Tesla Austin Factory Now Official

July 23rd, 2020

The long rumored and threatened (if you’re California) Austin-area Telsa Gigafactory is now official:

Tesla will build its newest Gigafactory near Austin, Texas, Chief Executive Elon Musk announced during the company’s earnings call on Wednesday.

The area takes up about 2,000 acres and will be roughly 15 minutes from downtown Austin, Musk said. He said the factory will be an “ecological paradise” and that it will be open to the public.

“We’re going to make it a factory that is going to be stunning it’s right on the Colorado River. So we’re actually going to have to have a boardwalk over you, hiking, biking trail. It’s going to basically be an ecological paradise,” Musk said.

The site will be used to build the company’s Cybertruck, its Semi and the Model 3 and Model Y for the eastern half of North America, Musk said.

Musk also added that Tesla will continue to grow in California, where it will build the Tesla Model S and the Model X for global deliveries and the Tesla Model 3 and Tesla Model Y for North America.

Travis County, where the new car plant will reside, voted earlier this month to give Tesla tax breaks worth a minimum of $14.7 million to build the plant to bring jobs to the area. Tesla employs about 10,000 people at its only U.S. car plant today in Fremont, California.

The site is evidently going to be out at SH-130 and Harold Green Road northeast of the airport, at the site previously owned by Martin Marietta.

That “15 minutes from downtown” line is pure real estate agent hyperbole. Sure, that’s 15 minutes from downtown…at 3 AM. If you’re willing to speed.

Welcome to Austin, Telsa! Enjoy the BBQ, but please leave any political liberalism back in California…

China Perfidy Roundup for July 22, 2020

July 22nd, 2020

Time for another roundup of China’s various crimes:

  • Inside China’s concentration camps for Uighers:

    Dawn breaks in the crowded prison cell. Not everyone is asleep — conditions are so cramped in the 70-square-yard space that 15 of the 60 inmates have to stand to give others their turn to lie down.

    The lack of privacy is absolute. Toilet breaks are rationed — two minutes at a time — and in full gaze of the others.

    Glass walls, cameras and microphones mean that every word and deed is recorded.

    Informants placed in each cell even note down what people say in their sleep and pass it on to guards.

    As with every other day, the morning begins with compulsory singing of Communist Party songs, praising the glorious motherland and its wise leader, Xi Jinping.

    Then their only meal of the day arrives. Watery cabbage soup, served with a small lump of steamed dough. If they’re lucky, they may get a few grains of rice as well.

    Snip.

    Morning is indoctrination. Inmates — hundreds of them, all shaven-headed — sit in a vast echoing room, listening to hours of lectures on the evils of religion

    The monotony of the lessons is mental torture. At the end of the class, inmates are asked ‘is there a God?’ The only permitted answer is ‘no’.

    Every waking moment is an onslaught on their cherished beliefs and traditions. The half-starved inmates are even forced to eat pork and drink alcohol, in defiance of their Muslim faith.

    Afternoon brings interrogations. To break their mental resistance, inmates are forced to watch others being tortured before their own sessions of questioning.

    They are made to denounce friends and family, to confess to fictitious crimes such as bomb-making and espionage, and to express abject contrition — even for such harmless acts as having a copy of the Koran. Any resistance brings beatings, electric shocks and sleep deprivation.

    Nakedness is another dehumanising tactic. Nudity is taboo in Islam, but prisoners of all ages are made to parade before each other and in view of the guards.

    For women, humiliating gynaecological inspections are mandatory. Rape is routine.

    (Hat tip: Chuck DeVore.) Previous posts on China’s concentration camp system for Uighers can be found here and here.

  • This is pretty horrifying: “China cuts Uighur births with IUDs, abortion, sterilization.”

    The Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children.

    While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some experts are calling a form of “demographic genocide.”

    The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.

    The population control measures are backed by mass detention both as a threat and as a punishment for failure to comply. Having too many children is a major reason people are sent to detention camps, the AP found, with the parents of three or more ripped away from their families unless they can pay huge fines. Police raid homes, terrifying parents as they search for hidden children.

    It’s not just a “form of” genocide, it violates Article 2, Clause D of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which explicitly outlaws “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

  • More on the same subject:

    Last week, drone footage, verified by Western intelligence agencies, emerged from Northern China. It showed Uighur Muslims bound and blindfolded, with shaven heads, being loaded onto trains that were likely headed for detention camps. In a BBC interview, British journalist Andrew Marr demanded answers from Liu Xiaoming, the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom. Xiaoming accused “so-called Western intelligence agencies” of making “false accusations against China.” The population of Xinjiang had doubled in 40 years, he said, which clearly proved that “ethnic cleansing” and “so-called forced abortions” had not occurred. Marr, unconvinced, retorted, “According to your own local government statistics, the population growth in Uighur jurisdictions in that area has fallen by 84 percent between 2015 and 2018. 84 percent.”

    How can that be so? A recent report by the Associated Press, compiling “government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor” gives an idea.

    Over the past four years, the Chinese government has spent tens of millions of dollars to violently hijack the functioning reproductive systems of minority women. In 2017, according to official directives uncovered by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, government officials backed by armed law-enforcement officers were instructed to “leave no blind spots,” “contain illegal births and lower fertility rates,” “test all who need to be tested,” and “detect and deal with those who violate policies early.”

