The Wall Street Journalreports that bank are telling their corporate customers to stop making deposits. Yes, you’re reading that correctly: Banks don’t want more deposits.
The basic idea of banking is to take in money from deposits and lend it out at interest to borrowers. But with interest rates near zero, banks hardly make any money doing that, so taking in more money from deposits doesn’t do much for them.
Corporations are banks’ biggest customers, so they are the ones driving what the Journal calls a “surge” in deposits:
Bank deposits have continued to surge this year. Between late March and May 26, they rose by $411 billion to $17.09 trillion, according to the latest available data from the Federal Reserve. That is slower than the pace last spring, but still nearly four times the average of the past 20 years, according to the Fed data.
So we’ve got households with trillions in savings who are paying off debt (which is great news, by the way). We’ve got corporations with trillions in deposits who are sticking with the conservative investment strategy they adopted during the pandemic. And now we’ve got banks (banks!) saying they don’t want more money. The Biden administration’s response is to flood the economy with more cash? There may very well be a political justification for that policy aim, but it’s hard to see an economic one.
The gay-rights movement has gone neo-Victorian, but out-of-the-closet social conservatives still can’t win an election north of Oklahoma.
There is nothing as indicative of the Left’s achievement of social power — and its embrace of social power — as its new enthusiasm for respectability. About 80 percent of left-wing activism in our time consists of working to push individuals and institutions outside the increasingly narrow circle of respectability. Many of the people and subcultures that helped to build the gay-rights movement are no longer welcome in it, at least publicly. It would almost be worth resurrecting Gore Vidal to read what he would write about it. Out with The City and the Pillar, in with the McKinsey employee handbook.
The thing to understand about that respectability strategy is that in its weaponized form it is more focused on audiences and witnesses than it is on prominent figures and institutions, who are only incidental pretexts: The hysteria directed at, say, Tucker Carlson, isn’t really intended to deny him a voice or the opportunity to make a living — it is to make his audience feel disreputable for watching him, and to provide an ironclad instrument of dismissal should he make a point or report a fact that his critics find inconvenient. You see the same thing with, to take one recent example, Charles Cooke’s reporting on that nut-cutlet from Florida. If you are intellectually lazy, then you don’t have to deal with the facts in Charlie’s reporting, because . . . Bill Buckley had some embarrassing views about race in the 1950s.
Policing respectability is a funny business. Andrew Sullivan is going to do just fine on SubStack, but the point of the campaign against him has always been less to disturb his life or his work and more to make of him an example for others who might be tempted to express heterodox views. The same is true of efforts to police individual sentences in works of fiction — the demonstration of power itself, and not the trivial fruit of any particular exercise of that power, is the point: Tremble, and obey.
Eventually, the circle of respectability will narrow so tightly that the only person left inside it will be Pete Buttigieg, assuming he becomes a vegan and denounces his former work at McKinsey. But not the McKinsey aesthetic: Pete Buttigieg is always welcome in a gay-pride parade.
Some of the locations that say they have more than enough Johnson and Johnson vaccine doses than they need include Philadelphia and Flint, Michigan, so one might think they could easily be sent north or east to Canada. But our northern neighbors might not need the doses that badly. Canada’s vaccination effort began with a slow start, but they’ve picked up speed considerably; 68 percent of their population 18 and older has received at least one dose.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t places in North America that could use every last one those vaccines. In Mexico, just 19 percent of the population has one dose, and the situation is the same in El Salvador. The Dominican Republic is at 38 percent, Beliza is at 17 percent, the Bahamas is at 12 percent, Jamaica is at 5.3 percent, and Guatemala is at 3 percent. They’re all a relatively short plane ride away, and most major U.S. airports have nonstop flights at least to these countries – even Philadelphia and Detroit. Get a crate of the Johnson and Johnson vaccines and stick it on the next outgoing flight!
Great news. The FDA has just approved a new drug that appears to slow the cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer’s disease by 28 percent as compared to a cadre of subjects receiving placebo. The help with everyday tasks was most significant.
The approval is controversial because — well, Big Pharma! It is also based on one study, and the drug does not provide dramatic improvement. But I think a Wall Street Journal editorial has the right POV:
As for complaints about insufficient evidence, Congress amended federal law in 1997 to let the FDA approve novel drugs based on a single study in order to accelerate breakthroughs for hard-to-treat diseases. The FDA has appropriately exercised its discretion, and Biogen plans to conduct additional studies following drug approval.
I want to focus on a different point. Alzheimer’s and other dementia patients are now in the cross hairs of the euthanasia movement. In the Netherlands, Belgium, and soon in Canada, people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s can order themselves killed once they become incompetent. Or they can receive euthanasia before that time.
Meanwhile, our domestic assisted-suicide zealots teach elderly people how to commit suicide by self-starvation, with the agony of such a course palliated by a doctor — known in euthanasia parlance as VSED (voluntary stop eating and drinking). There are even legal moves afoot to allow advance directives to be written legally ordering caregivers to starve dementia patients death — even if they willingly eat! Nevada has passed such a law.
If new treatments do materialize, how many dementia patients will have died by their own or others’ hands who might have lived if they had continued on until new treatments came on line? I shudder to think.
Don’t scoff. It has happened before with AIDS.
I lived in San Francisco at the worst of the crisis. It was the most tragic circumstance I have ever witnessed: Young men who looked as if they were 80 were so weak they had to be held up by friends just to walk down the street. An underground assisted-suicide cabal of MDs serving the gay community and AIDS patients surreptitiously provided overdoses to dying patients. The supposedly empowering motto was: “You can’t tell us who to love and you can’t tell us how to die.”
Then, the new drugs suddenly came on line. Patients literally on the brink of death were brought back to vigorous life, and AIDS was suddenly redefined from a terminal to a chronic condition.
There is no doubt in my mind that the number of AIDS patients died by assisted suicide — but would have lived without being encouraged into hastened death — is considerable. Yet I never heard any of the assisted-suicide-for-AIDS pushers acknowledge their complicity in these unnecessary deaths.
I think the same may one day — soon or far — become true with Alzheimer’s patients if we follow the current course and allow their hastened deaths. Pushing killing instead of caring for our most serious diseases masks itself as compassion but is actually cruel abandonment.
Do students who go to our so-called elite colleges and universities receive a better education than those who go to schools that aren’t so prestigious? That is seldom the case, and often the reverse is true. Students who go to “lesser” institutions may get more time from their professors and the curriculum may be stronger. The “elite” schools are called that because they admit such a tiny percentage of applicants, most of whom are excellent students, and not because the education they offer is superior.
And yet, people go to extreme lengths to get their children into these colleges. A recent book, Guilty Admissions by Nicole LaPorte explores that phenomenon and Megan Zogby discusses it in today’s Martin Center article.
The quest usually starts well before college, with elite high schools where parents shell out huge money and expect to get their money’s worth in high grades. Then they pull strings to get extra time for the kids to take the SAT to accommodate their claimed disabilities through what are called 504 Plans.
Such accommodations go mostly to students from well-to-do families. Zogby writes, “As learning disabilities have become a bonus rather than a burden, ritzy schools have a manufactured crisis. LaPorte compares Palisades Charter High School, a well-off and majority-white school, with El Monte High School, which is almost entirely Latino or Hispanic with 95 percent of students on free or reduced-price lunch. Yet Palisades has 8.5 percent of its students on a 504 plan, compared to only 0.1 percent of students at El Monte.”
Besides those tricks, the wealthy have other ways of getting their kids into fancy colleges. One of them is “tagging.” What’s that? LaPorte explains: “Tagged students include development [fundraising] cases, political cases (where a politician or highly influential community member is advocating for a student), VIP cases (the child of a celebrity), and trustee cases, (a member of the board of trustees is advocating for a child), as well as legacies and children of staff, to a lesser extent.”
For all of their rhetoric about commitment to social justice, the top people in these supposedly top colleges have not done much to combat the gaming of their admissions. That’s because it’s good for their bottom line. They are non-profit, but they are still revenue maximizers.
Should Marx and Marxism be debated, given all we have experienced since 1917 or so? I mean, shouldn’t it be like debating smallpox? Marxism is bad and murderous, right? Well, the Cambridge Union, at the University of Cambridge, hosted a debate last week: “This house believes that Marx was right.” Arguing against the proposition, brilliantly, was Daniel Hannan.
I write about this at the beginning of my column, Impromptus, today. I then take up some states where Marxists hold sway — where they indeed rule: Belarus, China, and Cuba. Toward the end of my column, I address some Republican issues. These are very painful, for someone like me. Also unduckable. At the end of the column, there are a couple of balms: music and poetry.
Last night, after I had written my column, I got two pieces of news, which I would like to discuss here in the Corner. In Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, the longtime dictator, has been sweeping up political rivals. Four of them have been arrested, as you can read in this report. One of them is Felix Maradiaga, who is being represented by Jared Genser, the international human-rights lawyer. According to Jared, Felix has been severely beaten and “disappeared.”
