Jordan Peterson and Rod Dreher have a talk
I’m not ordinarily a big Dreher fan, but this is an excellent discussion between him and Peterson. It’s long, but if you listen to it with the speed set at 1.5 or 1.75, as I did, it doesn’t take all that much time:
Bobulinski and the Swift Vets
The MSM pretends that Tony Bobulinski doesn’t exist:
Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson interviewed erstwhile Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski again (the first interview took place just before the 2020 presidential election). The interview lasted a full hour, yielding information indicating an astonishingly compromised president and a dangerously corrupt FBI.
An Internet search for the interview shows that members of the news media who awarded themselves countless prizes for four years of breathless stories about the Russia hoax are — except for those at Fox News and the New York Post — utterly silent about the interview, just as they were regarding the first one.
Worked like a charm the first time, didn’t it? The modus operandi is to ignore, knowing that vast numbers of people don’t read or listen to any sources on the right. If that doesn’t work out, the next step is to “debunk” the charges by saying that the person is a liar or a Russian tool. The MSM wants to do anything but engage with the actual evidence and the actual arguments without distorting or lying about them.
Right now the Bobulinski story is in this ignoring stage, but that could change if the MSM finds it necessary to go to stage two:
Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 9, 2013
So, why do I mention the Swift Vets in connection with this? Remember them? I do. During the 2004 campaign they came out with some damaging evidence about John Kerry’s service in Vietnam, and they were first ignored and then defamed. I was paying a lot of attention to them at the time, and I wrote several posts about them in 2008 during the Obama campaign, because the charge “swiftboating” had come into the vernacular as a word for lying about a candidate in order to defame him or her. It was used in an Orwellian manner:
As the Washington Post notes, “swiftboating” has become a synonym for “a political low blow.” And of course, in the eyes of the MSM, it tends to be the province of those nefarious Republicans.
Forget about whether the charges are actually true or not; that’s a minor quibble, hardly worthy of consideration. After all, “facts are the enemy of truth,” don’t you know?
So that means that the NY Times can attack likely Republican Presidential nominee John McCain with “facts” that barely rise to the level of good gossip, and Dan Rather can use forged documents to smear George Bush on the eve of the 2004 election, and the rest of the MSM and the Democrats somehow can’t find it in their hearts to use the term “swiftboating” for their fellow Dems, especially when it’s Republicans being attacked.
This is the case even if—as happened recently with the Times—the actions of these MSM icons are condemned even by their own side (if you can find an example of someone on the left/liberal end of things using the term “swiftboating” to describe the Times or Rather, please send me a link; I haven’t been able to find one). It seems to be reserved for anyone who might attack a Democrat.
I closely followed the Swift Vets’ story in 2004. I read their book, and found it compelling. I waited for the evidence in it—presented in very lawyerly fashion, since some of them are lawyers—to be countered.
But I never saw any of it effectively debunked other than a few unimportant details, although I looked and looked (I actually wanted the charges to be untrue, because at the time I thought John Kerry was going to be our next President, and the prospect would have been far less sobering if the book could have been invalidated).
And so I read almost everything that was written to counter it, and the counter-evidence was so flimsy I became convinced that it wasn’t countered because it couldn’t be countered. And early on in the controversy one of the main tools of the counterattack to the Swift Vets’ accusations was to smear the accusatory Vets themselves.
This, of course, was not considered “swiftboating;” the term hadn’t quite jelled yet. I watched as the legends about the Swift Vets grew: they were Republican operatives all; they were liars, despite being decorated heroes themselves. Kerry lost because he was just too nice a guy to fight back (Kerry himself is a big one for promulgating this particular theme).
At the time all of this had occurred – 2004 – I was naive enough to be surprised and shocked. After that, I realized it was standard operating procedure. But I remember the Swift Vets as one huge turning point in my perceptions about the MSM.
The term “swiftboathing” isn’t used much anymore or even at all, as far as I can tell. 2004 was nearly twenty years ago, after all, and a lot of young people probably have no idea about the term or what gave rise to it. But Wiki still gives it the Orwellian definition it came to have:
The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the name of the organization “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” (SBVT, later the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) because of their widely publicized—and later discredited—campaign against 2004 U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry.
Since the political smear campaign that the group conducted against Kerry, the term has come into common use to refer to a harsh attack by a political opponent that is dishonest, personal, and unfair. The Swift Boat Veterans and media pundits objected to this use of the term to define a smear campaign.
Yes, they object – and so do I – because the use of the term against the Swift Vets is itself dishonest, personal, and unfair.
Will Hunter be charged? And if so, with what, and when? And why?
