Media outing private citizens who have the wrong politics

The New Neo Posted on by

And by “the wrong politics” I mean anti-Democrat and pro-Trump.

This sort of thing is sickening. It used to even be considered what was quaintly known as “un-American”:

The guy posted a silly video (the “drunk Pelosi” video) to make a politician look drunk. The Daily Beast thought the appropriate response was to contact Facebook to find out who was responsible, dig into his background and tell the world about him being on probation for a domestic battery dispute and that there is a warrant for his arrest in California? That’s not journalism, and it sure as hell is not newsworthy. It’s exposing someone because you don’t like that he made fun of someone on your side. This was a hit piece, plain and simple.

But a great deal of journalism is composed of hit pieces these days; it both reflects and feeds the social media mentality with its outrage mobs. And it’s hardly new, or hardly just a reflection of social media’s dominance. Remember Joe the Plumber, who had the temerity to ask a difficult question of Obama during the 2008 campaign?

At any rate, it’s not so much what the Daily Beast did as what Facebook is said to have done:

The Daily Beast website reported that Facebook assisted in its effort to dox a conservative man who manages Facebook pages focused on political and sports news and commentary.

The June 1 report said that Facebook provided information on the man’s private account activity, adding to concerns about the social media giant’s battered privacy record.

The guy who was doxxed, by the way, says he’s planning to sue the reporter and the Daily Beast, and also claims he didn’t make the video.

What’s true? What’s false? seems to be a major theme so far today.

North Korea: now you see him, now you don’t

The New Neo Posted on by

North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, widely reported to have been purged (i.e. “re-educated”) following the collapse of the most recent talks between the US and North Korea, has surfaced again, seemingly none the worse for wear and in favor with Dear Leader.

The news of his punishment was first reported by the South Korean media, and picked up here. But it appears to have been false. It was originally part of a larger story that involved the execution of other officials who took part in the failed talks, and yet the story appears to have rested on a single anonymous source.

Relying on a single anonymous source doesn’t seem like a great idea. But if a story is enticing enough, and particularly if it reflects poorly on Trump, the temptation is great for the MSM. In the case of North Korea it’s especially tempting because reading the North Korean tea leaves is inherently difficult. The fate of the people reported to have been executed is still unknown, but reports on one of them say he’s actually alive and in custody.

Turley turns on Mueller

The New Neo Posted on by

First Dershowitz, and now Turley:

The concerns over Mueller’s motivations was heightened by the justifications that he has offered for some of his decisions like not reaching a conclusion on the weight of the evidence on obstruction. Many of us view Mueller’s rationale (based on the DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president) to be not just unprecedented but illogical…

As someone who defended Mueller’s motivations against the unrelenting attacks of Trump, I found his press conference to be baffling, and it raised serious concerns over whether some key decisions are easier to reconcile on a political rather than a legal basis. Three decisions stand out that are hard to square with Mueller’s image as an apolitical icon…

Refusal to identify grand jury material

One of the most surprising disclosures made by Attorney General William Barr was that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly told Mueller to submit his report with grand jury material clearly marked to facilitate the release of a public version. The Justice Department cannot release grand jury material without a court order. Mueller knew that. He also knew his people had to mark the material because they were in the grand jury proceedings.

Thus, Barr and Rosenstein reportedly were dumbfounded to receive a report that did not contain these markings. It meant the public report would be delayed by weeks as the Justice Department waited for Mueller to perform this basic task. Mueller knew it would cause such a delay as many commentators were predicting Barr would postpone the release of the report or even bury it. It left Barr and the Justice Department in the worst possible position and created the false impression of a coverup.

Why would a special counsel directly disobey his superiors on such a demand? There is no legal or logical explanation.

Excerpt partisan politics, of course.

More:

Surprise letter sent to the attorney general

Five days after submitting his report, Mueller sent a letter objecting that Barr’s summary letter to Congress “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the work and conclusions reached by his team…

The letter surprised Barr for good reasons. First, Barr had offered to allow Mueller to read the summary before submitting it. Mueller declined but then sent this letter calling for the release of sections of his report, even though they had not been cleared by Justice Department staff. Second, Barr has known Mueller for decades. Yet, Mueller did not simply pick up the phone to discuss his concerns and possible resolutions or to ask for a meeting. Instead, he undermined Barr with a letter clearly meant to insinuate something improper without actually making such an accusation.

