Monthly Archives: October 2024

Staffers quit and 200,000 subscribers cancel after WaPo says its role is to report the news

Posted on by
13
Official slogan of The Washington Post

The venerable Washington Post may or may not have been a force for good, but it certainly was great.

They brought down Richard Nixon for crimes that were only modest by today’s inflated standards but serious at the time. They helped lose the Vietnam War – a war that was criminal, or just, depending on your view of history, but the losing of which was certainly a tragedy for the conquered South Vietnamese and most of the rest of the world.

They won the Pulitzer Prize 76 times, and many of those times were back when the Prize rewarded true excellence.

They were everywhere. Few newspapers today bear the expense of foreign bureaus; the Post still has a couple dozen.

For most of their century-and-a-half of existence, they tried to report the news, and they succeeded. It’s certainly true that toward the end of the 20th century they focused on news that made Democrats look good and Republicans look bad (such as the Watergate story) but, still, it was news. It was factual. It was true. It was important.

Given their mission to report facts, the Post generally refused to endorse particular political candidates. Individual opinion columnists of course expressed their support for candidates of their choosing, but the Board of Editors did not endorse those candidates, at least not explicitly.

Only relatively recently, in 1976, did they begin routine endorsements. At that time, they were at the height of their power and could afford whatever ill will their endorsements generated among some readers and staff.

Their endorsements were almost always of Democrats: Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and so on. It was predictable.

There are several problems with predictable endorsements. The first is that they have no persuasive power. If the Post always endorses the Democrat, then who is going to be persuaded by their endorsement of the Democrat this time?

The second problem is that endorsements predictably favoring one political party risk the reputation of the newspaper as an objective source of news. Readers surmise that the people working at the newspaper are members of that political party. If everyone at the newspaper is of one political party, are they really able to see and report the news objectively?

The third problem – related to the second – is that being predictably in favor of one political party tends to forfeit readers who favor the other political party. This problem has become more acute lately, as the internet has fragmented consumers of news into political parties and interest groups. Consumers today tend to get their news from sites that spin it the way they like, and avoid getting their news from sites that don’t.

That’s a flaw in consumerism, but it’s the reality of human nature.

That means a newspaper like the Post forfeits much of its Republican readers by getting a reputation for being a Democrat newspaper.

Finally, in view of all those reasons, one-sided endorsements are at cross purposes with professional journalism. Real journalists (as opposed to opinion hacks like me) simply report; they don’t opine.

This year, the Post announced that it is “going back to its roots” (their phrase) by not making an endorsement in the presidential election. It’s not clear whether their news page, too, will become more balanced, but owner Jeff Bezos made noises in that direction.

Maybe Bezos is making his decision on the basis of money, not ethics. But I’ll still take it. The two are usually not at odds.

Meanwhile, many Post staffers have quit in protest (good luck to them in finding a newspaper job) and over 200,000 subscribers have canceled. That fact tells a lot about what those quitters and cancelers think a newspaper’s role should be.

They think a newspaper’s role should be to tell subscribers which political opinion is “right.” More specifically, the newspaper should tell people that the “right” opinion is the Democrat one.

What’s curious, however, is that subscribers who pay for the Post are nearly always Democrats already, because they like the Democrat spin that they see at the Post. Therefore, the Post endorsements have no effective purpose.

Moreover, the quitters and cancelers at the Post know that. They know that they’re preaching to the choir (though they certainly would not use that particular analogy).

So why do they do it? Why do the Post quitters and cancelers insist on converting hard-core Democrats into . . .  hard-core Democrats?  

The answer is that they aren’t truly trying to convert anyone. Rather, they’re just flying their Democrat flag. It’s their little virtue-signaling routine.

That’s nice. But it’s not journalism.

Whatever Bezos’ motives, let’s hope he, and the owner of the LA Times who similarly refused to make an endorsement this year, start a trend away from political activism and back to professional journalism.

In that effort, it wouldn’t hurt to hire a few Republicans for a change.

Democrat headlines suggest panic

Posted on by
9

As Kamala continues her fall free-fall, the Democrats fear the worst. They fear that Kamala, like her predecessor and boss, has been found out. And the American people don’t like what they found out.

The people have found out that Kamala has always advocated an open border, is apparently ambivalent (at best) about Israel defending itself, wants taxpayer-funded “gender correction” surgery for male convicts so that women in female prisons can “enjoy” their company, and wants to double the capital gains tax.