Two years ago, I podcasted with Felix, here. I then wrote a piece: “Nicaragua in Hell: Ortega’s crackdown and people who resist it.” Here is a brief excerpt:
Felix Maradiaga borrows an old line: “Nicaragua produces more history than we can consume.” He is a Nicaraguan political scientist, entrepreneur, and human-rights activist who has been forced into exile. The regime made him a bogeyman. Then a gang of the regime’s supporters beat him to a pulp, knocking his teeth out in the process.
Felix was safe in exile, when I spoke with him. But he returned to Nicaragua, to try to help those struggling for democracy there. He is incredibly brave — and warm and bright and altogether winning. I hope he will get through his present, latest ordeal.
The other piece of news: Orhan Inandi is apparently being held captive in the Turkish embassy in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. Inandi is a Turkish exile. There is a large Turkish exile community in Kyrgyzstan. They are opponents of the Erdogan regime back home. Inandi is an educator, the president of a school system.
In 2019, I wrote a piece called “Whisked Away: The Turkish government and its program of kidnappings.” That government has an agency with an extraordinarily blunt name: the “Office for Human Abductions and Executions.” They are busy. Supporters of Orhan Inandi — and of human rights in general — fear that the Turkish government is creating a Khashoggi situation in Bishkek: the torture and murder of a political opponent, in an embassy.
Tyranny is a curse of mankind, and must be opposed by all decent people.
There are no words appropriate enough to express our gratitude to the community of National Review readers and supporters. We set out with a goal to raise $50,000 over a period of only six days, and within the first two we were already 80 percent of the way to our goal. With hearts warmed by all of your generous support, and with our need being great and lasting far beyond this fundraiser, we pushed the limit — first to $75,000 and then to $100,000 — as the donations to our merry band continued to pour in.
By campaign end, our original ask of you all yielded an exceptional result, with over 1,000 happy warriors donating to the cause of truth in journalism. With your help, we not only met our original goal, but exceeded it by $60,000! Even as I write, some donations are still rolling in.
Incredible. Awe-inspiring. It is in these moments that I, and everyone here at NR, truly understand how blessed we are to have such an amazing community of support. This here proves that we really do have the best readers in the world (as if it weren’t already obvious).
At first, Ahmed (I have changed names in this essay to protect the identities of minor children) assumed there had been a mistake. He had dropped off a son, Syed, to the hospital, in a terrible state of distress. Now, the email he received from the mental health experts used a new name for that son and claimed he was Ahmed’s daughter. “They were trying to create a customer for their gender clinic . . . and they seemed to absolutely want to push us in that direction,” he said when I spoke to him again this May, recalling the horror of last October. “We had calls with counselors and therapists in the establishment, telling us how important it is for him to change his gender, because that’s the only way he’s going to be better out of this suicidal depressive state.”
Syed had been a “straight-A student” and—according to his parents and the family’s therapist—quite brilliant. He is also on the autism spectrum, a young man who neglects to make eye contact and must be given rules for how long to shake hands, shower, or brush his teeth. High school was a slog for him, as it often is for kids on the spectrum who find that the social demands of adolescence have risen beyond their capacity to meet them. “He tried to ask a few girls out. It didn’t work out and he got frustrated and angry, and that kind of thing. And so, those girl-boy things get kind of tough for autistic kids, those developmental issues. And that’s where puberty can be very, very hard with the hormones rushing and all this stuff.”
When lockdowns hit, the boy who was already struggling socially and befuddled by questions neurotypical teens take for granted (How do I show a girl I like her? How do I make the other kids include me?) began to spend all day and night on the Internet. “He’s an autistic kid, and so he kind of lost track of time. And he was staying up a lot. So he was staying up, just being on the Internet, Twitter, Tumblr, whatever. . . . And he was in his room, just, you know, sleeping one or two hours a day. And that can really be devastating. He was very confused. He was seeing things, visual hallucinations. And we didn’t know why.”
It is not definitively known why many neurodiverse adolescents identify as transgender, but more than one scientist has pointed out the high rates of coincidence. As several autism experts have explained to me, those on the spectrum tend to fixate, and when a contagious idea is introduced to them—such as the notion that they might be a “girl in a boy’s body”—they are particularly susceptible to it.
To rule for Mississippi (or remand), without abolishing Roe, the Court would have to devise a test that allows prohibitions starting sometime after conception but before 15 weeks (or tell the lower courts to do so, based on a new doctrine that Dobbs would provide). But not only will Dobbs be unable to cite text or history to support any test. Unlike Casey, it can’t cite precedent (or even repurpose precedent, as shown below). That’s because the Court’s precedents uniformly reject laws as sweeping as Mississippi’s. The latter bans abortions well before viability, which Casey forbids. Indeed, the question presented in Dobbs is “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional,” and Casey answers that yes-or-no question with “yes”: “[A] State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” Thus, to do anything but block Mississippi’s law, Dobbs must reverse Casey (as the cert petition asks it to do if needed). And if the Court does that while still keeping some right to abort, it will have to create a test for abortion laws from scratch, for the first time since Roe.
One important study pointed out that when comparing a woman’s pregnancy with her own children with her surrogate pregnancies these women have higher rates of hypertension, gestational diabetes, and placenta previa. These put both the mother and baby into a high-risk category.
I am often asked, “how many surrogates have died?” and my response, always the same, is a so very sad, “we just don’t know, and we have no way of knowing, because there is no tracking or monitoring.”
When this woman died, the cause of death recorded on her death certificate will likely be something tied to the pregnancy complication that took her life. It will not record anywhere that she was a surrogate.
One of the open secrets of the media ecosystem is how much coverage is shaped and orchestrated by public-relations professionals. This is especially the case when some previously unheard-of person suddenly becomes the center of a media blitz, and we are given to believe that this is an organic outpouring of attention. A recent New York Times profile of Lioness, a P.R. firm representing workplace victims — of discrimination, sexual harassment, and all manner of other bad behavior — pulls back the curtain a bit on how the game is played. Lioness may represent a virtuous cause, and it may even be that all its clients are virtuous; but the game is the same. It requires little imagination, or knowledge of recent controversies, to grasp how the same tactics have been used to craft political narratives that seem to appear out of nowhere.
The profile introduces us to a woman pursuing a discrimination lawsuit against Tony Robbins’s company, and tells us that the Lioness firm “helped arrange a story about [her] situation in The Verge; it was picked up by Insider, NBC, the New York Times and a variety of other outlets.” This is standard service:
When an individual contacts Lioness, the [women who run the firm] typically vets and corroborates the story, identifying which parts would be of interest to the media. They work with a law firm that reviews nondisclosure agreements free. The pair then makes connections to reporters, explains how talking to the press works, checks facts and follows up. It’s the kind of behind-the-scenes media guidance that high-powered executives rely on but that others rarely see. Ms. Steinhorn and Ms. Scorah are, essentially, midwifing stories of discrimination, harassment, fraud and mistreatment into the world…The firm’s services are free for people speaking out, which Lioness supports by doing paid public relations work for nonprofits and companies.
The first story they worked on was a Forbes investigation that outlined claims of fraud, founder infighting and toxic executive behavior at Better.com, a $4 billion mortgage start-up that LinkedIn named its top start-up of 2020. Lioness connected the Forbes reporters with many of the 19 current and former employees interviewed in the story, who anonymously shared background information and documents. It’s how the sausage is made for articles like this; now everyone gets to make it.
There is, naturally, a synergy with the plaintiffs’ bar:
To help people navigate the legal risks, Ms. Steinhorn created a partnership with Vincent White, a lawyer focused on workplace harassment. Mr. White said Lioness has brought him enough agreements “to keep eight lawyers busy.” He does an initial review free; roughly 10 percent of those who interview end up pursuing a case with Mr. White’s firm.
The Times story is silent on whether that “partnership” profits the proprietors of Lioness. But this much is clear: The publicity is good for them.
New York is going through a bizarre game with school children and masks. Despite overwhelming evidence that schools are not hothouses of coronavirus transmission, and that COVID-19 is not a serious health risk to children, and that the vaccination of vulnerable adult populations is causing an inexorable decline in case rates, school children are still wearing masks.
On last Friday evening, it seemed as if relief was within reach. The New York State Department of Health made an announcement, stating that the in-school mask mandate would end on Monday. Then on Sunday, the Department of Education announced that, until New York State’s new mask guidelines received some kind of email response from Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, there would be no change. Then, yesterday and today, Governor Cuomo “clarified” things by saying that schools would no longer be bound by outdoor mask mandates. He said that the state spoke to CDC and that CDC’s guidance wouldn’t change for several weeks.
It’s a blow to New York State parents, many of whom are demanding that masks mandates be abolished in view of the good news that the pandemic is ending, and temperatures are rising to the point of making wearing them slightly risky, not to mention uncomfortable and gross. Many parents I speak to are resigned to the idea that at least in the winter of 2022, when there may be another small community surge of COVID-19, mask mandates could temporarily return. But that’s also why they want to establish now that it’s safe to operate schools without them in other seasons. Otherwise, the door remains open for teachers to demand all students remain masked for the school year beginning in September.
