The Corner

The one and only.

The Latest Tweets from Team NRO . . .

Krauthammer’s Take: The Left’s Discourse Toward Mozilla CEO Is ‘Totalitarian’


Charles Krauthammer recently responded to Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich stepping down from his position Thursday amid public outcry over his support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which created a constitutional amendment preserving the traditional definition of marriage. 

“This is the culture of the left not being satisfied with making an argument or even prevailing in an argument, but in destroying personally and marginalizing, people who oppose them,” Krauthammer said.

Krauthammer said the Left is acting about gay marriage the same way they act about climate change, calling the “issue closed,” and implying that anyone who is skeptical of their position is “anti-science.”

“They’re now declaring the national debate we’ve had for a decade or two on gay marriage closed, and that anybody who opposes gay marriage is a bigot.”

Krauthammer sides with Andrew Sullivan, the intellectual father of gay marriage, in calling the Left’s behavior toward Eich ”disgusting” and that this kind of discourse is ”totalitarian.” 



The College Fix seeks two assistant editors. Learn more here.


The Mozilla Affair


I write about it at Bloomberg View.

UPDATE: I sympathize with writers trying to find a new angle on this story, but this Jamelle Bouie column — arguing that conservatives are somehow being inconsistent in thinking Eich should not have been hounded out of a job and also opposing ENDA — makes no sense. It’s not as though conservatives are saying that the law should have protected Eich from the campaign against him. I suspect that a lot of conservatives think that Eich should have been able to keep his job, and that employers should not discriminate against gays and lesbians, but don’t want the law involved in either case.

Web Briefing: Easter Sunday 2014

Rascals and Others


In our latest podcast, Mona Charen and I talk about John Kerry and the chimera known as “the Middle East peace process.” We agree on this simple, sober fact: There will be peace the second the Arabs want to coexist — and not before.

We later talk about leftist nonsense on campus — such as a recent incident at UC-Santa Barbara. (That must be a beautiful campus. I can imagine the politics. Probably the same as at UC-Santa Cruz, where Angela Davis was on the faculty.) I hazard — just for sport — that maybe we conservatives make too big a deal out of such incidents. Maybe we make too big a deal out of leftism on campus altogether. Mona talks me down from that in about two seconds.

You may have seen a couple of Corner posts that John Fund and I had — here and here. They were about the “Profile in Courage” award, given by the Kennedy family. In 2001, it went to Gerald Ford, for his pardon of Nixon. Now it is going to George Bush the Elder, for the (I can hardly stand to type it) 1990 budget deal. You know the aphorism: The only good conservative is a dead conservative, or one safely retired.

Anyway, Mona and I talk about this. I say, “Will they be giving George W. the award in 20 years or so?” Mona says, “Yeah, for the surge!” That would be something.

We talk about a slew of things, but end with Edwin Edwards, the Louisiana politician and rascal — but I repeat myself. Hey, that’s not true anymore. Governor Bobby Jindal is one of the least rascally people in America. He stopped by NR offices the other day, and was impressive as always: bright, earnest, informed to the gills, peppy. Oughta run for president.

So should a lot of people. More the merrier, I say.

Again, for our podcast, go here.


Fire Tornados!


Here’s a couple of pretty cool videos heading in to the weekend:

Unlike sharknados, “fire tornados” actually exist. As explained by Slate’s Phil Plait, the phenomenon is the result of a whirlwind’s forming around an ongoing fire and drawing force from the flame. A more detailed description:

As the air is heated above the fire, it rises, and the upward motion can be very strong. This leaves a lower pressure spot at the fire, and the air from outside the fire rushes in to fill the gap. The air is very turbulent, and as the inward-moving air from one side hits air coming in from the other, swirls can form. These get amplified by the constant gale of air, and rotation on a larger scale can get started and sustained. The whirlwind gets pumped by the hot air rising, and the next thing you know you’ve got a full-blown tornado of fire.

Technically, fire tornados are not tornados, but they’re cool nonetheless. The first video is from Colorado; the second from Australia.