In a nutshell, the Democrats fear that Kamala has been found out to be a hard-left socialist. Indeed, she has a voting record to the left of Bernie Sanders.

The last point bears repeating because it encapsulates everything else: Kamala has a voting record to the left of self-described, long-time socialist Bernie Sanders.

In view of these belated revelations, the Democrats have become increasingly shrill in their shrieks. Today’s example is, “We Have Every Right To Demand Our Men Vote For Kamala Harris,” by Michelle Obama.

Hmm, now we know who makes the demands in the Obama household. But I won’t go there.

Of more interest than the Obamas’ personal life is how mail-in voting has dramatically increased the coercive power of demanding people. That’s because mail-in ballots are not necessarily confidential.

In traditional voting, the voting booth is generally a one-person affair. Nobody else – nobody – knows how you voted, unless you tell them (and you could always fib, to preserve the peace). But with mail-in voting, the “demander” of a household can fill out the ballot, demand that the demandee sign it (or simply forge the demandee’s signature), and mail it in.

I won’t accuse Michelle of advocating that sort of fraud. But even short of telling Democrats to engage in fraud, she is certainly telling Democrats to “demand” that people sharing the same household, over whom a demanding Democrat has influence or even raw power, such as a battered spouse or an elderly parent, vote for the Democratic candidate.

If such actions involved a different political party, they could be characterized as a threat to democracy.

Speaking of demands, next up in the shrieks from the left is a left-wing British newspaper called The Guardian which announced in an editorial that “Americans who believe in democracy have no choice but to vote for Harris.” When your foreign guardians say you have “no choice” then I suppose you’d better do what they say.

Another recent headline from this same foreign newspaper informs us that “There’s Nothing Wrong With Foreign Volunteers Working for Harris.” (This one seems to have been buried by The Guardian, but the link can still be found at Real Clear Politics.)

It’s true that there’s nothing illegal about foreign “volunteers” working for the Kamala campaign, and there’s nothing illegal about a leftist foreign newspaper defending that practice. But whether it’s right or wrong is a matter of ethics and American politics. A foreign left-wing newspaper has no standing or moral authority on the subject.  

Back to the Democrats’ parade of horribles. Take a look at “Trump Is A Fascist And A ‘Clear And Present Danger’ To This Country,” by Hillary Clinton.

Ah yes, the allegation that Trump is a fascist, a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Stalin, a Pol Pot, a Mao, and a poo-poo breath. Let’s take those in order.

First, “fascism.” That word has lost its meaning, if it ever had one. Today, it’s simply the left engaging in name-calling against the right. One component of “fascism” that people generally agree on, however, is that it entails government control over the economy and censoring speech that is critical of the regime.

Compare the extent to which Joe Biden and Donald Trump, respectively, sought government control over the economy and over people’s free speech in their presidential administrations, and you will realize the extent to which Democrat allegations of Trump’s supposed “fascism” are pure projection.

On to Hitler. Lost or buried by history is that “Nazi” stood for National Socialist German Workers’ Party. It’s doubly ironic that socialist Democrats who want to eradicate the Jewish state of Israel (or let others do the dirty work of eradication) accuse Trump – a stout defender of Israel and a man with close Jewish relatives – of being something like the monster who sought to exterminate the Jews under the flag of . . . socialism.

Mussolini? A two-bit Hitler tag-along who died at the end of a rope wielded by his own people. To the extent he had any political principles, they were as a labor union leader – another leftist.

Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Weren’t they leftists?

We can’t leave Hillary’s rant without noting her warning that Trump is a “clear and present danger.” Hillary might not recall that this person she warns is a “clear and present danger” has already been the target of at least two assassination attempts by people who viewed him as . . . a clear and present danger. Or maybe she does recall that.

Poo-poo breath? That one, I made up. I’m tempted to admit that Trump is a poo-poo breath, but I’ve actually changed my opinion of him over the years. He seems happy. Moreover, his breath may or may not be good but he’s a breath of fresh air in the fetid fever swamps of Washington DC.

Trump these days seems truly interested in people. Working the frier for hours at McDonalds seemed to make him happy, fun and – dare I say it? – full of Joy.

Maybe the experience of surviving two assassination attempts gives a person that.