Jackie Calmes, an editor at the Los Angeles Times, has authored a new book called, “Dissent: The Radicalization of the Republican Party and Its Capture of the Courts.” Here is how Esquire describes an excerpt from the book:
In an excerpt from her book, @jackiekcalmes examines how Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell quietly installed hundreds of federal judges, waging an insidious war on the judicial branch bound to shape American life for decades to come—and not for the better. https://t.co/oHOVKHoNeS
As you know, the GOP has “quietly” waged an insidious war on the judicial branch by openly embracing originalism — even compiling and publicly sharinglists of their favored judicial candidates — raising money, winning elections, and then fulfilling their promises by following the prescribed constitutional process for nominating and confirming judges. Calmes calls this the “long con.” And while her 2,500-word excerpt takes on a highly scandalized tone, she fails to uncover any sinister plots. Rather, she is dismayed by the philosophy and experience of the judges the GOP nominated. She is still mad that Mitch McConnell denied, as was his constitutional right, Merrick Garland “his rightful seat on the high court.” She pretends, as so many left-wingers do these days, that a traditional political battle is an existential threat to “democracy,” rife with intrigue and shadowy figures. The real outrage, it seems, is that Republicans exist at all.
We just got the numbers from April, and they drive home the point that businesses are having trouble finding workers. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
The number of job openings reached a series high of 9.3 million on the last business day of April, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Hires were little changed at 6.1 million. Total separations increased to 5.8 million. Within separations, the quits rate reached a series high of 2.7 percent while the layoffs and discharges rate decreased to a series low of 1.0 percent.
In a new poll commissioned by the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, a majority of American voters said they’d be more likely to support a pro-life political candidate than a candidate who backs abortion on demand.
The survey, which had a margin of error of 2.82 percent, was conducted by conservative research firm OnMessage Inc. on behalf of SBA List. The group polled 1200 likely general-election voters selected to “reflect historical voter trends,” and it situated the survey questions in the context of political candidates’ views on abortion.
The first question asked respondents whether in the 2022 congressional elections they’d be more likely to vote for a Republican who supports prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation with limited exceptions or a Democrat who supports unlimited abortion throughout pregnancy.
A slight majority (53 percent) said they would back the Republican, while just over a quarter (28 percent) said they’d support the Democrat, and 19 percent were undecided. Interestingly, Republican respondents were by far the most decisive group of respondents: Ninety percent said they’d back the GOP candidate, just 3 percent said they’d support the Democrat, and 7 percent were unsure.
The Democratic respondents were far less likely than Republicans to back their party’s own candidate. Just 58 percent of Democratic voters said they’d support a Democrat who backed abortion on demand, while 17 percent said they’d support the GOP candidate and a quarter said they were undecided.
Interestingly, Independent voters lined up fairly well with the overall totals. A slight majority (54 percent) said they’d be most likely to vote for the Republican, while 18 percent favored the Democrat and 28 percent reported being unsure.
The poll also surveyed voters about how important abortion was in their voting decisions, and it confirmed what research firms have long found: The pro-life position tends to have a fairly significant edge when it comes to voter enthusiasm. Rating their views on a 1–10 scale, 43 percent of pro-life respondents said abortion was “very important” in determining how to vote, while only 29 percent of pro-choice respondents said the same.
Finally, the survey found that voters tend to become more supportive of 15-week abortion bans after being given information about fetal development and abortion risks.
A majority of voters (55 percent) said they’d be more likely to favor a 15-week limit if unborn children have the capacity to feel pain at that point in gestation, as some research papers suggest. Similarly, a majority (53 percent) was more likely to support the limit after being told that unborn children at that stage of development have a heartbeat, can move in the womb, can close his fingers, and can sense external stimuli. And again, a majority (52 percent) became more likely to back the 15-week ban after being told that the physical and psychological risks of abortion for mothers increase later in pregnancy.
The findings of this survey suggest that, if Americans were aware that nearly every Democratic politician at the national level supports legal abortion with no restrictions, at least some portion of voters — Democratic ones included — would be less likely to vote for Democratic candidates as a result.
The hits keep coming against Joe Manchin. Here’s a keeper from Jemele Hill:
This is so on brand for this country. Record number of black voters show up to save this democracy, only for white supremacy to be upheld by a cowardly, power-hungry white dude. @Sen_JoeManchin is a clown. https://t.co/fCMuyoLer3
Back in 2017, when Senate Democrats were desperate to stop Donald Trump’s agenda, 33 of them, including Manchin, signed a bipartisan letter backing the filibuster in ringing terms.
“We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the legislative process,” they wrote. “And we are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world’s greatest deliberative body.”
Well, the commitment of almost all the Democrats was not quite as steadfast as advertised.
Now that the filibuster is an obstacle to passing Joe Biden’s agenda, the long-standing Senate procedure has been deemed a threat to our system of government and to racial justice that only a naïf or cynic can support.
This requires observation, foresight for likely consequences, and judgment — and even then, you can still get it wrong. This is hard. People who are really smart in one aspect of life can be really dumb in another part of life. Brilliant scientists can struggle with relationships, enormously empathetic people can struggle to manage their finances, and financial geniuses can find themselves experiencing constant friction with others. Experience can often help inform our judgment, but we can also jump to the wrong conclusion based upon experience.
One-size-fits-all approaches often backfire – sometimes quickly, sometimes …
We have a Senate report on the law-enforcement preparation for and response to the January 6 riot, and it’s not pretty.
There was a stark failure in information-sharing in the run-up to January 6:
The U.S. Capitol Police had specific intelligence that supporters of President Donald Trump planned to mount an armed invasion of the Capitol at least two weeks before the Jan. 6 riot, according to new findings in a bipartisan Senate investigation, but a series of omissions and miscommunications kept that information from reaching front-line officers targeted by the violence.
The report also sheds light on why the National Guard was so slow to arrive:
Senate investigators also found that leaders failed to follow arguably murky procedures for calling in reinforcements. The Capitol Police chief never filed a formal request to call in the National Guard, they determined, despite repeatedly asking his superiors to procure such backup — and the members of the Capitol Police Board still disagree about whether approving such a request needed to be a unanimous decision.
Giving the Capitol Police chief the power to call up the National Guard in emergencies is among the report’s 20 bipartisan recommendations for improving the Capitol’s security posture in the future — and the subject of forthcoming legislation from Rules and Administration Committee leaders, Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The recommendations also include pointed suggestions for federal agencies, such as exhorting the Defense Department and the D.C. National Guard to devise a standing plan for protecting the Capitol and mounting a faster response to terrorist threats.
The report faults slow mobilization and poor interdepartmental communication — not any sort of stand-down order from the White House, as some Trump critics had speculated — for the fact that it took the National Guard more than three hours to respond to pleas for help from the Capitol during the attack. According to its findings, it was Army staff — not Trump — expressing early reservations about a military intervention, while the Army secretary claimed he was never informed that the D.C. National Guard had a quick reaction force “ready to go” to the Capitol, just awaiting his approval.
And this is depressing but kind of perfect, given how the George Floyd protests have put cops on their back feet all around the country, creating space for criminals:
The Department of Defense’s response to the January 6 Capitol riot was colored by criticism it had received about its response to unrest after the murder of George Floyd, according to a new Senate report . . . .
“DOD’s response to January 6 was informed by criticism it received about its response to the civil unrest after the murder of George Floyd during the summer of 2020,” the report reads. “DOD was criticized for its heavy-handed response, particularly flying military helicopters over the protests in summer 2020.”
It adds: “DOD officials cited lessons learned from the summer 2020 as guiding its decision-making for January 6. DOD officials believed it needed ‘control measures’ and ‘rigor’ before deploying DCNG personnel, including a clear deployment plan to avoid the appearance of overmilitarization.”
It was a common misapprehension, by the way, that the only way the riot could be investigated was through the proposed January 6 commission, when this Senate investigation was already well underway.
The greatest threat posed by the animal-rights movement is an advocacy thrust known as “animal standing.” The idea is to have animals declared “persons” and treated akin to human beings with developmental disabilities so that “they” can bring lawsuits in court directly, which of course would actually be brought by animal-rights zealots. That would grant “rights” to animals — first, those sometimes called “higher” mammals, chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins, etc. — but eventually all fauna.
When I bring this up in speeches, the usual reaction is eye-rolling, “Ha. Ha. It will never happen here.”
Never mind that it already happened in Argentina, where a judge declared an orangutan a “nonhuman person.” Never mind that a federal court ruled that animals could be granted standing under the U.S. Constitution. Never that Judge Eugene M. Fahey — of New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court — wrote that chimps should be given rights in a non-binding opinion (dicta). And never mind the money and intensity of the animal-rights movement to shatter what they call “the species barrier.” Complacency rules the day.
It shouldn’t. The New York Court of Appeals has taken a case to determine whether an elephant, and perhaps other animals, should be deemed “persons.” From the Lasts Resort story (my emphasis):
New York High Court to Determine Whether Animals May Be Entitled to Fundamental Legal Rights
In the matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny, Case No. APL-2021-00087
Issue: Whether New York common law should be modified to extend fundamental legal rights, including entitlement to habeas relief, to a non-human animal such as an elephant.
A nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to change the common law status of certain non-human animals brought an action against the owner of an elephant, seeking to change the elephant’s legal status to that of a “person.” Specifically, the organization sought recognition of certain fundamental legal rights, including entitlement to habeas relief.
The elephant’s owner sought to dismiss the action based on precedent limiting a writ of habeas corpus to humans. The trial court agreed with the owner and dismissed the claim, and the mid-level appellate court affirmed. The appellate court stated that judicial recognition of fundamental legal rights in a non-human animal would lead to a labyrinth of questions that common law processes are ill-equipped to answer, and that the issue is “better suited to the legislative process.”
Does this mean the court will necessarily grant personhood to an elephant? No. But it does indicate that a number of high court judges believe the case is of sufficient substance to rule upon rather than–as the court should–laugh the case out of court. Moreover, Judge Fahey is still on the court.
Of course elephants should be treated properly according to their capacities and needs. But animal-welfare regulations and laws are very capable of accomplishing that. Animals should not be granted rights.
Animal welfare and animal rights are not the same. Rights ideology claims that “a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy,” meaning there is no moral distinction between humans and animals. In contrast, animal welfare properly holds that humans have a higher moral value, and, that as we benefit from their use, we have concomitant duty to treat animals humanely.
That distinction is crucial. Animal welfare is an expression of human exceptionalism. Animal rights, in contrast, subverts human exceptionalism — the backbone of universal human rights — and threatens our thriving.
Because if animals are persons, by definition, they cannot be owned, nor used for human benefit. That means no medical research, no food animals, no leather, and eventually, pet ownership made a formal legal guardianship complete with enforceable fiduciary duties — that is, if we can have pets at all.
Let’s hope the Court of Appeals rejects the animal personhood notion out of hand. Until they do, I will be holding my breath. Because we live in culture-destroying times and this is as subversive to western civilization as it gets.
On June 2, a member of the board of trustees for the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leaked a letter that departing ERLC president Russell Moore had written in February 2020. The letter detailed what Moore believed to be the source of controversy between him and some members of SBC leadership: incidents of sexual abuse and racism. Contrary to media narratives, the controversy in the SBC is not about support for Donald Trump.
Moore’s letter was written in response to the SBC Executive Committee, a group of 86 representatives elected by the Convention to oversee the SBC’s operations between annual meetings, creating a task force to investigate whether the ERLC’s actions under Moore were costing the SBC donations. The chair of the task force was Mike Stone, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Blackshear, Ga. A member of the steering committee for the Conservative Baptist Network, which thinks the SBC is becoming too liberal, Stone is running for president of the SBC at this year’s June 15–16 annual meeting.
On June 3, Stone released a statement on his personal website responding to Moore’s letter. He writes that the letter “was filled with mischaracterizations of who Southern Baptists are.” Stone believes that the timing of Moore’s letter being leaked is “clearly an attempt to influence the upcoming presidential election in the SBC.” Stone objects to Moore’s characterization of the SBC leadership’s behavior, saying, “His letter contains numerous misrepresentations of me and of the leadership of our beloved Convention.”
Stone writes that, contrary to Moore’s letter, the creation of the task force was not “a unilateral action” by Stone. Moore did not name anyone in his letter, but he does say that someone who is described in such a way that it could only be Stone “drove the motion” in the SBC Executive Committee to create the task force. Stone is correct to say that creating the task force was not a unilateral action, and Moore elsewhere in his letter ascribes the actions against the ERLC to “a tiny minority in our denomination,” showing that he was aware of that fact.
The difference between SBC leadership and SBC congregants in general is important to note. The SBC uses congregational polity, which means that there is no formal hierarchy beyond the local church. The SBC is best understood as a membership organization, not a clerical body, and SBC leadership does not have any ecclesiastical authority over member churches. As a result, many Southern Baptists are unaware of this controversy within SBC leadership because it doesn’t affect their daily church life whatsoever.
Moore was very careful to note that difference in his 4,000-word letter. He stresses that it’s only a “small group in the shadows” that sought to disrupt the ERLC’s work and effusively praises Southern Baptists generally. Stone, on the other hand, conflates the two. Stone:
[Moore’s] view is apparently of an SBC leadership filled with “white nationalists and white supremacists.” His view is of an SBC leadership that contains “neoconfederate activities” and “raw racist sentiment.” That is not the SBC that I know.
He sees an SBC where national leaders employ “psychological terror” against him to prevent him from speaking the truth about sexual abuse and racism. In my entire service at the Executive Committee and as a pastor, I have never heard a single Southern Baptist leader be angry over opposition to sexual abuse or racism. That is not the SBC that I know.
Today, at our 47,000 churches, devoted Southern Baptists are preparing for Vacation Bible School, children’s camps, student mission trips, and more. That’s the SBC that I know.
In the first two paragraphs, Stone is talking about leadership. In the third paragraph, he is talking about congregants in general. Moore’s criticism was never about congregants in general and always focused on leadership. In fact, Moore expresses frustration at the actions of leadership sullying the reputation of the denomination in general:
[In response to leadership controversies] I want to scream: “But that’s not who Southern Baptists are! The people in the churches, everywhere that I have seen, are kind and loving and mission-focused. They are not part of all of that that you see!” And, indeed I think I am right. The people who are left [in the SBC] are those of us who have learned to simply filter out this nonsense and focus on what we know to be the best of us. The rest of the world cannot see that.
In the final paragraph of Stone’s statement, he says, “I regret that Russell’s service as president of one of our agencies has led him to such a disillusioned opinion of who we are.” At this point, it’s unclear what the antecedent of “we” is. Moore’s disillusionment is with some members of SBC leadership. Stone is no doubt among them. So if the antecedent of “we” is “SBC leadership,” then Stone would be correct. But if the antecedent of “we” is “SBC congregants in general,” Moore does not hold the disillusioned opinion that Stone claims.
As to whether it’s true that Moore is seeking to influence the SBC presidential election at the annual meeting, Moore has left the SBC personally as well as professionally. He has joined a non-denominational church in Nashville. Moore was not in the running for SBC president prior to his departure, and not being part of the denomination anymore, he has no personal stake in denominational decisions any longer. For what it’s worth, Moore also accused Stone and his associates on the SBC Executive Committee of timing events to their advantage. They launched their task force and released their report in February, far away from the annual meetings, which are always held in summer. Moore believes they did that because Moore and the ERLC have lots of support in convention-wide votes.
At the very least, Stone and Moore seem to be in agreement that this controversy isn’t about national politics or support for Trump. Stone never mentions the former president or anything about partisan politics anywhere in his statement. The election he is most concerned with has to be the upcoming election for SBC president, which promises to be competitive. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler has been running since last year. Northwest Baptist Convention executive director Randy Adams and Alabama pastor Ed Litton announced their candidacies this year.
“Taxpayers have the right to expect that any information they provide to the IRS will not be disclosed unless authorized by the taxpayer or by law,” declares the Internal Revenue Service.
Unless, of course, someone within the agency chooses to leak your return to ProPublica.
The news organization publishes a vast trove of information about the country’s wealthiest taxpayers and declares this morning, “we obtained the information from an anonymous source who provided us with large amounts of information on the ultrawealthy, everything from the taxes they paid to the income they reported to the profits from their stock trades… We also believe that disclosure of specific figures about the tax returns of people like Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett and Elon Musk will deepen readers’ interest and understanding of this complex and arcane subject.”
The relevant question is not whether you like Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett and Elon Musk. The question is whether the IRS declaration that tax returns are confidential applies to everyone or not. This morning it’s pretty clear that the your tax return is confidential, as long as no one at the IRS thinks it is newsworthy. But if they do, you’re screwed. (It is highly unlikely that anyone outside of the IRS would have access to the tax returns of all of these figures.)
ProPublica explains today that they’ve been down this road before:
In 2012, someone at the IRS (we don’t know who or why; they used a plain brown IRS envelope) sent ProPublica copies of tax filings seeking exemption for a number of political committees, including Republican political guru Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS. The filings were not yet supposed to be public, and the IRS indicated that it would consider our publication of them to be criminal. We explained our view of the constitutionality of that statute as applied in such circumstances and published our story, which raised concerns about whether Rove’s group had been forthcoming with the agency. We never heard about the matter from the IRS again.
The attempted prosecution of journalists for publishing disclosed information is rarely a good idea, and rarely works out; judges often correctly conclude that prosecuting someone for publishing sensitive or classified information is too much of an infringement of the First Amendment. The true problem isn’t the reporters, it is the people with access to classified, privileged, confidential or sensitive information who decide to violate their oaths and the law to leak that information, and that is the proper target for prosecutions. That said, a publication can look at leaked information and conclude they’re not going to play a supporting role in the violation of a person’s right to privacy.
ProPublica writes today, “the IRS records show that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.” In other words, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett and Elon Musk obeyed the law. ProPublica isn’t exposing a crime here. ProPublica explicitly states this report exposes something they deem unfair. But your gripe about the fairness of the tax code doesn’t outrank somebody else’s right to keep their tax return confidential.
