CORRECTION: somehow, and I have no idea why, this somehow was posted with “Comment of the Day” in the headline. And because today has been marred by illness and unexpected events, I didn’t see the mistake until 7:43 PM. I’m sorry for the confusion. I need a vacation.
1. Continuing my informal survey of the Trump Hate obsession at the New York Times, the trend I noticed last week in the flagship for “the resistance” on the Times staff, the Sunday Times Review section, continued dramatically. Is this evidence that Times readers are finally getting sick of the paper’s unethical obsession? Time will tell. There was just one Trump Hate piece in the ten page section, out of 16 separate essays and op-eds. (A professor of anti-American studies has an essay that attacks all Trump voters and supporters as racists. Should this count? Nah. If you’re not a Democrat, you’re a racist, that’s all. It isn’t about Trump.) Oh, one of the editorials was questioning the Trump policy approach, but that’s within the normal range of newspaper editorials. The one hate essay was borderline, Maureen Dowd being snarky about the Russia investigation. She’s more of a humor writer than a true pundit, inclined to go where the most laughs lie, and her last paragraph was so, so dumb that it effectively discredited anything else she wrote, or will write, really. Dowd wrote,
“On Thursday, the president pout-tweeted that it was Congress’s fault that “our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low.” So he was blaming lawmakers who punished Russia for a cyberattack on our election rather than blaming Russia for sticking a saber in the heart of our democracy.”
Right, Maureen: Russia letting the American public know that the Democratic Party rigged its nomination, that Barack Obama knew about Hillary Clinton’s breaching her own department’s cyber-security requirements, that the Democratic Party’s candidate was running illegal pay-to-play shakedowns of foreign governments to fill the Clinton Foundation coffers (and her husband pockets), that reporters were colluding with her campaign to make certain she was elected, and that the DNC chair used her CNN position to help Hillary cheat in a debate stuck a saber in our democracy. In other words, Russia stuck a saber in our democracy by uncovering genuine evidence that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton had stuck multiple sabers in our democracy. I have actually described the “Russian interference” almost exactly this way to die-hard Hillary-ites, and they see nothing amiss with that analysis.
Or was Maureen just making another joke?
2. Some NFL players are now speaking up, protesting that free agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick is being “blackballed” by NFL owners because of his ridiculous anti-National Anthem stunt last season while playing for San Francisco. “Blackballed” implies something unethical and subterranean. We all know why Kaepernick hasn’t been hired: a) he’s not very good and b) he can’t be trusted not to embarrass his team and annoy fans by creating racially divisive (and incoherent) political theater on the field.
Does this “chill” his political speech? All of our political speech is “chilled” to the extent that when we speak out about controversial matters while representing our employers, we risk losing out jobs. If the NFL put pressure on the teams not to hire this jerk, that would raise ethical and legal issues, but why would they have to? He was a disruptive employee who wasn’t good enough to get the unethical benefits of the King’s Pass. No team in its right mind would pay millions to Kaepernick. Indeed, teams have an obligation not to. Their job is to win games, make money, and entertain fans. Keapernick undermines all three objectives.
3. I was going to write a whole post about this New Republic screed endorsing the dangerous and destructive leaking coming out of the Trump Administration by partisan moles determined to bring the President down. If you just read it, though, further vivisection should not be necessary. It begins with an outright lie that the author, Brian Beutler, apparently feels confident in offering because he doesn’t think anyone will check the facts, as he says the leaked transcripts of Trump’s discussion with the leaders of Australia and Mexico “depict a president whose very presence in high office is destabilizing, and whose continued service constitutes a dangerous crisis.” Of course, if there was anything in either conversation that showed this, the Times, the Post and the rest of the resistance would be hiring skywriters to proclaim it.
Then Beutler warns that the military is taking over because the President has delegated to some competent, able, disciplined managers with distinguished military experience. We have had twelve generals serve as President, including the first one, with three other generals, Grant, Taylor and Ike, career military officers before entering politics. Having a general as President gives a lot more power to the military culture than a President having some ex-generals as staff and appointees, but as with all the concocted anti-Trump hysteria, Beutler’s ignores history when it doesn’t advance the narrative.
Finally, Beutler comes back to the real objective of this piece, a plea to misuse the impeachment and section four of the 25th Amendment to undo the election, because he and his fellow progressives don’t like the policies Trump has pursued or will pursue in the future. The desperate cycle we keep seeing from “the resistance” is I-He’s a dictator! II. He’s insane! III. He’s incompetent! That I and III don’t jibe, that III is not grounds for removal, even if true (or Obama should have been removed, among other POTUSes) and that II is just an ad hominem insult that the resistance is committed to don’t seem to discourage these kinds of undemocratic essays at all. I wonder if they’ll ever stop?
4. I thought Michelle Obama’s infamous frowny face tweet holding the sign asking Boko Haram to return the Nigerian school girls it had kidnapped and was probably in the process or raping was the most pathetic example of high-profile incompetence and impotence I had ever seen, but the city government-backed Baltimore activists topped it with this weekend’s “Nobody kill anybody for 72 hours”—I’m not kidding, that’s really its name— movement.
Naturally the John Lennonesque stunt failed: two Baltimoreans were shot last night. The organizers are not discouraged, however. Baltimore police spokesman T.J. Smith said that the killings should not take away from the project’s worthy goals. “Organizers called and are in the area to continue to spread love,”he tweeted.
THAT should work. This is a full embrace of futility and desperation. Next, good witches will be recruited to spread peace and harmony. Maybe the mayor will have a séance and call on John to sing “Imagine” and “Give Peace a Chance.” I’m sure Michelle could be persuaded to make her magic frowny face again and hold up a sign that says, #STOPKILLINGPEOPLE.
Do you think that fact that Baltimore’ mayor directed police to let rioters burn down businesses in the Freddy Gray riots and Baltimore’s prosecutor made it clear that she would indict police without sufficient evidence to pander to mobs had anything to do with the current breakdown of civilization in the city?
When “Nobody kill anybody for 72 hours” is your city’s response to crime and violence, there is only one rational, responsible response.