    The AP report found that “having too many children” is a “major reason people are sent to detention camps,” that “parents of three or more [children] are ripped away from their families unless they can pay huge fines,” and that “police raid homes, terrifying parents as they search for hidden children.” The report also contains shocking witness testimony:

    • “Tursunay Ziyawudun said she was injected until she stopped having her period, and kicked repeatedly in the lower stomach during interrogations. She now can’t have children and often doubles over in pain, bleeding from her womb.”
    • “Gulbahar Jelilova confirmed that detainees in her camp were forced to abort their children. She also saw a new mother, still leaking breast milk, who did not know what had happened to her infant. And she met doctors and medical students who were detained for helping Uighurs dodge the system and give birth at home.”
    • Gulzia Mogdia was also forced to have an abortion when she became pregnant with her third child. “Medics inserted an electric vacuum into her womb and sucked her fetus out of her body,” after which she was “taken home and told to rest, as [officials] planned to take her to a camp.”
  • What does the “reproductive freedom” crowd have to say about this outrage? We all know what: Exactly nothing.

    (I tried alternate spellings as well.)

  • U.S. announces it’s tired of China’s South China Sea shenanigans:

    The United States champions a free and open Indo-Pacific. Today we are strengthening U.S. policy in a vital, contentious part of that region – the South China Sea. We are making clear: Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them.

    In the South China Sea, we seek to preserve peace and stability, uphold freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law, maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce, and oppose any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes. We share these deep and abiding interests with our many allies and partners who have long endorsed a rules-based international order.

    These shared interests have come under unprecedented threat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Beijing uses intimidation to undermine the sovereign rights of Southeast Asian coastal states in the South China Sea, bully them out of offshore resources, assert unilateral dominion, and replace international law with “might makes right.”

    Beijing’s approach has been clear for years. In 2010, then-PRC Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told his ASEAN counterparts that “China is a big country and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.” The PRC’s predatory world view has no place in the 21st century.

    The PRC has no legal grounds to unilaterally impose its will on the region. Beijing has offered no coherent legal basis for its “Nine-Dashed Line” claim in the South China Sea since formally announcing it in 2009. In a unanimous decision on July 12, 2016, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention – to which the PRC is a state party – rejected the PRC’s maritime claims as having no basis in international law. The Tribunal sided squarely with the Philippines, which brought the arbitration case, on almost all claims.

    As the United States has previously stated, and as specifically provided in the Convention, the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding on both parties. Today we are aligning the U.S. position on the PRC’s maritime claims in the SCS with the Tribunal’s decision. Specifically:

    The PRC cannot lawfully assert a maritime claim – including any Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims derived from Scarborough Reef and the Spratly Islands – vis-a-vis the Philippines in areas that the Tribunal found to be in the Philippines’ EEZ or on its continental shelf.

    Beijing’s harassment of Philippine fisheries and offshore energy development within those areas is unlawful, as are any unilateral PRC actions to exploit those resources. In line with the Tribunal’s legally binding decision, the PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal, both of which fall fully under the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction, nor does Beijing have any territorial or maritime claims generated from these features.

  • “U.S. charges two Chinese nationals over coronavirus vaccine hacking scheme, other crimes.”
  • China plans to build two more aircraft carriers by 2035. (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
  • Speaking of China’s navy, with all the bad news of China’s increasing capabilities, it’s always good to find out about their limitations. So it’s encouraging to find out their naval officers are hamstrung by Communist political oversight:

    The Chinese long ago borrowed the concept of the political officer (“Zampolit”) from the Soviet Union. The political officer represents the Communist Party and has the authority to overrule any order a military commander gives. In reality, the political officer usually acts as a combined morale and special events officer. The political officers are primarily responsible for preventing anything happening in their unit that would embarrass the party. For naval zampolits that meant watching out for signs of mutiny or sailors planning to seek asylum in a foreign port.

    Unlike the Russian naval zampolit, the Chinese counterpart, called a political commissar is considered the equal of the regular naval commander and his superior when it comes to a “special mission”, like deliberately harassing foreign warships or opening fire on anyone. The political commissar is the same rank as the ship captain and can overrule the ship commander at any time and in any situation. It was not always that way.

    An important change took place in 2018 when naval political commissars were given equal authority with the captain as “mission commander” and is expected to replace the captain if the captain is disabled by injury or sickness. The normal second-in-command (the XO or executive officer) becomes the XO for the political commissar and the captain and third, not second, in command. The practical problem with this is that the captain and XO have spent their entire careers (fifteen or more years) learning how to run a ship and supervise the crew. In contrast, the political commissar learned enough tech stuff to be more annoying. The political commissar was a professional busybody, scold and snitch. The political commissar can end the career of the captain, XO or any other officer by simply making a series of uncomplimentary reports.