Yesterday the WaPo reported on Hunter Biden:
Exclusive: Federal agents see enough evidence to charge Hunter Biden with tax and gun-purchase crimes, people familiar with the case say https://t.co/YmJehf7Nmm pic.twitter.com/D8cd6fp0HI
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) October 6, 2022
So let’s speculate on why the WaPo might be reporting this now; after all, the FBI has had the evidence for years. If Hunter is charged, it will be for something relatively minor and will not involve his father at all. If he’s convicted the penalties are likely to be a wrist slap. The Bidens can also say – as Hunter’s lawyer does – that he’s being politically persecuted, to counter accusations from the right about Trump being politically persecuted by prosecutors. And the larger federal issues involving Hunter and Joe Biden would go without any followup. From that same Forbes article:
The Justice Department’s investigation was originally centered on Hunter Biden’s financial and business dealings in foreign countries, including his work for businesses and tycoons in Ukraine and China, starting when Joe Biden served as vice president. Investigators looked at whether Hunter Biden violated foreign lobbying laws, campaign finance and tax laws, as well as federal firearm laws, before eventually narrowing their focus to tax and gun-related charges, multiple anonymous sources told CNN in July. Ethical questions have been raised over the years about Hunter Biden’s consulting and investment work abroad, including whether he properly paid taxes for that work…Senate Republicans in recent weeks have pushed for the White House to appoint a special counsel to take control of the criminal investigation to ensure the investigation is free from political influence, though Garland has denied the request, according to the Post.
I bet he has.
A couple of interesting details about the Delaware-based federal investigation can be found here:
Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump and whom Attorney General Merrick Garland chose to oversee the case, still has to choose whether to bring charges against the president’s son, the outlet reported.
Most articles I’ve read mention that Weiss was appointed by Trump but leave out the “chosen by Garland” part. What is Weiss’s background? This article from April mentions that he’s kept a low profile, and says he’s a Republican. That’s about it for information, except for this kind of thing:
The former associate described Weiss as a moderate Republican who is apolitical in his work. “He is not a Trumper nor is he close to Biden.”
Then-President Donald Trump appointed Weiss to be U.S. Attorney in Delaware in 2018. He had been acting head of the office at the time and received the endorsements of Delaware’s U.S. Senators Tom Carper and Chris Coons, both Democrats.
Doesn’t seem at all like the sort of person who would go scorched-earth on the Biden family – who have been powerful movers and shakers in Delaware for a long long time.
Also, there’s always the possibility of a pardon from Dad, because this would be a federal case.
However, Jesse Watters – who’s ordinarily a pretty cynical guy – is less cynical than I am about what will happen:
He also thinks this is the beginning of throwing Joe under the bus in order to make it so that he will not run for re-election in 2024. I remember there were people who thought that would happen not long after Biden was inaugurated, but here it is over a year and a half later and no end in sight – perhaps in part because Harris’s vice-presidency has turned so disastrous. I have long felt that the powers behind the presidential throne have preferred having someone like Biden as president whom they can control fairly well, and although over time Biden has become more and more of an obvious liability, until they have a decent replacement I predict they will not get rid of him.
Do they have a replacement now? Newsom? I don’t think they’re satisfied that he has much national appeal. I think they’re still looking around.
Yesterday, Joe Biden cryptically said, “No one f***s with a Biden.” I say “cryptically” because it seemed to come out of nowhere:
Murphy [Fort Myers Beach mayor]: Thanks for everything. Thanks for coming down, we appreciate it.
Biden: Keep the faith.
Murphy: I’ll keep the faith.
Biden: And by the way, you were raised the same way I was.
Murphy: I was. I was.
Biden: No one fucks with a Biden.
Murphy: Ehhh, you’re God damn right. That’s exactly right, that’s exactly right. All right, good to see you.
There’s no question that the Bidens f*** with various other entities: the country and prostitutes, for starters. But will the Delaware US Attorney f*** with a Biden? Was that a warning from Joe that he better not do so?
Open thread 10/7/22
Friendly overtures to Venezuela
President Joe Biden (D) is reportedly preparing to ease sanctions on socialist Venezuela to allow a U.S. oil company to resume production there, which comes as OPEC announced early Wednesday that it would be significantly cutting oil production.
The New York Times reported that Russia and Saudi Arabia, acting as the leaders of the 23-member nation OPEC energy cartel, announced a massive reduction in oil production of two million barrels per day, a move that will likely send gas prices skyrocketing and cause political problems for the Biden administration.
The Biden administration is now “preparing” to lift sanctions on Venezuela to allow Chevron to pump oil again from the leftist authoritarian regime in an attempt to stave off political disaster for the administration caused by rising fuel prices.
The administration would give “significant sanctions relief” if Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s regime held talks with the country’s political opposition and held free and fair elections in 2024. The administration has also worked out a deal freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars in Venezuelan funds that are frozen in U.S. banking institutions.
