hotair--2020-06-15--Celebrities to Biden: America's got a racial-injustice fevah and the only cure is more ... Warren?

Has Elizabeth Warren gone from Fauxcahontas to Don She-xote ?
One would think that the current political moment , especially on the Left , might give pause to a politician of pallor making a public display of her desire to climb aboard the Democratic ticket .
That might be especially true considering Warren ’ s somewhat nuanced history of claiming minority status to advance her career .
Nevertheless , she persists , and she ’ s not alone .
Today ’ s Washington Post reports that Warren ’ s allies have organized a campaign to convince Joe Biden to add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baggage exceeds his own .
That includes a few celebrities last seen demanding change under the Black Lives Matter banner : More than 100 liberal activists , leaders and celebrities signed a letter urging Joe Biden to select Sen. Elizabeth Warren as his running mate , intensifying pressure on the presumptive Democratic nominee from the left as he faces competing demands to pick a black woman .
The letter portrays Warren ( D-Mass . )
as the best prepared prospect to serve as president and one uniquely capable of helping Biden politically in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is “ already strong ” among nonwhite voters but could use help winning over disaffected voters who acked Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) in the primary — even as some of them have soured on Warren .
“ A crisis election as big as 1932 requires a big running mate .
So why not the best ?
” says the letter , which bears the names of an array of left-leaning figures ranging from actress Jane Fonda to leading activists such as Ady Barkan and Charles Chamberlain .
It adds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared to be President if the occasion arises and deeply expert on the overlapping emergencies now plaguing America — Covid-19 , Economic Insecurity , Racial Injustice and Climate Change.
” Ahem .
Is this the same woman described by the popular Breakfast Club show as “ the original Rachel Dolezal “ ?
Just to recap , Warren spent years claiming Native American heritage without any evidence whatsoever except “ family lore , ” which wouldn ’ t have been so objectionable except that she used it to advance her career .
After getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to admit she lied , even taking the ultimately disastrous step of a DNA test .
Not only do those have notorious issues regarding Native American ancestry , it obliterates the agency tribes have to identify and enroll those with specific Native American genealogy .
Warren ended up apologizing for the DNA test and eventually copping to blowing smoke on her heritage all along .
If cultural appropriation and exploiting set-asides meant for the genuinely disadvantaged qualifies one as an expert on “ Racial Injustice , ” maybe Biden ’ s better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least Dolezal hasn ’ t lied about where her child went to school , about being fired over a pregnancy , or claimed Bernie Sanders made sexist remarks to her to get her to withdraw from the primary .
Dolezal has arguably less baggage — and at least some time running a local chapter of the NAACP .
For both , anyway , it seems like an awkward time for a white woman to demand priority on the running-mate slot over women of color , on the basis of … superiority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Washington Post , Biden ’ s pool of shortlisted contenders for the slot mainly consists of women of color , although that could change too : Among the candidates who have progressed to the point of more comprehensive vetting or have the potential to do so are Sen. Kamala D. Harris ( D-Calif. ) , Rep. Val Demings ( D-Fla. ) , former national security adviser Susan E. Rice and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms , all of whom are black .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as is New Mexico Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham , who is Latina .
The pool of prospects remains fluid , and some close Biden allies suggested other contenders could also face the more intensive vetting process .
The people describing the situation spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive private conversations and an evolving search process .
The Biden campaign declined to comment .
Biden has vowed to choose a woman , and Biden has repeatedly stressed that he wants a running mate who is “ simpatico ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the one most qualified to take over the executive branch is the one with executive experience — Gov .
Lujan Grisham .
It ’ s not clear why the celebrities and other allies think Warren ’ s the most expert at that based on her track record as a law professor and then on two terms in the Senate , but it seems to have the same basis in fact as her expertise on “ racial injustice.
” Does Biden want to make himself look “ simpatico ” with Warren on her Fauxcahontas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , especially with his progressive wing demanding a woman of actual color on the ticket .
Besides , what does “ simpatico ” mean in this context ?
Let ’ s hope it doesn ’ t mean this , from Bad Teacher .
How much distance will Biden want from Warren ?
I ’ d say … a lot-ico .

Has Elizabeth Warren gone from Fauxcahontas to Don She-xote? One would think that the current political moment, especially on the Left, might give pause to a politician of pallor making a public display of her desire to climb aboard the Democratic ticket. That might be especially true considering Warren’s somewhat nuanced history of claiming minority status to advance her career.
Nevertheless, she persists, and she’s not alone. Today’s Washington Post reports that Warren’s allies have organized a campaign to convince Joe Biden to add the one person to the ticket whose baggage exceeds his own. That includes a few celebrities last seen demanding change under the Black Lives Matter banner:
More than 100 liberal activists, leaders and celebrities signed a letter urging Joe Biden to select Sen. Elizabeth Warren as his running mate, intensifying pressure on the presumptive Democratic nominee from the left as he faces competing demands to pick a black woman. The letter portrays Warren (D-Mass.) as the best prepared prospect to serve as president and one uniquely capable of helping Biden politically in the November election. It asserts that he is “already strong” among nonwhite voters but could use help winning over disaffected voters who acked Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the primary — even as some of them have soured on Warren. “A crisis election as big as 1932 requires a big running mate. So why not the best?” says the letter, which bears the names of an array of left-leaning figures ranging from actress Jane Fonda to leading activists such as Ady Barkan and Charles Chamberlain. It adds, “Elizabeth Warren has proven herself most prepared to be President if the occasion arises and deeply expert on the overlapping emergencies now plaguing America — Covid-19, Economic Insecurity, Racial Injustice and Climate Change.”
Ahem. Is this the same woman described by the popular Breakfast Club show as “the original Rachel Dolezal“? Just to recap, Warren spent years claiming Native American heritage without any evidence whatsoever except “family lore,” which wouldn’t have been so objectionable except that she used it to advance her career. After getting called out on it repeatedly, Warren refused to admit she lied, even taking the ultimately disastrous step of a DNA test. Not only do those have notorious issues regarding Native American ancestry, it obliterates the agency tribes have to identify and enroll those with specific Native American genealogy. Warren ended up apologizing for the DNA test and eventually copping to blowing smoke on her heritage all along.
If cultural appropriation and exploiting set-asides meant for the genuinely disadvantaged qualifies one as an expert on “Racial Injustice,” maybe Biden’s better off with the real Rachel Dolezal. At least Dolezal hasn’t lied about where her child went to school, about being fired over a pregnancy, or claimed Bernie Sanders made sexist remarks to her to get her to withdraw from the primary. Dolezal has arguably less baggage — and at least some time running a local chapter of the NAACP.
For both, anyway, it seems like an awkward time for a white woman to demand priority on the running-mate slot over women of color, on the basis of … superiority, shall we say? And according to the Washington Post, Biden’s pool of shortlisted contenders for the slot mainly consists of women of color, although that could change too:
Among the candidates who have progressed to the point of more comprehensive vetting or have the potential to do so are Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), former national security adviser Susan E. Rice and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, all of whom are black. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is white, is also in that group, as is New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who is Latina. The pool of prospects remains fluid, and some close Biden allies suggested other contenders could also face the more intensive vetting process. The people describing the situation spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive private conversations and an evolving search process. The Biden campaign declined to comment. Biden has vowed to choose a woman, and Biden has repeatedly stressed that he wants a running mate who is “simpatico” with him.
Of all the above, the one most qualified to take over the executive branch is the one with executive experience — Gov. Lujan Grisham. It’s not clear why the celebrities and other allies think Warren’s the most expert at that based on her track record as a law professor and then on two terms in the Senate, but it seems to have the same basis in fact as her expertise on “racial injustice.”
Does Biden want to make himself look “simpatico” with Warren on her Fauxcahontas follies and other baggage? Almost certainly not, especially with his progressive wing demanding a woman of actual color on the ticket. Besides, what does “simpatico” mean in this context? Let’s hope it doesn’t mean this, from Bad Teacher. How much distance will Biden want from Warren? I’d say … a lot-ico.


hotair--2020-06-15--Surgisphere, the company behind the retracted hydroxychloroquine study, is no more

