When I was watching this video, I thought about a Bee Gees comparison before Fil made the same point. Were the Bee Gees the male Andrews sisters? Sort of. But I have one disagreement with Fil here – which is that, when the Bee Gees chose to do so, they could and did match their vibratos much like the Andrews sisters, as in the Bee Gees’ “Too Much Heaven.” But it’s a small quibble.
DeSantis has plans
In an interview on Martha McCallum’s “The Story” on Fox News, McCallum asked, “Are you in favor of eliminating any agencies?” DeSantis responded that he would work with Congress to get rid of the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, and the Internal Revenue Service. He followed up by saying that if Congress would not work with him toward that goal, he’d use those agencies to attack many of the policies they are foisting on the American people right now.
Will this help him or hurt him? Darned if I know.
Was life better in the 70s?
Ari Kaufman of The Lid says no, and that those who think so are just being nostalgic:
Americans have always longed for the “good old days.” The problem is that most can’t define when or what constitutes those good old days. Most often, it seems to be about five decades earlier than the current day…
With nostalgia being such a powerful human emotion, politicians happily utilize it. Yet I would wager that many people confuse their own hazy personal memories with a narcissistic indictment of today.
When Americans say things were better 50 years ago, do they mean stagflation? Gas lines? Vietnam? Watergate?
We hear a lot about soaring crime these days. It’s surely an important issue, but are we nostalgic for the 1970s because we’ve memory-holed that violent crime exploded then and has been chiefly trending downward since 1993.
The essayist adds that we are richer today, live longer, have more free time, and travel more, with bigger homes and safer cars as well as better air quality.
I don’t argue with any of that. But I was around back then, and I say that nevertheless things were better. It just depends what things we’re talking about, and perhaps the biggest ones have to do with human relationships as well as basic agreement on societal values.
I am not just being nostalgic when I remember the 70s – or the 50s and 60s, or even the 80s or 90s. Yes, there were big problems. Crime was sometimes up, we had to wait in 70s gas lines, and Americans were dying in Vietnam (more during the late 60s than the 70s, when “Vietnamization” was being implemented; you can see an informative year-by-year chart here). Racial discrimination and discrimination against women were still real in the 70s, but both were waning. There were race riots then, but the general feeling was that things were getting better in that regard and that these were growing pains.
Just to take one small quality of life example, my parents – who were solidly middle class or even upper middle class – didn’t have a clothes dryer until I was in college. Sounds like that would mean a lower quality of life, right? But I never perceived it quite that way. It meant that we used to hang clothes on a clothesline, which was sort of fun (I held the clothespin bag as a little child, and handed the clothespins off to the adult). The clean clothes smelled of air and wind. And you had to plan ahead if you wanted to wear something that was dirty, because it took a full day to dry.
Big deal, though. In other words, it didn’t feel like a big deal even when I was a teenager. It was just something you planned for. And I knew what had preceded it, because my next-door-neighbors had an old-fashioned washboard and a clothes wringer in their basement, both of them no longer used. We used to play with them. Clotheslines were just normal, and we didn’t even think about the alternatives until clothes dryers became common. When we got one it made life easier, but not necessarily better. It just wasn’t that important in the larger scheme of things.
But what I think was most important in people’s perceptions and pleasant memories was that there was a lot of in-person socializing. Life was more fun, and not just because I was younger. I had plenty of personal problems, but there were more get-togethers, more phone calls, and even going to the movies was a treat (and the movies were actually good, for the most part). The human element in life was warmer and more interactive. The internet didn’t exist. People rarely screened their calls and it was okay to talk on the phone with a friend. When you called customer service you got a real human being whose speech you could understand, and you got actual real live service. There were fewer choices in things like tennis shoes (or as we New Yorkers used to call them, sneakers), but that meant we didn’t spend 100 hours researching something before we bought it. We just made the purchase and went on with our lives.
Theater was better. Ballet was a lot better. Art hadn’t been utterly taken over by woke politics – nor had anything, really. Humor was still funny. Fewer children killed themselves. There were no pandemic lockdowns. There were no Twitter meltdowns over using the wrong term for something. There was no widespread cancel culture. And Watergate was a refreshing walk in the park compared to today’s corruption and use of the government to make clandestine war on the opposition.
We had more liberty and we had more in-person social contact – neither of which is easily measured, but both of which are very important.
