same rate .
So if you only have 100 years to detect any given civilization out of the literally billions of years each star system is in existence , your odds of happening to be listening at the right moment in the galactic timespan are pretty low .
That brings us back to the lowball nature of the figure generated in the linked study .
If we ’ re assuming that there are only roughly three dozen civilizations out there communicating by radio , there could be tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to something better and more efficient .
( Probably ansibles , as we ’ ve discussed here previously . )
The other factor to plaster against this wall is the question of the longevity of species .
Once a race reaches the point of developing advanced technology , is there a clock ticking ?
Will they eventually destroy themselves or at least use up all the resources on their planet needed to continue advancing ?
Looking around here , we probably shouldn ’ t rule that out .
In other words , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists trying to answer these questions too badly , we probably have no idea .
You can say there are 36 advanced races in our galaxy or 36,000 of them .
Or you can say there ’ s just one .
And nobody , at least for now , can definitely say you ’ re wrong .
Personally , I have to believe that there are quite a few .
But if so , why don ’ t they seem to want to talk to us ?
We can ’ t be that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes… ) Okay , let ’ s skip that last question .

Not too long ago, we looked at a recent study estimating that there are at least three dozen (and possibly “thousands”) of alien civilizations in our galaxy capable of communicating. Now another voice has popped up in the debate, claiming that alien civilizations are actually “few and far between.” Considering that there are so many things we don’t know about the rest of our galaxy (or even our own solar system, for that matter) it’s understandable that different scientists might deliver different findings. But when they come effectively back to back like this, I immediately wonder why they arrive at such wildly different conclusions.
But here’s the hilarious part. Both reports are talking about the same study. This new one is coming to us from Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer for the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California. Let’s see what he has to say on the subject.
According to a new analysis from scientists at the University of Nottingham in England we don’t have a lot of alien company. On June 15, two researchers published a paper in the Astrophysical Journal arguing that the Milky Way — which sports an estimated several hundred billion stars — could host as few as 36 alien societies. That’s a surprisingly tiny number, although the authors also make a second, more generous analysis in which they say that the count might be as many as a thousand. Either way, their conclusion is that, like stick-shift cars, extraterrestrial civilizations are few and far between. The implication is that our nearest cosmic chums are at least several thousand light-years away.
The reason Seth finds this both surprising and worthy of mention is that such a reality about the relative rarity of civilizations in the galaxy would make human beings “extraordinarily special.” In the past, every time we’ve come to the conclusion that we’re somehow unique or the center of the universe (a view that was still popular until the 1500s and beyond), we’ve turned out to be spectacularly wrong. The further we look into the depths of the cosmos, the more we realize that we exist in orbit around a rather commonplace star lurking out in one of the unfashionable arms of an equally unremarkable galaxy, as Douglas Adams once observed.
Seth does take exception to one aspect of the assumptions used to generate these estimates. The authors of the original study employed something known as the principle of mediocrity. Specifically, because we’ve been using radio and radar waves for approximately a century and are now working on moving on to better technology (quantum communications), then most other civilizations will go through the same phases at roughly the same rate. So if you only have 100 years to detect any given civilization out of the literally billions of years each star system is in existence, your odds of happening to be listening at the right moment in the galactic timespan are pretty low.
That brings us back to the lowball nature of the figure generated in the linked study. If we’re assuming that there are only roughly three dozen civilizations out there communicating by radio, there could be tens of thousands of more who have already graduated to something better and more efficient. (Probably ansibles, as we’ve discussed here previously.)
The other factor to plaster against this wall is the question of the longevity of species. Once a race reaches the point of developing advanced technology, is there a clock ticking? Will they eventually destroy themselves or at least use up all the resources on their planet needed to continue advancing? Looking around here, we probably shouldn’t rule that out. In other words, and not to disparage the work of the scientists trying to answer these questions too badly, we probably have no idea. You can say there are 36 advanced races in our galaxy or 36,000 of them. Or you can say there’s just one. And nobody, at least for now, can definitely say you’re wrong.
Personally, I have to believe that there are quite a few. But if so, why don’t they seem to want to talk to us? We can’t be that bad, can we? (Checks notes…) Okay, let’s skip that last question.


hotair--2020-07-07--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Masks as political predictor, the Crews-Lemon victor, credibility affli

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Masks as political predictor, the Crews-Lemon victor, credibility afflicter, Lightning Round clickers, and ... Kurt Schlichter!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
We ’ ll start off by delving into the weird political football that masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be enough for the GOP convention in Jacksonville .
Plus , the New York Times wonders if epidemiologists have torched their credibility on COVID-19 by cheerleading Black Lives Matter protests — but what about the media ?
Andrew and I will offer our takes on the intriguing Don Lemon-Terry Crews debate , too , plus we ’ ll do a Lightning Round as well .
Bring your questions !
• What are the most absurd lies the media tells about Donald Trump , and who is their real target ?
In his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s you .
Kurt joins us to discuss The 21 Biggest Lies About Donald Trump ( and you ! )
, his Townhall column , and why DeSean Jackson is an ass .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in @ @ @ @ @

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. We’ll start off by delving into the weird political football that masks have become, and why they may not be enough for the GOP convention in Jacksonville. Plus, the New York Times wonders if epidemiologists have torched their credibility on COVID-19 by cheerleading Black Lives Matter protests — but what about the media? Andrew and I will offer our takes on the intriguing Don Lemon-Terry Crews debate, too, plus we’ll do a Lightning Round as well. Bring your questions!
What are the most absurd lies the media tells about Donald Trump, and who is their real target? In his new book, Kurt Schlichter says it’s you. Kurt joins us to discuss The 21 Biggest Lies About Donald Trump (and you!), his Townhall column, and why DeSean Jackson is an ass.
(Actually, I’m not sure Kurt will talk about that last topic, but I hope he will.)
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-07-07--A Minneapolis neighborhood checked its privilege and eschewed police. How's that working out?

As well as you ’ d expect .
The Star Tribune reports on the third sexual assault in the Powderhorn Park neighborhood in as many weeks , although the report neglects to mention its no-police pledge it took after the killing of George Floyd .
That led to an encampment of homeless people that now number in the hundreds forming in the park itself , which the neighborhood also seems determined to endure : Three sexual assaults have occurred since late last month in south Minneapolis at Powderhorn Park with the most recent as Sunday , where hundreds of homeless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Recreation Board said Tuesday .
The first incident occurred late on June 26 or early on June 27 and involved a girl being assaulted , said Park Board spokeswoman Robin Smothers .
People from the park brought the girl to Abbott Northwestern Hospital for examination , and she was later turned over to social services personnel .
No arrests have been made .
On June 28 , a caller reached 911 shortly after 2 a.m. to report a woman being assaulted at the park .
The woman received medical attention and city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday , a girl was assaulted by a man in the park .
A Metro Transit police squad vehicle was flagged down that afternoon , and “ after further questioning , the victim reported the assault , ” said Park Board spokeswoman Robin Smothers .
The New York Times featured the determination of Powderhorn Park residents to keep police from responding to issues in a profile two weeks ago .
It had already started going badly at that point , and it clearly has gotten worse since : In the city where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is being taken especially seriously in Powderhorn Park , just blocks from Mr. Floyd ’ s deadly encounter with the police .
For decades , the community has been a refuge for scrappy working-class activists with far-left politics .
The biggest day of the year , locals often boast , is the May Day parade celebrating laborers .
Though it is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in Minneapolis , with black residents making up about 17 percent of the population , white people make up the largest group .
About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since the camp appeared , the community has organized shifts for delivering warm meals , medical care and counseling to people living in the park .
They persuaded officials to back off an eviction notice served shortly after the campers arrived .
But many in the neighborhood , who were already beleaguered from the financial stresses of the coronavirus , now say they are eager for the campers to move on to stable housing away from the park .
“ I ’ m not being judgmental , ” said Carrie Nightshade , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer felt comfortable letting her children , 12 and 9 , play in the park by themselves .
“ It ’ s not personal .
It ’ s just not safe.
” It ’ s even less safe now , and yet there is no indication that residents have changed their position about the police .
Even at that time , they discovered that their pledge to contact community-activist groups rather than police worked best in theory rather than practice .
Community activist groups don ’ t always answer the phone , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always inclined to respond when they do .
As of two weeks ago , though , that message still hadn ’ t gotten through , nor the point that community activists may not be interested in intervening when violence is being threatened .
One man expressed regret for calling 911 after two armed teenagers had pointed a gun at him and demanded his car keys .
After first justifying it , Mitchell Erickson told the NYT that it was he who had endangered their lives : Two days after an initial conversation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking more about it , ” he wrote in a text message .
“ I regret calling the police .
It was my instinct but I wish it hadn ’ t been .
I put those boys in danger of death by calling the cops.
” What about the fact that the boys had put his life in danger ?
“ Yeah I know and yeah it was scary but the cops didn ’ t really have much to add after I called them , ” he replied .
“ I haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before .
So I would have lost my car .
So what ?
At least no one would have been killed.
” Ahem .
Perhaps not that time , but what about the next person those two teenagers point a gun at ?
How much more will Erickson be willing to give away before thinking that enforcing the law might be a solution ?
In this case , the question before Powderhorn Park residents is how many children will have to be at risk before they stop hiding from their responsibility and start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just for themselves but for the whole city .
This is the essential problem inherent in dismantling police departments or demanding a broad disengagement with them .
That leaves a vacuum of impunity that encourages violence and crime .
Neighborhoods that already have those problems know this well already , which is why those Minneapolis residents think the idea of scaling back or dismantling the police department is “ egregious , grotesque , absurd , crazy , ridiculous , ” terms used by the NAACP and Urban League rather than the wealthier white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to live with these issues for decades and understand that community policing — which requires more resources and commitment to enforce the law on even minor transgressions — is the correct recipe for keeping people safe .
They just want to know that the police understand that too and to stop abusing their power .
Maybe they ’ ll learn that lesson quickly .
More likely , though , those Powderhorn Park residents with the means to leave will move out because “ the neighborhood has changed.
” Two weeks ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the homeless encampments , and demands for government intervention .
Maybe they should have called the cops , eh ?