Remember Surgisphere ?
That was the name of the company that allegedly gathered data from hundreds of hospitals around the world and subsequently published a research paper claiming people treated with hydroxychloroquine were more likely to die than those who were not .
That paper made international news at the time , but dozens of doctors questioned the credibility of its data .
The paper was eventually retracted and , as of today , it appears Surgisphere is no more : Indeed , if you click on Surgisphere ’ s website you just get a message saying “ This Site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Lancet , the journal that published the study , to question the validity of the research , Surgisphere claimed it could provide all of the data to back up its claims .
But things took a turn when the Guardian revealed some of the company ’ s staff had rather unusual resumes .
Lancet launched an independent peer review of the paper but when it came time for Surgisphere to put its cards on the table , it balked : Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements .
As such , our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process… Based on this development , we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources .
Due to this unfortunate development , the authors request that the paper be retracted .
Last week the Guardian published a follow-up report on Dr Sapan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lead author of the retracted paper .
He has had dozens of other papers published over the years , all of which are now receiving additional scrutiny : • Major institutions including Stanford University , which were described as research partners on the Surgisphere website , said they were not aware of any formal relationship with the company .
• A study that formed the basis of Desai ’ s PhD may contain doctored images , according to expert claims , and the global medical publishing company Elsevier is conducting a review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Claims made by Desai about his qualifications gained since his medical degree have been called into doubt , including his claims to hold two PhDs , a master ’ s , and affiliations with major universities and colleges .
Some of these affiliations have now been removed from his website and online profiles .
It looks like Dr. Desai ’ s entire history is full of fraudulent claims .
His Wikipedia page was flagged 10 years ago because people noticed many of the claims about him were sourced to his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy made international news that doctors who knew better noticed there was a problem .
The result is not just the retraction of one paper but at least three so far and probably many more to come .
Add to that the collapse of his company and significant damage to the reputations of everyone involved , including Lancet which should never have published this in the first place .

Remember Surgisphere? That was the name of the company that allegedly gathered data from hundreds of hospitals around the world and subsequently published a research paper claiming people treated with hydroxychloroquine were more likely to die than those who were not. That paper made international news at the time, but dozens of doctors questioned the credibility of its data. The paper was eventually retracted and, as of today, it appears Surgisphere is no more:
of the sad demise of the second most innovative company in medical research. — Prof Darrel Francis ☺ Mk CardioFellows Great Again (@ProfDFrancis) June 15, 2020
Source: https://t.co/CUKXaU4t2H — Prof Darrel Francis ☺ Mk CardioFellows Great Again (@ProfDFrancis) June 15, 2020
Let me be the first to say, "Good riddance, bullshitters." — Prof Darrel Francis ☺ Mk CardioFellows Great Again (@ProfDFrancis) June 15, 2020
Indeed, if you click on Surgisphere’s website you just get a message saying “This Site Is Suspended.”
When doctors initially wrote to Lancet, the journal that published the study, to question the validity of the research, Surgisphere claimed it could provide all of the data to back up its claims. But things took a turn when the Guardian revealed some of the company’s staff had rather unusual resumes.
A search of publicly available material suggests several of Surgisphere’s employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist whose professional profile suggests writing is her fulltime job.Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess, who also acts in videos for organisations.
Lancet launched an independent peer review of the paper but when it came time for Surgisphere to put its cards on the table, it balked:
Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process… Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.
Last week the Guardian published a follow-up report on Dr Sapan Desai, the founder of Surgisphere and the lead author of the retracted paper. He has had dozens of other papers published over the years, all of which are now receiving additional scrutiny:
Major institutions including Stanford University, which were described as research partners on the Surgisphere website, said they were not aware of any formal relationship with the company.
A study that formed the basis of Desai’s PhD may contain doctored images, according to expert claims, and the global medical publishing company Elsevier is conducting a review of his papers published in its journals.
Claims made by Desai about his qualifications gained since his medical degree have been called into doubt, including his claims to hold two PhDs, a master’s, and affiliations with major universities and colleges. Some of these affiliations have now been removed from his website and online profiles.
It looks like Dr. Desai’s entire history is full of fraudulent claims. His Wikipedia page was flagged 10 years ago because people noticed many of the claims about him were sourced to his own website.
It was only when this guy made international news that doctors who knew better noticed there was a problem. The result is not just the retraction of one paper but at least three so far and probably many more to come. Add to that the collapse of his company and significant damage to the reputations of everyone involved, including Lancet which should never have published this in the first place.


hotair--2020-06-15--Shocker: Los Angeles seeing more "medical" facemask robberies

Raise your hands if you saw this one coming .
Out in Southern California , residents are still under orders to wear facemasks when going out in public .
( Unless you are protesting , looting or committing arson , of course .
Then you can do what you like . )
Most of the people seem to be paying heed to these instructions , at least for now .
But one group of specific people seem to be really on board with the policy .
That would be the ones committing robberies .
In Santa Ana , just south @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been a rather drastic spike in robberies of small businesses and the owners are curbing their hours of operation in response .
( CBS Los Angeles ) Pointing a gun right at a gas station clerk , a man in a traffic vest and a ball cap demanded money as his accomplice , wearing a mask , grabbed the cash .
“ We ’ re sitting here not knowing who ’ s going to walk through that door , ” Elias Khawan , the owner , said .
The thieves , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s suspicion due to local orders for face coverings in light of the coronavirus pandemic , took off in a silver Nissan Altima last Friday at 2 a.m. Khawan said he has never seen anything like it the 17 years he ’ s run his Santa Ana gas station and convenience store .
He said local face covering requirements put his staff in danger .
Mr. Khawan used to run his gas station and convenience store 24/7 .
Now he closes the business every night at 10 o ’ clock , reopening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut his revenue by 25 % , but his workers refuse to report for the overnight shift out of fear of armed robbers and Khawan says he can ’ t really blame them The City of Santa Ana has recorded a 50 % increase in armed robberies since the lockdown began and the facemask order went into effect .
This was confirmed for CBS by the Santa Ana Police Department .
The department said they weren ’ t “ certain ” what was driving the increase , but it might also be related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the local jails because of the COVID-19 epidemic .
There ’ s that “ empty the jails ” theme popping up again .
Lest you think this is some sort of local aberration , Southern California is hardly alone in experiencing this trend .
Newsweek ran a lengthy profile a few weeks ago of various locations where police are seeing the same thing .
It ’ s been happening in Pennsylvania , New Jersey , Connecticut and Arizona , among others .
In addition to masks , the cops note that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further and wearing latex gloves .
That ’ s a good way to avoid picking up the virus , but it ’ s also a very effective method of making sure you don ’ t leave any fingerprints behind .
So the jobs of police officers are getting progressively harder when trying to solve these robberies .
And that ’ s assuming that they even have the time to respond and investigate .
In too many cities , all of the cops are tied up handling the rioting and looting that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a banner year for crime , folks .

Raise your hands if you saw this one coming. Out in Southern California, residents are still under orders to wear facemasks when going out in public. (Unless you are protesting, looting or committing arson, of course. Then you can do what you like.) Most of the people seem to be paying heed to these instructions, at least for now. But one group of specific people seem to be really on board with the policy. That would be the ones committing robberies. In Santa Ana, just south of the City of Angels, there’s been a rather drastic spike in robberies of small businesses and the owners are curbing their hours of operation in response. (CBS Los Angeles)
Pointing a gun right at a gas station clerk, a man in a traffic vest and a ball cap demanded money as his accomplice, wearing a mask, grabbed the cash.
“We’re sitting here not knowing who’s going to walk through that door,” Elias Khawan, the owner, said. The thieves, who did not initially raise the clerk’s suspicion due to local orders for face coverings in light of the coronavirus pandemic, took off in a silver Nissan Altima last Friday at 2 a.m. Khawan said he has never seen anything like it the 17 years he’s run his Santa Ana gas station and convenience store. He said local face covering requirements put his staff in danger.
Mr. Khawan used to run his gas station and convenience store 24/7. Now he closes the business every night at 10 o’clock, reopening in the morning. The change has cut his revenue by 25%, but his workers refuse to report for the overnight shift out of fear of armed robbers and Khawan says he can’t really blame them
The City of Santa Ana has recorded a 50% increase in armed robberies since the lockdown began and the facemask order went into effect. This was confirmed for CBS by the Santa Ana Police Department. The department said they weren’t “certain” what was driving the increase, but it might also be related to all of the criminals being released from the local jails because of the COVID-19 epidemic. There’s that “empty the jails” theme popping up again.
Lest you think this is some sort of local aberration, Southern California is hardly alone in experiencing this trend. Newsweek ran a lengthy profile a few weeks ago of various locations where police are seeing the same thing. It’s been happening in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut and Arizona, among others. In addition to masks, the cops note that some of the criminals are going one step further and wearing latex gloves. That’s a good way to avoid picking up the virus, but it’s also a very effective method of making sure you don’t leave any fingerprints behind.
So the jobs of police officers are getting progressively harder when trying to solve these robberies. And that’s assuming that they even have the time to respond and investigate. In too many cities, all of the cops are tied up handling the rioting and looting that’s going on. This is turning out to be a banner year for crime, folks.