    The 2018 change was part of a program that began in 2016 throughout the military as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) sought to improve its control over the military. In the navy that meant the political commissar had the ultimate responsibility for achieving goals assigned to a ship. The captain is not the true commander of the ship in the Western sense. He is there to see that technical details are well taken care of and that would include taking change during very bad weather or some kind of technical (fire, explosion) problem aboard ship. The political commissar is expected to personally undertake particularly dangerous leadership missions, although only those he is qualified to deal with. That means political commissars have led boarding parties in dangerous situations but not entrusted with command during damage control situations.

    The full impact of the 2016-18 “reforms” to improve CCP control of the military are still working themselves out in the navy. Western, especially American, captains are being warned that their Chinese counterparts will probably not react as quickly to an emergency or unexpected situation that that should be taken into account, or taken advantage of.

    Another reason for the 2016-18 reforms was to reduce corruption in the military. In theory, political officers are supposed to prevent their commanders from getting involved in fiscal corruption, but often it’s the other way around, with the political commissars getting involved in illegal money-making schemes first. The CCP is trying to purge the political officer ranks of dishonest and unreliable elements. It is slow going. This has caused more friction between commanders and their political officers. That tends to reduce the effectiveness of the unit these two officers are in charge of. There is no easy solution to this problem.

    Snip.

    There’s another leadership problem China has to deal with, a problem similar to the one that seriously hurt Japan’s effort against the United States during World War II. This is the fact that the Japanese Army then, like the Chinese Army now, is the senior service to the extent that generals can overrule admirals and generally interfere in navy matters that the army generals really know little about. This is already causing China problems and there is no solution in sight. This is particularly true when it comes to joint training. In wartime, this “army runs the show” sort of thing is a serious problem, just read any history that covers the Japanese army and navy relationships during World War II.

    An offshoot of the army domination problem is that there is little real joint (all services working together) planning. Currently, the Chinese army tells the navy and air force what it wants done and that is the end of that. The Chinese understand that their next war will likely be in the Pacific, not mainland China. The navy should be in the lead here but it isn’t. Worse, naval officers who spend their entire careers learning how to run a ship, eventually as captain, have to accept being second-guessed or overruled by a less experienced (in running a ship) political officer.

  • “Pompeo imposes visa restrictions on Huawei, other Chinese tech companies, citing human rights abuses.”
  • State Department orders Chinese consulate in Houston closed.
  • “US House of Representatives passes NDAA amendment slamming Chinese aggression against India.” (From Hindustan Times. Judging from Google News, there’s precious little coverage of this resolution in American sources.)
  • UK Formally Suspends Hong Kong Extradition Treaty “Immediately & Indefinitely.”
  • “LA Times Publishes Beijing-Funded Propaganda.” “The eight-page advertorial, called “China Watch,” was tucked towards the back of the paper’s 61-page Sunday edition. With articles designed to look like legitimate newspaper columns, the insert presents a rosy view of the Chinese economy and its businesses.”
  • Sobering:

  • “Algorithm Error Causes YouTube To Accidentally Execute People Who Criticize China.”
  • Soros-Backed Prosecutor: How Dare You Use Guns To Defend Your Lives, McCloskys! Have Some Felony Charges! Missouri AG: Slow Your Roll

    July 21st, 2020

    Incompetent, George Soros backed St. Louis Democratic prosecutor Kim Gardner announced that she’s filing felony charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple who defended their home against #BlackLivesMatter intruders by merely brandishing their weapons on their own property. In fact, Gardner charged the couple with both a felony and misdemeanor count, evidently intending to pressure the couple into pleading guilty to the misdemeanor charges to avoid jail time.

    Enter Missouri Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt: Homey don’t play that:

    Within hours of the ruling, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief seeking to dismiss Gardner’s charges against the McCloskeys on the grounds that their Second Amendment rights are being violated.

    “The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine, which provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm,” Schmitt said in a prepared statement provided to Fox News.

    “Despite this, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed suit against the McCloskeys, who, according to published reports, were defending their property and safety. As Missouri’s Chief law enforcement officer, I won’t stand by while Missouri law is being ignored,” Schmitt said.

    The brief filing says the attorney general “respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this case at the earlier possible opportunity.”

    Note that this is not the first time Schmitt has rebuked Gardner for being unwilling to do her damn job.

    Do you think the McCloskeys agreeing to appear at one of President Trump’s virtual campaign rallies had anything to do with them being charged?

    BidenWatch for July 20, 2020

    July 20th, 2020

    Malarkey poll numbers, the basement campaign continues, and more Green New Peal pandering. It’s this week’s BidenWatch!

  • Not even Democrats are stupid enough to believe Biden’s poll numbers:

    Since the beginning of the 2020 campaign season, Donald Trump has been behind in almost every single poll.

    When there were 16 Democrats running, America was presented with polls showing that he’d lose to almost every single one of them — and now that the nominee is former Vice President Joe Biden, we are shown polls weekly that have Mr. Biden ahead by more than 10 points, as well as winning every battleground state. Those numbers seem not only illogical, but unbelievable — because they are — and the behavior of Democrats backs that up.

    Democrats are acting with the same grasping-for-straws panic that they have been since 2016.

    Snip.