The Biden administration also released convicted narco traffickers related to Maduro in exchange for hostages taken by the regime, a move that could incentivize other hostile foreign powers to detain American citizens so they can use that as leverage over the Biden administration.
And all of this is because the administration clamped down on domestic oil production and refuses to change that policy (more here).
Or perhaps it has long wanted to be friendlier towards leftist Venezuela.
Sometimes the answer is “all of the above.”
Daycare massacre in Thailand
Another horrific massacre of young children and some adults, this time in Thailand. Here are a few things I want to point out.
The first is that Thailand has a fair number of guns, legal and illegal, and its rate of gun ownership is especially high for an Asian country (see this for some statistics). And yet in this case there was no armed Good Guy with Gun to intervene and prevent further deaths. I’m not sure why that was the case, but it was the case. Perhaps it was due to the venue – a daycare center – although afterwards the perp went out into the community and continued to shoot people and also hit them with a vehicle.
The second is that these murders were accomplished with a combination of weapons, and it appears that most of the children were knifed to death while they were napping, after several adults had been shot and killed. The horror of such as act is extreme, but it also demonstrates that knives (or in this case, what is described as a cleaver) can kill as well.
The third is that drugs were involved, in this case probably meth and perhaps even some others. The perp (who later killed his own family and himself) was a former policeman who’d been suspended from the force for drug use and had attended a hearing about that earlier on the day of the massacre.
Here’s some of his history:
Former colleagues say he had frequent mood swings and was often shunned at work.
According to The Nation Thailand, he once drew his pistol at a bank manager who had complained after finding the officer asleep in a police car parked outside the bank when he was meant to be on guard while banknotes were being stocked.
Last year, he also had heated arguments with his wife over his alleged affair with a karaoke worker whose ex-boyfriend was a drug dealer.
The officer also verbally and physically assaulted a neighbour who confronted him about his noisy house parties.
This is a familiar type of profile often found with people who become mass killers. And yet it’s only a tiny tiny fraction of people like this who do go on to kill, and who they might be is difficult if not impossible to predict. In this case, I think drugs were a necessary although not sufficient part of the crime, and I also think it probably had copycat aspects.
RIP to all the victims.
The left worries that if it loses the power to censor Twitter it will lose more elections
The left continues to be worried about the possible return of the political right to Twitter sans censorship, as a result of Musk’s probable acquisition of the platform. This obviously constitutes an admission that the left believes such censorship has been vital and perhaps even necessary to its success.
“Be afraid, be actually afraid.” Those words from former Politico Magazine editor Garrett M. Graff captures the hyperventilation in the media this week. No it is not Vladimir Putin’s threat of unleashing a nuclear war or the word that our national debt has reached a staggering $31 trillion. No, it is the news that Elon Musk may go forward with the purchase of Twitter and . . . [trigger warning] . . . free speech protections might be restored on the platform. The pearl-clutching of various media and academic figures shows how engrained the censorship culture has become in the United States.
After Musk indicated that he was going forward, the Twitter stock quickly soared. The news that Musk might bring an end to Twitter’s extensive censorship system had previously drawn people back to the platform. However, the media is in full panic mode that the control over speech could be loosened with Musk. Twitter employees also previously panicked at the thought that they might lose some of their control over the speech of others.
NBC News reporter Ben Collins quickly raised the most immediate concern that the sudden ability to speak freely on Twitter could impact the midterm elections: “For those of you asking: Yes, I do think this site can and will change pretty dramatically if Musk gets full control over it. No, there is no immediate replacement. If it gets done early enough, based on the people he’s aligned with, yes, it could actually affect midterms.”
There is no question that in 2020 social media censorship “affected” the election and gave a large advantage to Democrats and the left (the two are quite redundant, I know). Not only that, but the left’s rhetoric fully justifies such a process by saying that it is merely the censoring of “disinformation.” Yeah, right – like Hunter Biden’s laptop, which was the opposite of “disinformation.”
The claim of “disinformation” has become an Orwellian tool of the left.
The same for the word “democracy,” which the left is always saying that it promotes and that the right blocks. The left actually believes that the left is the rightful party and anything that attempts to keep it out of power is by definition anti-democratic. That’s why the people shouldn’t be allowed access to information that contradicts the leftist narrative, and why the left is correct to block such messages in the name of coaxing the reluctant and/or stupid masses into the proper form of democracy: that which places the left in charge.
It’s also why someone such as Turley, who is not on the right but who leans libertarian, breaks away from the Democrat line because of his overriding commitment to free expression and the open marketplace of ideas. As I’ve said before, and as many others have said as well, the left is only for non-censorship when it’s not the group in power. Once it succeeds in getting into power it is all for blocking free expression of the ideas of its opponents.