hotair--2020-06-15--State Dep't orders U.S. embassy in Korea to take down the "Black Lives Matter" banner from its build

State Dep't orders U.S. embassy in Korea to take down the "Black Lives Matter" banner from its building

“ Pompeo and Trump were both displeased about the banner , ” sources told Bloomberg .
I ’ ll bet .
The current U.S. ambassador to South Korea is an interesting figure , a man with sterling military credentials but whose views on certain social issues don ’ t always align with Trump ’ s or GOP orthodoxy .
I wonder how he got the job .
My guess is that it ’ s yet another case of the president assuming incorrectly that all military figures , especially the brass , are authoritarian and reactionary .
He loved having “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defense until he discovered Mattis ’ s more internationalist views on foreign policy .
( Hence Trump ’ s new nickname for him , “ Moderate Dog.
” ) Retired Adm. William McRaven , who planned the Bin Laden raid , has been a strident critic of Trump ’ s illiberal tendencies .
And we can only guess how shocked the president was a few weeks ago when his own Joint Chiefs chair , Mark Milley , reportedly strongly objected to using regular troops against looters following George Floyd ’ s death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a four-star admiral in the Navy before taking this new job .
He ’ s also a man who ’ s spoken passionately about progress in race relations : “ As an Asian American who was reared in the segregated South of the 1960s , I never thought I would see this happening again , especially in the 21st Century , ” he wrote recently about Floyd ’ s killing .
Last year his embassy flew the rainbow flag supporting gay rights during “ Pride Month ” despite a State Department order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag went up again this year — but it wasn ’ t alone : The ambassador himself tweeted approvingly of the gesture : As noted , the banner reportedly annoyed both of Harris ’ s bosses , but the reason given is interesting .
I would have thought Pompeo would say that it ’ s inappropriate for a U.S. diplomatic outpost to be seen as taking sides in any sort of political dispute here at home .
The embassy represents U.S. interests to the people of South Korea , it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that would have been a tricky position under the circumstances .
Critics would have said , “ Do you mean to imply that there are two sides on the question of whether black lives matter ?
Which side of that question are you on , Mr. Secretary ?
” It ’ s one thing for the embassy to advertise an official position on whether , say , taxes should be cut or raised on American citizens .
In that case they ’ d be meddling in a traditional domestic policy dispute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to advertise an official position on what are supposed to be generally agreed upon American values , such as whether racist double standards are proper or not .
There may well be two “ sides ” to that issue in practice but no politician in America would admit to it .
According to CNN , the State Department ’ s official reason for getting the banner taken down is “ the fact that Black Lives Matter is a non-profit organization and that the US government does not encourage contributions to the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , it ’ s not the message that black lives matter that supposedly bothered Pompeo and Trump .
It ’ s the fact that some people would take the banner as an endorsement of the organization Black Lives Matter .
More from WaPo : An embassy spokesman said U.S .
Ambassador Harry Harris , a retired Navy admiral , ordered it taken down to avoid the “ misperception ” that taxpayer dollars were used to support an organization .
“ The Ambassador decided to put the Black Lives Banner up to communicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with racism , especially racial violence against African Americans , ” the spokesman said .
“ He wanted to highlight the enduring American values of racial equality , freedom of speech , and the right to peacefully protest .
“ However , the Ambassador ’ s intent was not to support or encourage donations to any specific organization .
To avoid the misperception that American taxpayer dollars were spent to benefit such organizations , he directed that the banner be removed.
” They didn ’ t need to go that route .
Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one in the administration disagrees that black lives matter , there are in fact Democratic and Republican positions on police reform — and BLM is associated with the left .
Flying the BLM banner could thus be understood as support for a leftist agenda on contentious issues stemming from the death of Floyd , from defunding the police to ending qualified immunity .
It ’ s not a tendentious message generally , but in the context of the present political moment it is .
So … why didn ’ t he just say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken down today even though there ’ s no particular organization associated with that symbol .
Hmmm .
Question : If Harris hung a different banner expressing support for reform but taking care not to associate it with any particular group , would that be allowed ?
For instance , what about a banner that read , “ End Police Brutality ” ?
If that ’ s also too issue-specific in context , how about just “ Justice for Black Americans ” or something like that ?
I ’ ll leave you with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked about the Black Lives Matter “ movement.
” Majorities of all races and a sizable minority of Republicans say they at least somewhat support it .

“Pompeo and Trump were both displeased about the banner,” sources told Bloomberg. I’ll bet.
The current U.S. ambassador to South Korea is an interesting figure, a man with sterling military credentials but whose views on certain social issues don’t always align with Trump’s or GOP orthodoxy. I wonder how he got the job. My guess is that it’s yet another case of the president assuming incorrectly that all military figures, especially the brass, are authoritarian and reactionary. He loved having “Mad Dog” Mattis as his secretary of defense until he discovered Mattis’s more internationalist views on foreign policy. (Hence Trump’s new nickname for him, “Moderate Dog.”) Retired Adm. William McRaven, who planned the Bin Laden raid, has been a strident critic of Trump’s illiberal tendencies. And we can only guess how shocked the president was a few weeks ago when his own Joint Chiefs chair, Mark Milley, reportedly strongly objected to using regular troops against looters following George Floyd’s death.
Harry Harris, the ambassador, was a four-star admiral in the Navy before taking this new job. He’s also a man who’s spoken passionately about progress in race relations: “As an Asian American who was reared in the segregated South of the 1960s, I never thought I would see this happening again, especially in the 21st Century,” he wrote recently about Floyd’s killing. Last year his embassy flew the rainbow flag supporting gay rights during “Pride Month” despite a State Department order not to do so. The rainbow flag went up again this year — but it wasn’t alone:
The U.S. Embassy stands in solidarity with fellow Americans grieving and peacefully protesting to demand positive change. Our #BlackLivesMatter banner shows our support for the fight against racial injustice and police brutality as we strive to be a more inclusive & just society. pic.twitter.com/Y4Thr2MRdw — U.S. Embassy Seoul (@USEmbassySeoul) June 13, 2020
The ambassador himself tweeted approvingly of the gesture:
When Dr. Benjamin Mays delivered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s eulogy in 1968, he said Dr. King’s "unfinished work on earth must truly be our own." Recent weeks remind us that MLK’s work remains unfinished. Friends, I believe that work falls on each of us today. — Chargé d’Affaires Rob Rapson (@USAmbROK) June 13, 2020
As noted, the banner reportedly annoyed both of Harris’s bosses, but the reason given is interesting. I would have thought Pompeo would say that it’s inappropriate for a U.S. diplomatic outpost to be seen as taking sides in any sort of political dispute here at home. The embassy represents U.S. interests to the people of South Korea, it doesn’t comment from afar on American political developments. But that would have been a tricky position under the circumstances. Critics would have said, “Do you mean to imply that there are two sides on the question of whether black lives matter? Which side of that question are you on, Mr. Secretary?” It’s one thing for the embassy to advertise an official position on whether, say, taxes should be cut or raised on American citizens. In that case they’d be meddling in a traditional domestic policy dispute. It’s another thing for it to advertise an official position on what are supposed to be generally agreed upon American values, such as whether racist double standards are proper or not. There may well be two “sides” to that issue in practice but no politician in America would admit to it.
According to CNN, the State Department’s official reason for getting the banner taken down is “the fact that Black Lives Matter is a non-profit organization and that the US government does not encourage contributions to the group or promote any specific organization.” That is, it’s not the message that black lives matter that supposedly bothered Pompeo and Trump. It’s the fact that some people would take the banner as an endorsement of the organization Black Lives Matter. More from WaPo:
An embassy spokesman said U.S. Ambassador Harry Harris, a retired Navy admiral, ordered it taken down to avoid the “misperception” that taxpayer dollars were used to support an organization. “The Ambassador decided to put the Black Lives Banner up to communicate a message of solidarity with Americans concerned with racism, especially racial violence against African Americans,” the spokesman said. “He wanted to highlight the enduring American values of racial equality, freedom of speech, and the right to peacefully protest. “However, the Ambassador’s intent was not to support or encourage donations to any specific organization. To avoid the misperception that American taxpayer dollars were spent to benefit such organizations, he directed that the banner be removed.”
They didn’t need to go that route. Pompeo could have said instead that while no one in the administration disagrees that black lives matter, there are in fact Democratic and Republican positions on police reform — and BLM is associated with the left. Flying the BLM banner could thus be understood as support for a leftist agenda on contentious issues stemming from the death of Floyd, from defunding the police to ending qualified immunity. It’s not a tendentious message generally, but in the context of the present political moment it is.
So … why didn’t he just say that?
The rainbow flag was also taken down today even though there’s no particular organization associated with that symbol. Hmmm. Question: If Harris hung a different banner expressing support for reform but taking care not to associate it with any particular group, would that be allowed? For instance, what about a banner that read, “End Police Brutality”? If that’s also too issue-specific in context, how about just “Justice for Black Americans” or something like that?
I’ll leave you with this new data from Pew, which asked about the Black Lives Matter “movement.” Majorities of all races and a sizable minority of Republicans say they at least somewhat support it.