The IRS also states, “taxpayers have the right to expect appropriate action will be taken against employees, return preparers, and others who wrongfully use or disclose taxpayer return information.” We will see if the IRS holds anyone accountable for this breach.
In Guatemala yesterday, Vice President Harris begged the people of Central America to stop causing her administration such political problems at the border. She managed to get through her speech without breaking out into one of her cringe-inducing laughs, but I don’t expect Guatemalans were likewise able to keep straight faces. Here’s what she said on the issue:
“I want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United State-Mexico border: Do not come. Do not come. . . .
She said it twice, so she must be serious!
The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our border. . . .
There are legal methods by which migration can and should occur. But we, as one of our priorities, will discourage illegal migration. . . .
Where, among their priorities, is that? And how, exactly, are they discouraging illegal migration? (And isn’t that supposed to be “undocumented”?)
And I believe if you come to our border, you will be turned back. . . .
Here the guffaws turn into belly-laughs. She “believes”? Maybe if she’d visited the border, she’d know that this is poppycock, as wave after wave of rafts cross the river unimpeded.
So let’s discourage our friends, our neighbors, or family members from embarking on what is otherwise an extremely dangerous journey.”
She said “dangerous” twice, as well, so it must really be true.
Kidding aside, people respond to actions, not words. When all children and teens traveling “alone,” and virtually all adults traveling with children are released into the U.S. with a de facto guarantee that they will never be made to leave, more will come. Only by changing that fact can the flow stanched.
That would require returning the successful policies of the Trump administration, especially the Remain in Mexico program. But Trump’s approach must, by definition, be wrong, so embracing it is inconceivable.
Guatemalan president Giammattei, like his countrymen, knows perfectly well what caused the Biden Border Crisis: Regarding the change in administrations, he told CBS News, “The message changed too: ‘We’re going to reunite families, we’re going to reunite children’. The very next day, the coyotes were here organizing groups of children to take them to the United States.”
Giammattei added, “We asked the United States government to send more of clear message to prevent more people from leaving.” But such a clear message can only be sent by plugging the loopholes that incentivize mass illegal immigration, not with photo ops.
But photo ops were the main point of Harris’s trip. Even the folks in the White House can’t seriously believe that a speech by the vice president, or even some more aid money, is going to make any difference at the border. The real purpose of the trip was twofold: First, to create the impression that the administration was doing something about the border emergency. Despite the disdain of those of us on the right, President Biden’s approval ratings have been holding up reasonably well, with one exception: immigration. The border is Biden’s main political vulnerability right now, and it’s imperative that the administration be seen addressing the problem (without actually doing anything to stop it, which would lead to a revolt among Democrats in Congress).
The second purpose of the trip is to give Vice President Harris the appearance of foreign-policy experience. When she runs on 2024, she’ll need diplomatic activity to point to as evidence that she’s ready for the big job, and that will require more than a vice president’s customary role of attending the funerals of foreign leaders. And when the numbers at the border dip in the summer, as is likely because of the brutal heat down there, expect the White House to declare Harris’s efforts a success.
At least until the numbers start rising again in the fall.
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row.
ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years. The data provides an unprecedented look inside the financial lives of America’s titans, including Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not just their income and taxes, but also their investments, stock trades, gambling winnings and even the results of audits.
What?!?!? That’s bad. Tax data are supposed to be private — and zealously guarded — and yet “thousands” of people’s information got out.
The journalists are, of course, mum on how it happened:
The tax data was provided to ProPublica after we published a series of articles scrutinizing the IRS. . . . ProPublica is not disclosing how it obtained the data, which was given to us in raw form, with no conditions or conclusions.
The agency needs to get to the bottom of this and punish those responsible.
Meanwhile, on the main thrust of the story, while I do think the IRS could do a better job of auditing rich people, the big reason the ultra-wealthy don’t pay more taxes on a year-to-year basis is that — as the story itself notes — they’re not taxed every time their assets increase in value. Instead, they’re taxed on the overall gain when they sell the assets. It would be hard to own a company if you had to pay zillions of dollars every time the stock went up, regardless of whether you had enough cash to pay the tax, though there have been various proposals over the years for such “mark-to-market” taxes.
Gerry Bradley argues that judges can be faithful to the Founders only by relying on moral and metaphysical truths that lie beyond the Constitution, and so he counsels breaking from positivist originalism for a more substantive defense of the unborn person. https://t.co/YqMvBRDJdm
It’s a very welcome development that the FBI has managed to seize most of the ransom Colonial Pipeline paid to the hackers, believed to be Russia-based, in order to get its operations and fuel deliveries back on line. As the Wall Street Journal reports, based on a Justice Department announcement, investigators recovered approximately 64 bitcoin, valued at roughly $2.3 million.
Last month, the company told the Journal that it had paid about $4.4 million to satisfy the ransom demand by what the Bureau believes is a cyber-sabotage outfit known as “DarkSide.” The group develops malware which is used to breach company systems. Ransoms are demanded to unlock those systems.
Naturally, the default position of the FBI and our government generally is that companies should not pay ransom. But, as illustrated in the case of Colonial, which runs the main pipeline system for gasoline- and diesel-fuel deliveries to the East Coast, a paralyzing shutdown can wreak havoc on essential industrial activities. In individual instances, that can make the ransom seem a small price to pay.
Of course, cumulatively, that will not be the case.
In invoking the example of the 9/11 attacks, Wray was not implying that any single ransomware attack has been a 9/11-level catastrophe. He was pointing out that cyber sabotage is a daunting challenge for law-enforcement and intelligence officials in the same way international terrorism is.
The hostiles conduct their operations outside the United States, and often under the implied if not explicit protection of rogue regimes — analogous to state sponsors of terrorism. The FBI and our other agencies have no investigative authority in the regions from which the attacks emanate. The writ of our courts does not run in such places. We cannot effectively repel the threat without the cooperation of foreign countries, many of which are less vexed by the attacks than we are and fear that helping us makes them more vulnerable. And like terrorism, cyber operations level the battlefield, neutralizing the might and economic advantages that make a superpower a superpower — indeed, that’s why the most pernicious terrorist organizations have long been cyber-adept.
While today’s development is to be cheered, it also highlights some of the challenges. Notice: U.S. authorities are announcing only the seizure of funds (in fact, of funds they did not want Colonial to pay in the first place); there is no announcement of arrests. In that sense, it is reminiscent of the Mueller investigation’s ballyhooed indictments of Russian hackers: The stark reality is that, even if our intel officials can identify members of DarkSide, the chance that any of them will ever see the inside of an American courtroom is remote, to say the least.
It is great that the Bureau had the capability, on this occasion, to track down proceeds of a crypto-currency arrangement of the kind that hackers orchestrate precisely because it is so hard to trace. But investigators have not been able to capture all of the funds involved in this ransom transaction, and the limited (but significant) success here will not necessarily translate into success in similar investigations.
There are more and more similar investigations. And the truly disturbing trends are that these attacks are increasing in frequency, and the ransom demands are getting much bigger.
Initially, ransomware tended to seek payoffs in the thousands of dollars — amounts big corporations regard as a nuisance, less costly to pay than to take expensive precautions against. Now, the amounts are well into the millions. That’s not a nuisance anymore. These are provocations by malefactors who have become increasingly confident. In part, that is because we do not yet have a good strategy to address this challenge. And in part, it is because the hackers feel they are insulated from prosecution or other comeuppance by such regimes as Putin’s Russia.
Ultimately, the solution here is going to involve making other governments see it as in their interests to join us in cracking down. Too often, that realization activates Washington’s naïve streak: The bipartisan delusion that Russia (like Iran . . . like China . . . ) has many mutual interests with us and could become a strategic partner — even an ally! — if we just do the hard work of establishing trust. The remorseless fact is that the regime in Moscow is incorrigibly execrable and anti-American. That doesn’t mean you can’t get Putin’s cooperation, but you have to get it by sticks, not carrots.
Russia is going to continue to be a state sponsor of cyber operations against the United States unless and until it is made convincingly clear that the penalties for doing so are more than the Kremlin is willing to bear.
“Our view going into this trip is that actions speak louder than words,” Jake Sullivan said this morning, speaking about Joe Biden’s upcoming swing through Europe. The national-security adviser explained that the administration’s work to guide the country out of the pandemic would show U.S. allies, and the rest of the world, that Washington is ready to lead. He was answering an obsequiously posed question about how Biden would turn the page on his predecessor’s infamously adversarial relationship with his European counterparts.
But if the administration were truly interested in showing America’s global partners that they matter, it would drop its half-hearted approach to dealing with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Last month, the State Department announced that congressionally mandated sanctions targeting the Russian energy project should apply to the project’s corporate shell and Matthias Warnig, the German Kremlin ally who serves as its CEO — but that it opted to waive them, citing America’s national interest.
The Ukrainian government was blindsided, President Volodymyr Zelensky told Axios yesterday, adding that he learned of the decision from media reports (the State Department claimed that it had notified Ukrainian officials in advance). He said his anger at the Biden administration’s reluctance to use all of the tools at its disposal to kill the project has turned into disappointment. “It is not very understandable . . . that the bullets to this weapon can possibly be provided by such a great country as the United States.”