Mueller’s letter also requested something he knew Barr could not do, which is to release uncleared portions of the report…

Refusal to reach an obstruction conclusion

…While entirely ignored by the media, Mueller contradicted himself in first saying that he would have cleared Trump if he could have, but then later saying that he decided not to reach a conclusion on any crime.

I have already addressed why Mueller’s interpretation of memos from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel is unprecedented and illogical. He concluded that, in barring the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president, those memos meant prosecutors can investigate but not reach conclusions on possible criminal acts.

It is not just his legal interpretation that is incomprehensible. Mueller was appointed almost two years before he released his report. He was fully aware that Congress, the Justice Department, the media, and the public expected him to reach conclusions on criminal conduct, a basic function of the special counsel. He also was told he should do so by the attorney general and deputy attorney general. Yet, he relied on two highly controversial opinions written by a small office in the Justice Department.

Over those two years, Mueller could have asked his superiors for a decision on this alleged policy barring any conclusions on criminal conduct. More importantly, he could have requested an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel…

More at the link.

Turley is one of those libertarian lawyer/pundits with whom I sometimes disagree and more often agree. He almost never writes anything stupid even when it’s something with which I disagree, and he’s usually crystal clear in what he’s saying and why he’s saying it. Dershowitz is the liberal Democrat equivalent. With Mueller recently, both Dershowitz and Turley have been deeply shocked by the behavior of a man they used to respect and have spent some time defending. It is a mark of how egregious Mueller’s behavior has been that Turley has turned on him, and has made it extremely clear (as well as convincing on the merits) as to why he changed his mind.

Why did Mueller do it? Politics, of course—plus the fact that he thought he could get away with it. Oh, not with the right, or with people like Turley. But the left and the Democrats in Congress have lapped it up, and the sort of criticism Turley raises in his piece probably won’t reach most of the public.

Making gametes for humans

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s not possible yet, but they’re working on it:

Progress toward making “artificial gametes” has been accelerating. In Japan, mice were born from eggs scientists had manufactured in a dish from a tail cell. Chinese scientists later claimed they had determined the exact sequence of molecular signals required to make mouse sperm. So far, the exact biochemical formula for prompting a stem cell to mature into functional human eggs or sperm remains out of reach. No human skin cell has been turned into a bona fide human reproductive cell. But many scientists believe it’s only a matter of time—maybe only a year or two—before they get the right recipe. Recent advances have been “absolutely clear, and breathtaking” says George Daley, a stem-cell biologist who recently became dean of Harvard’s medical school.

This sounds both terrifying and exciting. It conjures up Brave New World of course (a book that seems more brilliant with each passing day; perhaps I should read it again, something I haven’t done in decades). And yet for people struggling with infertility because of a lack of sperm or eggs, it would be a wonderful thing.

However:

The technology could carry socially disruptive consequences. Women might have children regardless of age. Just grab some skin and poof, young eggs. And if eggs and sperm can be produced in the lab, why not also make embryos by the dozens and test them to pick those with the least disease risk or the best chance of a high IQ? Henry Greely, a member of Stanford University’s law faculty and one of the most influential bioethical thinkers in the U.S., finds that scenario likely. Last year, in a book titled The End of Sex, he predicted half of couples would stop reproducing naturally by 2040, instead relying on synthetic reproduction using skin or blood as a starting point.

Others say it’s possible, even probable, that lab-made gametes could be genetically engineered to remove disease risks. And still more speculative possibilities are on the horizon. For instance, scientists believe it will be possible to make eggs from a man’s skin cell and sperm from a woman’s skin cell, though the latter would be more difficult because women lack Y chromosomes. This process, termed “sex reversal,” in theory could allow reproduction between two people of the same sex. And then there is what Greely terms the “uni-­parent—his own sperm, his own egg, his own ‘unibaby.’”