hotair--2020-06-15--Why the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone gave itself a new name <span class='red'>(Update: Uber driver s

Why the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone gave itself a new name (Update: Uber driver says he had guns pointed at him)

When police retreated from the east precinct in Seattle last week , protesters set up barriers in the streets and announced it was now the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone ( CHAZ ) .
But over the weekend the organizers decided to change the name from CHAZ to Capitol Hill Organized Protest or CHOP .
The new name hasn ’ t been adopted by everyone yet but there ’ s a specific reason the protesters wanted the word autonomous to be dropped .
They realized that if they ’ re really autonomous , they can ’ t make demands on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders of the protest in Capitol Hill , including one protestor named Maurice Cola , met on June 13 to create a new name for the area : Capitol Hill Organized Protest or CHOP… Cola said naming the space “ CHAZ ” implies it is no longer a part of the U.S. That ’ s problematic , Cola argued , as he fears those in government may defend the use of greater force to remove protestors by calling them occupiers or antifa .
Cola also said that the name poses potential problems in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the day it can ’ t be an autonomous zone if we ’ re still demanding things from the government , because that would mean we ’ re seceding from their establishment entirely , ” Cola said .
“ None of us have denounced our American citizenship and we demand that they pay the fee.
” So they want it clear that they are not seceding because they want stuff .
And as I pointed out previously , they want a lot of stuff .
The published list of demands not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts , there ’ s also a list of economic demands starting with rent control .
• We demand the de-gentrification of Seattle , starting with rent control .
• We demand the restoration of city funding for arts and culture to re-establish the once-rich local cultural identity of Seattle .
• We demand free college for the people of the state of Washington , due to the overwhelming effect that education has on economic success , and the correlated overwhelming impact of poverty on people of color , as a form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in this state and country .
They don ’ t want autonomy because that would mean they ’ d be responsible for delivering something .
Instead they want to make demands and have someone else pay for everything .
I ’ m betting a high percentage of CHAZ/CHOP residents are Bernie Sanders supporters .
Meanwhile , back in the real world , police are still considering how to re-enter the east precinct without stirring up the protesters .
At least one Seattle police officer has had enough .
Here ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week : I ’ ve been punched , spit on , hit with rocks , a few glass bottles , and blown up twice in the last 10 days ( IED thrown at me by rioters that tore the leather on my Danner boots ) .
I ’ ve also hit and/or sprayed more people in that time than in the previous [ several years ] of my career .
The damage done to community trust will take a decade to un- [ expletive ] ( technical term ) .
I love the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I ’ m done .
I was used as cannon fodder , then blamed for inciting the violence .
I ’ ve visited fellow officers in the hospital and we have 45 out on injuries , but the narrative is the crowds were non-violent and cops are the problem .
I was there .
Every day but one .
On the front .
That ’ s not how it was .
It ’ ll take a few months , but I ’ m leaving SPD and I ’ m completely devastated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this city to reform than anywhere else in the country and done it without complaint .
We are , or at least were , one of the most reformed , professional departments in the history of this country but I ’ m done .
Seattle ’ s police chief initially seemed to get why her officers were so upset .
Last week she released a video saying she was angry about the decision to leave the precinct and that it wasn ’ t her decision .
But yesterday during an appearance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ singing a different tune .
Best attended a Black Lives Matter march in the area and recalled witnessing many demonstrators who carried signs calling for an end to police brutality and changes to qualified immunity .
“ I know standing there watching and listening that we ’ re going to change in policing .
We have to .
It has to be a movement that involves everybody , ” she said .
I guess we ’ ll see how much the police department in Seattle gets defunded and how many cops decide it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day before that happens .
In the meantime , the CHAZ/CHOP fantasy utopia where everything is free continues .
How much longer can this go on ?
Update : This Uber driver claims two guards pulled guns on him when he pulled up to CHAZ/CHOP for a fare .
The end of the same story from a different angle where you can see the driver talking .
Will this guy be on CNN anytime soon ?

When police retreated from the east precinct in Seattle last week, protesters set up barriers in the streets and announced it was now the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ). But over the weekend the organizers decided to change the name from CHAZ to Capitol Hill Organized Protest or CHOP. The new name hasn’t been adopted by everyone yet but there’s a specific reason the protesters wanted the word autonomous to be dropped. They realized that if they’re really autonomous, they can’t make demands on the government.
Roughly 10 to 15 informal leaders of the protest in Capitol Hill, including one protestor named Maurice Cola, met on June 13 to create a new name for the area: Capitol Hill Organized Protest or CHOP… Cola said naming the space “CHAZ” implies it is no longer a part of the U.S. That’s problematic, Cola argued, as he fears those in government may defend the use of greater force to remove protestors by calling them occupiers or antifa. Cola also said that the name poses potential problems in terms of reparations. “At the end of the day it can’t be an autonomous zone if we’re still demanding things from the government, because that would mean we’re seceding from their establishment entirely,” Cola said. “None of us have denounced our American citizenship and we demand that they pay the fee.”
So they want it clear that they are not seceding because they want stuff. And as I pointed out previously, they want a lot of stuff. The published list of demands not only includes disbanding the police department and the courts, there’s also a list of economic demands starting with rent control.
We demand the de-gentrification of Seattle, starting with rent control. We demand the restoration of city funding for arts and culture to re-establish the once-rich local cultural identity of Seattle. We demand free college for the people of the state of Washington, due to the overwhelming effect that education has on economic success, and the correlated overwhelming impact of poverty on people of color, as a form of reparations for the treatment of Black people in this state and country.
They don’t want autonomy because that would mean they’d be responsible for delivering something. Instead they want to make demands and have someone else pay for everything. I’m betting a high percentage of CHAZ/CHOP residents are Bernie Sanders supporters.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, police are still considering how to re-enter the east precinct without stirring up the protesters. At least one Seattle police officer has had enough. Here’s an email he sent to Jason Rantz last week:
I’ve been punched, spit on, hit with rocks, a few glass bottles, and blown up twice in the last 10 days (IED thrown at me by rioters that tore the leather on my Danner boots). I’ve also hit and/or sprayed more people in that time than in the previous [several years] of my career. The damage done to community trust will take a decade to un-[expletive] (technical term). I love the city that I was born in, but I’m done. I was used as cannon fodder, then blamed for inciting the violence. I’ve visited fellow officers in the hospital and we have 45 out on injuries, but the narrative is the crowds were non-violent and cops are the problem. I was there. Every day but one. On the front. That’s not how it was. It’ll take a few months, but I’m leaving SPD and I’m completely devastated by that. We’ve done more in this city to reform than anywhere else in the country and done it without complaint. We are, or at least were, one of the most reformed, professional departments in the history of this country but I’m done.
Seattle’s police chief initially seemed to get why her officers were so upset. Last week she released a video saying she was angry about the decision to leave the precinct and that it wasn’t her decision. But yesterday during an appearance on Face the Nation she seemed to be singing a different tune.
Best attended a Black Lives Matter march in the area and recalled witnessing many demonstrators who carried signs calling for an end to police brutality and changes to qualified immunity. “I know standing there watching and listening that we’re going to change in policing. We have to. It has to be a movement that involves everybody,” she said.
I guess we’ll see how much the police department in Seattle gets defunded and how many cops decide it’s time to call it a day before that happens. In the meantime, the CHAZ/CHOP fantasy utopia where everything is free continues. How much longer can this go on?
Update: This Uber driver claims two guards pulled guns on him when he pulled up to CHAZ/CHOP for a fare.
BREAKING: “they [CHAZ border guards] both pulled out guns & put them to my f*cking head” Says an @Uber driver in Seattle waiting for a pickup outside the Autonomous Zone Guards: “just get the f*ck out of here” Care to comment @MayorJenny, @GovInslee, @realDonaldTrump & @Uber? pic.twitter.com/7htHQRtGco — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) June 15, 2020
The end of the same story from a different angle where you can see the driver talking.
Another angle of the story posted by a fellow reporter I work with https://t.co/vGm46StdeM https://t.co/7hmf8zUxsu — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) June 15, 2020
Will this guy be on CNN anytime soon?