    Actions speak louder than words — and where Democrats continue to spike the football with their words by touting double-digit leads by the former vice president over President Trump, their behavior remains panicked, violent and desperate. Winners exert confidence and understand that their time is coming. There’s no need for them to continue to pile on their opponent and burn the system to the ground — but they know they aren’t winning and their time isn’t coming.

    On the opposite side of the spectrum, losers would scratch and claw, scream and bring violence into what should be peaceful. They get louder and flail when they know their time is coming to an end. Ever watch a playoff football game when it’s a blowout? The losers always start pushing and mouthing off at the winners when they know the inevitable loss is coming.

    That’s why, if Democrats believed the polls, there wouldn’t be riots. They would instead only need to wait a few months to take control of our government, defund the police and erase the American history that they claim offends them.

    Democrats don’t believe the polls.

    (Hat tip: Director Blue.)

  • Biden has to leave the basement and face Trump sometime.

    This result is not a resounding vote of confidence among likely voters for Joe Biden and his ability to debate President Trump. One could wonder how yesterday’s speech on his climate change proposal might drive that number lower. With several gaffes reading from a teleprompter, Biden took no questions from reporters after unveiling a $2 trillion package. It seems freeform interactions are being discouraged by the campaign, which should raise concerns.

    Presidential candidates have had televised debates since Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. It is the way many voters assess candidates and their policy proposals. It may not be a perfect forum, but it is a staple. That they are more infotainment than substance is a function of the quality of the moderators, but that does not make them less relevant.

    Unless you live and breathe politics, you might not know the history of Joe Biden being soft on China. His acquiescence may matter more to voters after Beijing caused a worldwide pandemic and the realization we are dependant on them for essential supplies. Likewise, because of media bias, it one of the only forums where President Trump can make his case to the voters based on his record and agenda in his own words. This kind of information is why debates matter.

    The New York Times tried to give Biden an out by setting preconditions for the debate that President Trump must agree to. The two conditions are the president disclosing his tax returns and agreeing to fact-checking during the debate. This idea was proposed because even supporters are worried about Biden being extemporaneous for a few hours without preplanned questions.

    There may not be any excuses as far as voters are concerned. Rasmussen Reports found 68% of voters think it is important for the debates to occur. A full 56% percent believe it would hurt his candidacy not to debate Trump.

    A refusal could undoubtedly increase the chances of additional voters questioning his ability as the pretext is rather thin. Fact-checking occurs in post-debate commentary, and Trump’s tax returns are a years old conflict that is in the courts. His failure to provide them did not prevent Hillary Clinton from debating him. Why should it be a precondition for Biden now?

    Because Hillary was only physically weak, not mentally weak…

  • “Not Coming to a Town Near You—Joe Biden’s Invisible Presidential Campaign“:

    We’ve all been joking that Biden has been campaigning from his basement since the plague hit, but no one has really proven the joke wrong so far. For all we know, Dr. Jill has him duct-taped to a recliner and only lets him go when it’s time for another one of his now-trademark disastrous virtual campaign events.

    Stacey wrote a couple of days ago that Biden was going to have to eventually leave the basement and prove to the American public that he isn’t the drooling fool that so many of us now believe him to be.

    As we have discussed here many times, Crazy Joe the Wonder Veep has benefited greatly from the Coronapocalypse excuse to avoid the campaign trail. He can’t spend 3 minutes on camera reading a teleprompter without barking nonsense. He may not even be able to speak English if he’s off-leash at a campaign event. It’s a given that his handlers want to keep him away from public campaigning for as long as possible.

    (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)

  • Rich Lowry calls Biden’s campaign shockingly adequate:

    The Biden campaign has been lucky most of all, but it’s also been smart, at least smart enough.

    To go, as Joe Biden did, from left for dead to sweeping to the nomination and quickly thereafter emerging as the favorite in November is a run of success that would be the envy of any national politician.

    It’s easy to consider this a mere accident given the weakness of Biden’s opponents, first a socialist in the Democratic primaries who had a ceiling on his support and now an incumbent president whose ratings have sagged.

    The Biden team certainly isn’t going to rewrite any campaign playbooks or dazzle anyone with its brilliance, but it has avoided serious mistakes and demonstrated an understanding of the basic political terrain and its candidate’s strengths.

    Snip.

    Above all, the campaign has avoided the most politically perilous ideological excesses throughout. This has required some discipline, given how influential woke Twitter is on the left.

    Biden’s theory of the Democratic Party, even if it seemed doubtful at the outset, proved correct — that the center of gravity of the party was still with, as he put it, Obama-Biden Democrats rather than with the avowed socialists and social-justice warriors.

    Biden hewed to this line when other candidates went the other way. It might seem obvious that endorsing “Medicare for All,” which involves yanking away the private health insurance of more than 100 million Americans, is foolish and politically indefensible, but several candidates in the Democrat race did it anyway.

    He’s steered clear of other pitfalls since locking up the nomination. He’s said he wouldn’t ban fracking. He didn’t endorse defunding the police. He defended the statues of America’s founders.

    He’s indisputably slid left. This has been his MO his entire career — to stay smack in the middle of whatever is the consensus position of the Democratic Party at any given time. He’s running on the leftmost platform of any Democratic nominee in a couple of generations but has tried to soften the edges as much as possible.