SCOTUS says no to affirmative action
The decision was 6-3, so all the Republican-appointed justices were with the majority and all the Democrat-appointed justices dissented. That’s a bit of a surprise; I thought there might be more defections from the Republican side.
The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a blow to race-based affirmative action in college admissions and by implication elsewhere, putting to an end a narrow carve-out for higher education that had permitted colleges and universities to engage in otherwise unlawful conduct in the name of promoting diversity.
Part of the reasoning was as follows:
University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and—at some point—they must end. Respondents’ admissions systems—however well intentioned and implemented in good faith—fail each of these criteria. They must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…
Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. See, e.g., 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 17251726, 1741; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 10. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today…[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867). A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.
To me, it seems as though the justices have provided a way out of the dilemma for universities that wish to continue to discriminate – and students who will tailor essays to meet this description – while simultaneously warning those universities not to apply this easy way out. I can imagine a ton of lawsuits in which the courts are somehow required to fine-tune whether an admissions essay meets this standard or not.
I have always thought affirmative action is a bad solution to a knotty problem. And the much-vaunted goal of “diversity” – which began with “geographic diversity,” which was a way to limit the number of those pesky Jews being admitted – covers a multitude of sins. In recent years, it’s been used against Asians mostly.
Universities are now utterly controlled by the woke, and they’re not going to give up these policies easily. Also, the left will be using this in the 2024 election in much the same way they will continue to use the SCOTUS abortion ruling. That’s not to say this ruling should not have been issued. But most universities are now rotten to the leftist core, unfortunately, and the rot has been creeping in for over 50 years.
There’s also this post at Legal Insurrection by Mary Chastain, which rounds up many of the agitated responses on the left. For example, on MSNBC the pundit says that now there will only be three black students per law school class. How’s that for a lack of faith in the achievements of black people these days? I have much more faith than that; I went to an elite law school before affirmative action was a policy, and the percentage of black students in my class was a little over 5% (women were only about 7%, by the way), which was a lot more than 3.
Jonathan Turley has this to say:
…I expect that colleges and universities are already working on the circumvention of the decision. They can use essays to identify race, even encouraging students to share any struggles with discrimination…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 29, 2023
As I already said, that’s what I expect as well, despite the SCOTUS warning about it. Institutions determined to continue the policy will continue it covertly if the overt route is blocked.
ADDENDUM: Here’s what Glenn Reynolds has to say on the subject.
Open thread 6/29/23
Poor coke-addled Hunter, the Bidens’ shakedown man
Hunter can’t be held responsible for any of this because, after all, he was a coke addict:
The House Oversight Committee released a Hunter Biden WhatsApp message to Communist Party-linked Chinese energy firm CEFC associate Gongwen Dong.
Hunter demanded $10 million because $5 million “is not acceptable obviously.”
Hunter then said his shell company Owasco “in consultation with Hudson” will determine his expenses along with the “BIDEN (loan 5M) capital.”
It also “baffled” Hunter if the “Chairman” didn’t think the relationship with the Bidens was worth at least $5 million.
Hunter reassured Gongwen that “The Bidens are the best I know at doing exactly what the Chairman wants from this partnership.”
Then Hunter told him not to”quibble over peanuts.”
Move along; nothing to see here – unless, of course, the Democrats decide it’s time to dump Biden, which I don’t think has happened yet because they don’t have a good replacement, and they can’t figure out how to deal with Kamala Harris.
Meanwhile, to refresh you memory:
One of the awful things about the Biden administration is being witness to this sort of corruption plus this sort of gaslighting about it.
We didn’t really mean we’re coming for your kids
Over the weekend, a short video circulated widely on social media of an unidentified person at a New York City march during Pride festivities saying, “We’re coming for your children.”
In the 21-second clip, circulated by a right-wing web streamer channel, dozens of people march in the streets and are clearly heard chanting, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re not going shopping.” But one voice that is louder than the crowd — it’s not clear whose, or whether the speaker was a member of the LGBTQ community — is heard saying at least twice, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.”
To conservative pundits, activists and lawmakers, the video confirmed the allegations they’ve levied in recent years that the LGBTQ community is “grooming” children.
But to Brian Griffin, the original organizer of the NYC Drag March, if that’s the worst they heard, it’s only because he wasn’t there this year.
Griffin said he chanted obscene things in the past, like “Kill, kill, kill, we’re coming to kill the mayor,” and joked about pubic hair and sex toys during marches. People at the Drag March regularly sing “God is a lesbian.”