From Brave New World, written in 1931 and published in 1932 :

“But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.’

‘In fact,’ said Mustapha Mond, ‘you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.’

‘All right then,’ said the Savage defiantly, ‘I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.’

‘Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.’ There was a long silence.

‘I claim them all,’ said the Savage at last.

Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. ‘You’re welcome,” he said.”

There’s a tremendous flaw (actually, several) in the reasoning of this article in Reason, comparing Trump’s tariffs to the Berlin Wall

The New Neo Posted on by

Law professor Ilya Somin makes a very poor analogy between Trump’s Mexican tariffs and the Berlin Wall in this article entitled and subtitled, “Trump’s Plan to Force Mexico to Lock In its Own People: The President’s effort to coerce Mexico into blocking the emigration of its own people undermines the distinction between keeping people out and locking them in. It thereby makes US immigration policy analogous to the Berlin Wall.”

What’s wrong with this? Let me count the ways (and I’ll probably miss a few). Firstly, Mexicans can go to other countries that will let them in, and that’s most of the countries (or perhaps all of the countries) in the world—including the US, but more about that later. The only country involved here is the US, which like any other country has a right to (a) ban or restrict any immigrants it wants, and (b) put tariffs on any goods it wants for any reason it wants.

On the other hand, the East German government (via, among other mechanisms, the Berlin Wall) kept its own people in and did not just restrict them from going to a single country. They were not allowed to go to huge chunks of the rest of the world—the West, freedom. Nothing even remotely like would be happening in Mexico if tariffs were to be implemented.

But there’s another huge error. Trump is not proposing to actually keep Mexicans out of this country. The idea is to keep those who have tried to enter illegally out. We even accept some of those who enter illegally, if they are determined to have a bona fide claim of asylum. These are the sort of restrictions any country has a right to impose, and most do impose, and if another country (in this case, Mexico) is facilitating the flouting of these rules we (or any other country) have a right to use lawful means to economically pressure them to stop.

You may agree or disagree with Trump’s tariff proposal (there’s plenty of room for disagreement), but there is zero analogy to the Berlin Wall—which by the way (historical note coming) only applied to keep the people of East Germany and out of the city of West Berlin, not the entire country of West Germany. Of course, the East German people were also kept out of West Germany and the entire West, but the Berlin Wall was not the main mechanism for that. The Berlin Wall was built because of the fact that Berlin, the former capital of a unified Germany which started WWII, was located in the heart of East Germany and even towards the eastern part of that heart, geographically speaking. Therefore West Berlin constituted a tiny piece of enticing freedom wholly embedded within the unfree East Germany.

Author Ilya Somin probably chose “Berlin Wall” as an analogy because it raises an emotional response; just about everyone knows something about the Berlin Wall and that is that it was a bad thing. But for the sake of accuracy, he should have at least written about the Inner German border which was the actual Cold War border between the countries of East and West Germany. It was a dangerous line to cross, and could (and did) get people shot:

[The Inner German border] was formally established on 1 July 1945 as the boundary between the Western and Soviet occupation zones of former Nazi Germany. On the eastern side, it was made one of the world’s most heavily fortified frontiers, defined by a continuous line of high metal fences and walls, barbed wire, alarms, anti-vehicle ditches, watchtowers, automatic booby traps, and minefields. It was patrolled by 50,000 armed East German guards who faced tens of thousands of West German, British, and US guards and soldiers. In the hinterlands behind the border were more than a million North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Warsaw Pact troops.

The border was a physical manifestation of Sir Winston Churchill’s metaphorical Iron Curtain that separated the Soviet and Western blocs during the Cold War. It marked the boundary between two ideological systems—democratic capitalism and single-party communism. Built by East Germany in phases from 1952 to the late 1980s, the fortifications were constructed to stop the large-scale emigration of East German citizens to the West, about 1,000 of whom are said to have died trying to cross it during its 45-year existence…

The better-known Berlin Wall was a physically separate, less elaborate, and much shorter border barrier surrounding West Berlin,

Not very much like tariffs. But what the hey, don’t let that stand in the way of an emotional argument.