hotair--2020-06-15--NYC contact tracers told: Don't ask people if they've attended protests

It ’ s verrrrry hard to understand why a public health bureau fighting a pandemic wouldn ’ t want every last bit of information it can glean from people who are infected .
More knowledge means better detection , which means a more nimble response to isolating developing hot spots .
And it ’ s verrrrry suspicious that this willful blindness is occurring in the broader context of left-wing politicians applying a brazen , politically motivated double standard about which mass gatherings are justified and which aren ’ t .
If I were a cynic , I ’ d suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that transmissions are happening at anti-racist protests because they fear it ’ s true .
If contact tracers don ’ t bother gathering information about the protests then any rise in cases in NYC in the coming weeks can ( and will ) be blamed on businesses reopening .
If they do gather evidence proving that the protests were responsible , the protests — and potentially their cause — might draw a backlash .
Forced to choose between good science and political orthodoxy , the city has made its choice .
Come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cynic : The hundreds of contact tracing workers hired by the city under de Blasio ’ s new “ test and trace ” campaign have been instructed not to ask anyone who ’ s tested positive for COVID-19 whether they recently attended a demonstration , City Hall confirmed to THE CITY .
“ No person will be asked proactively if they attended a protest , ” Avery Cohen , a spokesperson for de Blasio , wrote in an emailed response to questions by THE CITY… There ’ s no direct effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Andrew Cuomo have asked repeatedly since the demonstrations against police brutality erupted following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police : Are the protests helping spread the virus ?
“ That ’ s the one variable in this equation that we ’ re not sure of : We don ’ t know what the effect of those protests are , ” Cuomo said last week .
By Cuomo ’ s own admission , the effect of the protests on transmission is the singular blind spot that health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now .
And rather than try to cure it , they ’ re willing to preserve it .
Add this to the long and still-growing list of garbage policy decisions by the state and city that made New York ’ s coronavirus response much worse than it needed to be .
City officials note in their defense that people interviewed by contact tracers are free to volunteer that they attended a protest .
And some of the general questions they ’ re being asked — e.g.
, have you been within six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes over the last few weeks ?
— should lead them to answer with the names of friends whom they were with while protesting .
But not everyone will volunteer the information .
And without knowing that a chain of transmission happened at a protest , specifically , authorities can ’ t warn strangers who might have been exposed .
For instance , imagine if they were able to piece together that a cluster of infections originated at a particular street or in a particular area of a mass demonstration .
The general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who attended the protest and were in that area encouraged to come forward and get tested .
The strongest argument against asking people if they ’ ve attended a protest is that some might grow suspicious of the motives of city officials in wanting to know that they were out demonstrating against police brutality .
“ [ C ] ontact tracing requires a strong level of trust between the interviewer and the person they ’ re talking to , ” said one expert to The City .
Right , but the urgency in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission should trump that concern .
The worst that can happen if you ask someone if they ’ ve attended a protest lately is that they lie or refuse to answer .
Most will probably tell the truth since everyone understands the health risk involved at this point ; witness how many demonstrators have been wearing masks while marching .
If the protests are driving outbreaks , the public needs to know that immediately so that they can avoid further exposure or at least change their protest tactics to avoid the sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Brooklyn : On the other hand , it ’ s an open question at this point whether people in New York or elsewhere actually would adjust their behavior if contact tracers provided that the protests are driving infections .
It ’ s perfectly clear by now that early reopening in states like Texas and Arizona has led to worsening epidemics in those states , yet social media was teeming this weekend with anecdotal reports from across the country of people carrying on as if there were no virus .
Some New Yorkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literally : Cuomo threatened to start locking things down again after the state received more than 25,000 ( ! )
complaints of businesses violating social-distancing rules in serving customers , but he ’ s kidding himself .
The public won ’ t stand for it .
The double standard is too glaring .
Some business owners and consumers will ignore him , and if he ’ s heavy-handed about forcing closures , the voters will turn on him .
A embarrassingly large and stupid chunk of our national population has decided that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most precautions against infection too .
The only thing that ’ s going to affect their calculus is a new wave of the disease .
Which , ironically , the City ’ s contact tracers are enabling by not arming themselves with all available information from patients to try to contain the virus .
I ’ ll leave you with this , a fun little candygram reminder of just how terrible New York ’ s political leadership is .

It’s verrrrry hard to understand why a public health bureau fighting a pandemic wouldn’t want every last bit of information it can glean from people who are infected. More knowledge means better detection, which means a more nimble response to isolating developing hot spots.
And it’s verrrrry suspicious that this willful blindness is occurring in the broader context of left-wing politicians applying a brazen, politically motivated double standard about which mass gatherings are justified and which aren’t.
If I were a cynic, I’d suspect that the city doesn’t want evidence that transmissions are happening at anti-racist protests because they fear it’s true. If contact tracers don’t bother gathering information about the protests then any rise in cases in NYC in the coming weeks can (and will) be blamed on businesses reopening. If they do gather evidence proving that the protests were responsible, the protests — and potentially their cause — might draw a backlash. Forced to choose between good science and political orthodoxy, the city has made its choice.
Come to think of it, I am a cynic:
The hundreds of contact tracing workers hired by the city under de Blasio’s new “test and trace” campaign have been instructed not to ask anyone who’s tested positive for COVID-19 whether they recently attended a demonstration, City Hall confirmed to THE CITY. “No person will be asked proactively if they attended a protest,” Avery Cohen, a spokesperson for de Blasio, wrote in an emailed response to questions by THE CITY… There’s no direct effort to resolve a question both de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo have asked repeatedly since the demonstrations against police brutality erupted following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police: Are the protests helping spread the virus? “That’s the one variable in this equation that we’re not sure of: We don’t know what the effect of those protests are,” Cuomo said last week.
By Cuomo’s own admission, the effect of the protests on transmission is the singular blind spot that health officials in New York are coping with right now. And rather than try to cure it, they’re willing to preserve it. Add this to the long and still-growing list of garbage policy decisions by the state and city that made New York’s coronavirus response much worse than it needed to be.
City officials note in their defense that people interviewed by contact tracers are free to volunteer that they attended a protest. And some of the general questions they’re being asked — e.g., have you been within six feet of a particular person for 10 minutes over the last few weeks? — should lead them to answer with the names of friends whom they were with while protesting. But not everyone will volunteer the information. And without knowing that a chain of transmission happened at a protest, specifically, authorities can’t warn strangers who might have been exposed. For instance, imagine if they were able to piece together that a cluster of infections originated at a particular street or in a particular area of a mass demonstration. The general public could be alerted, with those who attended the protest and were in that area encouraged to come forward and get tested.
The strongest argument against asking people if they’ve attended a protest is that some might grow suspicious of the motives of city officials in wanting to know that they were out demonstrating against police brutality. “[C]ontact tracing requires a strong level of trust between the interviewer and the person they’re talking to,” said one expert to The City. Right, but the urgency in knowing whether the protests are vectors of transmission should trump that concern. The worst that can happen if you ask someone if they’ve attended a protest lately is that they lie or refuse to answer. Most will probably tell the truth since everyone understands the health risk involved at this point; witness how many demonstrators have been wearing masks while marching. If the protests are driving outbreaks, the public needs to know that immediately so that they can avoid further exposure or at least change their protest tactics to avoid the sort of ominous density that was seen last night in Brooklyn:
The #BlackTransLivesMatter protest in Brooklyn right now is stunning. pic.twitter.com/glDticAc4o — Joshua Potash (@JoshuaPotash) June 14, 2020
On the other hand, it’s an open question at this point whether people in New York or elsewhere actually would adjust their behavior if contact tracers provided that the protests are driving infections. It’s perfectly clear by now that early reopening in states like Texas and Arizona has led to worsening epidemics in those states, yet social media was teeming this weekend with anecdotal reports from across the country of people carrying on as if there were no virus. Some New Yorkers are letting it all hang out — literally:
Central Park sunbathers skip masks — and pants — in coronavirus defiance https://t.co/jyFaDL6hZI pic.twitter.com/lT5A5GIrMc — New York Post (@nypost) June 15, 2020
Cuomo threatened to start locking things down again after the state received more than 25,000(!) complaints of businesses violating social-distancing rules in serving customers, but he’s kidding himself. The public won’t stand for it. The double standard is too glaring. Some business owners and consumers will ignore him, and if he’s heavy-handed about forcing closures, the voters will turn on him. A embarrassingly large and stupid chunk of our national population has decided that the end of lockdowns means the end of most precautions against infection too. The only thing that’s going to affect their calculus is a new wave of the disease.
Which, ironically, the City’s contact tracers are enabling by not arming themselves with all available information from patients to try to contain the virus.
I’ll leave you with this, a fun little candygram reminder of just how terrible New York’s political leadership is.