“It’s all just words,” Griffin said. “It’s all presented to fulfill their worst stereotypes of us.”
Just some lighthearted humor, folks. Nothing to get upset about. Sort of like if some fun-loving neo-Nazis started chanting about killing black people or gay people – as a joke, you know. Ha ha – as my brother used to say when we were kids, so funny I forgot to laugh.
In other words, don’t joke about things of that nature. And it’s especially unfunny to do it when you actually are engaged in putting gay porn in school libraries, or convincing school authorities to transition kids in school without telling their parents. Because if you – or, to be fair, your more extreme activist wing – are actually doing those things, no one will believe you are joking about this.
Why nominate Trump?
For many months I’ve watched the arguments among people on the right as to who should be the GOP presidential nominee in 2024. It’s usually Trump versus DeSantis for the dubious honor of Saving the Republic.
But if the republic is going to be saved, it will take a lot more than one Republican president. That is for certain, for reasons discussed many times here but which can be summarized as the success of the Gramscian March.
Trump ran in 2016 on a promise to switch things up, and he did. But the changes were temporary for the most part, as we’ve seen, and they have been easily undone by the Biden administration. Except for SCOTUS, that is. But the Court’s composition is only a retirement or two under a Democratic president from turning far more to the left. And then there’s the possibility of court-packing if the Democrats get control of Congress and the presidency.
More permanent change towards the right in this country has to come on two levels: the institutional and the personal. That will take time and effort and I’m not sure how it can be done, but although a Republican president is one of the main first steps it’s only a small part of it.
So, for a nominee I think there are several major necessary qualifications. The person must be smart as well as willing to be bold and active in implementing conservative policies. The person must somehow unite the voters on the right behind him and appeal to enough voters in the middle not only to win, but to win beyond the margin of error, which would involve decisive appeal in the swing states.
That person is not Trump – as far as I can see. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. I cannot imagine him gaining traction with anyone not already supporting him, and that’s not enough. The potentially tragic thing – aside from how successful the left has been in demonizing and harassing Trump, and how at times Trump has played into their hands – is that Trump will almost certainly win the nomination and lose the general.
Those who will vote for him in the primaries anyway have many arguments. One is that he deserves your vote because of what a fighter he is and how very grievously he’s been wronged. I agree that he’s a fighter and that he’s been grievously wronged, but I don’t see why I should vote for a weakened Trump in the primary and therefore help elect Biden or Newsom or whoever the Democrats’ nominee will be.
Another argument used to persuade people to vote for Trump in the primary is that DeSantis is just a tool of the elites. I’ve dealt with that argument many times and find it preposterous. I’m not going to go deeply into it again here, but I refer you to this and especially this, this, and this.
Still another argument made for nominating Trump is that he’s the only person who can beat Biden. This also seems absurd. Polls don’t support it and logic doesn’t support it. It’s early in the game; but again, no one who doesn’t already prefer Trump will end up voting for him, and his bloc seems to be capped at around 46% or so. Plenty of people are unfamiliar with DeSantis and could move towards him in the general if by some chance he should be nominated, and as they see him debate (he’s smart and quick and no loose cannon). These are the people who hate Trump’s style and manner, and who want someone more “presidential.” DeSantis also has youth going for him, which Trump certainly does not.
In addition, some pro-Trump people say that, because of fraud, no Republican will win the general and so we must stand behind Trump on principle because he’s been so persecuted. This seems a very upside-down argument, one that concedes the election before the campaign has even really started. I think we need to reject such defeatist logic. What matters in an election is winning, not giving someone a pat on the back because that person has been wronged. Trump has been wronged, but that’s no reason to nominate him and lose. And yes, if DeSantis were to be the nominee, he would be attacked by the left just as viciously. But I think he’d be smarter about countering the attacks, and I think his personality is such that the attacks would be less likely to stick among the all-important moderate voters.
That doesn’t mean I think that DeSantis would win; the road is going to be very very hard for the eventual GOP nominee whether it’s Trump or DeSantis. But I think DeSantis has more of a chance to win.
However, the feud on the right could end up making it impossible for either man to win. If the Trump wing refuses to vote for DeSantis if he’s the eventual nominee, or especially if Trump runs third-party, there really would be no chance of victory. Unity is something that looks mighty elusive right now – and yet mighty necessary.
ADDENDUM: Please see this from Salena Zito.