I can’t quite imagine Hitler or Pol Pot working the frier at McDonalds and joking around with the customers and staff. For that matter, I can’t imagine that from Kamala – whose similar portrayals are all staged with actors and whose only connection to McDonalds is that she apparently lied about working there.

Then we have Kamala’s putative, putrid boss mumbling “lock him up.” Perhaps on Joe’s mind is the probable prison term to which his son will be sentenced for criminal felonies. The only offense for which he wants to lock up Trump is apparently the “offense” of ousting the Democrats.

Trump has beaten every single one of the Democrat’s lawfare schemes. But the “offense” of ousting the Democrats is one to which he will gladly plead guilty.

The national nightmare of wokeism, DEI, censorship, incompetence, disguised and undisguised socialism, open borders, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris is nearly over. As Ronald Reagan proclaimed, it’s almost morning in America.

Is it too late in the game for the Democrats to replace their substitution?

Posted on by
5
Poster on Philly streetcorner falsely suggesting that the Eagles have endorsed Kamala Harris

Ordinary people who don’t closely follow the game of politics never knew that Kamala Harris runs only to the left. As a Senator, she ran further to the left than Bernie Sanders, according to non-partisan statistics.

She wanted an unprotected border. She proposed taxpayer-funded “gender affirmation” surgery for male convicts so that they could play in women’s prisons. She favored abortions performed anytime, anywhere, and by anyone, up to at least birth. She rooted for the Philadelphia Eagles to win the World Series (OK, I make up that last one.)

There’s more, much more, but you get the drift. Until recently, most Americans knew none of Kamala’s playbook.

What they did know was her laugh, and they didn’t like it. Back in 2020, that annoying laugh sacked her from the Democratic primaries before making a single First Down or winning a single delegate.

That’s important. It was not Kamala’s left-of-Bernie policy positions that blitzed her out of 2020 campaign. Those left-of-Bernie policies were, and are, within the accepted playbook of today’s Democratic Party, and well within the accepted playbook of the rabid fans who comprise Democratic primary voters.

Indeed, it was Bernie himself who was favored to win those 2020 primaries until the owners of the Democratic Party decided he was un-coachable and unelectable. But that’s a column for another day.

If only the rabid Democratic primary fans in 2020 had gotten past Kamala’s annoying laugh, and witnessed her whacky left-of-Bernie circus catches (but mostly drops) they’d have loved her!

Fast forward to this year’s season. Kamala missed the preseason, and missed the regular season too, but here she is in the playoffs. The Finals even. It’s all courtesy of a second Democratic trick play that dumped the Democrat’s hard-left, but unplayable, starting quarterback out of the lineup, out of the stadium, and onto the street corner like an empty 81-year-old beer bottle.  

Note that in a classic case of psychological projection, or maybe just dishonest hypocrisy, it’s the Democrats who chant that Republicans are a “threat to democracy” even as the Democrats themselves disregard the preferences of their own Democratic fans in both 2020 and 2024.

Anyway, here we are with Kamala as the Democratic starter. She . . . could . . . go . . . all . . . the . . . wayyyy!

Not.

I have to admit that she’s a more attractive player after finally securing that fumbling laugh, mostly.

As for her policies that always ran to the left, she says she’s changed them – now that she has to appeal to a broader group of fans in the general election than the hard-left fans in Democratic primaries. She suggests that she runs up the middle now, sort of. She assures us, however, that she hasn’t changed her “values.”

She avoids specifying either the changed policies or the unchanged values. They’re well-kept secrets.

Like all secrets, however, they have a way of leaking out, or, in Kamala’s case, blurting out. Here’s an interview in a friendly forum:

Question: “Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

Kamala: “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

The rightwing media – all three of us – had a field day with that answer.

A few hours later, another friendly interviewer gave her a chance to improve on the words and substance of that botched play. The interviewer posed the same question about how her policies differed from Biden’s policies. She refused to backtrack from her answer earlier in the day, and this time refused to even take the ball. She instead said, “I’m not Joe Biden,” followed by a word salad of platitudes.

Even the liberal media saw it as a dodge.  

Granted, there was some shiftiness in saying, “I’m not Joe Biden.” Kamala’s game has amounted to shouting “I’M NOT TRUMP” but also whispering “I’m not Biden either.” It goes something like this:

I’M NOT TRUMP!