Somin goes on:

The whole point of the [tariff] plan is precisely to force Mexico to lock in its own people.

This argument can be countered by the ones I’ve already mentioned: the people of Mexico are not locked in, they can go just about anywhere in the world if they’ve got the money and the visas. Some Mexicans can even come here—many, actually, especially to visit. But in addition, many of the “migrants” involved are not Mexicans at all. In other words, they are not Mexico’s “own people”—(a point Somin concedes later in his piece, but which IMHO is somewhat irrelevant to his argument either way, pro or con).

In addition, Mexico is free to comply or not to comply with whatever pressure the US exerts. Is pressuring a country the same as “forcing” it? Of course not. Pressure of the sort Trump proposes—tariffs—are a legal tactic, and if they are implemented then Mexico can make its own decision about what to do.

More:

Defenders of Trump’s action could argue that there is a distinction between locking people in completely and “merely” preventing them from leaving for a specific destination (such as the US). But surely we would still condemn the Berlin Wall if the East German government had said its purpose was to block its citizens from moving to the West, but they were still free to leave for other communist nations.

Another false (and in fact rather ludicrous) analogy. A more appropriate equivalent would be if the US were trying to stop Mexicans from traveling to Western countries as a whole, or European countries as a whole, or even one other other country besides the US, or any place they would actually still be free to travel—or even to emigrate to, if those countries let them. But there is only one country involved here, the US, not the West or any other group or any other particular way of life. And, as I said before, they also would not even be blocked entirely from coming here, only from coming illegally.

Somin goes on:

Blocking the right to emigrate is a violation of international law.

But no one is blocking Mexicans’ right to emigrate, or even suggesting such a thing. They would continue to be free to leave the country.

I will add that the only reason Trump feels the need to do this is that there is not an effective wall in place, and that’s because Congress has blocked it. So the tariffs are a policy he is proposing because of the lack of a wall that works.

Whether Trump’s tariff proposal is a good idea or a bad one is an entirely separate issue, a practical issue the pros and cons of which can be discussed. Such a policy can be objected to and criticized without resorting to preposterous and emotion-laden analogies.

Regarding those tariffs and all the criticism thereof—I’m not saying tariffs are a good idea to actually implement, but I was under the impression that at the moment they are a bargaining chip, an opening bid in a complex negotiation. Isn’t that how these things tend to work? The tariff proposal (or actual tariffs, if they are implemented) may not be successful, but so far isn’t this one of those Art of the Deal things? I thought that was glaringly obvious.

[NOTE: Somin is a libertarian, if I’m not mistaken. He was born in the USSR and came here at the age of five, and teaches law at George Mason University.]

NYC public education has become dedicated to racial categories (Part I)

The New Neo Posted on by

Did you know that, in New York City, Asians have become some sort of honorary whites, according to the city’s Department of Education?:

A city DOE-sponsored panel designed to combat racism told parents that Asian-American students “benefit from white supremacy” and “proximity to white privilege,” an outraged mom told The Post.

This seems like nonsense unless you get into the mindset of those educators to whom race isn’t just a thing, it’s the only thing. Here’s how it goes: Asians aren’t white, and they’re a minority group, plus a significant number of them are from immigrant families who aren’t wealthy. That ought to make them stars in the minds of those who consider non-white racial achievement one of the highest goals of all in education. However, the devotion to diversity bumps up against the fact that Asians do disproportionately well and it becomes difficult to explain this in conventional terms, because certainly Asians have often been targets of discrimination. Equality of outcome is considered by the SJWs to be a must, so Asian academic dominance is a stumbling block (especially in light of discrimination) and something that cries out for them to explain it.

One such explanation might be that Asians are on average just innately smarter, although any suggestion of such a thing would be a big no-no. I have no idea whether that’s true or not. But even without that explanation there’s another one that almost certainly is true: Asian families tend to espouse values that lead to academic excellence, such as hard work. Since such values are now labeled by SJW educators as “white,” therefore Asians are supposedly benefiting from their “proximity” to white values that confer white privilege. All this despite the facts that Asians are not white.