  • Young voters: “Biden who?” (Hat tip: Instapundit.)
  • “Beware the Biden-Sanders radical lefty manifesto.”

    Joe Biden signed the death warrant for his campaign last week, even if he doesn’t know it. The joint manifesto he released with Bernie Sanders is 110 pages of radical far-left policies — from a job-killing $2 trillion climate agenda to eliminating cash bail and dismantling border protection.

    It betrays the working-class voters Biden claims to represent and destroys any pretense that he is a “moderate.”

    As Sanders has boasted, Biden would be “the most progressive president since FDR.”

    Well-meaning people might stick their fingers in their ears and vote for Biden out of nostalgia for a Democratic Party that no longer exists or out of exhaustion at the relentless anti-Trump barrage.

    But with his “Unity Task Forces” document, Biden has proven only that he is an empty husk. Old Joe, who was for police and working people and law and order, is long gone. His body is there but, like his party, it has been invaded by the socialist left.

    Under Biden’s manifesto, “Climate change is a global emergency” which requires “decarbonizing” American industries and eliminating carbon dioxide emissions to “net zero.”

    It is the Green New Deal on steroids.

    It will eliminate fossil fuel power by 2035, aka “commit to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035.”

  • Biden also promises to “fight gentrification.” Because America’s inner cities just aren’t enough like Detroit…
  • “Joe Biden Calls Arizona ‘an Important City’ in 2020 Election.”
  • Read between the lines of various Democrats saying how “powerful” and “consequential” Joe Biden’s running mate pick will be, and it’s obvious they don’t expect him to be up to the job. Or in office long.
  • “Biden campaign staffer mocked cops as worse than ‘pigs,’ called for defunding police.” The Biden staffer is Sara Pearl. (Hat tip: Matt Mackowiak.)
  • Billionaires back the anti-Trump Lincoln Project.

    The largest donor, supplying $1 million, was billionaire hedge fund manager Stephen Mandel Jr., founder of Lone Pine Capital, according to Federal Election Commission filings released Wednesday.

    Other supporters include Hollywood billionaire David Geffen (who donated $100,000), Boston media magnate Amos Hostetter Jr. ($100,000) and Silicon Valley investors Michael Moritz ($50,000) and Chris Sacca ($10,000). Martha Karsh, who is married to private equity billionaire Bruce Karsh, gave $50,000.

    This group of donors is following in the footsteps of Walmart heiress Christy Walton, who gave $20,000 to the Lincoln Project in January. Apparently pleased with her investment, she contributed another $10,000 in May. All of the donors except Walton have also contributed to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign or a super-PAC supporting the former vice president.

  • No, Biden didn’t introduce a blackface singer. Besides, hasn’t Ralph Northam proven that no Democrat will ever be dragged for blackface?
  • Here comes the tax hike!

  • Boom!

  • Biden and the Green New Deal:
    

  • Are we not doing “phrasing” anymore?

  • Personally I would have gone with “Battle Without Honor Or Humanity” for Trump:

  • Heh:

  • Heh 2:

  • Like BidenWatch? Consider hitting the tip jar:





    LinkSwarm, Jr. for July 19, 2020

    July 19th, 2020

    Enjoy a LinkSwarm of stuff I just didn’t have time to include in the regular Friday LinkSwarm:

  • Why Is Hillary Clinton Support In 2016 Correlated With Cities’ 2020 Riots?

    If Baltimore’s Democrat leaders gave $20 million of “space to destroy” in 2015, the price tag ballooned 100-fold in cities governed by the hard left in the 2020 round of urban violence.

    The left and major media say the urban violence often accompanying protests following the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis on May 25 is a direct descendant of America’s past paroxysms of racial unrest. As such, the looting and arson in major cities is claimed to be the righteous child of Baltimore (2015), Ferguson (2014), Los Angeles (1992), and even the widespread riots in America’s major cities following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968.

    But is it really? Or could it be something entirely different?

    In past urban riots, a single spark ignited a mixture of anger and resentment over racial discrimination, poverty, or police brutality. When the cities burned, the damage concentrated in and around the neighborhoods of the urban poor. I witnessed this first-hand as an Army National Guard officer deployed to Los Angeles in 1992. The city was calm in the morning, and by the evening there were widespread murders with businesses being looted and burned.

    In 2020, Floyd’s death appeared to trigger something different. Rather than a spark, a signal flare was sent aloft, with prepared cadres launching protests in cities across the nation often followed by violence late into the night.

    Unlike Baltimore in 2015, cities like Minneapolis and Seattle featured leftwing mayors and governors, none of whom appeared interested in restoring order. This was due to those elected officials’ deep sympathy towards the protesters’ stated goals: defund the police, or, at the very least, reduce the apparent incidence of police brutality while shifting public funds out of law enforcement to more social welfare spending.

    Snip.

    Comparing the above factors in a multivariate regression analysis with the incidence of violence as the dependent variable shows a statistically noisy and weak link to the number of police.

    Of note, considering an additional variable—the share of a city’s population with a college degree or post-graduate degree—generates an even higher correlation to violence than does police per capita, suggesting that the protests and allied rioting are not the result of a working-class movement.