I’m not Biden, either.

I’M NOT TRUMP!

I’m not Biden either.

You get the idea.

OK, the people knew she was not Trump. Who is? And they knew she was not Biden. (I’ve seen the two of them together. It’s not a pretty sight.)

What the people didn’t know, for sure, was whether her policies – her plays – are any different from Biden’s. In her second interview on the subject, she never answered that question when it was put directly to her a second time; she simply ran out the clock.

Of course, it’s a bit difficult for her to say credibly that her plays are different than Biden’s, given that they played together for three and a half years and she boasts that she was the last person on the field with him on each major play. (Maybe not that away game in Afghanistan, or the one in Gaza. Or the one in Ukraine. Or the one at the Mexican border.)

Moreover, she’s reluctant to alienate her hard-left fans by stating that her policies differ from those of her hard-left teammate and boss.

To summarize: Kamala’s plays as a Senator ran left-of-Bernie. In an interview last week, she said no differences come to mind between her plays and Biden’s hard-left plays. And in a subsequent interview, she refused to give a single example of any such differences. Her favorite play is Student Body Left, every single time.

The American people have seen those hard-left Biden/Kamala/Bernie plays. They’ve seen them fail. They want new a new playbook, new play-calling, and a new play-maker.

Kamala knows this, and that’s why she has refused to open her playbook – it’s the same as Biden’s failed playbook. Now, at last, the American people know it too. And so, Kamala is falling faster than a third-string quarterback in the sights of Ray Lewis.

To the extent he comprehends what is happening, that dethroned, deposed, disposed of, soon-to-be-departed Joe Biden must be smiling in his box seat. Or his beach lounger.  

The Colorado Christian baker wins again – but his tormenters will be back

Posted on by
4

The left has hounded artistic Colorado baker Jack Phillips for over a decade. It started back in 2012 when a gay couple demanded that he create a “gay wedding cake” with two figurine husbands on top.

Of course, the gay couple could have gotten their gay cake created by many other bakers. They seem to have chosen Phillips not despite, but because, creating such a object was contrary to his religious beliefs.

Phillips politely said he would happily bake a cake for them, but not a gay cake. That’s an important point. Phillips did not simply refuse to serve the couple on the grounds that they were gay. Rather, he refused to create a special “gay cake” for them.

Phillips thus refused to create an artistic expression that was contrary to his religious beliefs.

The gay couple were something like a couple seeking out a Kosher restaurant, demanding that the Jewish chef cook up an elaborate pork dish, and then contending that they’d been discriminated against when told that pork is not on the menu.

It’s actually worse than that. The gay couple thought Phillips’ beliefs were not just discriminatory, but should be illegal. So, they schemed to establish that as a legal matter.  

First, they brought an action against Phillips before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and won. The case then went to a Colorado appellate court, and they won there too.

Phillips finally filed for review in the Colorado Supreme Court, where all seven Justices are Democrat appointees. Those Colorado Justices refused to even hear the case on the grounds there was zero merit to Phillips’ appeal.

Then Phillips filed for an appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s the court of last resort in America, and they accept only a few percent of the appeals lodged there.

To everyone’s surprise, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Phillips’ case was worth hearing. Not only that, but after hearing the case they reversed the Colorado decision. They decided that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had exhibited an unfair antipathy toward Phillips’ religious-based actions.

Let that sink in. The U.S. Supreme Court – the highest court in the land – found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and state courts had shown six years of unfair antipathy toward Phillips’ ordinary Christian religious beliefs.

At least they didn’t feed him to the lions. But what happened next was almost as bad, as anyone who’s been a defendant in a lawsuit will tell you.

On the very day the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in favor of Phillips, a self-described “devil worshipper” demanded by email that Phillips bake a cake celebrating the devil’s birthday – complete with a dildo on top. (It’s not clear what is bedeviling about dildos.)

As before, Phillips politely explained that he could not bake such a cake because it was contrary to his religious beliefs.

Before then, on the very day that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Phillips’ appeal of the “gay cake” case, someone came into Phillips’ bakery and demanded that he create a “transgender cake” depicting transgender stuff.

You can see the pattern.

As before, Phillips refused to create the “transgender cake.” As before, the transgender person brought an action before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. As before, he/she won. And as before, the case eventually went up to the Colorado Supreme Court.