As well as you’d expect. The Star Tribune reports on the third sexual assault in the Powderhorn Park neighborhood in as many weeks, although the report neglects to mention its no-police pledge it took after the killing of George Floyd. That led to an encampment of homeless people that now number in the hundreds forming in the park itself, which the neighborhood also seems determined to endure:
Three sexual assaults have occurred since late last month in south Minneapolis at Powderhorn Park with the most recent as Sunday, where hundreds of homeless people have camped, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board said Tuesday. The first incident occurred late on June 26 or early on June 27 and involved a girl being assaulted, said Park Board spokeswoman Robin Smothers. People from the park brought the girl to Abbott Northwestern Hospital for examination, and she was later turned over to social services personnel. No arrests have been made. On June 28, a caller reached 911 shortly after 2 a.m. to report a woman being assaulted at the park. The woman received medical attention and city police arrested a suspect nearby. On Sunday, a girl was assaulted by a man in the park. A Metro Transit police squad vehicle was flagged down that afternoon, and “after further questioning, the victim reported the assault,” said Park Board spokeswoman Robin Smothers.
The New York Times featured the determination of Powderhorn Park residents to keep police from responding to issues in a profile two weeks ago. It had already started going badly at that point, and it clearly has gotten worse since:
In the city where the movement began, residents are not surprised that it is being taken especially seriously in Powderhorn Park, just blocks from Mr. Floyd’s deadly encounter with the police. For decades, the community has been a refuge for scrappy working-class activists with far-left politics. The biggest day of the year, locals often boast, is the May Day parade celebrating laborers. Though it is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in Minneapolis, with black residents making up about 17 percent of the population, white people make up the largest group. About a third of the population is Latino. Since the camp appeared, the community has organized shifts for delivering warm meals, medical care and counseling to people living in the park. They persuaded officials to back off an eviction notice served shortly after the campers arrived. But many in the neighborhood, who were already beleaguered from the financial stresses of the coronavirus, now say they are eager for the campers to move on to stable housing away from the park. “I’m not being judgmental,” said Carrie Nightshade, 44, who explained that she no longer felt comfortable letting her children, 12 and 9, play in the park by themselves. “It’s not personal. It’s just not safe.”
It’s even less safe now, and yet there is no indication that residents have changed their position about the police. Even at that time, they discovered that their pledge to contact community-activist groups rather than police worked best in theory rather than practice. Community activist groups don’t always answer the phone, for one thing, and aren’t always inclined to respond when they do. As of two weeks ago, though, that message still hadn’t gotten through, nor the point that community activists may not be interested in intervening when violence is being threatened.
One man expressed regret for calling 911 after two armed teenagers had pointed a gun at him and demanded his car keys. After first justifying it, Mitchell Erickson told the NYT that it was he who had endangered their lives:
Two days after an initial conversation, his position had evolved. “Been thinking more about it,” he wrote in a text message. “I regret calling the police. It was my instinct but I wish it hadn’t been. I put those boys in danger of death by calling the cops.” What about the fact that the boys had put his life in danger? “Yeah I know and yeah it was scary but the cops didn’t really have much to add after I called them,” he replied. “I haven’t been forced to think like this before. So I would have lost my car. So what? At least no one would have been killed.”
Ahem. Perhaps not that time, but what about the next person those two teenagers point a gun at? How much more will Erickson be willing to give away before thinking that enforcing the law might be a solution? In this case, the question before Powderhorn Park residents is how many children will have to be at risk before they stop hiding from their responsibility and start pressing for effective police reform, not just for themselves but for the whole city.
This is the essential problem inherent in dismantling police departments or demanding a broad disengagement with them. That leaves a vacuum of impunity that encourages violence and crime. Neighborhoods that already have those problems know this well already, which is why those Minneapolis residents think the idea of scaling back or dismantling the police department is “egregious, grotesque, absurd, crazy, ridiculous,” terms used by the NAACP and Urban League rather than the wealthier white liberals in the city. They have had to live with these issues for decades and understand that community policing — which requires more resources and commitment to enforce the law on even minor transgressions — is the correct recipe for keeping people safe. They just want to know that the police understand that too and to stop abusing their power.
Maybe they’ll learn that lesson quickly. More likely, though, those Powderhorn Park residents with the means to leave will move out because “the neighborhood has changed.”
Two weeks ago, KARE11 reported on the rapid growth of the homeless encampments, and demands for government intervention. Maybe they should have called the cops, eh?


hotair--2020-07-07--150 writers and academics sign a letter defending 'open debate' against cancel culture <span class='

150 writers and academics sign a letter defending 'open debate' against cancel culture (Update: Is Matt Yglesias cancelled?)

Harper ’ s Magazine has published a letter on “ open debate ” which is signed by 150 journalists , writers and academics , from Noam Chomsky to J.K. Rowling .
The letter itself is relatively brief and takes plenty of shots at the right on the way to making a point about left ’ s growing fondness for cancel culture .
You can read it all here .
The letter praises “ powerful protests ” for social justice and then warns that “ forces of illiberalism ” ( they name Trump as an ally of these forces ) are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma.
” And that ’ s really the main point of the letter .
Back in January I wrote about YouTuber Natalie Wynn who made a pretty good argument that there is a clear difference between social accountability and cancel culture .
The former is about changing someone ’ s mind while the latter is almost always about punishing unorthodox views either socially or economically .
The letter continues : More troubling still , institutional leaders , in a spirit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms .
Editors are fired for running controversial pieces ; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity ; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics ; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class ; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study ; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes .
Whatever the arguments around each particular incident , the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers , artists , and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus , or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement .
Some of the items mentioned in that list are ones we ’ ve written about in the past month or two .
The firing of NY Times editor James Bennet over Sen. Tom Cotton ’ s op-ed .
The progressive researcher fired for tweeting a study that said rioting hurt Democrats at the polls .
Frankly , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter didn ’ t mention , like that awful Washington Post piece about a random woman ’ s Halloween costume from two years ago .
But the idea that we are narrowing the boundaries of what can be said seems pretty accurate .
The letter concludes by saying we need to maintain space for “ good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.
” In other words , cancel culture is a bad idea and we need to stop it .
As mentioned above , Noam Chomsky and J.K. Rowling ( who I wrote about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar names include academic Jonathan Haidt , NY Times columinst Bari Weiss , Vox ’ s Matt Yglesias , author Malcolm Gladwell , academic John McWhorter , author Jesse Singal , and author Margaret Atwood , just to name a few .
Nicholas A. Christakis of Yale , who has experienced cancel culture first hand , is also on the list .
Despite all the throat clearing about the right , it ’ s really the popularity of this new cancel culture on the left that is the main target .
The more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more people on the left split off and criticize them for doing so .
The first wave of people rejecting it became the Intellectual Dark Web .
Now you have another , larger wave of people , most of whom are progressives , who are expressing concern about the recent rise of cancel culture .
But I don ’ t think cancel culture is going to stop .
It has grown in parallel with Black Lives Matter and the identity politics that supports it .
Now that White Fragility is a bestseller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who join the social justice cult will continue grow , giving them more power to punish even more people in the future .
What may be most noteworthy about this letter is how few people signed it compared to the number of people who are currently embracing BLM and identity politics .
Update : A TV critic at Vox who is trans has posted a letter she sent to her employers voicing disappointment that Matt Yglesias signed the letter signed by “ anti-trans voices.
” According to Emily VanDerWerff , “ his signatiure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less safe at Vox… ” The last paragraph is interesting .
She claims she doesn ’ t want Yglesias reprimanded or fired but she ’ s clearly looking to have some kind of social impact , otherwise why publicize the objection ?
To be clear , I ’ m not saying she should feel obligated to remain silent .
I ’ m saying she could have privately complained to HR or to Yglesias .
But posting this on Twitter seems like a clear attempt to shame him in public which is just another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that this cost him nothing is pretty silly .
He was clearly taking a risk and this response proves that .
Remember , James Bennet didn ’ t resign from the NY Times because of the external reaction to the Sen. Cotton op-ed .
He resigned because of the internal backlash from staffers arguing that he never should have allowed the Times to publish what it did .
Earlier she had said this : That was already a shot at Yglesias , albeit a more subtle one .
Jesse Singal , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes the larger context here .
Two more critics from inside Vox , one telling Yglesias his decision “ reflects poorly on us all.
” It appears Yglesias has now deleted all of his tweets .
BTW , I really do think Yglesias has a better handle on cancel culture than some of his compatriots ( comrades ? )
on the left .
I recently wrote about media bias and pointed out that Matt Yglesias was able to see a problem with it that 60 Minutes journo Wesley Lowery could not .