    But none of these factors is convincingly determinative. There was one variable that did correlate strongly to urban violence: a city’s percentage of vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The more a city voted for Clinton, the more violence it saw in conjunction with the protests. (For the statisticians, the regression provides a significance of 0.0019 with the 2016 vote variable yielding a P-value of 0.003). The greater percentage of support for Clinton in 2016, the more likely a city was to suffer wanton destruction in connection with the “mostly peaceful” protests.

    Snip.

    Tellingly, out of the top ten cities for violence, looting, and arson, the average vote for Clinton was 77 percent. In the ten cities with the least destruction, Clinton won 53 percent of the vote.

    That a city’s political leanings are more likely to lead to a breakdown in law and order in service of political protest shouldn’t be a surprise. In this, Seattle, with a black population of 7 percent, San Francisco (5 percent), Portland, Oregon (6 percent), and Madison, Wisconsin (7 percent) have one big thing in common with Washington D.C. and Atlanta, with black populations of 47 percent and 52 percent, respectively: They are all governed by the far-left.

    Why did the leaders of the hardest-hit cities decide to give space to destroy? Some mayors saw the protest organizers as political supporters. A few may have calculated that widespread coverage of burning cities would harm President Trump’s reelection chances. And some just didn’t want the responsibility of ordering their police to restore order.

    Unfortunately, it is often the case in politics and revolutions that the common people—the proletariat—are sacrificed for the movement. In this case, it will be those living in dangerous neighborhoods who will end up being murdered, robbed, raped, and extorted in greater numbers if the misguided call to “defund the police” becomes a widespread reality.

  • Yeah, sure, it’s all about “the kids”:

    A major Los Angeles teachers union said in a research paper issued Thursday that the reopening of schools should be conditioned upon the passage of Medicare-for-All at the federal level, along with a slew of other left-wing policy staples at the state and local levels.

    “It is time to take a stand against Trump’s dangerous, anti-science agenda that puts the lives of our members, our students, and our families at risk,” United Teachers Los Angeles President Cecily Myart-Cruz said in a statement unveiling the paper. “We all want to physically open schools and be back with our students, but lives hang in the balance. Safety has to be the priority. We need to get this right for our communities.”

    The paper outlined a lengthy list of health and safety measures the union identified as necessary measures to ensure schools can operate safely amid the coronavirus pandemic, including robust testing, contract tracing, sterilization regimens and physical distancing in the classroom.

    The union said the costs to implement the measures necessary to restart Los Angeles schools safely could exceed $250 million, funds it said would be available if “federal, state and local governments are willing to finally prioritize pupils over plutocrats.”

    The UTLA called for at least $500 billion in additional federal assistance to K-12 schools, in addition to the passage of Medicare-for-All.

    The union also called for California to implement both a wealth tax on unrealized capital gains for the state’s billionaires, and surtaxes on state residents that earn over $1 million a year. The UTLA estimated the two measures would bring in a combined $14.5 billion a year in tax revenues.

    At the local level, the union called for the Los Angeles police to be defunded, saying “police violence is a leading cause of death and trauma for Black people, and is a serious public health and moral issue.”

    The UTLA also called for a moratorium on new charter schools, saying that the charter schools already operating in the city of “double-dipping” by accepting federal CARES act funding while also receiving state funding, which did not decline amid the pandemic.

    Sounds like the UTLA should be decertified…

  • The fallacy of white privilege:

    Upon immigrating from India when I was 4, my family suffered tremendous economic hardships and cultural challenges. My father drove a taxi at night and my mom worked many menial jobs as a cook, housecleaner, barista and motel cleaner. It’s fair to say my family never had success handed to them on a silver platter. But more than a decade post-immigration, we have found our footing in Western society, with my dad making nearly six figures operating his own software company.

    Rising from poverty to economic prosperity is a common narrative for immigrants from all backgrounds in the West. For example, after the communist takeover of Cuba in 1959, many refugees fled to America, leaving most of their wealth behind and having to start from the bottom. But by 1990, second-generation Cuban Americans were twice as likely to earn an annual salary of $50,000 than non-Hispanic whites in the United States.

    Snip.

    And the concept of white privilege can’t explain why several historically marginalized groups out-perform whites today. Take Japanese Americans, for example: For nearly four decades in the 20th century (1913 – 1952), this group was legally prevented from owning land and property in over a dozen American states. Moreover, 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned during World War II. But by 1959, the income disparity between Japanese Americans and white Americans nearly vanished. Today, Japanese Americans outperform whites by large margins in income statistics, education outcomes, test scores and incarceration rates.

    One could argue the successful stories of my family, Cuban Americans and Japanese Americans are cherry-picked cases. But whites are far from being the most dominantly successful group in Western society. A wealth of data collected in a longform Quillette analysis, shows overwhelming white underachievement relative to several minority groups among health outcomes, educational achievement, incarceration rates and economic success.