This time, the Colorado Supreme Court took the case (perhaps feeling stung by the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the Colorado decisions the earlier time).

But the Colorado Supreme Court dodged a decision on the merits. Instead, they dismissed the case on a technicality.

It was a win for Phillips, but it didn’t establish any precedent for other Christian bakers or anyone else who wants protection for his religious beliefs.

Pity the Colorado Supreme Court. They were faced with either (1) defying the earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision by ruling against Phillips, or (2) defying their woke principles by ruling in his favor.

Ah, they were torn between the law of the land and the law of the woke. They found a clever way to choose neither.

But trust me, they’ll be back. The devil-worshipping transexuals, the kangaroo state courts and “civil rights” commissions stacked with Democrat appointees, and the rest of the totalitarian wokerati – they’ll all be back, lawless as ever.

They want to outlaw religious beliefs that they don’t believe in, and that’s almost all of them.

Bob Dylan to the Establishment: “It ain’t me babe” (redux)

Posted on by
6
112292401-bob-dylan-large_trans_nj62v2zfdvrr1z2dus5zc6ck4ngngqiuwxjtzm-s6a

Note to readers: I published this right after Robert Zimmerman, aka Bob Dylan, won the Nobel Prize for Literature eight years ago. You’ll see that it has some relevance to current events. (This year’s winner, just announced, is someone named Han Kang. I’m sure she’s very good, but I’ve never heard of her. But I don’t read many books – too many words!)

The establishment got spanked. Here’s the story:

Some old geezers in Scandinavia are very proud of some prizes they give. They call them “Nobel Prizes.”

The prize comes in several flavors. The “Peace Prize,” for example, is awarded by Norwegian politicians. They give it to other politicians they like.

One year they gave it to a guy who said he invented the internet, then lost an election for United States president, then refused to accept the election results, then threw the country into chaos for a month, then lost in the courts, and then got rich inventing global warming.

Another year they gave it to an American president who succeeded in getting elected and nothing else (I suppose they had to give him one for getting elected after giving one to the earlier guy for failing to get elected) and who later succeeded in escalating but not winning a war in Afghanistan, which is now the longest-running war in American history.

One year they gave their Peace Prize to a Palestinian terrorist.

There’s also a Nobel Prize for “literature” for the person they deem the planet’s best writer. This one is given by an obscure club of 18 lousy writers in Sweden. They call themselves the Swedish Academy. Everyone else calls them “Who?”

Their motto sounds like an advertisement for a suburban dinner theater: “Talent and Taste.” (I’m not making that up.)

This year, they gave their Nobel Prize for literature to Bob Dylan. Or at least they tried. Seems Bob wouldn’t return their phone calls.

Bob has a history of bucking the establishment. He was born Robert Zimmerman in a small Minnesota town. He learned some acoustic guitar and taught himself the harmonica. He changed his name, went to Greenwich Village and made a new name for himself as a folk singer. Hippies liked him.

Then he decided to plug the guitar in. The hippies went berserk, even without their drugs. Overnight, their cheers turned to boos just because Bob had tried something new.

Hippies were like that. They always wanted you to be new and different, but only if you did it their old-and-same way.

Bob survived being ostracized by the hippies for being different. On the sheer strength of his creative talent (not so much his singing voice) he became truly great.

The hippies eventually grew up, or at least older, and became liberals watching public television fundraisers showing Peter, Paul and Mary singing saccharine versions of Bob’s songs about ’60s protests that they never actually participated in.

And then Bob threw another switch. In middle age, he became a Christian.

Like the hippies earlier, the liberals went berserk. Christianity is for hicks, they believed, not for Bob and other sophisticates like themselves.

Later still, Bob defended Israel’s right to defend itself. The liberals, now rebranded as politically correct “progressives,” didn’t like that, either. Bullies never like people who believe in defense.

Nobel Prize announcements are watched almost as closely as “American Idol” and the Swedes know it. So this year they grandiloquently proclaimed that Bob had “created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition.”

Huh? What are “poetic expressions”? Is that a wooly phrase for “poetry”? Anyway, I told you they were lousy writers.

That evening, Bob gave one of the hundreds of concerts that he still gives at age 75. He made no mention of his big prize. And for a month he still wouldn’t return the Swedes’ phone calls.