Head of Obama’s $26 Million Advocacy Group Laments Koch Money in Politics


Organizing for Action chairman Jim Messina isn’t a fan of all the money influencing politics lately, even though that’s what pays his salary.

As the subject of this week’s #TweetThePress, a weekly Twitter conversation with Meet the Press’s David Gregory, Messina shared his thoughts on the current state of campaign finances in the wake of the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

Later, Messina applauded Senator majority leader Harry Reid’s incessant floor speeches targeting the Koch brothers. In recent weeks, Reid has repeatedly gone after the philanthropic businessmen.

But when asked why the brothers were any different than wealthy Democratic donors, such as billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who has pledged to spend $100 million influencing this year’s election, Messina skirted the issue by returning to attacking the Kochs again.

Messina’s hands aren’t exactly clean: Even though the OFA website says its aim is “to restore the balance of power away from the special interests,” the Obama campaign apparatus-turned-advocacy organization raised $26 million to advocate for the president’s agenda, including from extremely wealthy donors.

In its first few months, OFA came under fire for appearing to “sell access” to the president to people who donated or raised more than $500,000 for the group.

Cheap Shots in Alabama


Things are getting nasty, all from one direction, in what otherwise has been a mostly positive but vigorously contested Republican primary battle for a House seat in a deep-red district near Birmingham. The race involves numerous heavy hitters, and already is demolishing statewide primary fundraising records with two full months left before primary election day.

Anyway, a Tea Party–aligned candidate named Chad Mathis, a medical doctor, has been struggling to gain traction, in large part because several of the other candidates are demonstrably solid conservatives as well. So Mathis seems to be panicking. He’s out with a radio ad characterized by the local paper as letting his “claws come out.” In it, he takes shots at the four strongest other candidates, calling them a “gang of four” while lobbing various attacks at each of them — several of which seem dubious. I can’t vouch for the responses of three of those four, but the attack against Gary Palmer, longtime head of the conservative Alabama Policy Institute think tank, is particularly ludicrous and meretricious.

The ad accuses Palmer, without attribution, of once supporting hikes in property taxes. Based on earlier claims from Mathis, it appears the entire basis of this attack is a single stray comment in an old Palmer column that eventually the state will indeed need new revenue. The comment came in the course of an entire column devoted to opposing a package of tax reforms/revenue-raisers that then was being bandied about the state capitol. As any supply-sider can tell you, one need not raise tax rates of any sort in order to get more revenue. Jack Kemp himself was fond of saying that the way to cure deficits was by the government gaining more revenue — specifically from massively higher private-sector growth, not tax-rate hikes. As a supply-sider, Gary Palmer quite obviously meant exactly that, considering that the entire column was an argument against tax hikes.

As it was, I remember that issue very well, and was in frequent touch with Palmer that year, because I was writing editorials and columns for the Mobile Register about the state’s looming budget crisis. And Palmer was absolutely consistent: The state government, he said, eventually would need more revenue — but only about a third as much as the eventual ballot proposition called for. Palmer vigorously opposed the proposal at issue, saying that the way to create the new revenue was via economic growth. What’s more, Palmer’s entire career of more than two decades at API is one of a strongly anti-tax-hike supply-sider. In fact, he’s the one who fed me the data necessary when I advocated a local sales-tax cut in Mobile.

To run an ad accusing Gary Palmer, of all people, of being a tax hiker is as absurd as it would be to say the same about Arthur Laffer.

Any sentient follower of public affairs in Alabama knows that Palmer and API are low-tax advocates. Nobody with a conscience would dare assert otherwise. Chad Mathis ought to be ashamed of himself.

A Shepherd Raises His Blessing Hand for the Dignity of the Human Person and the Family


“The presence of new life in the womb of the mother brings unique joy and hope to the center of our families, our Church, and our world. It is never too early to give thanks for the gift of new life and to ask the LORD for His blessing.”

That’s from the introduction to The Gift of Joy, a small booklet published by Our Sunday Visitor, introducing “The Rite for the Blessing of a Child in the Womb.” (Which I’ve written about previously here.) This new rite, Gift of Joy authors Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz and Msgr. J. Brian Bransfield explain, “is a special moment to ask God for His blessing and to be a witness to the absolute wonder of the gift of new life.