Harper’s Magazine has published a letter on “open debate” which is signed by 150 journalists, writers and academics, from Noam Chomsky to J.K. Rowling. The letter itself is relatively brief and takes plenty of shots at the right on the way to making a point about left’s growing fondness for cancel culture.
You can read it all here. The letter praises “powerful protests” for social justice and then warns that “forces of illiberalism” (they name Trump as an ally of these forces) are “gaining strength.” The letter warns “resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma.” And that’s really the main point of the letter.
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
Back in January I wrote about YouTuber Natalie Wynn who made a pretty good argument that there is a clear difference between social accountability and cancel culture. The former is about changing someone’s mind while the latter is almost always about punishing unorthodox views either socially or economically. The letter continues:
More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
Some of the items mentioned in that list are ones we’ve written about in the past month or two. The firing of NY Times editor James Bennet over Sen. Tom Cotton’s op-ed. The progressive researcher fired for tweeting a study that said rioting hurt Democrats at the polls. Frankly, there are a lot more recent examples the letter didn’t mention, like that awful Washington Post piece about a random woman’s Halloween costume from two years ago. But the idea that we are narrowing the boundaries of what can be said seems pretty accurate.
The letter concludes by saying we need to maintain space for “good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.” In other words, cancel culture is a bad idea and we need to stop it.
As mentioned above, Noam Chomsky and J.K. Rowling (who I wrote about yesterday) signed the letter. Other familiar names include academic Jonathan Haidt, NY Times columinst Bari Weiss, Vox’s Matt Yglesias, author Malcolm Gladwell, academic John McWhorter, author Jesse Singal, and author Margaret Atwood, just to name a few. Nicholas A. Christakis of Yale, who has experienced cancel culture first hand, is also on the list.
Despite all the throat clearing about the right, it’s really the popularity of this new cancel culture on the left that is the main target. The more the left tries to mainstream these ideas the more people on the left split off and criticize them for doing so. The first wave of people rejecting it became the Intellectual Dark Web. Now you have another, larger wave of people, most of whom are progressives, who are expressing concern about the recent rise of cancel culture.
But I don’t think cancel culture is going to stop. It has grown in parallel with Black Lives Matter and the identity politics that supports it. Now that White Fragility is a bestseller it seems likely the number of people who join the social justice cult will continue grow, giving them more power to punish even more people in the future.
What may be most noteworthy about this letter is how few people signed it compared to the number of people who are currently embracing BLM and identity politics.
Update: A TV critic at Vox who is trans has posted a letter she sent to her employers voicing disappointment that Matt Yglesias signed the letter signed by “anti-trans voices.” According to Emily VanDerWerff, “his signatiure being on the letter makes me feel less safe at Vox…”
I sent a version of this to the editors of Vox. (I have redacted some bits that are internal to Vox and shouldn’t be aired publicly.) pic.twitter.com/splNNSMivd — Emily VanDerWerff 🙋♀ (@emilyvdw) July 7, 2020
The last paragraph is interesting. She claims she doesn’t want Yglesias reprimanded or fired but she’s clearly looking to have some kind of social impact, otherwise why publicize the objection? To be clear, I’m not saying she should feel obligated to remain silent. I’m saying she could have privately complained to HR or to Yglesias. But posting this on Twitter seems like a clear attempt to shame him in public which is just another form of punishment.
Also, the idea that this cost him nothing is pretty silly. He was clearly taking a risk and this response proves that. Remember, James Bennet didn’t resign from the NY Times because of the external reaction to the Sen. Cotton op-ed. He resigned because of the internal backlash from staffers arguing that he never should have allowed the Times to publish what it did.
Earlier she had said this:
This letter is a broadside against many disadvantaged communities, but it is _particularly_ a broadside against trans people, and I’m disappointed to see people I know and respect (including Known Trans Woman Jennifer Finney Boylan) among its list of signatories. https://t.co/wlWG94neh4 — Emily VanDerWerff 🙋♀ (@emilyvdw) July 7, 2020
That was already a shot at Yglesias, albeit a more subtle one. Jesse Singal, who signed the letter along with Yglesias, notes the larger context here.
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1280603481531912192
Another point:
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1280602364945276929
And another:
If you don’t want someone fired you don’t write a public letter to the bosses saying he makes you “unsafe.” That word is an undisguised threat of hostile environment litigation. This person knows that. pic.twitter.com/P2Tv4kGaN5 — Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) July 7, 2020
Two more critics from inside Vox, one telling Yglesias his decision “reflects poorly on us all.” It appears Yglesias has now deleted all of his tweets.
The two most surprising signatories are Jeet Heer and Matt Yglesias, but good for them! Predictably, Yglesias is facing backlash from within Vox for this. pic.twitter.com/yTF9er4f8o — Galway Curiousblue (@iamcuriousblue) July 7, 2020
BTW, I really do think Yglesias has a better handle on cancel culture than some of his compatriots (comrades?) on the left. I recently wrote about media bias and pointed out that Matt Yglesias was able to see a problem with it that 60 Minutes journo Wesley Lowery could not.


hotair--2020-07-07--Maxwell pal: You'd better believe Ghislaine has copies of Epstein's entire surveillance trove

The time has come for Ghislaine Maxwell to play Let ’ s Make a Deal — but does she have anything to offer prosecutors without Jeffrey Epstein himself as a target ?
One former friend tells the Daily Mail that Maxwell has long prepared for this day by keeping copies of Epstein ’ s surveillance videos .
Just as the billionaire pedophile kept it as leverage , so did Maxwell , this friend says — and it will drop like a bombshell on all of their associates .
Assuming , that is , that Maxwell isn ’ t the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a secret stash of Jeffrey Epstein ’ s twisted sex tapes and will use the footage as an insurance policy to save herself , a former friend exclusively revealed to DailyMail.com .
… ‘ Ghislaine has always been as cunning as they come .
She wasn ’ t going to be with Epstein all those years and not have some insurance .
‘ The secret stash of sex tapes I believe Ghislaine has squirreled away could end up being her get out of jail card if the authorities are willing to trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had .
They could implicate some twisted movers and shakers.
’ They added : ‘ If Ghislaine goes down , she ’ s going to take the whole damn lot of them with her.
’ That sounds a bit more like speculation rather than confirmation , but it ’ s at least informed speculation .
We already have seen the extent to which Epstein used surveillance in his Manhattan town house , and it ’ s almost unthinkable that he and Maxwell didn ’ t keep the most useful bits handy just in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it for a while .
The unnamed friend made it pretty clear that Epstein ran an extortion trade , at least in principle .
He wasn ’ t concerned about security — he wanted to get dirt on rich and powerful friends , according to this account .
Perhaps that was intended as a last-ditch reserve to rescue himself , but it might have been put to other uses as well .
The friend insists that Maxwell has kept this up her sleeve for just this moment : ‘ Not only did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girls on camera – he wanted to make sure he had something to hold over the rich and powerful men who took advantage of his sick largesse.
’ ‘ I ’ ll bet anything that once it comes out that Ghislaine has those tapes these men will be quaking in their Italian leather boots .
‘ Ghislaine made sure that she socked away thumb drives of it all .
She knows where all the bodies are buried and she ’ ll use whatever she had to save her own a**.
’ If this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — again — about how Jeffrey Epstein cut his sweet plea deal with Alex Acosta a decade or so ago .
Why didn ’ t Acosta seek out the videos himself ?
Or at least charge Maxwell to get some leverage on Epstein ?
As it turned out , Acosta offered Epstein a deal in which he only had to plead out to misdemeanors , accept jail time rather than prison ( with an astoundingly generous work-release arrangement ) , and most notably immunized Maxwell and everyone else who worked for him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant a lifetime pass from prosecution , but perhaps both thought that their stash would serve as a backup guarantee not just of immunity but of complete impunity .
Did that stash come into play in the negotiations with Acosta in some regard ?
If not , that might suggest that the stash isn ’ t as explosive as everyone assumes .
Or , conversely , that it ’ s so explosive that the only way to defuse it is to try Maxwell to the full extent of the law and dare her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by exposing the videos in court .
Let ’ s not forget that any evidence that emerges from that trove likely contains evidence that Maxwell took part in all that abuse , too — if the trove exists at all .
And — this should be noted — it also depends on whether the DoJ really wants to go after Epstein ’ s pals on the Lolita Express .
Rolling up any of Epstein ’ s enablers , at least those who weren ’ t also trafficking victims ?
That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to let Maxwell walk just to give up lower-level scumbags and hangers-on .
If this was an extortion racket , the feds might not be interested in helping Maxwell set the timer for this bomb , either .
Needless to say , the potential for the value of this stash to decline rapidly might leave Maxwell feeling a little … down , shall we say .
Will she take the same route out of prison as her one-time boyfriend did , allegedly ?
Prison officials say they are taking that threat seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epstein himself : A law-enforcement source said Monday that prison officials at the MDC in Brooklyn are determined to avoid a similar outcome with Maxwell .
“ They want to make sure she ’ ll stand trial , ” the source said , adding that the Bureau of Prisons doesn ’ t want another “ black eye.
” Maxwell will be guarded by the prison ’ s highest security available , the source added .
She ’ ll be shadowed by prison officers every time she leaves her cell and a surveillance camera @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the source .
I still think that putting the camera feed on the Internet would provide the greatest amount of security .
And perhaps a fundraiser for MDC and MCC , both of which can use the money .