The Swedes got mad— for Swedes, anyway. One said Bob’s refusal to acknowledge this prize that he never asked for was “an unprecedented situation” and called him “impolite and arrogant.”

I already told you twice that they’re lousy writers. But they do have a talent and taste for unintentional irony. If they want to avoid “unprecedented situations,” then maybe they should give their little prize for creativity to someone less creative.

As for “arrogance,” it’s this self-appointed committee of hacks, not Bob, who presume to judge the world’s best writing. And then when Bob refuses to acknowledge their judgment, they presume to whine, “Just who does he think he is?”

Here’s who. He’s an independent thinker who is unwilling to allow himself to be used by establishmentarian prigs seeking to award themselves the authority to decide what is good.

Eventually, Bob returned their calls. And he says he’ll show up for the big ceremony, “if it’s at all possible.”

Bob being Bob, it sounds like he’ll have a concert to give that night instead. Even bad Swedish writers would recognize the symbolism.

In other symbolic news about the establishment, the dishonest, self-dealing insider whom the establishment hand picked to be the next president lost to a businessman who builds things.

The times, it seems, they are a-changin’.

Kamala is not Biden and she’s not Trump, but she’s still probably Harris

Posted on by
12

I predicted Trump would win the 2016 election. On the day of the election, the betting odds on that were 12%. Had I been a betting man, I’d have made YUGE money.  

In 2020, I again predicted Trump would win. On the day of that election, the odds of that happening were 35%.

Trump lost that time, but, given the odds, I would not have lost nearly as much as I would have made four years earlier in 2016. I’d still be way ahead.

My point is that even though I missed the call in 2020, nailing the near-impossible call back in 2016 makes me a frigging prophet.

So, listen to me. Trump will win this year.

Kamala’s campaign had a strategy from the outset. Before talking about it, bear in mind that the “outset” for her was not in 2022 or even 2023 when other Democratic candidates were slogging through the snows of Iowa to visit rural coffee shops and giving interviews to local radio schmucks in New Hampshire and North Carolina.

No, the “outset” for Kamala was a couple of weeks before the Democratic convention last summer when nameless party poohbahs snatched her out of the obscurity of a failed Vice Presidency in the service of a frail, failed Presidency.

They installed her as the Democratic candidate, even though she has never won a single primary delegate, despite – or because of – her best efforts. (By the way, one might wonder exactly what’s in it for the poohbahs.)

Anyway, here’s their strategy. It’s to rest on the fact that (1) Kamala is not that frail, failed President and (2) she’s not Trump either.

That has been almost enough. But not quite.

Although they’ve succeeded in convincing voters that Kamala is not Biden and not Trump, they’ve failed to convince them that she’s not Harris.

They did try. Kamala disavowed her earlier open border policy, sort of. She retracted her position that guns owned by people not named Kamala should be confiscated, kind of. She no longer favors defunding the police, apparently. She seems not to think Joe Biden is sharp as a tack, anymore. She has not advocated taxpayer funding for “gender affirmation” surgery for rapists so they can move into women’s prisons, lately. She doesn’t advocate men competing in women’s sports, for now.

It’s a little hard to state Kamala’s current position on these things definitively. That’s because she herself does not state her position on these things definitively.

She reminds me of the lawyer who is asked “What is two plus two?” The lawyer answers “What do you want it to be?”

Kamala is more shrewd than that lawyer, however. She simply refuses to take the question. She refused all summer to sit for interviews or stand for press conferences after the previous two years when she had no campaign appearances at all because she ostensibly was not campaigning.

Once she did start campaigning in the wake of the poohbah coup, years after everyone else started, she campaigned not with press conferences or position papers or interviews – even with friendly interviewers – and pretended not to hear questions shouted to her. She instead campaigned on “Joy.”

There’s something disconcerting about anonymous poohbahs pulling a behind-the-scenes palace coup, installing a figurehead of their choosing, and instructing her not to give interviews but instead to campaign on “Joy.”

To the poohbahs’ credit, Kamala is definite about a few things. For example, she’s definite that she favors peace in the Mideast.

To their discredit, however, she’s not very definite about how to achieve it. Defeating the bad guys is evidently not on the table. In fact, identifying them is not even on the table.

All this joyous indefiniteness worked for a while. Despite Kamala’s absence at interviews and press conferences and her missing position papers, voters still believed she was definitely not Biden and definitely not Trump.