About it, they continue: 

The blessing of the child in the womb is above all a pastoral moment: it is the rst time that the child is evangelized and is a time of new evangelization for the parents, family, and friends. The blessing warmly extends the love of Jesus Christ as a family prepares for the birth of a child. At the same time, this sacred gesture can serve to announce, in a hope-filled way, the marvelous gift of human life and to encourage preparation for baptism.

Archbishop Kurtz is the current president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and this Sunday in New York City at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, his predecessor in the job, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, will bless the unborn children of mothers and families gathered for Sunday Mass.

Daniel Schreck is among the parents whose children will be blessed by the cardinal on Sunday. His wife Annie is pregnant with their fourth child, who is due in May. “I’ve often thought that the most important day of the liturgical year was the Annunciation,” Daniel says, capturing the Marian and invitational aspect of the Rite.

Keep reading this post . . .

The Radical Left’s High-Stakes Gamble on Intolerance


Not for the first time, the radical Left is moving rapidly away from any respect for free speech and pluralism and is decisively throwing itself into creating a self-righteous culture of intolerance and intimidation. It’s playing a dangerous game, one that is already alienating its own allies.

I don’t often type this, but I agree with every word Andrew Sullivan says here about Mozilla ridding itself of its independent-thinking CEO:

As I said last night, of course Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I’d fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I’m concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

And I say this even less, but I also agree with Michelle Goldberg, writing in The Nation about a different leftist intimidation campaign — the move to cancel Stephen Colbert’s show after he made a lame racial joke:

Call it left-wing anti-liberalism: the idea, captured by Herbert Marcuse in his 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance,” that social justice demands curbs on freedom of expression. “[I]t is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation,” he wrote. “Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.”

She continues:

As the radical cultural critic Ellen Willis wrote in 1997, at another moment of widespread left-wing illiberalism, “It’s the general repressiveness of the social climate that encourages moves to ban offensive speech or define any form of sexual oppression in the workplace as sexual harassment. The main effect of these maneuvers is to foment confusion, cynicism and sexual witch-hunts, trivialize sexual violence, and legitimize conservative demands for censorship—while at the same time ceding the moral high ground of free expression to the right.”

No, the radical Left isn’t just “ceding” the free-speech high ground to conservatives, it’s deeding it over — a free gift of one of America’s most important cultural and legal traditions. This is a high-stakes gamble — one apparently built on the idea that generations of leftist-dominated education and pop culture have sufficiently changed our nation so that we’re willing to turn our backs on pluralism and religious tolerance (not just tolerance of other religions but also tolerance of religion itself). It’s an idea born in Leftist urban and campus enclaves so walled-off from the rest of American life that many of these people could honestly declare they don’t know a single conservative Christian.

But this new intolerance — as it directly confronts orthodox Christianity — is now colliding not just with free speech but with millions of Americans’ source of deepest meaning and purpose. I had the privilege writing this week’s cover story in the print edition of NR (about the history of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the decline of respect for religious liberty), and here is how I described the power of the religious idea: 

Religious liberty exists as a core civilizational value not just because pluralist societies profit from it, but because the human heart demands it. If history teaches anything, it teaches that the religious impulse — the sense of eternity set in the hearts of men (to paraphrase Solomon) — is nothing if not powerful.

It’s an impulse that can and does change lives and nations. It’s an imperative so strong that even the mightiest of totalitarian governments struggle to suppress it. The desire of many millions to follow God is good, but it also just is — it is a primal force that must be acknowledged and respected to the extent that its exercise does not harm the rights of others. In fact, the very act of suppression in the name of uniformity can perversely fray the bonds of a pluralistic society. In liberty, there is unity. Not in conformity.

Can shaming and intimidation overcome the faithful? It can certainly overcome the casual believer, but that won’t be enough for the radical Left. They simply can’t tolerate even the existence of a coherent dissent. So they roll the dice, lashing out at America’s orthodox believers to drive them from the public square, but at the same time they need to remember: Not every American — not every leftist — loves a bully. 