    According to median household income statistics from the US Census Bureau, several minority groups substantially out-earn whites. These groups include Pakistani Americans, Lebanese Americans, South African Americans, Filipino Americans, Sri Lankan Americans and Iranian Americans (in addition to several others). Indians, the group I belong to, are the highest-earning ethnic group the census keeps track of, with almost double the household median income of whites. In Canada, several minority groups also significantly out-earn whites, including South Asian Canadians, Arab Canadians and Japanese Canadians.

    Interestingly, several black immigrant groups such as Nigerians, Barbadians, Ghanaians and Trinidadians & Tobagonians have a median household income well above the American average. Ghanian Americans, to take one example, earn more than several specific white groups such as Dutch Americans, French Americans, Polish Americans, British Americans and Russian Americans. Do Ghanaians have some kind of sub-Saharan African privilege?

    Nigerian Americans, meanwhile, are one of the most educated groups in America, as one Rice University survey indicates. Though they make up less than 1 percent of the black population in America, nearly 25 percent of the black student body at Harvard Business School in 2013 consisted of Nigerians. In post-bachelor education, 61 percent of Nigerian Americans over the age of 25 hold a graduate degree compared to only 32 percent for the US-born population.

    These facts challenge the prevailing progressive notion that America’s institutions are built to universally favor whites and “oppress” minorities or blacks. On the whole, whatever “systemic racism” exists appears to be incredibly ineffectual, or even nonexistent, given the multitude of groups who consistently eclipse whites.

  • The Atlantic publishes a “power” story of how a police shooting scarred the writer as a young girl. Tiny problem: It never happened.
  • “Five Guys Fire/Suspend Employees Who Refused to Serve Police Officers.”
  • Michael Avenatti is broke, can’t afford legal fees, lawyer claims.” It would take a heart of stone not to laugh…
  • Detailed Analysis of Michigan Police Shooting

    July 18th, 2020

    Yesterday’s LinkSwarm embedded a bodycam video of an Eaton County deputy fatally shooting a knife-armed suspect who had just stabbed a 77-year old man. Today we’ve got an after-action breakdown of the shooting, including additional footage from a home surveillance camera.

    A few thoughts:

    1. She did an admirable job of clearing the error quickly.
    2. Talking about the bump and rack being unnecessary, I think it all happened so fast she just hadn’t processed that the perp had managed to put her gun back in battery.
    3. The bodycam clearly shows this was a justified shooting. The sad truth of the madness running rampant in 2020 is that if the perp had been black, boundless multitudes would be calling for (at the very least) her firing for using “excessive force.” And, if she was employed in a locale run by a certain type of Democrat, she probably would be fired to appease the rage mob.
    4. I emailed Karl Rehn to get his reaction: “I thought she performed well. The ASP analysis is solid regarding bad grip.”

    (Hat tip: Dwight.)

    LinkSwarm for July 17, 2020

    July 17th, 2020

    Another Friday, another boatload of links. In fact, too many to wrangle into shape right now. I may have to do another mini LinkSwarm on Saturday.

  • Kurt Schlichter has a warning for our elites:

    Would you be shocked to learn that a big hunk of the citizenry is absolutely convinced that Donald Trump will not only be re-elected but re-elected in a landslide? It’s true, and it’s not an ironic or performative belief, but rather one drawn from a perspective that the mainstream media utterly ignores. This means you probably have no idea it even exists, and that could lead to an unpleasant surprise in November.

    Well, unpleasant for you.

    Remember that apocryphal anecdote about how Pauline Kael moaned that she did not know anyone voting for Dick Nixon? If you’re here, then that’s very likely you.

    You can dismiss these people as stupid – many of them really believe that Jesus stuff, deny systemic racism, and have no fear of civilization being destroyed by the weather in a decade or so.

    After all, President Hillary Clinton did.

    Didn’t there arise in your mind, that agonizing Wednesday morning after Mrs. Clinton’s ruination, just the faintest notion that you had been lied to? You tracked the polls, and you reviewed the percentages – most hovering above 90% – that assured you that the glass ceiling was in for an epic shattering. And yet, no shattering was forthcoming. Whether expressly or by omission, you were lied to.

    And it is happening again.

  • “Trump Admin Tells Minnesota Governor To Get Bent Over $16 Million Aid Request Following Riots.” If Democratic officials refuse to defund their own cities from hard-left rioters and thugs, how is that the rest of the nation’s problem?
  • Cancel culture is real.
  • President Donald Trump’s Mount Rushmore speech was great.

    First, let’s be clear on who is waging the “culture war” for which the media blames Trump. Trump did indeed blast the “cancel culture” that is “driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees” so that “in our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance. If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished.”

    Trump here is just speaking the truth. There has long been an established, deeply admirable civic culture in this nation; it is the radical left who now wages war against it. All over the country, people are being fired for the mere utterance of inconvenient or unwanted thoughts, even anodyne thoughts. People are being physically (and dangerously) hounded from public forums. And it is an utter assault on the rule of law itself to deface or destroy public art, as opposed to removing it through legitimate representative processes. To defend the civic culture against such assaults is not an affront, but a duty.

    Moreover, as Trump said, it is a duty rooted not in suppression but in a commitment to continued expression of the values and virtues that have “rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress.”