The time has come for Ghislaine Maxwell to play Let’s Make a Deal — but does she have anything to offer prosecutors without Jeffrey Epstein himself as a target? One former friend tells the Daily Mail that Maxwell has long prepared for this day by keeping copies of Epstein’s surveillance videos. Just as the billionaire pedophile kept it as leverage, so did Maxwell, this friend says — and it will drop like a bombshell on all of their associates.
Assuming, that is, that Maxwell isn’t the top target of this probe:
Ghislaine Maxwell has a secret stash of Jeffrey Epstein’s twisted sex tapes and will use the footage as an insurance policy to save herself, a former friend exclusively revealed to DailyMail.com. … ‘Ghislaine has always been as cunning as they come. She wasn’t going to be with Epstein all those years and not have some insurance. ‘The secret stash of sex tapes I believe Ghislaine has squirreled away could end up being her get out of jail card if the authorities are willing to trade. She has copies of everything Epstein had. They could implicate some twisted movers and shakers.’ They added: ‘If Ghislaine goes down, she’s going to take the whole damn lot of them with her.’
That sounds a bit more like speculation rather than confirmation, but it’s at least informed speculation. We already have seen the extent to which Epstein used surveillance in his Manhattan town house, and it’s almost unthinkable that he and Maxwell didn’t keep the most useful bits handy just in case.
Let’s play along with it for a while. The unnamed friend made it pretty clear that Epstein ran an extortion trade, at least in principle. He wasn’t concerned about security — he wanted to get dirt on rich and powerful friends, according to this account. Perhaps that was intended as a last-ditch reserve to rescue himself, but it might have been put to other uses as well. The friend insists that Maxwell has kept this up her sleeve for just this moment:
‘Not only did Epstein like to capture himself with underage girls on camera – he wanted to make sure he had something to hold over the rich and powerful men who took advantage of his sick largesse.’ ‘I’ll bet anything that once it comes out that Ghislaine has those tapes these men will be quaking in their Italian leather boots. ‘Ghislaine made sure that she socked away thumb drives of it all. She knows where all the bodies are buried and she’ll use whatever she had to save her own a**.’
If this is true, then it raises questions — again — about how Jeffrey Epstein cut his sweet plea deal with Alex Acosta a decade or so ago. Why didn’t Acosta seek out the videos himself? Or at least charge Maxwell to get some leverage on Epstein? As it turned out, Acosta offered Epstein a deal in which he only had to plead out to misdemeanors, accept jail time rather than prison (with an astoundingly generous work-release arrangement), and most notably immunized Maxwell and everyone else who worked for him. Both Maxwell and Epstein thought that deal meant a lifetime pass from prosecution, but perhaps both thought that their stash would serve as a backup guarantee not just of immunity but of complete impunity. Did that stash come into play in the negotiations with Acosta in some regard?
If not, that might suggest that the stash isn’t as explosive as everyone assumes. Or, conversely, that it’s so explosive that the only way to defuse it is to try Maxwell to the full extent of the law and dare her to make the prosecution’s case by exposing the videos in court. Let’s not forget that any evidence that emerges from that trove likely contains evidence that Maxwell took part in all that abuse, too — if the trove exists at all.
And — this should be noted — it also depends on whether the DoJ really wants to go after Epstein’s pals on the Lolita Express. Rolling up any of Epstein’s enablers, at least those who weren’t also trafficking victims? That’s a no-brainer, but they’re not going to let Maxwell walk just to give up lower-level scumbags and hangers-on. If this was an extortion racket, the feds might not be interested in helping Maxwell set the timer for this bomb, either.
Needless to say, the potential for the value of this stash to decline rapidly might leave Maxwell feeling a little … down, shall we say. Will she take the same route out of prison as her one-time boyfriend did, allegedly? Prison officials say they are taking that threat seriously this time — more seriously than with Epstein himself:
A law-enforcement source said Monday that prison officials at the MDC in Brooklyn are determined to avoid a similar outcome with Maxwell. “They want to make sure she’ll stand trial,” the source said, adding that the Bureau of Prisons doesn’t want another “black eye.” Maxwell will be guarded by the prison’s highest security available, the source added. She’ll be shadowed by prison officers every time she leaves her cell and a surveillance camera will be trained on her cell, according to the source.
I still think that putting the camera feed on the Internet would provide the greatest amount of security. And perhaps a fundraiser for MDC and MCC, both of which can use the money.


hotair--2020-07-07--Enough with the "Grim Reaper" idiot hassling people on beaches about social distancing

Just adding my voice to the chorus of righties on social media last night who lambasted CNN for continuing to put this tool on TV .
I wrote about him on May 1 , noting at the time that beaches were a weird spot for a well-meaning COVID scold to haunt : “ [ I ] f we ’ re rating the safest places in America right now , a hot , humid outdoor space bathed in UV radiation with plenty of ocean breezes has to be near the very top.
” But whatever .
His shtick seemed harmless enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few people at the margins to be sure to keep six feet away from others while out and about .
Then he started turning up at anti-racism protests .
What happened to the Grim Reaper gear , bro ?
He ’ s a lawyer , not a scientist , but there may be no person who better embodies the gross hypocrisy practiced by public-health experts in endorsing or opposing mass gatherings based purely on their politics .
Want to stand around shoulder to shoulder in a crowd of thousands to protest police brutality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Want to play in the surf with your kids 20 feet away from strangers because you ’ re all stir crazy from being quarantined at home ?
Here comes the Reaper , swinging his plastic scythe .
Ed linked this Atlantic piece yesterday on the weird phenomenon of singling out beachgoers for COVID-shaming but it bears quoting again .
“ You ’ d think from the moral outrage about these beach photos that fun , in itself , transmits the virus , ” the Harvard epidemiologist Julia Marcus told me .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoy their lives , that ’ s actually a public-health win.
” The beach shaming is especially terrible because , so many months in , we now know that the virus spreads most readily indoors , especially in unventilated , crowded spaces , and even more so in such spaces where people are talking or singing without masks .
Outdoor transmission isn ’ t impossible , of course , but being outdoors is protective for scientifically well-understood reasons : Open air dilutes the concentration of virus in the air one breathes , sunlight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have more room to stay apart in the great outdoors than within walled spaces .
It ’ s not so much that some people want to play “ fun police ” ( although some do ) , I think , as that there ’ s a latent quasi-religious feeling that the virus is some sort of judgment on mankind .
To me it ’ s not starkly different from a fundamentalist preacher blaming the culture ’ s licentiousness for an earthquake .
The woke epidemiologists fit that model : The protests are virtuous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sense that it ’ s fun ) , ergo it ’ s the beaches that are more likely to feel the virus ’ s wrath .
I wish we had a way to test that .
I know how I ’ d wager on whether more people nationally have transmitted the virus at beaches versus at anti-racist demonstrations .
Uhlfelder ’ s argument for targeting beaches , which now involves a lawsuit against Ron DeSantis , is more subtle than that per the clip below .
It ’ s not the beaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he tells CNN , it ’ s that the beaches draw tourists and tourists will end up congregating in more dangerous spots like bars and restaurants afterward .
Which is strange logic : If he ’ s worried about bars and restaurants , you would think he ’ d do his Grim Reaper shtick outside bars and restaurants and nightclubs and other tourist traps .
Not everyone who visits Florida is there for beachgoing , after all .
DisneyWorld is set to reopen this weekend .
Why isn ’ t he there instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s inevitably the case that some protesters who gathered to demonstrate against police brutality and racism ended up congregating in indoor spaces after the demonstration was over .
In some cases that would mean bars or restaurants , in others it might mean small groups of friends at one person ’ s apartment .
( If nothing else , a stream of people using a small enclosed space like a porta-potty at a rally runs a risk of infection . )
Uhlfelder ’ s basic point , that big outdoor attractions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attractions , is fair enough .
He just refuses to apply its logic fairly .
So what is he doing on national television ?
And why didn ’ t Brianna Keilar muster a single question here calling him out on his protests/beaches hypocrisy ?
I think Uhlfelder ’ s getting the same pass from CNN on his coronavirus politics as Andrew Cuomo has gotten in a much bigger spotlight .
It doesn ’ t matter how hypocritical you are , how you ’ ve performed in your role , or whether your justifications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matters is that you show that you care about the right things .