Is Braley Still Reeling from ‘Farmer’ Jab?


Bruce Braley may still be feeling heat for his comments last month in which he disparaged Senator Chuck Grassley as “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.” With polls tightening between him and his potential Republican opponents, Braley, a Democrat running to fill retiring Tom Harkin’s seat this fall, apologized again for his comments nearly two weeks later.

“Being a farmer is a great qualification to have to serve in the United States Congress,” he said in interview with Iowa reporters on Thursday. “I made a mistake and good people who listened to my comments — people who I respect and admire — were upset by what I said.”

He explained that comments doubting Grassley’s qualifications to be Senate Judiciary Committee were a matter of him “simply pointing out that we have different life experiences.” “It’s just a simple difference of who we are and where we’ve come from,” he added.

Braley’s effort to make amends comes after polls show the race getting closer after he had previously enjoyed a sizeable lead.

A Quinnipiac poll from the beginning of March showed Braley leading all but one Republican candidate by double digits; businessman Mark Jacobs was closest at 9 percent. But a Rasmussen poll taken from March 24 to 25 finds Jacobs and others within just a few percentage points.

According to the survey, Braley now leads Jacobs 41 percent to 38 percent. In other hypothetical match-ups, his lead has shrunk. His lead over state senator Joni Ernst has gone from 42–29 to 40–37; former U.S. attorney Matthew Whitaker, who trailed Braley 42–30 at the beginning of the month, is now at 40–36.

“We all say things that we later regret,” Braley said in his apology. “This was one of those times for me.” Time will tell if he regrets it more come November.

‘Hollywood Can’t Stop’ Gosnell TV Movie


Ann and Phelim Media are about a week into their fundraising efforts to put a TV movie together on the crimes of Kermit Gosnell. With 39 days to go, Ann and Phelim Media — named for the Irish husband-and-wife filmmakers who founded it, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer – have already hit the marker of “the 4th most funded movie project in Indiegogo’s history.” But with over $300,000 raised, their goal is $2.1 million. If they don’t reach it, “under Indiegogo rules all the funds are returned to the contributors.”

McElhinney talked with National Review Online this week about the project.

KJL: When did you first hear about Kermit Gosnell?

Ann McElhinney: We were in Pennsylvania promoting FrackNation, our most recent film, when we heard about the Gosnell trial. We attended the trial and were shocked to discover the courtroom was like the abandoned Mary Celeste, in the benches reserved for journalists there was no one from the national media. What we heard in the trial was shockingly gruesome — it made for great journalism — but there was no one there to cover it. 

KJL: Why is it so important to do a TV movie on Gosnell and his crimes? He’s in jail. It could be said that the story is over. What do you anticipate highlighting?

MCELHINNEY: It’s important for many reasons. For one: Because Gosnell’s crimes are historically significant, he killed more people than all the serial killers in U.S. history combined and yet he is not known by most people. So setting the record straight is always worthwhile. 

During his killing spree lots of people in authority knew something terrible was going on at his clinic, there were even whistleblowers — a classic character in the movies — but all were ignored by the numerous state departments whose job it was to protect people. More than that, the Department of Health in Pennsylvania did not cross the threshold to inspect the clinic for over 17 years. After having worked most recently on a film about fracking and talking to people in Pa., it looks like health concerns by government offices seems to not be a uniform value. Oil and Gas companies working in Pennsylvania have every state agency monitoring their every move, apparently because “health concerns” are so important. They might try telling that to the Department of Health in Pennsylvania. There were dead women regularly coming out of Gosnell’s clinic — there were whistleblowers detailing the murders of babies, but the regulatory authorities did nothing. As was detailed in the Grand Jury report — nail salons across the street were inspected more regularly and with more ferocity than Gosnell’s clinic that was killing women and sending woman after woman to the emergency room.

This is a story that must be told. No one has been prosecuted for this negligence. 