But as noted, they came to believe she might still be Harris.

As Kamala’s polling numbers have slipped, the poohbahs have evidently finally decided in desperation to put her in front of the media to state definitively that she’s not only not Biden and not only not Trump, but also not Harris.

The voters are saying, “OK, maybe. But then just exactly who are you?”

The Western Wall

Posted on by
6

Note to readers: I originally published this piece ten years ago after some treks in Israel. I thought of re-publishing it yesterday but decided that I as a Christian cannot possibly speak on October 7 to the horror of that day last year, especially in view of the ambivalent reaction of many people since then. It would be like crashing a Shiva. So here it is, a day late. Or perhaps right on time.

DSC01970

Muslims have the Taj Mahal and Mecca. Catholics have St. Peter’s Basilica and the Vatican. Jews have a wall.

The Western Wall is a stack of massive stone blocks a few dozen feet high and a couple of hundred feet long. It’s all that’s left of Jerusalem’s second Jewish temple, a structure that astonished even the Romans. The Romans destroyed it to punish the Jews for their Great Revolt in 70 A.D.

That wasn’t the first time. It’s called the “second” temple because it replaced Solomon’s temple, which had been destroyed by the Babylonians six centuries earlier.

For millennia, this fragment of the second temple has been sacred to Jews, reminding them of their culture, their religion, their diaspora, their return, and their faith that someday there will be a third temple.

I visited the Western Wall a few Fridays ago, just in time for the start of the Jewish Sabbath at sundown. I expected to see Orthodox Jews in traditional garb praying there, and I did.

But I saw more than that. I saw non-Orthodox Jews, heads bowed, trembling hands on the wall, tears running down their faces.

And among the prayerful were thousands of Jews singing and dancing to traditional music. Imagine a Jewish wedding reception — a really big one.

There was more than just Jews. Understand that hours after the United Nations created Israel in 1948, four surrounding countries simultaneously attacked it. Israel survived the attack, but its attackers killed or expelled all Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem.

For years thereafter, the occupiers of the Old City literally used the Jewish Quarter for mortar practice. Of 35 houses of Jewish worship there, 34 were obliterated. The Western Wall was routinely spat upon, and worse.

The ongoing destruction, banishment and desecration continued until the Six Day War in 1967 when Israel was again attacked from all sides. In those six days, Israel crushed its enemies, established protectable borders and reclaimed the Old City and the Western Wall.

Since then, the Israelis have welcomed all faiths to the Old City. In fact, two-thirds of the residents are Muslim. Their Dome of the Rock built next to the Western Wall and over the site of the first and second Jewish temples was left in their hands. Likewise, the traditional site of Christ’s tomb, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, is in Christian hands.

And so among the singing, dancing and praying Jews on that Sabbath evening a few Fridays ago were singing, dancing and praying Christians, Arabs, Asians and Africans. They invite everyone, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

They loaned me a yarmulke – they ask only that you cover your head – and watched me silently pray at their wall. They invited me into their celebration. One named Goldberg joked that my Scottish name sounds vaguely Jewish if only I would spell it B-E-I-T-O-N. I told him his Jewish name sounds vaguely Scottish if only he would spell it M-A-C-D-O-N-A-L-D.

Another was Romanian by ancestry. Out of an extended family of 32, his father was one of two who survived the Holocaust. (The Romanians surpassed the Germans in implementing the “Final Solution.” The Romanians were just shooting Jews on sight; the Germans intervened in order to send them to the death camps for “proper” extermination.)

Another was Moroccan by birth. His ancestors had been expelled from Spain in the Jewish expulsion of 1492. (Spain announced in February that he and other descendants of expelled Jews could return and reclaim the citizenship that was stripped from their ancestors 522 years ago.)

Several were friends of three Israeli teenagers who’d disappeared a week earlier. We didn’t know it at the time, but terrorists had already kidnapped them, murdered them and dumped their bodies.

Which brings up one other thing that struck me that Friday evening. Some of the praying, singing and dancing men and women were Israeli soldiers. I’ve done a lot of things, but never before had I danced in a circle with my arms around the muscular shoulders of young Jewish men wearing yarmulkes, combat boots, fatigues and automatic weapons. That we were of different faiths was the least-strange thing in the picture.