hotair--2020-06-15--SCOTUS, 6-3: Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination by sex applies to orientation too; <sp

SCOTUS, 6-3: Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination by sex applies to orientation too; Update: "This was the hijacking of textualism"

Before today , NBC ’ s Pete Williams declared , “ it was possible to get married on Sunday and legally fired on Monday ” on the basis of sexual orientation .
That ’ s not actually true in most jurisdictions , but it makes for a dramatic frame for today ’ s blockbuster 6-3 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v Clayton County .
In the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch , the court ruled that the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also applies to sexual orientation : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a surprise , especially with most states passing similar rules over the last few years .
The author of the opinion comes as a bit of a surprise , however , as Neil Gorsuch has a reputation for flinty , conservative originalism .
One might have expected him to stick with a position that the textual reading of the CRA doesn ’ t support this opinion and ask Congress to act instead of the courts interpreting it .
Instead , Gorsuch writes that the CRA already has “ plain terms ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throws in some stare decisis to amplify it : ( 1 ) The parties concede that the term “ sex ” in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female .
And “ the ordinary meaning of ‘ because of ’ is ‘ by reason of ’ or ‘ on account of , ’ ” University of Tex .
Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar , 570 U. S. 338 , 350 .
That term incorporates the but-for causation standard , id.
, at 346 , 360 , which , for Title @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment action .
The term “ discriminate ” meant “ [ t ] o make a difference in treatment or favor ( of one as compared with others ) .
” Webster ’ s New International Dictionary 745 .
In so-called “ disparate treatment ” cases , this Court has held that the difference in treatment based on sex must be intentional .
See , e.g.
, Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust , 487 U. S. 977 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s repeated use of the term “ individual ” means that the focus is on “ [ a ] particular being as distinguished from a class.
” Webster ’ s New International Dictionary , at 1267 .
Pp .
4–9 .
( 2 ) These terms generate the following rule : An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex .
It makes no difference if other factors besides the plaintiff ’ s sex contributed to the decision or that the employer treated women as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men as a group .
A statutory violation occurs if an employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee ’ s sex when deciding to discharge the employee .
Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex , an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII .
There is no escaping the role intent plays : Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking .
Pp .
9–12 .
( b ) Three leading precedents confirm what the statute ’ s plain terms suggest .
In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. , 400 U. S. 542 , a company was held to have violated Title VII by refusing to hire women with young children , despite the fact that the discrimination also depended on being a parent of young children and the fact that the company favored hiring women over men .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Power v. Manhart , 435 U. S. 702 , an employer ’ s policy of requiring women to make larger pension fund contributions than men because women tend to live longer was held to violate Title VII , notwithstanding the policy ’ s evenhandedness between men and women as groups .
And in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services , Inc. , 523 U. S. 75 , a male plaintiff alleged a triable Title VII claim for sexual harassment by co-workers who were members of the same sex .
… ( c ) The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their employees for being homosexual or transgender .
Rather , they contend that even intentional discrimination against employees based on their homosexual or transgender status is not a basis for Title VII liability .
But their statutory text arguments have already been rejected by this Court ’ s precedents .
And none of their other contentions about what they think the law was meant to do , or should do , allow for ignoring the law as it is .
Again , after Obergefell , this seemed rather predictable on the basis of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the latter of which seemed to influence former Justice Anthony Kennedy the most on that case .
If one was to predict which members of the conservative wing might have ruled this way on Bostock , Chief Justice John Roberts might have been the first guess — and a correct one , as it turned out .
Kennedy ’ s protege Brett Kavanaugh voted against it , however , as did Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas .
Both Kavanaugh and Alito wrote dissents , with Thomas joining Alito ’ s opinion that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get to this decision .
In a lengthy dissertation complete with appendices , Alito hammers Gorsuch for eclipsing Congress by taking an action that the legislature has never approved : For the past 45 years , bills have been introduced in Congress to add “ sexual orientation ” to the list,1 and in recent years , bills have included “ gender identity ” as well.2 But to date , none has passed both Houses .
Last year , the House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend Title VII by defining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orientation ” and “ gender identity , ” H. R. 5 , 116th Cong.
, 1st Sess .
( 2019 ) , but the bill has stalled in the Senate .
An alternative bill , H. R. 5331 , 116th Cong.
, 1st Sess .
( 2019 ) , would add similar prohibitions but contains provisions to protect religious liberty.3 This bill remains before a House Subcommittee .
Because no such amendment of Title VII has been enacted in accordance with the requirements in the Constitution ( passage in both Houses and presentment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , §7 , cl .
2 ) , Title VII ’ s prohibition of discrimination because of “ sex ” still means what it has always meant .
But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties .
Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches , the Court has essentially taken H. R. 5 ’ s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation.4 A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall .
The Court tries to convince readers that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statute , but that is preposterous .
Even as understood today , the concept of discrimination because of “ sex ” is different from discrimination because of “ sexual orientation ” or “ gender identity.
” And in any event , our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “ mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.
” Alito has a very good point in this regard , which he spends well over a hundred pages beating into the ground .
The actions by Congress make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defect in the original statute , even if they haven ’ t mustered the political will to correct it .
Kavanaugh writes that this case comes down not to social justice , but to “ who decides ” — and writes that it shouldn ’ t be the courts : The policy arguments for amending Title VII are very weighty .
The Court has previously stated , and I fully agree , that gay and lesbian Americans “ can not be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rights Comm ’ n , 584 U. S. ___ , ___ ( 2018 ) ( slip op.
, at 9 ) .
But we are judges , not Members of Congress .
And in Alexander Hamilton ’ s words , federal judges exercise “ neither Force nor Will , but merely judgment.
” The Federalist No .
78 , p. 523 ( J. Cooke ed .
1961 ) .
Under the Constitution ’ s separation of powers , our role as judges is to interpret and follow the law as written , regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cf .
Texas v. Johnson , 491 U. S. 397 , 420–421 ( 1989 ) ( Kennedy , J. , concurring ) .
Our role is not to make or amend the law .
As written , Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation .
… Over time , Congress has enacted new employment discrimination laws .
In 1967 , Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act .
81 Stat .
602 .
In 1973 , Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Rehabilitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discrimination against federal and certain other employees .
87 Stat .
355 .
In 1990 , Congress passed and President George H. W. Bush signed the comprehensive Americans with Disabilities Act .
104 Stat .
327 .
To prohibit age discrimination and disability discrimination , this Court did not unilaterally rewrite or update the law .
Rather , Congress and the President enacted new legislation , as prescribed by the Constitution ’ s separation of powers .
It bears pointing out that most states have filled this gap as well when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few states have not , but that is not the provenance of the court no matter how much public policy should dictate otherwise .
Congress and the states have the authority to pass and amend laws , and as Kavanaugh correctly points out , they have done so in this particular sphere more than once .
This question should have been made by Congress , and could have been made by Congress at practically any time .
That system by which the governed create the rules by which they are governed is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for tough political decisions , even if the outcome seems mainly beneficial to society at that moment in time .
What about religious liberty ?
Will this provide a fulcrum for pursuing alleged discrimination by churches and religious schools ?
Gorsuch says no : Separately , the employers fear that complying with Title VII ’ s requirement in cases like ours may require some employers to violate their religious convictions .
We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution ; that guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society .
But worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious liberties are nothing new ; they even predate the statute ’ s passage .
As a result of its deliberations in adopting the law , Congress included an express statutory exception for religious organizations .
§2000e–1 ( a ) .
This Court has also recognized that the First Amendment can bar the application of employment discrimination laws “ to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.
” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 ) .
And Congress has gone a step further yet in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ( RFRA ) , 107 Stat .
1488 , codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq .
That statute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person ’ s exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmental interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest .
§2000bb–1 .
Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute , displacing the normal operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supersede Title VII ’ s commands in appropriate cases .
Alito , noting amici briefs in the case , is not so sanguine : Kavanaugh more or less concedes Gorsuch ’ s point in his second footnote , however .
His issues focus tightly on constitutional issues .
And , despite whatever good the outcome provides , that damage will continue to reverberate by incentivizing political cowardice on Capitol Hill for decades to come .
Gorsuch might have been better advised to stick to the textual approach .
Update : Judicial Crisis Network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and long support for Gorsuch in his confirmation bid , accused him and the other five justices of “ the hijacking of textualism ” : The practical outcome of this isn ’ t the issue , especially since it doesn ’ t really change much in most jurisdictions , thanks to action by state legislatures .
This should have been left to Congress to fix , though , and it perpetuates the mechanism of political hot potato that irresponsible politicians play to avoid taking tough votes .
Update : Or was it just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the winning argument ?
RCP ’ s Sean Trende defends the decision on the basis of textualism — and credits the plaintiffs for understanding the battleground : Read the whole thread , but Trende ’ s point about Roberts is especially interesting : That ’ s very interesting indeed .
Hat-tip to Alan Windham for the thread .