It’s convoluted, to be sure. But what choice do SJWs have? They must denigrate these values, and they must tear down the idea of objective merit-based rewards, in order to push their policies. And to do this, it helps to label such values as intrinsically white and intrinsically racist, no matter what ethnic group may display them.

It’s a sort of institutionalized and authoritatively-approved version of the old schoolyard taunt that black children who display these traits and excel in school are “acting white.” Once upon a time educators fought that idea, but now they promote their own version of it, and use it to put down Asian students and/or anyone else who excels and is not in one of the specially approved victim groups.

It is truly tragic and terrible that this has happened, and it helps no one: not the black students nor the white students nor the Hispanic students nor the Asian students nor society as a whole.

[Part II coming soon, with some specifics.]

[NOTE: I realize this is not just a NYC phenomenon. But New York provides a great example of the trend.]

Nevada governor vetoes National Popular Vote bill

The New Neo Posted on by

You may have noticed that Nevada recently joined the club of state legislatures that have passed laws joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and saying that they would go with the popular vote in an election. Well, this time the governor of the state involved, Nevada, has vetoed the legislation.

Good for him.

What’s more, he’s a Democrat, which makes his action quite unusual:

“After thoughtful deliberation, I have decided to veto Assembly Bill 186,” Sisolak said in a statement. “Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

“I recognize that many of my fellow Nevadans may disagree on this point and I appreciate the legislature’s thoughtful consideration of this important issue,” he added.

The pact only would take effect once states totaling 270 electoral votes have signed onto it, but the group sponsoring this is determined to keep going and it seems that they may end up crossing that threshold. Even so, it’s possible that it wouldn’t come into effect for a long while, because it is somewhat rare (at least, it used to be somewhat rare) that a president wins without winning the popular vote. It’s also possible such a pact would be declared unconstitutional.

My guess is that, as soon as it happens that a Democrat were to win a presidential election and yet lose the popular vote—if such a thing ever occurs—these states would repeal the law so fast it would make your head spin.

Passengers

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night I watched “Passengers,” a movie that was made in 2016 and can roughly be described as science fiction. It’s no masterpiece, but I liked it, which is more than I can say for most movies I see these days (which is not too many).

I was surprised to see that, according to the critics, the movie was considered awful, although audiences seemed to like it.

Count me with the audiences. The film has a dull title, is kind of static, some plot points are shaky, and the action sequences that come towards the end are formulaic and predictable. But the film has an unusual combination of other pluses: effective acting, good design and sets, a great robot, a fabulous special effects scene involving a swimming pool and—perhaps most interesting of all—a plot that involves some pretty heavy-duty questions about ethics under extraordinary conditions, love, forgiveness, and what makes a meaningful and productive life.

Not bad at all.

Israeli politics is crazy

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m not too keen on parliamentary systems in general. Too many small parties are given power. The one good thing about parliamentary systems, IMHO, is that they are more responsive than ours and elections can be called if there’s no confidence in the leader. That can also be one of the bad things, though, leading to instability.

Netanyahu failed to form a coalition government due to the holdout from a very small party called Yisrael Beiteinu and its leader Avigdor Lieberman, and now the Israeli parliament has voted to dissolve itself and hold new elections.

A little background here [emphasis mine]:

When Lieberman’s refusal to join Netanyahu’s new coalition forced the Knesset to disband just days after it was sworn in, thrusting the nation into another costly and tumultuous election season, some in the Israeli press revisited the anecdote and wondered what made the politician who caved before Hamas stand firm against Netanyahu, with whom he disagrees on little of substance. Immediately after Netanyahu had won his fifth term as prime minister, back in the halcyon days of last month, Lieberman promised his support, announcing he would not endorse anyone else for the office. Why, then, did he turn his back on Netanyahu at this critical juncture?

To hear the chattering classes in Jerusalem tell it, four explanations are likely.