The Israeli soldiers were necessary because their wall is a target of terrorists, just as their children are. The mortars are gone from the Old City, but the suicide bombers are not. All this praying, singing and dancing — all this freedom — comes at a price.

Surrounded by psychopathic child-killers and totalitarian madmen vowing a second Holocaust, the people of Israel pay the price for freedom.

And in the shadow of the remaining fragment of their twice-destroyed temple, they invite the world to join them in celebrating that freedom.

“Disinformation” is not the same as falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater

Posted on by
4

Here’s how the First Amendment debate over governmental prohibitions on free speech has been framed:

  • The Democrats want the government to prohibit people from spreading “disinformation” that they don’t like.
  • The Republicans correctly point out that the First Amendment, in general, prohibits such a prohibition.
  • The Democrats then respond that the First Amendment does not apply because disinformation is like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater – people’s safety is at risk.
  • Republicans then point out that the analogy between political speech and falsely “shouting FIRE in a crowded theater” is rooted in a Supreme Court case dating back to WWI. In that case, the Court upheld a restriction on speech in opposition to the wartime draft. The Court decided that political speech opposing the draft was like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, in that it could cause America to lose the war. It was a stretch, but that was the Court’s analogy.
  • But, say the Republicans, that Supreme Court case was later rejected during the Vietnam War in 1969 (a much less popular war than WWI) and was essentially overruled. Political speech today clearly is protected by the First Amendment – even if it’s highly unpopular or even untrue.

So far, so good. But many Republicans have gone on to imply that the Supreme Court’s overruling of the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” analogy means that the First Amendment gives people the right to falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

This was a mistake for two reasons. The first is strategic and the second is legal.

The strategic reason is that contending the First Amendment gives people the right to say things to cause an immediate, panicked mayhem violates common sense and tends to discredit the First Amendment. Casual thinkers start to casually think, “Gee, if the First Amendment gives people the right to cause dozens of trampling deaths in minutes, just to watch people get trampled, then maybe the First Amendment is not such a good thing.”

The legal reason it’s a mistake to imply that the Supreme Court ultimately decided falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is protected by the First Amendment, is that the Supreme Court never did.  

Rather, what the Court held in that later case was that political speech is simply not the same as falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater. The latter is false and may produce immediate maiming and death, while the former is a political statement which might be false (or might not be) but is not likely to produce immediate maiming and death.

If the Supreme Court is ever confronted with a case where someone is prosecuted for causing immediate maiming and death by falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not decide that his grotesque mischief is protected by the First Amendment.

But, you say, isn’t the First Amendment absolute?

No, it is not. For example, there is no First Amendment right to tell material lies in the sale of a product – to engage in false advertising. The First Amendment does not give a business the right to falsely state that their snake oil has cured cancer in 29,385 people if it hasn’t, or falsely state that customers can return goods for a cash refund if they can’t.

There is no First Amendment right to state falsehoods on your tax return. You can’t tell the IRS that you earned X dollars when you really earned X + Y dollars, as Hunter Biden has learned to his dismay (along with thousands of other citizens over the years, notoriously including Al Capone).

There is no First Amendment right to lie under oath. That’s perjury, and it’s a crime – and it’s not protected by the First Amendment.

There is no First Amendment right to defame a person, as several media outlets learned when they falsely characterized a teenager as racist because it suited their narrative. 

There is no First Amendment right to make or distribute child pornography.

But most other speech is indeed protected by the First Amendment, particularly political speech. Saying that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, or that Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin is running the White House, or that the 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the CIA or by aliens, or that your uncle was eaten by cannibals, is all generally protected as political speech – whether it’s true or not.

Such political speech is not the same as shouting FIRE in a crowded theater to cause an immediate mob scene of trampled human bodies.

Whether there’s a political price to be paid for false speech is, of course, a separate issue. Sometimes there is, and oftentimes there’s not. Either way, that’s not a legal matter, but a political matter.

Our nation stands nearly alone in the protections of the First Amendment. In most of Europe, you can be sent to jail for “hate speech” that a judge finds offensive. And many people have been. That is not the law in America, yet.

The Republicans have by far the better of this First Amendment debate, but they’ve expressed their argument poorly by implying that you can indeed shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

The proper argument is: Granted, you can’t falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater, but political speech is nothing of the sort.

Glenn K. Beaton practiced law in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.