Just adding my voice to the chorus of righties on social media last night who lambasted CNN for continuing to put this tool on TV. I wrote about him on May 1, noting at the time that beaches were a weird spot for a well-meaning COVID scold to haunt: “[I]f we’re rating the safest places in America right now, a hot, humid outdoor space bathed in UV radiation with plenty of ocean breezes has to be near the very top.” But whatever. His shtick seemed harmless enough. Maybe the publicity would convince a few people at the margins to be sure to keep six feet away from others while out and about.
Then he started turning up at anti-racism protests. What happened to the Grim Reaper gear, bro?
Defuniak springs, Florida. Huge crowd. Stay hopeful and stay strong. pic.twitter.com/xKlNWF6EFw — Daniel Uhlfelder (@DWUhlfelderLaw) June 7, 2020
Miami protest where we delivered water to protestors pic.twitter.com/E3fFLU8F49 — Daniel Uhlfelder (@DWUhlfelderLaw) June 6, 2020
He’s a lawyer, not a scientist, but there may be no person who better embodies the gross hypocrisy practiced by public-health experts in endorsing or opposing mass gatherings based purely on their politics. Want to stand around shoulder to shoulder in a crowd of thousands to protest police brutality? Daniel Uhlfelder will fetch you water. Want to play in the surf with your kids 20 feet away from strangers because you’re all stir crazy from being quarantined at home? Here comes the Reaper, swinging his plastic scythe.
Ed linked this Atlantic piece yesterday on the weird phenomenon of singling out beachgoers for COVID-shaming but it bears quoting again.
“You’d think from the moral outrage about these beach photos that fun, in itself, transmits the virus,” the Harvard epidemiologist Julia Marcus told me. “But when people find lower-risk ways to enjoy their lives, that’s actually a public-health win.” The beach shaming is especially terrible because, so many months in, we now know that the virus spreads most readily indoors, especially in unventilated, crowded spaces, and even more so in such spaces where people are talking or singing without masks. Outdoor transmission isn’t impossible, of course, but being outdoors is protective for scientifically well-understood reasons: Open air dilutes the concentration of virus in the air one breathes, sunlight can help kill viruses, and people have more room to stay apart in the great outdoors than within walled spaces.
It’s not so much that some people want to play “fun police” (although some do), I think, as that there’s a latent quasi-religious feeling that the virus is some sort of judgment on mankind. To me it’s not starkly different from a fundamentalist preacher blaming the culture’s licentiousness for an earthquake. The woke epidemiologists fit that model: The protests are virtuous, the beachgoing is vicious (in the sense that it’s fun), ergo it’s the beaches that are more likely to feel the virus’s wrath. I wish we had a way to test that. I know how I’d wager on whether more people nationally have transmitted the virus at beaches versus at anti-racist demonstrations.
Uhlfelder’s argument for targeting beaches, which now involves a lawsuit against Ron DeSantis, is more subtle than that per the clip below. It’s not the beaches per se that are a problem, he tells CNN, it’s that the beaches draw tourists and tourists will end up congregating in more dangerous spots like bars and restaurants afterward. Which is strange logic: If he’s worried about bars and restaurants, you would think he’d do his Grim Reaper shtick outside bars and restaurants and nightclubs and other tourist traps. Not everyone who visits Florida is there for beachgoing, after all. DisneyWorld is set to reopen this weekend. Why isn’t he there instead of on the beach?
Meanwhile, it’s inevitably the case that some protesters who gathered to demonstrate against police brutality and racism ended up congregating in indoor spaces after the demonstration was over. In some cases that would mean bars or restaurants, in others it might mean small groups of friends at one person’s apartment. (If nothing else, a stream of people using a small enclosed space like a porta-potty at a rally runs a risk of infection.) Uhlfelder’s basic point, that big outdoor attractions end up steering people to smaller indoor attractions, is fair enough. He just refuses to apply its logic fairly. So what is he doing on national television?
And why didn’t Brianna Keilar muster a single question here calling him out on his protests/beaches hypocrisy?
I think Uhlfelder’s getting the same pass from CNN on his coronavirus politics as Andrew Cuomo has gotten in a much bigger spotlight. It doesn’t matter how hypocritical you are, how you’ve performed in your role, or whether your justifications for your actions make sense. All that matters is that you show that you care about the right things.


hotair--2020-07-07--Google, Facebook and Twitter refuse to become part of China's Hong Kong security apparatus

Google , Facebook and Twitter all operate openly in Hong Kong like they do in America but that could be about to change because of China ’ s new national security law .
These companies and several others have all said they won ’ t accept data requests from China for people in Hong Kong , effectively refusing to become part of the communist party ’ s security apparatus .
“ We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and support the right of people to express themselves without fear for their safety or other repercussions , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement… TikTok , a buzzy short-video platform owned by Chinese technology giant Bytedance Inc. , said Tuesday morning in China that it would pull its app from Google and Apple Inc. ’ s app stores in Hong Kong within a week , in light of “ recent developments.
” In separate statements , Twitter and Alphabet Inc. -owned Google said they paused all data and information requests from Hong Kong authorities immediately when the law went into effect last week .
The national security law is so broad and so vague that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively innocuous statements online .
In fact , the NY Times points out that the law isn ’ t limited to regulating the speech of people living in Hong Kong .
In theory , Chinese officials could demand information on anyone using these platforms to talk about Hong Kong , even people living in the U.S. Based on the law , the Hong Kong authorities have the remit to dictate the way people around the world talk about the city ’ s contested politics .
A Facebook employee could potentially be arrested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand over user data on someone based in the United States who Chinese authorities deemed a threat to national security .
“ If Facebook refuses to give national security data , its service may be terminated in Hong Kong , and it will lose access to the Hong Kong market , ” said Glacier Kwong of Keyboard Frontline , a nongovernmental organization that monitors digital rights in Hong Kong .
“ It ’ s not impossible that this will happen , ” Ms. Kwong added .
“ China often uses its market and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their demands.
” One option that might allow some companies to sidestep the problem is to simply move their data out of Hong Kong .
That would give China less leverage to claim it had a right to the data for “ national security ” purposes , which in this case could mean someone posting a video mocking the Chinese national anthem .
Google announce plans to open a large data center in Hong Kong a decade ago .
The photo above is from the 2011 groundbreaking ceremony .
However , in 2013 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not open a data center in the city .
The reasons for the change of heart were never spelled out but earlier this year Hong Kong Free Press pointed to a possible explanation .
It involves a lawsuit between “ Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks…and a locally owned data center company.
” Data security is the top priority for data businesses .
However , in the court verdict , the judge ruled for HKSTP and against the data warehouse operators , saying the landlord can enter their customers ’ data storage spaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is clearly stated that “ although reasonable notice is required , there is no right for the customer to refuse entry to HKSTP.
” This is a potentially dangerous judgement if we , as Hong Kong citizens , value the privacy and security of data owners… If HKSTP , a public statutory body , is allowed to access their customers ’ data storage spaces at any time , it means we are allowing the government to access data of citizens and businesses as a means to facilitate and control data centres in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably had a sense which way the wind was blowing in Hong Kong and chose not to invest millions in a data center that would give China leverage to make future demands of the company .
In this case that was clearly a good decision .
This is just the latest front in an ongoing battle over what Chinese state media has referred to as China ’ s “ alternative model ” of human rights .
That alternative has already been embraced by dozens of other authoritarian countries at the UN Human Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea , Venezuela and Iran have no problem with the idea that the central government should determine what people inside their borders can see and say .
Ultimately , it ’ s good to see American companies refusing to kowtow to Xi Jinping ’ s communist authoritarian state , but refusing to do so may cost these companies their access to Hong Kong .