It is also worth pointing out that the children he murdered who were born alive and who according to neonatologists fought for their lives and died in excruciating pain, are the same age as babies that are routinely killed in the womb in legal abortions. Perhaps that is worth noting too. 

There is no end to the stories that this film will highlight. 

Of course the all but total censorship of the story by national media and the total ignoring of the story by Hollywood is another part of the story. 

Keep reading this post . . .

An Image for Our Day


our religious liberty challenges, illustrated on the cover of the new National Review:

Do subscribe if you don’t. And read Mary Eberstadt’s recent piece on progressivism’s war on winners, about our secularization problem here

Pryor: I Still Would Have Voted for Obamacare


Knowing what he knows now about the Affordable Care Act, including the rising premiums, broken promises, and millions of canceled plans, would Arkansas senator Mark Pryor still have voted for it?

“I would have,” he told Little Rock’s KARK-TV on Friday morning. “Of course, I would want to see some changes back then,” he quickly added.

While he said the law may be “far from perfect,” ”we probably did get 80 percent of [the law] right,” he said. 

If Republicans offer him a better alternative, he said he’d be willing to support it, but has only heard critics “complain and gripe” about the law.

Sunshine Is the Best Disinfectant


Damn you, Internet! You make it hard for politicians to sneak things through!

Following on my posts and a Breitbart story, the House Republican leadership plan to embed an amnesty (for illegals who join the military) in the defense authorization bill has fallen apart. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, who’d co-sponsored one of the free-standing bills that would likely have been attached to the defense measure, withdrew his name from the bill and wrote that “I will not allow Washington to pull their sneaky tricks on the public.” Mo Brooks of Alabama started gathering members’ signatures for a letter to oppose the scheme. As a result, House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon said there would be no amnesty provision added to the defense bill.

The reaction of Jeff Denham of California, original sponsor of the amnesty provision, was not, shall we say, collegial:

“It is very frustrating to see controversy on an issue from members that have never served our country and don’t understand the impact that immigrants have had on our freedoms and securing our national security.”

This is lazy rhetoric; only lawmakers who have served in uniform (Denham is a decorated Air Force veteran) are allowed to have opinions about defense matters? Sorry, no.

And it’s clear the military amnesty proposal is just a Trojan Horse for the Senate amnesty bill because there’s already a statutory means for illegal aliens to join the military. Here’s what Senator Sessions’s office sent out in 2010 on the subject (see item 7):

Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.

So long as the young illegal immigrants in question were qualified to enlist, Chuck Hagel could exercise this discretion on a case-by-case basis (rather than illegally applying it to whole classes of people, as the administration has done elsewhere) and few would object. I’d be surprised if there would be more than a few hundred illegal aliens a year who actually wanted to serve and were able to meet the stiff entrance requirements for the military – regarding language, education, criminal record, age, weight, drug use, tattoos, aptitude tests, etc.

The small numbers are why such grants of administrative amnesty would present little risk of attracting new illegal immigration. They’re also why the amnesty crowd pushes redundant legislative proposals, whether Denham’s free-standing military amnesty bill or the military provisions of the larger DREAM Act — they’re simply gimmicks to get Republicans to vote for larger amnesties.

Re: Mississippi Passes Religious-Freedom Law


As the law was awaiting the governor’s signature this week, Tesla DeBerry — a black pastor in Holly Springs, Miss., whose Opulent Life Baptist Church had run-ins with zoning laws hostile to religion — addressed some of the critics of the new religious-freedom measure, now signed by the governorin an interview with NRO.

re: Hollywood Hates Humans


You certainly make a convincing case in your most recent book, which we talked about here.

No. 3 DOJ Official Praises Al Sharpton


In his remarks at the “Strengthening the Relationship Between Law Enforcement and Communities of Color Forum” today, Associate Attorney General Tony West gets the ball rolling this way: “Let me also express appreciation to Reverend Al Sharpton, not only for joining us this morning but for his leadership, day in and day out, on issues of reconciliation and community restoration.” He also praises New York City mayor Bill de Blasio: “In the short time the Mayor has been in office, the Justice Department has established a productive working partnership with the City of New York. Within weeks of assuming office, Mayor de Blasio helped broker a resolution to a long-running legal battle — in which the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest — over NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices, helping to ensure that reforms are in place throughout the police department to promote constitutional policing.”  