That weapon — Nord Stream 2 — will give the Kremlin more leverage with which to coerce Ukraine by rerouting gas from pipelines that would normally pass through the country, and thus incur Kiev’s transit fees. The U.S. could stop it by sanctioning the European companies involved in its construction — but this would require the Biden administration to target German companies working on it. Time is running out: With the completion last week of the first line of Nord Stream 2, Russian president Vladimir Putin said Ukraine must “show good faith” if Russian gas is to continue to pass through Ukraine to Europe.
By not taking a more aggressive stance against the pipeline — which is supported by the government of Germany, where it ends — the administration is throwing an embattled ally to the wolves. In recent months, Russian military pressure on Ukraine has grown, with Moscow positioning some tens of thousands of troops and an array of military equipment on the two countries’ border.
But top Biden officials claim there’s a method. Appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee this afternoon, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the pipeline’s completion is a “fait accompli,” that the sanctions wouldn’t have made a difference, and that angering the Merkel government would not have been worth the trouble. Other opponents of U.S. sanctions to target German entities and individuals involved in the project say that coddling Berlin is worth it in the long run, if only as a way to prevent it from maintaining too dovish a stance toward China.
Ukraine’s president, understandably, disagrees: “How many Ukrainian lives does the relationship between the United States and Germany cost?
Disturbingly many, it seems. What the simplistic campaign-trail rhetoric and media narrative about supporting U.S. allies alienated by Donald Trump omitted was that policy-makers face difficult decisions about how best to back those allies. The former president certainly went out of his way to spurn close allies and embrace, at least rhetorically, dictators such as Putin. In practice, however, his administration’s sanctions temporarily halted construction of Nord Stream 2, sending the right message about Washington’s zero tolerance for Moscow’s antics — and undermining Blinken’s assertions that it can’t be stopped.
Meanwhile, when Biden meets Putin in Geneva at the end of his trip next week, he’ll have done so without first having met directly with his Ukrainian counterpart. Between supporting an ally besieged by an authoritarian threat and cozying up to a disengaged partner that’s soft-pedaled its criticism of Moscow and Beijing, the president has chosen to shore up America’s relationship with the latter, as Zelensky pointed out. Putin knows this, too.
Rich predicted a looming smear campaign against Senator Joe Manchin for reiterating that he opposes the filibuster and also Democrats’ federal elections bill H.R. 1. Manchin has been facing mounting criticism from the left all day, and now Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has joined the pile on, claiming he has joined Republicans in supporting “voter suppression.”
Whenever AOC attacks, it is a gift to Manchin, a Democrat in a state that Donald Trump carried by an average of 40 points in the past two presidential elections. The only way Manchin can survive in the state is by showing people back home that he is defying the left wing of his party. Triggering AOC likely made his whole op-ed “Why I’m voting against the For the People Act” worth it.
Just thinking about how after this photo ran Wall Street Journal columnists spent more time criticizing me for not smiling enough than asking Manchin precisely what areas of “common ground” he had in mind when he stood up for the GOP.
Economies worldwide nearly ground to a halt over the 15 months of the coronavirus pandemic, leading to a startling drop in global greenhouse gas emissions.
But that did little to slow the steady accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which reached the highest levels since accurate measurements began 63 years ago.
The researchers concluded that global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions fell by 5.8 percent, but that merely amounts to a short-lived “blip” as more and more countries get their populations vaccinated and approach something closer to normal pre-pandemic life.
If the most far-reaching and deepest halt to human activity in modern history didn’t make a dent, then we’re not going to slow the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Environmentalists will have to stop fooling themselves into believing that with enough persuasion, nagging, or law changes, most people will give up their home heating systems, cooking gas, petroleum-fueled internal-combustion-engines, meat, air travel, and all of the other hallmarks of modern life that they have declared to be sins against the planet. Because the pandemic and government restrictions forced everyone to try giving up commuting and jobs and leaving their homes and going into restaurants, and most people hated it.
Scott Sumner looks at employment trends for different age groups to discern whether child-care issues, fear of COVID, or overly generous unemployment insurance is keeping potential workers on the sidelines:
I am especially struck by the fact that employment for 20-24 year olds seems to have declined more sharply than for 25-54 year olds. They experience less health risk than 25-54 year olds, and they probably have less need for childcare. On the other hand, 20-24 year olds tend to be lower wage workers, the group most likely to earn more on unemployment insurance than on their former jobs.
While I suspect that all three factors are depressing labor supply, the strongest evidence seems to be for the effect of the supplemental UI program.
The events of the last few weeks have shown once again that, despite all the noise and shouting that mark our contemporary politics, what National Review says still matters. Our coverage of the lab leak theory, the Rebekah Jones saga, the continuing importance of the filibuster, and the counterproductive effects of the enhanced unemployment benefits have all made a difference in the real world. Now, as ever, National Review remains crucial.
We are now coming to the end of our fundraising drive, but if you’d like to chip in before the window closes you can still do so here. As an independent outfit, we are entirely reliant upon your support — and we’re deeply grateful that so many of you are willing to show it.
The race for mayor in America’s twelfth-largest city has ended, and the results are promising for moderates and conservatives. Fort Worth, the oft-overlooked city beside its more famous counterpart, Dallas, has rapidly expanded in the last decade. It is now bigger than San Francisco and continues to be the largest city helmed by a Republican. Mattie Parker’s recent victory in Fort Worth’s mayoral race shows that conservative candidates can win in big cities when they campaign on broadly popular positions, such as policing.
It is easy to look at Parker’s win in Fort Worth as another example of Texas’ deep-seated Republican roots. However, Fort Worth is a majority-minority city that doesn’t have a long history of Republican governance. Nor was this a case of low voter turnout. The mayoral runoff election had over double the number of votes cast in the previous cycle.
Nevertheless, Mattie Parker won by over 7,000 votes to become the youngest mayor of a major city by distancing herself from partisan politics. She eschewed mudslinging and instead ran on a moderate platform of increasing jobs and supporting law enforcement. Fort Worth policing has been in the public eye since the inexcusable shooting of a black woman in 2019. The officer responsible will stand trial this August, and it was a prominent topic of discussion for the candidates.
Mattie Parker importantly did not dismiss concerns about local law enforcement, saying she was looking to “refocus community policing” during her term. She did, however, oppose measures to divert funding from the police department, which helped win her the endorsement of the Fort Worth Police Officers Association. She argued their endorsement showed she could help with “reconnecting [the] community with the police department.”
Prioritizing policing was important to voters, according to the Tarrant County Republican Party chair Rick Barnes. Barnes said that people knew about liberal mayors in Austin and Dallas, and voters wouldn’t let “their city go in that direction.” Republican leaders throughout the state warned voters that Parker’s opponent, Deborah Peoples, would defund the police. While we don’t have exit polling on the Fort Worth race, national polling suggests this is a viable strategy. For all of the discussion about “reimagining” policing, only 18 percent of Americans favor defunding the police. Parker’s win confirms that it’s an issue people will turn out for.
As conservative strategists observe candidates grappling with city policing across the country, they should look to Parker’s campaign as an example of how to win urban districts. Despite electoral difficulties, Parker effectively campaigned on a unifying message that supported law enforcement while recognizing that most still have concerns about their local PD. If Republicans want to win back cities, the Fort Worth model is a good place to start.
We’ve been running a webathon mostly around our coverage of the lab-leak theory, which has mostly been the work of one Jim Geraghty, depicted below beseeching our readers to come through at the end of our effort here:
I’d like to tell you that last spring I got Jim on the phone and barked, “Geraghty, get on the lab story! Pronto! I don’t care if it’s outside your lane or if you have to get up to speed on a subject entirely unfamiliar to you. And make all your pieces on this 3,000 words long, dammit!”
Instead, Jim made this a priority all on his own, and did us proud. I can’t tell you how many people have said to me over the last year or two, “Geraghty has always been great, but he’s been invaluable lately.”
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case arguing that a male-only military draft is unconstitutional. But three justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Brett Kavanaugh — signed a rather menacing statement to go along with the decision.
The gist is that Congress deserves a chance to make women register for the draft — but if it doesn’t, these justices will support hearing a similar case in the future (emphasis mine):
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from discriminating on the basis of sex absent an “‘exceedingly persuasive justification.’” . . . In Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57 (1981), this Court upheld the Act’s gender-based registration requirement against an equal protection challenge, citing the fact that women were “excluded from combat” roles and hence “would not be needed in the event of a draft.”
The role of women in the military has changed dramatically since then. Beginning in 1991, thousands of women have served with distinction in a wide range of combat roles, from operating military aircraft and naval vessels to participating in boots-on-the-ground infantry missions. . . .
In 2016, Congress created the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (NCMNPS) and tasked it with studying whether Selective Service registration should be conducted “regardless of sex.” . . . On March 25, 2020, the Commission released its final report, in which it recommended “eliminat[ing] male-only registration.” . . .
It remains to be seen, of course, whether Congress will end gender-based registration under the Military Selective Service Act. But at least for now, the Court’s longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue.