Google, Facebook and Twitter all operate openly in Hong Kong like they do in America but that could be about to change because of China’s new national security law. These companies and several others have all said they won’t accept data requests from China for people in Hong Kong, effectively refusing to become part of the communist party’s security apparatus.
“We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and support the right of people to express themselves without fear for their safety or other repercussions,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in a Monday statement… TikTok, a buzzy short-video platform owned by Chinese technology giant Bytedance Inc., said Tuesday morning in China that it would pull its app from Google and Apple Inc.’s app stores in Hong Kong within a week, in light of “recent developments.” In separate statements, Twitter and Alphabet Inc. -owned Google said they paused all data and information requests from Hong Kong authorities immediately when the law went into effect last week.
The national security law is so broad and so vague that people could potentially be jailed for years over relatively innocuous statements online. In fact, the NY Times points out that the law isn’t limited to regulating the speech of people living in Hong Kong. In theory, Chinese officials could demand information on anyone using these platforms to talk about Hong Kong, even people living in the U.S.
Based on the law, the Hong Kong authorities have the remit to dictate the way people around the world talk about the city’s contested politics. A Facebook employee could potentially be arrested in Hong Kong if the company failed to hand over user data on someone based in the United States who Chinese authorities deemed a threat to national security. “If Facebook refuses to give national security data, its service may be terminated in Hong Kong, and it will lose access to the Hong Kong market,” said Glacier Kwong of Keyboard Frontline, a nongovernmental organization that monitors digital rights in Hong Kong. “It’s not impossible that this will happen,” Ms. Kwong added. “China often uses its market and boycotting to make foreign companies listen to their demands.”
One option that might allow some companies to sidestep the problem is to simply move their data out of Hong Kong. That would give China less leverage to claim it had a right to the data for “national security” purposes, which in this case could mean someone posting a video mocking the Chinese national anthem.
Google announce plans to open a large data center in Hong Kong a decade ago. The photo above is from the 2011 groundbreaking ceremony. However, in 2013 Google reversed course and decided it would not open a data center in the city. The reasons for the change of heart were never spelled out but earlier this year Hong Kong Free Press pointed to a possible explanation. It involves a lawsuit between “Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks…and a locally owned data center company.”
Data security is the top priority for data businesses. However, in the court verdict, the judge ruled for HKSTP and against the data warehouse operators, saying the landlord can enter their customers’ data storage spaces at all times. More importantly, it is clearly stated that “although reasonable notice is required, there is no right for the customer to refuse entry to HKSTP.” This is a potentially dangerous judgement if we, as Hong Kong citizens, value the privacy and security of data owners… If HKSTP, a public statutory body, is allowed to access their customers’ data storage spaces at any time, it means we are allowing the government to access data of citizens and businesses as a means to facilitate and control data centres in Hong Kong.
In short, Google probably had a sense which way the wind was blowing in Hong Kong and chose not to invest millions in a data center that would give China leverage to make future demands of the company. In this case that was clearly a good decision.
This is just the latest front in an ongoing battle over what Chinese state media has referred to as China’s “alternative model” of human rights. That alternative has already been embraced by dozens of other authoritarian countries at the UN Human Rights Council. Countries like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and Iran have no problem with the idea that the central government should determine what people inside their borders can see and say.
Ultimately, it’s good to see American companies refusing to kowtow to Xi Jinping’s communist authoritarian state, but refusing to do so may cost these companies their access to Hong Kong.


hotair--2020-07-07--The "what if Trump won't leave office" madness continues

If there ’ s one plague sweeping the nation in an even more insidious fashion than the novel coronavirus , it ’ s Trump Derangement Syndrome .
While plenty of the glitterati in Hollywood are affected with both ( hope you ’ re feeling better , Tom Hanks ) , political actors seem to be more susceptible to the latter .
This week we see another case of this affliction once again popping up with Max Boot .
Long a reliable voice for conservative causes , the Trump era has hit Max rather hard , leading him down any number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent article at the WaPo reflects the tendency of such folks to take up the same chattering themes that Democrats and their media enablers repeat in an effort to scare voters away from the President .
In this case , it ’ s the oft-repeated Mantra that Donald Trump has no plans to leave office if he manages to somehow lose the election in November to Joe Biden .
( Or whoever the Democrats nominate if Joe loses the thread entirely before then and has to be replaced . )
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plot to remain in office , possibly indefinitely .
Trump is already laying the foundation to dispute the election outcome with his incessant claims that “ Mail-In Ballots will lead to MASSIVE electoral fraud and a RIGGED 2020 Election.
” Election officials label such concerns as “ preposterous ” and “ false.
” But they will serve as an excuse for the Republican Party to purge voter-registration rolls , limit mail-in ballots , close polling stations in minority areas and challenge in-person voting by minorities .
Whatever it takes to win .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will produce a popular-vote victory ; he lost by nearly 3 million votes in 2016 and will probably lose by a greater margin this year .
But it won ’ t matter if , by election night , he is within spitting distance of an electoral college victory .
I recently took part in a “ war game ” to see what would happen under those circumstances .
The session was organized by the Transition Integrity Project , a nonpartisan group founded by Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School and Nils Gilman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were given predicted a narrow Biden victory in the electoral college : 278 to 260 .
Various participants played the role of the Trump campaign , the Biden campaign , Republican and Democratic elected officials , the news media , and other key players to see what would happen next .
I ’ m not sure what we should be reading into the fact that people ostensibly involved in the media are playing secretive “ war games ” to determine what the Trump campaign will do after election night , but it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most of them have given up on the idea that Donald Trump would simply refuse to move out of the office until the military is forced to come in and remove him by force .
In one scenario , Republican-controlled legislatures in key swing states that flipped to Biden would challenge the election results on any number of rationales and either certify Trump the winner anyway or refuse to certify the results at all .
This would tie the matter up in the courts of each state and “ force the Republican-dominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Trump ’ s behalf . )
In the meantime , “ chaos reigned in the streets ” with violence erupting everywhere .
Another scenario envisions a race where the electoral college winner is too close to call in several large , purple states .
With no winner announced , there would once again be “ near civil war in the streets.
” ( It ’ s funny how any model where Joe Biden doesn ’ t win immediately and decisively results in street warfare for these people , isn ’ t it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moment to toss some of the cold water of reality on these supposed plans of Donald Trump .
The idea that the Trump administration would challenge the certification of election results after a state called the race is laughable .
And even if it wasn ’ t , the courts would find it laughable .
Boot worries that the “ Republican-dominated Supreme Court ” might step in and take Trump ’ s side .
Seriously , Max ?
We can ’ t even get John Roberts to vote for a limitation on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearance of a closely divided , partisan court .
And you think he ’ s going to hand Trump the election ?
As for the second scenario , we ’ ve had plenty of states wind up in very close races in the past , some of which had to go to recounts .
Because that ’ s what we do if the race is close .
We wait until the state is confident in the final vote .
The 2000 election was probably the most extreme example in modern history , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We won ’ t need or see a civil war if we have to wait a few days or weeks for the final tally .
For Pete ’ s sake , people .
What we ’ re really seeing here is one thread in a much larger tapestry .
Liberals and their temporary NeverTrump allies are trying to paint a picture of a nation going up in flames if there is a close race in the electoral college .
This is presumably meant to scare moderates into voting for Joe Biden so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the ground in a modern version of Sherman ’ s March to the Sea , probably led by Steve Bannon riding a mechanical bull on the back of a monster truck with machine guns mounted on it .
Or something like that , anyway .
In closing , I ’ ll leave it to the irreplaceable Frank J. Fleming to respond to this op-ed with the appropriate amount of snark .

If there’s one plague sweeping the nation in an even more insidious fashion than the novel coronavirus, it’s Trump Derangement Syndrome. While plenty of the glitterati in Hollywood are affected with both (hope you’re feeling better, Tom Hanks), political actors seem to be more susceptible to the latter. This week we see another case of this affliction once again popping up with Max Boot. Long a reliable voice for conservative causes, the Trump era has hit Max rather hard, leading him down any number of NeverTrumper garden paths. His most recent article at the WaPo reflects the tendency of such folks to take up the same chattering themes that Democrats and their media enablers repeat in an effort to scare voters away from the President. In this case, it’s the oft-repeated Mantra that Donald Trump has no plans to leave office if he manages to somehow lose the election in November to Joe Biden. (Or whoever the Democrats nominate if Joe loses the thread entirely before then and has to be replaced.) In fact, he’s already developing an evil plot to remain in office, possibly indefinitely.
Trump is already laying the foundation to dispute the election outcome with his incessant claims that “Mail-In Ballots will lead to MASSIVE electoral fraud and a RIGGED 2020 Election.” Election officials label such concerns as “preposterous” and “false.” But they will serve as an excuse for the Republican Party to purge voter-registration rolls, limit mail-in ballots, close polling stations in minority areas and challenge in-person voting by minorities. Whatever it takes to win. It’s doubtful that anything Trump does will produce a popular-vote victory; he lost by nearly 3 million votes in 2016 and will probably lose by a greater margin this year. But it won’t matter if, by election night, he is within spitting distance of an electoral college victory. I recently took part in a “war game” to see what would happen under those circumstances. The session was organized by the Transition Integrity Project, a nonpartisan group founded by Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School and Nils Gilman of the Berggruen Institute. The scenario we were given predicted a narrow Biden victory in the electoral college: 278 to 260. Various participants played the role of the Trump campaign, the Biden campaign, Republican and Democratic elected officials, the news media, and other key players to see what would happen next.
I’m not sure what we should be reading into the fact that people ostensibly involved in the media are playing secretive “war games” to determine what the Trump campaign will do after election night, but it is what it is. To their credit, most of them have given up on the idea that Donald Trump would simply refuse to move out of the office until the military is forced to come in and remove him by force.
In one scenario, Republican-controlled legislatures in key swing states that flipped to Biden would challenge the election results on any number of rationales and either certify Trump the winner anyway or refuse to certify the results at all. This would tie the matter up in the courts of each state and “force the Republican-dominated Supreme Court to intervene.” (Presumably on Trump’s behalf.) In the meantime, “chaos reigned in the streets” with violence erupting everywhere.
Another scenario envisions a race where the electoral college winner is too close to call in several large, purple states. With no winner announced, there would once again be “near civil war in the streets.” (It’s funny how any model where Joe Biden doesn’t win immediately and decisively results in street warfare for these people, isn’t it?) But let’s take a moment to toss some of the cold water of reality on these supposed plans of Donald Trump.
The idea that the Trump administration would challenge the certification of election results after a state called the race is laughable. And even if it wasn’t, the courts would find it laughable. Boot worries that the “Republican-dominated Supreme Court” might step in and take Trump’s side. Seriously, Max? We can’t even get John Roberts to vote for a limitation on abortions. He frets constantly over the appearance of a closely divided, partisan court. And you think he’s going to hand Trump the election?
As for the second scenario, we’ve had plenty of states wind up in very close races in the past, some of which had to go to recounts. Because that’s what we do if the race is close. We wait until the state is confident in the final vote. The 2000 election was probably the most extreme example in modern history, but we somehow managed to live through that. We won’t need or see a civil war if we have to wait a few days or weeks for the final tally. For Pete’s sake, people.
What we’re really seeing here is one thread in a much larger tapestry. Liberals and their temporary NeverTrump allies are trying to paint a picture of a nation going up in flames if there is a close race in the electoral college. This is presumably meant to scare moderates into voting for Joe Biden so their homes won’t be burned to the ground in a modern version of Sherman’s March to the Sea, probably led by Steve Bannon riding a mechanical bull on the back of a monster truck with machine guns mounted on it. Or something like that, anyway.
In closing, I’ll leave it to the irreplaceable Frank J. Fleming to respond to this op-ed with the appropriate amount of snark.