Mr. West then devotes the balance of his speech to bemoaning a “criminal justice system that lacks integrity in the eyes of those it is supposed to serve,” and, it seems to me, suggests that this perception is, in substantial part, not mistaken. But you can read the speech and decide for yourself.

Today’s Job Report Shows Labor Market Continues to Improve


The headlines from today’s employment report were okay; my firm expected an increase in the pace of job growth in March, as weather-related problems eased, and that’s exactly what happened. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate remained at 6.7 percent instead of ticking back down to 6.6 percent, as we expected. 

But the details of the report were much better than the headlines and signal re-acceleration in the labor market. Payrolls increased 192,000 in March but a faster 229,000 including upward revisions for prior months. Including revisions, private payrolls gained 239,000. And although the jobless rate did not tick back down, the reason was a 503,000 gain in the labor force.

Civilian employment, an alternative measure of jobs that includes small business start-ups, rose 476,000 in March and is up 2.3 million in the past year, slightly beating the 2.2 million increase in nonfarm payrolls. Historically, when civilian employment grows faster than payrolls, it’s a sign of faster job growth ahead.

In the past year, the labor force is up 1.1 million while the unemployment rate has dropped from 7.5 percent from 6.7 percent. Given recent gains in the labor force, the participation rate finally appears to be leveling off; at 63.2 percent it’s the highest in six months and down only slightly from 63.3 percent in March 2013.

The worst news in today’s report was that after increasing 0.4 percent in February, average hourly earnings were unchanged in March. However, after dipping only 0.1 percent in February, total hours worked surged 0.7 percent in March. So, despite flat hourly earnings, total cash earnings increased 0.7 percent in March, the fastest gain in four months. Total cash earnings are up 4 percent versus a year ago, providing plenty of fuel for consumer spending.

Part-time employment increased 414,000 in March, helping boost the more expansive U-6 definition of the unemployment rate to 12.7 percent from 12.6 percent. But the increase in part-timers follows a drop of 1.1 million in the prior seven months. In the past year, part-time employment is up only 180,000, which means it’s been a shrinking share of the workforce.

As we always remind our readers, the labor market could and would be doing better with a better set of policies. But it’s still improving. In the past year nonfarm payrolls have grown at an average monthly rate of 187,000 while civilian employment is up 196,000 per month. We expect continued solid jobs gains in the months ahead. 

Hollywood Hates Humans


I was amused to see that Bill Clinton echoed an old Ronald Reagan idea that a space alien invasion could unite humanity.

I’m not so sure. It would depend on their motives, if recent movies are any guide. I have a piece over at First Things about anti-humanism in the movies–Noah, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc.. In thinking it through, the only times the movies unequivocally root for humans seem to be when aliens want to, yes, kill the planet! From, “Hollywood Hates Humans:”

These days, it seems, we are only allowed to root for the human race when space aliens invade. Even then, alien invaders may not necessarily be bad guys. Rather, they are often evil because they plan to engage in the “ecocide” environmentalists ubiquitously accuse humans of committing.

Thus in the rollicking Independence Day (1996) the aliens are a “galactic swarm of locusts devouring each world’s natural resources before moving on to the next one.” Similarly, in The Battle of Los Angeles (2011)—one of the few recent films in which soldiers are depicted as unequivocally heroic—the invading aliens plan to suck all the water off the planet.

The remake of War of the Worlds also has the aliens committing world-wide ecocide to make our planet compatible to their biology.

This much I do know: You almost never see a movie of recent vintage that depicts humans thriving because of the responsible exploitation of natural resources. In fact, I can’t think of any.

‘Equality Is Necessary for Meaningful Speech’


This statement from Mozilla is absolutely state-of-the-art muddle. It should be put in a time capsule to represent the mumbo-jumbo that attended our new age of intolerance:

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.


Subscribe to National Review