More from Josh Blackman, with an emphasis on Kavanaugh’s surprising role, here.
If you’ve driven through the South during the summer, you will probably have noticed fields being overrun with kudzu. Kudzu was brought into the U.S. almost a century ago. Some thought it would be a nice ground-cover plant. Nobody knew that it would turn into an invasive blight.
Similarly, “diversity training” is spreading all over the American higher-education system. It is meant to implant “woke” ideas regarding race and power into the minds of administrators, faculty, and students.
Last June, NC State Chancellor Randy Woodson released a statement decrying individual and systemic racism and revealed the university’s plan to roll out mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training for students, faculty, and staff:
“As one first step, in the coming academic year, we will require every student, faculty and staff member to complete diversity and inclusion learning modules. This will include every member of Cabinet as well as all of the deans, directors and department heads of the university.”
And what are those “learning modules” like? Watkins explains:
One of the scenarios, for example, states:
“Taylor, who is white, notices his Navajo friend Kai, wearing a turquoise and silver necklace. “That’s pretty, but I hope you didn’t get it at Urban Mercantile. They’ve been selling lots of Native American-type jewelry, but I’m sure you’d want to support Native artists, not chain stores. Nobody should shop there.” Is Taylor offering helpful information?”
Students must select this answer: “No, Taylor is being condescending and could lose his friend’s trust.”
If students choose either of the following answers, they will not be able to continue with the rest of the module, and will be unable to complete the mandatory training:
“Yes, he’s demonstrating his cultural sensitivity and has good intentions”
“Maybe, if Taylor is a Native American Studies major, and the necklace is a knockoff.”
What good does it do to hector people with stuff like this? It probably reinforces ideas that leftists already harbored. It certainly puts a lot of money into the pockets of the companies that have sprung up to fill the demand for this virtue-signaling “service.”
Watkins sticks the landing in her conclusion:
Force-feeding students with concepts such as “othering,” “whitesplaining,” and “intersectionality” is not only disturbing — it is an open effort to ingrain a pernicious ideology into the next generation of Americans. Boards of trustees and the UNC Board of Governors have it within their authority to put a stop to the shameless ideological campaign that hides under the banner of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” It’s time that they step up to the plate.
Yes, it would have been preferable if Rep. Liz Cheney had managed to find a way to move on past endless re-litigating of the 2020 election results. If a House Republican leader chooses to respond to every statement that Trump makes contending the election was stolen and that he is the rightful winner of the 2020 election, she will spend almost every week doing so, and the GOP will never move on to the issues and challenges of the here and now.
But there’s no getting around the fact that the problem starts with Donald Trump continuing to insist the 2020 election results are a “hoax,” and that he won the 2020 election. This weekend in North Carolina, the former president offered old whine in new bottles:
There’s no better example of the Democrat and media corruption than the 2020 election hoax. As you know, the evidence is too voluminous to even mention. All you have to do is read the article in Time magazine, cover story in Time magazine. I’m not a big fan, I was on the cover a lot, perhaps a record, a lot. I got to a point if I was ever on the cover, I was on the cover of Time magazine before I did this political thing and I read every word. I said, I wonder what that means. It was actually a very good story, I used to actually get good press, can you believe it? I guess that’s how I got to be president when you think about it. But I used to get great press. But Time magazine did a story. They couldn’t help themselves. They had to brag about what they did in November. They had to brag and that story just goes 25% of the way.
But if you take it a little bit further, you’ll just read that and you see how corrupt, but that’s the least of it. You look at what happened on that evening when the election was won and all of a sudden vast amounts of votes were taken in just in certain states, swing states. Swing states that I was leading by a lot. Then all of a sudden, oh, something happened. It was a disgrace to our country and if you think people don’t see it, people see it. People have seen it. The 2020 presidential election, that election, the 2020 presidential election was by far the most corrupt election in the history of our country. There’s never been anything like this. They used COVID and they used the mail-in ballots to steal an election. It was the third world country election like we’ve never seen before. Look at what took place.
The Time magazine article that Trump is referring to is “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” by Molly Ball February 4, and it can be read here. The headline is pretty hyperbolic, considering how the “shadow campaign” consisted of Zoom calls among mostly but not entirely liberal groups coordinating efforts to minimize pandemic-related disruptions to voting, informing voters about how their voting process in 2020 might be different from their experiences in the past, pressuring social media platforms to remove “disinformation,” and informing the public that because of mail-in ballots, tallying the vote might take longer than in past years. One can support or vehemently oppose the efforts of these groups, but they do not amount to a confession of altering, removing votes or generating fraudulent ones. Ball’s article reads a lot more like liberal activist groups elbowing each other out of the way to take credit for Biden’s victory.
The Supreme Court’s justices are scheduled to decide later this week whether to grant review for next term in the case challenging Harvard’s use of racial and ethnic preferences in its admissions. They should do so, and then hold that such discrimination is illegal. Only by overthinking could they have any trouble ruling that this racial discrimination violates the law. It is not only at odds with the relevant legal text but also unfair, and not only unfair but alsounpopular — and not only unpopular but also making race relations in our country worse.
But wait! There’s much more calling for the Court to return to this issue (and has been for a while): The one misbegotten opinion by the Court ruling that there is a “compelling interest” justifying such discrimination was in 2003, and by its own terms was expected to expire within 25 years. In the meantime, universities’ use of preferences has not faded away, but become more ingrained. Conversely, the country is becoming more multiracial and multiethnic, and individual Americans are themselves more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic, making the discrimination ever more unwieldy, ugly, and irrational. For example, Asian Americans, as in the Harvard case, are more and more likely to be among the victims now; Latinos are a larger “underrepresented group” now than African Americans; and what, by the way, is the historical justification for giving Latinos a preference over Asian Americans? Well, supposedly the justification is not historical but pedagogical — that there are “educational benefits” to exposing whites to “underrepresented” nonwhites — but one wonders how many people really believe this dubious excuse and, indeed, the justifications typically discussed now for “diversity” are more likely to be overtly political and ideological. Those purported educational benefits have always been, in any event, disputed and at best marginal. What’s more, the costs — like the “mismatch” of individuals and institutions, so that every group is hurt by the use of preferences — are undeniable and increasingly well-documented (the Court’s calculus for determining the compellingness of racial discrimination in this context has inadequately weighed those costs, which are many and which I list here ). And it’s impossible to maintain that this discrimination is really necessary for running a college, when most colleges don’t use them (they aren’t that selective), and indeed many states — including big states and states with first-rate public universities, such as California and Michigan — have now enacted specific bans.
There’s speculation that some of the justices might not want to take the case during this time of roiled race relations. But much of the roiling is a result of racial identity politics — on the campuses themselves as well as off — and the too-widespread acceptance of Leftist tropes such as “systemic racism.” This mindset and its racial essentialism have been greatly encouraged by the pervasive institutionalization of the “diversity” rationale for race-based decision-making, especially in the academy. And for this, of course, the Supreme Court itself bears much of the blame.
So the Court should be willing to do its part to clean up the mess it has helped create and which will only get worse otherwise. As a recent Wall Street Journal editorial — also urging the Court to take the case — said, “The Supreme Court should address this — not least because of its own role in allowing this allocation by race.” In any event, the time is long overdue for the Supreme Court to honor the words of the laws that have (already) been enacted to take race off the table when decisions are made.
Today’s Impromptus has a range of issues, as usual, all of them controversial — which is also pretty typical. Has the pandemic proven Americans soft and spoiled? That’s for openers. Then I address fraternity hazing and the urge to belong; the pride flag and the American flag; politics in Hungary; colorblindness in America; and so on. Not a peaceful issue in the bunch.
For reasons I could get into, I recently looked at the appreciation I wrote of Richard Pipes, the great Russia scholar, on his death in 2018. Let me paste an excerpt:
At every stage of his career, Pipes attracted controversy. Why? In explanation, he once quoted Samuel Butler, who wrote in a letter, “I never write on any subject unless I believe the opinion of those who have the ear of the public to be mistaken, and this involves, as a necessary consequence, that every book I write runs counter to the men who are in possession of the field; hence I am always in hot water.”
Let’s have a little mail — just one quick note. In an Impromptus last week, I quoted a news article about the British prime minister, which said, “Mr. Johnson has never publicly confirmed how many children he has.” This made me think of Fidel Castro (not that I’m comparing). Once he was asked, “How many children do you have?” He answered, “Almost a tribe.” (The number seems around 15.) (I took this up in a book, Children of Monsters.)
A reader writes me about Tito Fuentes, who played second base for the San Francisco Giants. Apparently, pitchers liked to brush him back. After one game — when he was almost beaned — Fuentes made a statement that gained some fame: “They shouldn’t throw at me. I’m the father of five or six kids.”
What is that picture of a farm doing up there, above this post? Well, my column today ends with a picture of Gaffney, S.C. (where I spent a few days last week). That is a picture from town. I thought I’d offer one from out in the country here on the Corner. Again, today’s column is here.
This is serious. Signatures are being gathered in Florida to qualify a “rights of waterways” constitutional amendment for Florida. The proposed amendment is a form of “nature rights” and is being pushed by (among others) the Florida Rights of Nature Network, the slogan for which is, “Nature is not just an object. It is alive. It has as much right to live as we do.”