hotair--2020-07-07--Crews to Lemon: Black Lives Matter is a great mantra, but "I don't want to move from one oppressor t

Crews to Lemon: Black Lives Matter is a great mantra, but "I don't want to move from one oppressor to the next"

Don ’ t go by the short clips circulating on social media .
Watch the entire debate over Black Lives Matter between CNN ’ s Don Lemon and actor Terry Crews , who has vocally warned about the extremism in the BLM agenda .
One might think this would turn into a shoutfest , but instead it ’ s a fascinating conversation in which both men engage , and to some extent still talk past each other .
At the heart of this is Lemon ’ s objection to Crews ’ description of BLM as “ extreme.
” What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Lemon asks ?
Nothing , Crews responds , but that ’ s not what BLM is all about either : It ’ s impossible to excerpt this and give a good representation of the give and take , but there are a couple of highlights that are worth noting .
In regard to the tweets that drew so much controversy , Crews says he ’ s seen how BLM activists treat other African-Americans who want to work with others to find ways to live together .
Marginalizing people like that , Crews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacist movement itself : CREWS : And when you have the leaders of the black lives movement , who are now talking about , you know , if we don ’ t get our demand , we are going to burn it down .
Other black people who are talking about working with other whites and other races , being viewed as sell-outs or called Uncle Toms , it starts — you start to understand that you are now being controlled .
You ’ re not being treated as loved .
You ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to control the narrative .
And I viewed it as a very , very dangerous self-righteousness that was developing , that , you know , that really viewed themselves as better .
It was almost a supremacist move … where they view that — their black lives mattered a lot more than mine .
Lemon gets annoyed when Crews brings up black-on-black crime as an argument that these communities have to start healing themselves .
Lemon fires back — correctly — that this phenomenon is not limited to black communities and has more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The issue , Lemon says , is police brutality , not cancer or HIV : LEMON : The Black Lives Matter movement was started because it was talking about police brutality .
If you want Black Lives Matter movement that talks about gun violence in communities , including black communities , then start that movement with that name .
But that ’ s not what Black Lives Matter is about .
It ’ s not an all-encompassing .
So if you are talking about — if someone started a movement that said cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , why aren ’ t you talking about HIV ?
It ’ s not the same thing .
We ’ re talking about cancer .
That ’ s the disconnect , Crews responds .
BLM is not just about police brutality now , if it ever was solely concerned with it .
It is , Crews argues , a fully formed political movement with a multi-point agenda , and that agenda is extreme : CREWS : Listen , I understand what you ’ re saying .
I totally understand .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be accepted .
I am not saying that that ’ s not it .
But they are — there ’ s more there .
And when I look — if they have more on their agenda , we need to ask them about what else is on that agenda , other than police brutality .
And that ’ s all I ’ m doing — questioning , warning , and watching .
And if that bothers you now , that bothers me .
CREWS : We ’ re equal .
I should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you read Crews ’ tweets , that ’ s been his message .
Not that we shouldn ’ t address police brutality or policing in general , but that we should approach those questions from a starting point of equality and brotherhood .
If that ’ s controversial , that controversy and anger over Crews ’ tweets say more about this moment than Crews ’ tweets do .
Still , Lemon and Crews put on a fascinating and intriguing debate on these topics , and give Lemon credit for allowing Crews to make @ @ @ @

Don’t go by the short clips circulating on social media. Watch the entire debate over Black Lives Matter between CNN’s Don Lemon and actor Terry Crews, who has vocally warned about the extremism in the BLM agenda. One might think this would turn into a shoutfest, but instead it’s a fascinating conversation in which both men engage, and to some extent still talk past each other.
At the heart of this is Lemon’s objection to Crews’ description of BLM as “extreme.” What’s so extreme about ending police brutality, Lemon asks? Nothing, Crews responds, but that’s not what BLM is all about either:
It’s impossible to excerpt this and give a good representation of the give and take, but there are a couple of highlights that are worth noting. In regard to the tweets that drew so much controversy, Crews says he’s seen how BLM activists treat other African-Americans who want to work with others to find ways to live together. Marginalizing people like that, Crews says, shows that BLM is a supremacist movement itself:
CREWS: And when you have the leaders of the black lives movement, who are now talking about, you know, if we don’t get our demand, we are going to burn it down. Other black people who are talking about working with other whites and other races, being viewed as sell-outs or called Uncle Toms, it starts — you start to understand that you are now being controlled. You’re not being treated as loved. You’re actually being controlled. Someone wants to control the narrative. And I viewed it as a very, very dangerous self-righteousness that was developing, that, you know, that really viewed themselves as better. It was almost a supremacist move … where they view that — their black lives mattered a lot more than mine.
Lemon gets annoyed when Crews brings up black-on-black crime as an argument that these communities have to start healing themselves. Lemon fires back — correctly — that this phenomenon is not limited to black communities and has more to do with proximity than race. The issue, Lemon says, is police brutality, not cancer or HIV:
LEMON: The Black Lives Matter movement was started because it was talking about police brutality. If you want Black Lives Matter movement that talks about gun violence in communities, including black communities, then start that movement with that name. But that’s not what Black Lives Matter is about. It’s not an all-encompassing. So if you are talking about — if someone started a movement that said cancer matters, and then someone comes and says, why aren’t you talking about HIV? It’s not the same thing. We’re talking about cancer.
That’s the disconnect, Crews responds. BLM is not just about police brutality now, if it ever was solely concerned with it. It is, Crews argues, a fully formed political movement with a multi-point agenda, and that agenda is extreme:
CREWS: Listen, I understand what you’re saying. I totally understand. It is about police brutality. That should never be accepted. I am not saying that that’s not it. But they are — there’s more there. And when I look — if they have more on their agenda, we need to ask them about what else is on that agenda, other than police brutality. And that’s all I’m doing — questioning, warning, and watching. And if that bothers you now, that bothers me. LEMON: I’m over. I’m over, Terry. CREWS: We’re equal. I should be able to say something truthful.
When you read Crews’ tweets, that’s been his message. Not that we shouldn’t address police brutality or policing in general, but that we should approach those questions from a starting point of equality and brotherhood. If that’s controversial, that controversy and anger over Crews’ tweets say more about this moment than Crews’ tweets do.
Still, Lemon and Crews put on a fascinating and intriguing debate on these topics, and give Lemon credit for allowing Crews to make his argument fully.


hotair--2020-07-07--Lindsey Graham inching away from Trump in South Carolina?