Before today, NBC’s Pete Williams declared, “it was possible to get married on Sunday and legally fired on Monday” on the basis of sexual orientation. That’s not actually true in most jurisdictions, but it makes for a dramatic frame for today’s blockbuster 6-3 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v Clayton County. In the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court ruled that the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also applies to sexual orientation:
BREAKING: "As of just a few minutes ago, it was possible to get married on Sunday and legally fired on Monday, but no more." @PeteWilliamsNBC reports on the US Supreme Court ruling that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. pic.twitter.com/xOmj6ro0Q2 — NBC News (@NBCNews) June 15, 2020
The decision doesn’t come as much of a surprise, especially with most states passing similar rules over the last few years. The author of the opinion comes as a bit of a surprise, however, as Neil Gorsuch has a reputation for flinty, conservative originalism. One might have expected him to stick with a position that the textual reading of the CRA doesn’t support this opinion and ask Congress to act instead of the courts interpreting it.
Instead, Gorsuch writes that the CRA already has “plain terms” that explain its applicability to orientation, and throws in some stare decisis to amplify it:
(1) The parties concede that the term “sex” in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female. And “the ordinary meaning of ‘because of’ is ‘by reason of’ or ‘on account of,’ ” University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U. S. 338, 350. That term incorporates the but-for causation standard, id., at 346, 360, which, for Title VII, means that a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment action. The term “discriminate” meant “[t]o make a difference in treatment or favor (of one as compared with others).” Webster’s New International Dictionary 745. In so-called “disparate treatment” cases, this Court has held that the difference in treatment based on sex must be intentional. See, e.g., Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U. S. 977, 986. And the statute’s repeated use of the term “individual” means that the focus is on “[a] particular being as distinguished from a class.” Webster’s New International Dictionary, at 1267. Pp. 4–9. (2) These terms generate the following rule: An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex. It makes no difference if other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision or that the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. A statutory violation occurs if an employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee. Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII. There is no escaping the role intent plays: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking. Pp. 9–12. (b) Three leading precedents confirm what the statute’s plain terms suggest. In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542, a company was held to have violated Title VII by refusing to hire women with young children, despite the fact that the discrimination also depended on being a parent of young children and the fact that the company favored hiring women over men. In Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, an employer’s policy of requiring women to make larger pension fund contributions than men because women tend to live longer was held to violate Title VII, notwithstanding the policy’s evenhandedness between men and women as groups. And in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75, a male plaintiff alleged a triable Title VII claim for sexual harassment by co-workers who were members of the same sex. … (c) The employers do not dispute that they fired their employees for being homosexual or transgender. Rather, they contend that even intentional discrimination against employees based on their homosexual or transgender status is not a basis for Title VII liability. But their statutory text arguments have already been rejected by this Court’s precedents. And none of their other contentions about what they think the law was meant to do, or should do, allow for ignoring the law as it is.
Again, after Obergefell, this seemed rather predictable on the basis of stare decisis and the general social trend, the latter of which seemed to influence former Justice Anthony Kennedy the most on that case. If one was to predict which members of the conservative wing might have ruled this way on Bostock, Chief Justice John Roberts might have been the first guess — and a correct one, as it turned out.
Kennedy’s protege Brett Kavanaugh voted against it, however, as did Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Both Kavanaugh and Alito wrote dissents, with Thomas joining Alito’s opinion that the court had redefined “sex” to get to this decision. In a lengthy dissertation complete with appendices, Alito hammers Gorsuch for eclipsing Congress by taking an action that the legislature has never approved:
For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list,1 and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well.2 But to date, none has passed both Houses. Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend Title VII by defining sex discrimination to include both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” H. R. 5, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), but the bill has stalled in the Senate. An alternative bill, H. R. 5331, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), would add similar prohibitions but contains provisions to protect religious liberty.3 This bill remains before a House Subcommittee. Because no such amendment of Title VII has been enacted in accordance with the requirements in the Constitution (passage in both Houses and presentment to the President, Art. I, §7, cl. 2), Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of “sex” still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H. R. 5’s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation.4 A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall. The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.”
Alito has a very good point in this regard, which he spends well over a hundred pages beating into the ground. The actions by Congress make it pretty clear that they recognize that defect in the original statute, even if they haven’t mustered the political will to correct it. Kavanaugh writes that this case comes down not to social justice, but to “who decides” — and writes that it shouldn’t be the courts:
The policy arguments for amending Title VII are very weighty. The Court has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans “cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9). But we are judges, not Members of Congress. And in Alexander Hamilton’s words, federal judges exercise “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, our role as judges is to interpret and follow the law as written, regardless of whether we like the result. Cf. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 420–421 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Our role is not to make or amend the law. As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation. … Over time, Congress has enacted new employment discrimination laws. In 1967, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 81 Stat. 602. In 1973, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Rehabilitation Act, which in substance prohibited disability discrimination against federal and certain other employees. 87 Stat. 355. In 1990, Congress passed and President George H. W. Bush signed the comprehensive Americans with Disabilities Act. 104 Stat. 327. To prohibit age discrimination and disability discrimination, this Court did not unilaterally rewrite or update the law. Rather, Congress and the President enacted new legislation, as prescribed by the Constitution’s separation of powers.
It bears pointing out that most states have filled this gap as well when it comes to discrimination over sexual orientation. A few states have not, but that is not the provenance of the court no matter how much public policy should dictate otherwise. Congress and the states have the authority to pass and amend laws, and as Kavanaugh correctly points out, they have done so in this particular sphere more than once. This question should have been made by Congress, and could have been made by Congress at practically any time. That system by which the governed create the rules by which they are governed is more important than letting Congress off the hook for tough political decisions, even if the outcome seems mainly beneficial to society at that moment in time.
What about religious liberty? Will this provide a fulcrum for pursuing alleged discrimination by churches and religious schools? Gorsuch says no:
Separately, the employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some employers to violate their religious convictions. We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society. But worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious liberties are nothing new; they even predate the statute’s passage. As a result of its deliberations in adopting the law, Congress included an express statutory exception for religious organizations. §2000e–1(a). This Court has also recognized that the First Amendment can bar the application of employment discrimination laws “to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, 188 (2012). And Congress has gone a step further yet in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. That statute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmental interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. §2000bb–1. Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases.
Alito, noting amici briefs in the case, is not so sanguine:
At least some teachers and applicants for teaching positions may be blocked from recovering on such claims by the “ministerial exception” recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171 (2012). Two cases now pending before the Court present the question whether teachers who provide religious instruction can be considered to be “ministers.”54 But even if teachers with those responsibilities qualify, what about other very visible school employees who may not qualify for the ministerial exception? Provisions of Title VII provide exemptions for certain religious organizations and schools “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on” of the “activities” of the organization or school, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–1(a); see also §2000e–2(e)(2), but the scope of these provisions is disputed, and as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection.
Kavanaugh more or less concedes Gorsuch’s point in his second footnote, however. His issues focus tightly on constitutional issues. And, despite whatever good the outcome provides, that damage will continue to reverberate by incentivizing political cowardice on Capitol Hill for decades to come. Gorsuch might have been better advised to stick to the textual approach.
Update: Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino, who gave loud and long support for Gorsuch in his confirmation bid, accused him and the other five justices of “the hijacking of textualism”:
Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards. This was not judging, this was legislating—a brute force attack on our constitutional system. (1/x) — Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) June 15, 2020
Have no doubts about what happened today: This was the hijacking of textualism. You can't redefine the meaning of words themselves and still be doing textualism. This is an ominous sign for anyone concerned about the future of representative democracy. (end) — Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) June 15, 2020
The practical outcome of this isn’t the issue, especially since it doesn’t really change much in most jurisdictions, thanks to action by state legislatures. This should have been left to Congress to fix, though, and it perpetuates the mechanism of political hot potato that irresponsible politicians play to avoid taking tough votes.
Update: Or was it just “good lawyering” that leveraged textualism into the winning argument? RCP’s Sean Trende defends the decision on the basis of textualism — and credits the plaintiffs for understanding the battleground:
So my Poli Sci 1100 class from Fall '19 will remember — or should! — me saying that I thought the arg. in the Title VII cases would have significant pull with the conservative justices. I think it is worth expanding upon here so people understand exactly where this comes from. — Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) June 15, 2020
Read the whole thread, but Trende’s point about Roberts is especially interesting:
Needless to say, the opinion that Ginsburg wrote would have probably read very differently than the opinion Gorsuch wrote. In case you're wondering, yes, the annals of Chief Justiceships are replete with Chiefs engaging in this sort of strategic behavior. 4/ — Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) June 15, 2020
That’s very interesting indeed. Hat-tip to Alan Windham for the thread.