The idea here is that “waterways” — which can be anything from swamps to underground rivers, to oceans, to brackish ponds — have the right to equal consideration in determining whether they can be harnessed or altered for human use and benefit. The proposed amendment pretends it is just about clean water, but it involves much more than that. From the “Florida Clean Water Act” proposed amendment (my emphasis):
(a) Every Floridian has a right to clean water.
(b) The Everglades, Florida Springs, the Indian River Lagoon, the St. Johns River, the Caloosahatchee River, the Suwanee River, the Santa Fe River, Apalachicola Bay, Biscayne Bay, Tampa Bay, Pensacola Bay and all other Florida waters have a right to clean water, and that right shall include the rights of those waters to exist, flow, be free from pollution, and maintain a healthy ecosystem.
How would these waterways — which are geological features, after all — enforce their putative rights? Why, anyone who opposed a project or use of the waters could sue!
(c) Any resident, nongovernmental organization, or government entity of this state shall have standing to enforce and defend the rights secured by this section in any court possessing proper jurisdiction.
(d) Waters may enforce and defend the rights secured by this Section through an action brought by any resident, nongovernmental organization, or government entity of this state pursuant to (c), in any court possessing proper jurisdiction, in the name of the waters as the real party in interest.
Interfere with the waterways, and you could pay — big time!
Damages awarded under this section shall be measured by the cost of fully restoring the waters to their pre-damaged state, and shall be paid to an appropriate governmental or nongovernmental entity, as designated by the court, to be used exclusively for the full restoration of the waters.
And to state the obvious, waterways would have rights but no duties:
(e) The rights secured in this section shall not be interpreted to confer liabilities, duties, obligations, or responsibilities on waters.
The term “clean water” is defined expansively to the point it could include almost anything, as are the terms “water” and “flow:”
(1) “Clean Water” shall mean waters free of the non-natural presence of any one or more substances, contaminants, or pollutants in quantities which are or may be potentially harmful or injurious to human health or welfare, animals, fish, plant life, and water quality or which may unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property, including outdoors recreation.
(2) “Flow” shall mean the steady and continuous movement of waters, the diminishment of which would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of a particular area.
(3) “Waters” shall mean all rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments, wetlands, and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters, as well as all coastal waters within the jurisdiction of the state
So, if a proposed use of waterways would interfere with the natural lives of clams, it could be stopped. If a pipelines interfered with the natural flow of underground water, it could be stopped. If a dike was proposed to stop flooding, it could be stopped. It seems to me that this could easily also include interfering with shipping and recreational boating as ships and boats can cause pollution and impact local wildlife, while docking facilities can interfere with natural water flow, cause pollution, or impact the ecosystem of the area.
Passage of this amendment — if it makes the ballot’s 900,000 petition signature threshold — would corrode human exceptionalism and destroy Florida’s now thriving economy by allowing the most radical environmentalists to thwart projects and water uses to which they object. I am not kidding. This amendment has the potential to bring Florida’s economy to its knees and destroy the quality of life for millions of Floridians.
What chance does it have of passage? Better than you might think. Proponents will have a lot of radical green money to sell it to unknowing voters as merely a benign clean water measure — when it is actually environmentalism at its most radical that would harm human thriving.
Moreover, I fear that opponents will not spend the resources and time needed to educate the public about how radical and potentially destructive the amendment would be for Florida.
That task should start immediately — with an ad campaign urging that Florida voters refuse to sign the petitions. And Governor DeSantis should bring the issue to a needed high profile by stating his opposition, as should Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott. The best way to assure that this measure passes is to not take it seriously. Because the proponents certainly do.
Last Thursday, by a vote of 11–2, the Georgia Board of Education adopted a resolution that would bar the practice of protest civics (extracurricular political protest and lobbying as required schoolwork), while also preventing Georgia schools from instilling in students the key tenets of critical race theory. This follows passage of a bill by the Texas state legislature the previous week that would bar both protest civics and critical race theory, and the introduction of a similar bill by Ohio state representative Don Jones in late May.
These moves in Georgia, Texas, and Ohio all draw upon the model Partisanship Out of Civics Act (POCA) that I’ve published with the collaboration and endorsement of the National Association of Scholars. What differentiates POCA from other such models is that it takes on both protest civics and critical race theory (CRT). That is important because the various “civics” bills currently being considered in Congress could easily impose leftist indoctrination on the states via protest civics alone. Even if every state in the Union were to bar the core tenets of CRT from K–12, in the absence of a POCA they would nonetheless be vulnerable to federally imposed politicization. Georgia’s move thus signals welcome momentum for the extended protections of the POCA model against federally imposed indoctrination.
Georgia’s move is also the first case in which a board of education, rather than a legislature, has moved against protest civics and CRT. Governor Kemp, to his credit, asked the Board of Education to act, because the Georgia legislature is currently out of session. That is no small matter, since it is entirely possible that one of the dangerous federal bills could pass before the Georgia legislature reconvenes in 2022 and acts to bar protest civics and CRT on its own. A federal grant with strings controlled by bad legislation, combined with Biden’s own pro-CRT priority criteria, could easily force protest civics and CRT on Georgia before its elected representatives have a chance to act. The latest move by the Georgia state Board of Education helps to prevent that, and it’s notable that the Georgia board’s resolution explicitly bars application for federal grants that encourage either protest civics or CRT.
A legislative committee in South Dakota acted recently, issuing a “Letter of Intent” instructing the State Board of Education to refrain from applying for federal grants that would fund either protest civics or CRT until after the legislature has moved to bar those practices in its 2022 session. Georgia and South Dakota are thus pointing the way for other states, most of whose legislatures are now winding down or out of session. Without action by boards of education or legislative committees during formal recess, there is a very real risk that Biden and the Democrats could federalize and politicize America’s schools before the year is out.
An article on the Georgia Board of Education’s latest action in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution conveyed some misconceptions about the resolution by its opponents. The Georgia resolution does not declare that teachers may not make students feel guilty or uncomfortable during discussions of race, a purely subjective standard. On the contrary, the resolution prevents teachers from asserting that students ought to feel guilty simply because of their race, a different and much clearer standard.
Nor are teachers or students prevented from discussing the core concepts of critical race theory. Teachers are prevented only from “inculcating” a belief in concepts like racial superiority or collective guilt. When carrying out their duties, K–12 teachers are rightly obligated by law to convey the approved curriculum. To bar the inculcation of certain concepts is therefore not a violation of a teacher’s freedom of speech. On the contrary, it is well within the scope of discretion by states and school districts to bar teachers from instilling certain concepts.
In significant ways, the Georgia resolution actually protects teachers from compulsion, while also safeguarding the ethos of free exchange. It prevents teachers who do not wish to discuss current controversies from being forced to do so. It also encourages teachers who do wish to explore current public-policy debates to explore them from diverse and contending perspectives. That gives teachers a variety of options, while also protecting students from indoctrination.
It is to be hoped that the Georgia Board of Education’s move will inspire other states to follow suit, administratively, legislatively, or both. Above all, states need to go beyond merely addressing CRT, by including a bar on protest civics as well. (I make the case against protest civics here.) Without taking on both protest civics and CRT, Biden and congressional Democrats could push them on America’s schools through a variety of ill-conceived federal bills and administrative rules within months.
Fred Ryan, publisher of the Washington Post, contends, “Something appears to be ‘simply, simply wrong’ at the Biden Justice Department.” Ryan objected to the methods used to gain reporters records during leak investigations, and in particular, that instead of reversing decisions of the previous administration that Ryan believes impeded upon reporters’ First Amendment rights, the Biden Justice Department, under new attorney general Merrick Garland, accelerated them.
After Biden took office, the department continued to pursue subpoenas for reporters’ email logs issued to Google, which operates the New York Times’ email systems, and it obtained a gag order compelling a Times attorney to keep silent about the fact that federal authorities were seeking to seize his colleagues’ records. Later, when the Justice Department broadened the number of those permitted to know about the effort, it barred Times executives from discussing the legal battle with the Times newsroom, including the paper’s top editor.
This escalation, on Biden’s watch, represents an unprecedented assault on American news organizations and their efforts to inform the public about government wrongdoing.
Last month, The Post learned of secret subpoenas authorized by President Donald Trump’s outgoing attorney general to obtain email information and home, cell and office telephone records of three Post reporters over a 3½-month span in 2017. We immediately requested an explanation and answers to several questions from the Justice Department as well as a meeting with the attorney general.
To date, no answers have been provided and the meeting has yet to take place. This delay is troubling. When asked about how the president’s assurances can be squared with his Justice Department’s behavior, White House press secretary Jen Psaki could offer no explanation. She subsequently released a statement disavowing White House knowledge of the actions that appear to have continued for several months during Biden’s presidency.
Ryan’s op-ed bristles with a palpable sense of betrayal; the Post may have expected this sort of thing from the Trump administration, but they expected better from Biden’s incoming team. The new boss, it turns out, is not all that different from the old boss.