He ’ s not running away , just inching away .
Running away from Trump in a state as red as SC would be politically suicidal .
But he does seem to have discovered a bit of an independent streak over the past few weeks , coincidentally following his victory in the state ’ s Senate primary .
Is Lindsey hedging his bets this fall in … South Carolina ?
Since June 20 , Graham has blocked a Trump U.S. attorney nominee , criticized Trump ’ s decision to put a temporary freeze on visas for foreign workers , split @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus pandemic and pressed the administration for information about alleged Russian bounties on American soldiers .
Monday , Graham was at odds with Trump after the president alleged in a Twitter post that an apparent noose found last month in the Talladega Superspeedway garage of Bubba Wallace , NASCAR ’ s only Black full-time driver , was a “ HOAX , ” and called on Wallace to apologize to his NASCAR colleagues… Graham ’ s recent rebuffs of Trump could be an attempt to “ have some limited amount of distance from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support from groups — like suburban voters — who have “ soured ” on Trump , according to Kyle Kondik , managing editor of the nonpartisan political newsletter Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball .
The most surprising item on that list was his move to block Trump ’ s and Barr ’ s installation of SEC commissioner Jay Clayton as the new U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York .
He didn ’ t just thwart the president in that case , he handed veto power over Clayton ’ s nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by insisting on following the Judiciary Committee ’ s “ blue slip policy ” on nominees .
Given all the probes the SDNY is running of Trump allies , that decision could potentially have serious political consequences .
I don ’ t think Graham ’ s very worried about losing South Carolina .
But he ’ s a little worried : $ 14 million in a quarter is a big number in a Senate race .
Not “ Beto O ’ Rourke big , ” but big enough to show that Democrats nationally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his servility towards Trump over the past four years and are willing to keep pouring fuel into Harrison ’ s tank in a longshot bid to make it happen .
To put that number in context , Harrison outraised Graham in the first quarter of this year when he took in … $ 7.3 million .
He nearly doubled that amount over the past three months .
If Trump ’ s national polling slips further and surveys out of SC suggest Harrison has a glimmer of hope against Graham this fall , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money again in the third quarter .
Does Harrison have a glimmer of hope ?
If so , it ’ s just the barest glimmer .
But one of the few polls taken of South Carolina over the past few months had he and Graham tied at 42 in late May .
That ’ s hard to believe , but if the race really was competitive-ish at the time , it ’ s surely even more competitive today after Trump ’ s job approval slipped nationally over the past month .
( One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a mere 50/47 approval there . )
Nate Cohn says SC is exactly the sort of state that could be in play if — if — the polls showing a big Biden lead nationally right now are accurate .
Graham ’ s series of polite disagreements with Trump are his way of hedging against the not very likely but not impossible scenario in which things get even worse for the GOP this fall .
A 10-point national lead for the Democrat is about as bad as things can get realistically in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
South Carolina is red enough that Graham would still be a strong favorite if the election were held today , notwithstanding the difficulties Trump is having lately .
But if the economy sputters over the next few months and/or there ’ s a ferocious fall wave of COVID-19 , that ’ s when all proverbial bets are off .
However belatedly , Graham needs to fashion for himself a political identity more complicated than “ Trump lackey.
” Just in case .
The question is how far can he move away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs to turn out en masse for him .
Tim Miller dialed up a bunch of Republican consultants and asked them what the lay of the land looks like politically right now .
“ Really bad , ” came the reply , but with a catch .
Whereas with a normal politician a “ really bad ” outlook would lead politicians downballot to head for the lifeboats , in the Trump-era GOP heading for the lifeboats is an act of partisan treason .
The lifeboats will be sunk to punish the traitors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but to stay on the ship and hope that Trump keeps it afloat .
One consultant used a nautical metaphor himself to explain his predicament to Miller : “ There are two options , you can be on this hell ship or you can be in the water drowning.
” “ There are practical realities — we ran a bunch of red district primaries , and it would come back that the number one issue for 80+ % of Republican primary voters was loyalty to Donald Trump .
I ’ m not making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me… According to one : “ You have 25 % of the state [ Texas ] is rural and Trump gets like Saddam Hussein level numbers here .
87 % in 25 % of the state… [ John ] Cornyn gets 69 .
And so Cornyn can ’ t find a place to break from because he could really put that in jeopardy.
” And thus the polarizing nature of Trump makes it impossible for Cornyn to make a move that helps him in the swingy suburbs without risking the floor falling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This same calculus pervades no matter the race , no matter the district , no matter the geography : The operatives insist that the pro-Trump zealotry the president ’ s supporters demand makes it far more difficult for candidates to win over anyone else .
Graham has an impossible task , attempting to triangulate between swing voters on the one hand and a personality cult on the other .
All he can do , I think , is try to pick his spots in disagreeing with POTUS , be polite and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and hope that there ’ s enough residual goodwill towards him in South Carolina that some swing voters will split their tickets in his favor even if the bottom falls out for Trump nationally .
That ’ s what he ’ s doing now , trying to shore up some of that goodwill where he can .
Here he is yesterday via RCP defending Bubba Wallace from Trump ’ s criticism .

He’s not running away, just inching away. Running away from Trump in a state as red as SC would be politically suicidal.
But he does seem to have discovered a bit of an independent streak over the past few weeks, coincidentally following his victory in the state’s Senate primary.
Is Lindsey hedging his bets this fall in … South Carolina?
Since June 20, Graham has blocked a Trump U.S. attorney nominee, criticized Trump’s decision to put a temporary freeze on visas for foreign workers, split with the president about face masks during the coronavirus pandemic and pressed the administration for information about alleged Russian bounties on American soldiers. Monday, Graham was at odds with Trump after the president alleged in a Twitter post that an apparent noose found last month in the Talladega Superspeedway garage of Bubba Wallace, NASCAR’s only Black full-time driver, was a “HOAX,” and called on Wallace to apologize to his NASCAR colleagues… Graham’s recent rebuffs of Trump could be an attempt to “have some limited amount of distance from the president” in order to maintain support from groups — like suburban voters — who have “soured” on Trump, according to Kyle Kondik, managing editor of the nonpartisan political newsletter Sabato’s Crystal Ball.
The most surprising item on that list was his move to block Trump’s and Barr’s installation of SEC commissioner Jay Clayton as the new U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York. He didn’t just thwart the president in that case, he handed veto power over Clayton’s nomination to Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand by insisting on following the Judiciary Committee’s “blue slip policy” on nominees. Given all the probes the SDNY is running of Trump allies, that decision could potentially have serious political consequences.
I don’t think Graham’s very worried about losing South Carolina. But he’s a little worried:
Huge number: Jaime Harrison raised $13.9 million in Q2 He’s the Democratic challenger to Senator Lindsey Graham in South Carolina. — Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) July 7, 2020
$14 million in a quarter is a big number in a Senate race. Not “Beto O’Rourke big,” but big enough to show that Democrats nationally are highly motivated to defeat Graham for his servility towards Trump over the past four years and are willing to keep pouring fuel into Harrison’s tank in a longshot bid to make it happen. To put that number in context, Harrison outraised Graham in the first quarter of this year when he took in … $7.3 million. He nearly doubled that amount over the past three months. If Trump’s national polling slips further and surveys out of SC suggest Harrison has a glimmer of hope against Graham this fall, I wonder if he might not double his money again in the third quarter.
Does Harrison have a glimmer of hope? If so, it’s just the barest glimmer. But one of the few polls taken of South Carolina over the past few months had he and Graham tied at 42 in late May. That’s hard to believe, but if the race really was competitive-ish at the time, it’s surely even more competitive today after Trump’s job approval slipped nationally over the past month. (One survey of South Carolina has the president at a mere 50/47 approval there.) Nate Cohn says SC is exactly the sort of state that could be in play if — if — the polls showing a big Biden lead nationally right now are accurate.
Consider this: In '18, the Democrats gained about 5 pts over Clinton's '16 margin in the popular vote. If Biden was up 12, hypothetically (!), that's another 5 points further. That's enough to draw another tier of states to the brink of competitiveness — Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) July 7, 2020
Those estimates added up to Trump approval at -10 among RVs. He's probably a net-5 points further back right now. So it's pretty likely that, today, the president's approval rating is underwater in several of those states. — Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) July 7, 2020
Graham’s series of polite disagreements with Trump are his way of hedging against the not very likely but not impossible scenario in which things get even worse for the GOP this fall. A 10-point national lead for the Democrat is about as bad as things can get realistically in an age of hyperpartisanship, one would think. South Carolina is red enough that Graham would still be a strong favorite if the election were held today, notwithstanding the difficulties Trump is having lately. But if the economy sputters over the next few months and/or there’s a ferocious fall wave of COVID-19, that’s when all proverbial bets are off. However belatedly, Graham needs to fashion for himself a political identity more complicated than “Trump lackey.” Just in case.
The question is how far can he move away from the president without alienating the MAGA voters he needs to turn out en masse for him. Tim Miller dialed up a bunch of Republican consultants and asked them what the lay of the land looks like politically right now. “Really bad,” came the reply, but with a catch. Whereas with a normal politician a “really bad” outlook would lead politicians downballot to head for the lifeboats, in the Trump-era GOP heading for the lifeboats is an act of partisan treason. The lifeboats will be sunk to punish the traitors. People like Graham have no choice but to stay on the ship and hope that Trump keeps it afloat.
One consultant used a nautical metaphor himself to explain his predicament to Miller: “There are two options, you can be on this hell ship or you can be in the water drowning.”
“There are practical realities — we ran a bunch of red district primaries, and it would come back that the number one issue for 80+% of Republican primary voters was loyalty to Donald Trump. I’m not making that number up,” a respondent told me… According to one: “You have 25% of the state [Texas] is rural and Trump gets like Saddam Hussein level numbers here. 87% in 25% of the state… [John] Cornyn gets 69. And so Cornyn can’t find a place to break from because he could really put that in jeopardy.” And thus the polarizing nature of Trump makes it impossible for Cornyn to make a move that helps him in the swingy suburbs without risking the floor falling out from under him in West Texas. This same calculus pervades no matter the race, no matter the district, no matter the geography: The operatives insist that the pro-Trump zealotry the president’s supporters demand makes it far more difficult for candidates to win over anyone else.
Graham has an impossible task, attempting to triangulate between swing voters on the one hand and a personality cult on the other. All he can do, I think, is try to pick his spots in disagreeing with POTUS, be polite and as uncritical as possible in articulating that disagreement, and hope that there’s enough residual goodwill towards him in South Carolina that some swing voters will split their tickets in his favor even if the bottom falls out for Trump nationally. That’s what he’s doing now, trying to shore up some of that goodwill where he can.
Here he is yesterday via RCP defending Bubba Wallace from Trump’s criticism.