Open thread 10/6/22
Roundup
(1) Now Musk says he’s going through with the Twitter deal:
The saga of Elon Musk’s effort to buy Twitter took another twist today when Elon threw in the towel and agreed to proceed with the purchase under the original terms, which amount to around $44 billion. With a trial on Twitter’s effort to force Musk to proceed with the transaction scheduled for later this month, Musk’s retreat could be a tactical gambit. But my guess is that he has decided that he might as well proceed with the deal, for the reason that made him to want to buy the company in the first place: his commitment to free speech.
Musk is an interesting and unusual man.
(2) One thing you can say about Kanye West: he speaks his mind and isn’t afraid of the left. For example:
One day after wearing a “White Lives Matter” shirt with Daily Wire host Candace Owens in Paris, Kanye West declared the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement “over.”
West and Owens shocked social media when the duo donned the “White Lives Matter” shirts, each of which also included a picture of the Pope’s face on the front, while flanked by models in matching tops.
“Everyone knows that Black Lives Matter was a scam,” West said on Instagram, where he has nearly 18 millions followers. “Now it’s over, you’re welcome.”
“Everybody knows”? Hardly. But West is making an effort to get a lot more people to know, and his “White Lives Matter” T-shirt gambit was part of the PR game.
(3) The left is salivating over the Herschel Walker abortion payment allegations. The situation – as well as the timing – reminds me of so many previous incidents, including the Roy Moore fracas. In this case, one of the aims is to get conservative Republicans to shy away from voting for Walker because of his alleged hypocrisy on abortion.
(4) More from Tony Bobulinski:
…Tony Bobulinski was the business partner of Hunter Biden and his uncle, Jim Biden, the president’s brother, as they attempted to put together deals with foreign actors. That partnership broke up, and Bobulinski has become a whistleblower. But his efforts to interest the FBI in multiple Biden family felonies, including against him, have come to naught.
Last night, in a second sit-down interview with Tucker Carlson, Bobulinski laid out stunning details on how the FBI deep-sixed any public revelations, much less indictments, based on what Bobulinski says are thousands of pages of proof, including emails, text messages, recorded phone calls, and actual business documents. Despite having possession of abundant evidence, the FBI sat on the investigation through the 2020 election, thereby depriving the public of information that almost certainly would have swayed enough votes to change the outcome and re-elect Donald Trump.
We already knew that, but apparently Bobulinski has offered more details.
(5) This attack is not only awful, it’s bizarre. But green bodysuits are one way to defeat constant surveillance and elude the authorities – although these days, getting caught isn’t what it used to be.
Cui bono?
I’m going to air a pet peeve of mine. It’s the commonplace use of the concept of cui bono to determine who did something. First, the definition:
…a principle that probable responsibility for an act or event lies with one having something to gain…
[Example of use:] One of the most important questions in an investigation is about establishing motive, summed up by the Latin phrase cui bono, or Who benefits?
The question can be useful – for example, in criminal cases in which someone is murdered and there’s a life insurance beneficiary who becomes a person of interest. But if you were on a jury, I would hope you’d require a lot more evidence than that. And yet I constantly see people rushing to judgment on political issues, using the cui bono principle.
Actually, non-actors and non-perpetrators benefit all the time, which makes the principle a highly highly unreliable guide to establishing guilt. It raises interesting questions, but that’s about it. Cui bono makes me grind my teeth, but I have a lot of tooth-grinding to do because it’s almost constantly used to explain events for which the perpetrators are unknown and remain unknown.
I expect a fair amount of disagreement on this.
OPEC isn’t making nice with the Biden forces
The Biden administration launched a full-scale pressure campaign in a last-ditch effort to dissuade Middle Eastern allies from dramatically cutting oil production, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
But that effort appears to have failed, following Wednesday’s crucial meeting of OPEC+, the international cartel of oil producers that, as expected, announced a significant cut to output in an effort to raise oil prices. That in turn will likely cause US gasoline prices to rise at a precarious time for the Biden administration, just five weeks before the midterm elections.
Among other things, maybe Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates aren’t all that keen on helping the Biden administration?
But Biden and company say “trust us!”:
The administration has made it clear to OPEC+ for months, the senior US official said, that the US is willing to buy OPEC’s oil to replenish the SPR. The idea has been to convey to OPEC+ that the US “won’t leave them hanging dry” if they invest money in production, the official said, and therefore, that prices won’t collapse if global demand decreases.
I don’t know why anyone would trust this administration’s promise not to leave them “hanging dry.” Or any promise at all, actually.
The SPR stands for Strategic Petroleum Reserves, which Biden depleted in order to temporarily lower the price of gas and score political points.