hotair--2020-06-15--Sire, the newsrooms are revolting

Sire, the newsrooms are revolting

Ben Smith has yet another finger-poking piece out at the New York Times this week , this time turning the spotlight on how New York media newsrooms have been dealing with the combination of the coronavirus and the unrest in the streets .
Plenty of people in the newspaper and television news businesses have lost their jobs recently and some of those who remain are having a rough time .
But not all of them .
In particular , he explores the vast wealth gap between those at the top of the financial foodchain at major papers like the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those of more modest means .
He exposes some of the simmering resentment among the less famous ( and lower-paid ) media workers who have come to realize that the lofty social justice principles they espouse in their outlets aren ’ t mirrored in their workplace .
New York ’ s media business appears to be in endless decline , but it is still one of America ’ s most visible stages for cultural conflict , drama and change .
Top figures at Bon Appétit , Refinery 29 , Variety , ABC News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to resign or take leave this month , as were lower-profile executives , like the editor of Indy Week in North Carolina .
The ousters were driven , in many cases , by employees who believe the companies ’ internal cultures don ’ t mirror the progressive and anti-racist values they sell .
And while the immediate spur is the wave of protests against anti-black racism and police violence set off by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis , the New York-based media had already been activated by something else : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 revealed who could afford to get out of town , who might be OK if they lost their job , who had money or family to fall back on .
The backgrounds of Zoom calls , your colleagues ’ Instagrams and casual Slack references revealed who was trying to get the air-conditioner in their Crown Heights studio working , and who was opening up the pool .
It definitely sounds like there ’ s trouble in paradise .
Smith describes how CNN president Jeff Zucker has been roughing it in the Hamptons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own golf clubs at the country club because of a lack of caddies .
Other top names are similarly “ working from home ” in luxurious settings , while many of their worker bees are trying to figure out how to get their window air conditioning units to function in their Flatbush apartments .
It ’ s not a pretty picture .
Smith goes further in this vein , pointing out who is making the big bucks in other cable news outlets and who can afford to ride out the riots and COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most passionate hours of cable news are also produced from out of town , though the miracles of green-screen backgrounds conceal a host ’ s whereabouts .
Sean Hannity has been working from the North Shore of Long Island since before the crisis , and Tucker Carlson ’ s show is produced near his homes in Florida and Maine .
Chris Cuomo made his Hamptons basement famous .
( Don Lemon , who has been living in Sag Harbor , is commuting most nights to CNN ’ s studio in Hudson Yards .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ north : Chris Hayes to the Hudson Valley , Rachel Maddow to Western Massachusetts .
As we recently learned , journalists at the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Times have been growing more vocal about the lack of diversity in their newsrooms and job vulnerability of those without big names in the news world .
In that respect , those institutions of journalism don ’ t look all that different than some of the companies they criticize for the same thing .
At the rate Ben Smith is going , casting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry but his own new employer , he may want to sleep with one eye open .
He hasn ’ t been at the Gray Lady for all that long himself .
And pointing out how the titans and rock stars of the news business are lounging around in their hot tubs might not be good for his future professional prospects .

Ben Smith has yet another finger-poking piece out at the New York Times this week, this time turning the spotlight on how New York media newsrooms have been dealing with the combination of the coronavirus and the unrest in the streets. Plenty of people in the newspaper and television news businesses have lost their jobs recently and some of those who remain are having a rough time. But not all of them. In particular, he explores the vast wealth gap between those at the top of the financial foodchain at major papers like the New York Times and cable news outlets and those of more modest means. He exposes some of the simmering resentment among the less famous (and lower-paid) media workers who have come to realize that the lofty social justice principles they espouse in their outlets aren’t mirrored in their workplace.
New York’s media business appears to be in endless decline, but it is still one of America’s most visible stages for cultural conflict, drama and change. Top figures at Bon Appétit, Refinery 29, Variety, ABC News and The New York Times have been forced to resign or take leave this month, as were lower-profile executives, like the editor of Indy Week in North Carolina. The ousters were driven, in many cases, by employees who believe the companies’ internal cultures don’t mirror the progressive and anti-racist values they sell. And while the immediate spur is the wave of protests against anti-black racism and police violence set off by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, the New York-based media had already been activated by something else: The clarity with which the onset of Covid-19 revealed who could afford to get out of town, who might be OK if they lost their job, who had money or family to fall back on. The backgrounds of Zoom calls, your colleagues’ Instagrams and casual Slack references revealed who was trying to get the air-conditioner in their Crown Heights studio working, and who was opening up the pool.
It definitely sounds like there’s trouble in paradise. Smith describes how CNN president Jeff Zucker has been roughing it in the Hamptons, being forced to actually carry his own golf clubs at the country club because of a lack of caddies. Other top names are similarly “working from home” in luxurious settings, while many of their worker bees are trying to figure out how to get their window air conditioning units to function in their Flatbush apartments. It’s not a pretty picture.
Smith goes further in this vein, pointing out who is making the big bucks in other cable news outlets and who can afford to ride out the riots and COVID-19 outbreaks in luxury.
Many of the most passionate hours of cable news are also produced from out of town, though the miracles of green-screen backgrounds conceal a host’s whereabouts. Sean Hannity has been working from the North Shore of Long Island since before the crisis, and Tucker Carlson’s show is produced near his homes in Florida and Maine. Chris Cuomo made his Hamptons basement famous. (Don Lemon, who has been living in Sag Harbor, is commuting most nights to CNN’s studio in Hudson Yards.) MSNBC’s progressive hosts went north: Chris Hayes to the Hudson Valley, Rachel Maddow to Western Massachusetts.
As we recently learned, journalists at the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Times have been growing more vocal about the lack of diversity in their newsrooms and job vulnerability of those without big names in the news world. In that respect, those institutions of journalism don’t look all that different than some of the companies they criticize for the same thing.
At the rate Ben Smith is going, casting a critical eye at not only his own industry but his own new employer, he may want to sleep with one eye open. He hasn’t been at the Gray Lady for all that long himself. And pointing out how the titans and rock stars of the news business are lounging around in their hot tubs might not be good for his future professional prospects.