The first, and most straightforward, holds that Lieberman is truly committed to the policy question that drove him to his latest decision, namely his strong objection to any compromise that allows Haredi men to defer or altogether avoid being conscripted to the Israel Defense Forces. The history of this contentious debate is long, and it dates back to the birth of the state, but partisans on all sides of the question agree on a few cardinal issues. First, the problem may very well solve itself: As Haaretz reported last spring, “in reality, at least in the mainstream of Haredi society, enlistment is no longer a dirty word.” That is in part because the vanguard of Haredi soldiers discovered that it was possible to become a solider and remain true to the Haredi way of life…

With principle out of the way, passion is next on the lineup. Lieberman started his political career as Netanyahu’s right-hand man—his first big job was director of the prime minister’s office during Bibi’s first term. He has since come to develop a Dostoevskyan dislike for his former patron, calling him, on one unforgettable occasion, a “lying, cheating scoundrel.”…This week’s debacle, many in Israel believe, was Lieberman’s ultimate payback, a revenge plot of a scorned underling against his imperious boss.

Then again, there’s explanation No. 3, which sees Lieberman’s move as purely pragmatic. Sensing that Netanyahu’s days may be numbered—all those investigations and possible indictments don’t look too promising—Lieberman might have very well acted out of pure reason when he took the step that might be the one to finally put an end to King Bibi’s storied career. Believe in this theory, however, and numerous hiccups arise, including the fact that Lieberman refused to endorse any of Netanyahu’s rivals on the left…

Unless, that is, you believe in what’s behind door No. 4. The Israeli columnist Akiva Bigman advanced another theory in Yisrael Hayom, arguing that Lieberman, like a grizzly in Denali, was not motivated by anything save for disinterested, instinctual hunger. Craving more political power—the natural state of any politician—he spotted an opportunity to get some and took it, caring little about the immense damage he’d done to the stability of the political system and the state’s coffers.

Even before I’d read that article, I was thinking door No. 4: an opportunity for power was grabbed by a man who didn’t have all that much of it and wanted more. And the parliamentary system gave him the opportunity.

What will happen in the next election? No one knows, and I’m not making any predictions either. What a mess.

The spelling bee ran out of words

The New Neo Posted on by

The kids outlasted the testers, and eight winners were left standing:

Eight spellers were better than the dictionary. They were better than anything the Scripps National Spelling Bee could throw at them. And they all ended up with a hand on the trophy.

In the most extraordinary ending in the 94-year history of the competition, the bee ended in an eight-way tie on Thursday night. The eight co-champions spelled the final 47 words correctly, going through five consecutive perfect rounds.

Each will get the full winner’s prize of $50,000 in cash.

I’m glad they didn’t split the winner’s purse eight ways.

I watched the last half-hour or so of the bee. These kids are trained to near-perfection—maybe to perfection—in their chosen field. It’s a pursuit I don’t pretend to understand, but it seems to interest them. Yes, parents are pushing them, too, but from watching them it seems to me that these children are also strongly self-motivated.

Spelling bees appeal to a certain kind of OCD character. In recent years the winners have tended to be of Indian (Asian) descent, and in fact they dominate the competition. It’s no accident. Here’s an article that gives some of the backstory on that:

Indian Americans have won every Scripps National Spelling Bee since 2008…

Such deep involvement in a language arts activity may seem unusual for an immigrant community known for its prowess in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). But I learned there is community prestige in placing competitively in spelling bees and great familial pride for having participated in something so challenging at a young age.

Champions often are groomed on the spelling bee circuit. Nearly every Indian American speller who has won the National Spelling Bee over the last decade has also won or done well in the South Asian Spelling Bee, founded in 2008 and run by a public relations firm…

Competing in bees also allows these young word nerds to make a vast social network of friends who also love spelling. For them, smart is definitely the new cool…

Through Indian American community involvement and word of mouth come more potential bee entrants. Many parents of Indian American spellers I met — including Dasari and his wife, Usha — earned STEM degrees in India that made them attractive to U.S. employers. They immigrated as part of the skilled migration solicited through the Immigration Act of 1990.