Open thread 6/28/23
Plisetskaya in slow motion:
Poor Hunter; just a junkie
Here’s a good article by Jonathan Turley on the latest “pay no attention to Hunter, he was just a junkie and is to be pitied, exonerated, and praised” approach to Hunter Biden’s leveraging of his father’s position in order to get bribe money for the family.
Looking back even further than Turley does in that article, if I’ve got the entire trajetory right it went something like this:
(1) One reason Trump was impeached in late December of 2019 was for suggesting to Ukraine’s Zelensky in July of 2019 that Hunter’s and Joe’s dealings with Ukraine should be investigated.
(2) Just prior to the 2020 election, the Hunter Biden laptop material was labeled as manufactured and misleading Russian disinformation which the public should not even be able to read about, and the story was blocked in the MSM and on social media in order to help Joe Biden win the election.
(3) Hunter and Joe and the Democrats and the MSM presented Hunter as competent, upright, and fully capable of consulting on the myriad foreign projects for which he was hired.
(4) After Joe Biden was safely in office, it was admitted that well, perhaps that laptop information was true, but no biggee.
(5) Hunter was given a wrist-slap suspended sentence for his tax lies.
(6) The GOP investigation continued to reveal very incriminating information about Hunter selling foreign influence and the Biden family profiting from it in an elaborate money-laundering scheme.
(7) The Democrats claim that information is either false and/or also no biggee, because Hunter shouldn’t be blamed. He was just a bragging, lying junkie at the time, not a competent person at all and not to be trusted when he said Joe was involved. Now Hunter’s all better, though, saved by his father’s unconditional love.
The narrative is really quite astounding. But the left counts on the fact that no one ever went broke underestimating the American public.
This book by Heather Mac Donald looks worth reading
The latest from Heather Mac Donald is called When Race Trumps Merit:
When Race Trumps Merit provides an alternative explanation for those racial disparities. It is large academic skills gaps that cause the lack of proportional representation in our most meritocratic organizations and large differences in criminal offending that account for the racially disproportionate prison population.
The need for such a corrective argument could not be more urgent. Federal science agencies now treat researchers’ skin color as a scientific qualification. Museums and orchestras choose which art and music to promote based on race. Police officers avoid making arrests and prosecutors decline to bring charges to avoid disparate impact on minority criminals.
When Race Trumps Merit breaks powerful taboos. But it is driven by a sense of alarm, supported by detailed case studies of how disparate-impact thinking is jeopardizing scientific progress, destroying public order, and poisoning the appreciation of art and culture.
Here’s the book’s Amazon listing. I haven’t read it, although I’d like to. But my list of books to read is about a mile long.
The leaked Trump audio recording
By now you’ve probably read about the leaked audio from 2021 in which Trump discusses some documents he has that are supposedly classifed. Here’s a sampler of varied opinions: this from Andrea Widburg, this from William Jacobson, and this at RedState.
And here are my own questions and observations:
Was the audio edited in any relevant or misleading way, or not?
Who leaked it, and will there ever be repercussions for that? That last part is a rhetorical question, because I strongly believe the answer is ‘no.”
What is the meaning of the auido? I’m pretty sure that those who leaked it want you to think it’s some sort of smoking gun against Trump. And William Jacobson, whose opinion I respect, thinks the audio indicates that Trump was lying in his statements about the documents during his recent Bret Baier interview. I somewhat disagree; this may be the case, but I think there are possible explanations that don’t involve lying. An audio can’t indicate what a certain paper says unless it’s read or specifically described, as in “This paper I’m holding in my hand is classified and contains….”, nor can an audio show what was done with that paper unless you have people saying something like, “Wow! Now that I’m reading this paper on [whatever], I see that it indicates….” Nothing of that sort seems to be on the audio, although prosecutors certainly can claim it proves the document was classified and shown to others.
But I also think that, even if there are such benign explanations (for example, the paper or papers in question weren’t classified after all; Trump actually showed them to no one in a way that they could be read), those things may not matter in the court of law – or in the court of public opinion, which is the court to which the leakers are playing at the moment.
The reason they’re doing all of this – the leaks and the indictment – is twofold:
(1) To distract from Biden’s corruption and cognitive decline.
(2) To elevate Trump in the primaries by causing a backlash on the right that leads to his nomination, and to taint him further in the general.
And I believe that it’s highly possible that voters on the right will fall into that trap, although I hope they won’t.
I also will reiterate that I think Trump has shown poor judgment since he had COVID in October of 2020. I’m not sure what that’s about, but I’ve noticed it and noticed it.