When their children aged out of the spelling bee competition in 2017, the Dasaris founded “SpellPundit,” a coaching company. It joins more established Indian American coaching enterprises, including “GeoSpell,” started by Dallas-area resident Vijay Reddy. When their son, Chetan, competed, Reddy and his wife programmed software and created extensive word lists for him. Chetan’s best national bee finish was seventh place. “We wanted him to win,” Reddy said. “It was our Olympics.”…

Kevin Negandhi, a former host of the broadcast, has said the bee fondly reminds him of his Indian American childhood, where education and homework were emphasized.

He sums up Indian American interest in the bee this way: “We know it is our night, and it is a night of pride.”

The words have had to get more and more difficult over the years. But nothing was too difficult last night for the eight well-deserved winners.

Here they are:

Bill Barr opines

The New Neo Posted on by

Bill Barr gave a long interview to Jan Crawford, and you can find a transcript here and the recording here.

I haven’t read the entire thing nor have I listened to it, but Ace has taken the time and trouble to do so, and he’s excerpted some of the most interesting parts.

Even before this, I’ve liked just about everything I’d seen and heard from Barr so far. He’s exhibited a rare combination of traits: clarity and simplicity of expression, a straight-shooter who goes to the heart of the matter without being in the least offensive or careless. He’s precise without getting bogged down in arcane legalese. You can see all of this demonstrated in the interview, as well, and if you want the shorter version (it’s not short, though) go to Ace’s post.

My favorite quote is this one, although there are so many favorites it’s difficult to choose just one:

AN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it’s like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What’s your response to that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.

JAN CRAWFORD: You did?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.

Much more at the links.

Politics: do you care?

The New Neo Posted on by

I used to care much less about politics. I think I know why that was. I was younger and there was a lot more activity in my life (school, motherhood, taking care of a house, career stuff, all that jazz). But it wasn’t just that. It was mostly that the two parties were much closer to each other (or certainly seemed to be) in philosophy and in particular in attitudes towards this country and its people as a whole. So although it mattered and although I cared somewhat, most of the time it didn’t seem to matter all that much.

That has changed, and now I care deeply. And I think more people care these days, and that is one of the reasons political discussions have become so heated and people have gotten so angry at each other for their politics, angry in the personal sense, although I don’t engage in that at all (except now and then as the recipient of the anger).

But ever since I’ve been in the blogosphere—and that’s a long long time—I’ve noticed there are people who say they don’t care because both parties are the same. Now, you can say that both parties are dumb, or venal, or too in love with the deep state, or any number of things of that sort, because they certainly have things in common. But they are not the same, and the consequences of electing one over the other matter. Does anyone really think the country and the world would be in the same condition today if Hillary Clinton had been elected rather than Donald Trump? I don’t.

So I think most people care, and most people who don’t care don’t care for one of the reasons I just explained: they are distracted by other things in life, and/or they think the two parties and whatever candidates they’re offering this time around are essentially the same.

This post was sparked by something I saw in Ann Althouse’s comments section. It was written by Althouse herself, and it goes like this:

You’d probably be surprised if you knew how little I care about who wins the various elections I write about.

Now, that’s interesting. I note that she didn’t write that she didn’t care at all, so I suppose she might care but just not as much as one might expect from someone who spends a great many hours a day writing posts that often pertain to politics and elections. But it seems to be a disclaimer about caring a whole lot, which I find puzzling. Maybe she means it to be puzzling; I don’t see much of an explanation in the thread, although I didn’t read every word.

But this isn’t about Ann Althouse; I just use her as an example and a springboard for discussion. Why care? Why write about politics or even talk about politics if you don’t care very much who wins? Isn’t the outcome of a big election more important, for example, than who wins the World Series or who wins the other things people care so deeply about?

I’ve had discussions with people in recent years who say they don’t care about politics, even though they talk about it a lot. “I don’t have a dog in this race” they say (the sports analogy). Usually the reason given for being so blasé is that they don’t have kids or grandkids, and they themselves aren’t young anymore, so there’s no reason to care. I care, and it’s not just tied to my family or how much longer I may have left on this earth. I hope to continue to care.

How about you? My guess is that the readers of this blog may be somewhat self-selected for caring. But what do you think?