  • “Chinese Virologist Flees Hong Kong, Accuses Beijing Of COVID-19 Cover-Up.”
  • Plagues, compared. (Hat tip: Borepatch.)
  • Texas governor Greg Abbott says still no lockdown order.
  • Democrat M. J. Hegar won her runoff with Royce West to face incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn in November. Cahnmann thinks Hegar is a much better candidate than West, but she’s not going to get the mountains of money and fawning media Beto O’Rourke got in 2018, nor are the demographic voting dynamics of a presidential election year going to be nearly as friendly to her.
  • Other Texas runoff election results. Fort Bend County Sheriff beating Troy Nehls beating Kathaleen Wall 70% to 30% is interesting, especially since Wall poured $8 million of her own money into the race, more than 16x what Nehls raised. As Ted Cruz proved in 2012: Money isn’t everything.
  • On the other hand, Ilhan Omar’s Democratic primary opponent raised $3.2 million to Omar’s $471,000.
  • Speaking of which: “Ilhan Omar’s Payments To Husband’s Firm Top $1 Million.” She’s certainly adapted quickly to the Washington Way…
  • Former Auburn football coach and Donald trump-endorsement recipient Tommy Tuberville wins Alabama senate primary over Jeff Sessions. I fully expect Tuberville to crush fluke democratic incumbent Dough Jones in the fall.
  • How remote work could destroy Silicon Valley:

    Perhaps no phenomenon is more studied, marveled, and desired in the world of high tech and science than the mystery of serendipity. In seemingly every industry, CEOs pay millions in consulting, design, and architectural costs to multiply and optimize the number of chance encounters between their most creative employees — and hopefully profit from the blockbuster new products that might result. If only they could engineer the cubicles just so, or the indoor waterfall at the right angle, they might orchestrate providential encounters, or at least load the dice in their favor.

    No place on the planet generates more such interest than Silicon Valley. For decades, cities everywhere have tried to replicate the Valley’s record of producing one trend-setting tech giant after another, but none has quite measured up. Like history’s other hubs of outsized accomplishment — Athens in 450 B.C., Hangzhou in the 12th century, and Florence in the 16th century — Silicon Valley has entrenched itself as the world’s centrifugal force for the biggest thing of its age, tech.

    But now Silicon Valley seems to be under a little-noticed threat. Amid Covid-19, the deep recession, and renewed antitrust pressure from Congress and regulators, the Valley faces a very different challenge — the disruption of its very essence, the serendipitous encounter. The culprit is a rush by many of the Valley’s leading companies to permanently lock in the coronavirus-led shift to remote work. In May, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey told his employees they were no longer required to turn up in the office. Slack said more or less the same to its workers, and the trend was made official by industry colossus Zuckerberg, who announced that he expected up to half his employees would become permanently remote.

    In the years before the pandemic, talent in San Francisco and the Valley were already conflicted about whether to stay, increasingly exasperated by the cost of living. The concentration of highly motivated creators has produced enticing jobs, but also driven up prices. In Palo Alto, the median home now costs $3.2 million. In nearby Mountain View, it’s $1.7 million, and in San Francisco $1.8 million. In other words, the Valley has priced out almost anyone not making high six-figures, and even many of them. The temptation has been to flee elsewhere, and some tech talent had already been doing so.

    But now, if engineers, designers, and venture capitalists are geographically disbanding, working via the cloud instead of walking Google’s halls, surfacing at Buck’s Restaurant, or the cafes on University Avenue, how will future serendipity happen?

    (Hat tip: Stephen Green at instapundit.)

  • Lincoln Project co-founder is literally a registered agent for Russia. “The media can keep calling you ‘Republicans,’ but if you support Democrats, take Democratic Party positions, make voting for Democrats all the way down the ticket a binary choice and moral imperative, and then take most of your money from big Democratic Party donors, you’re a Democrat.”
  • Another good word is “Grifter”:

  • Iran’s nuclear facilities mysteriously explode. (Scratches chin.)
  • Another day, another fake hate crime, this one at Texas A&M.
  • How idiots destroyed Brooks Brothers. (Hat tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)
  • Play stupid games, win stupid prizes:

    (Hat tip: Dwight.)

  • Austin response times for emergencies has gotten progressively worse over the years.

    The City would cut the number of cops despite increasing response times for emergency calls and increased violent crime in the city. I suspect other cities will be facing similar budget decisions under similar circumstances.

    I don’t know anyone who thinks we shouldn’t improve officer training and use of force guidelines to minimize harm to citizens. I know a number of cops who have been saying such things for years. I fail to see how decreasing the number of cops will enhance public safety.

  • Oopsie!
  • ESPN suspends “NBA insider and reporter Adrian Wojnarowski after he sent an email to Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley reading, ‘F— you.'”

    The Republican senator asked NBA Commissioner Adam Silver last week if he would allow players to wear jerseys with the message: “Free Hong Kong.” Hawley was criticizing the league after officials announced “pre-approved phrases” would be allowed on the back of jerseys while “censoring support” for law enforcement and criticism of China, according to Fox News.

    Wojnarowski responded to Hawley with the two-word email, which Hawley shared on social media. The columnist soon issued an apology for the message.

    Wojnarowski (or “Woj” as NBA followers call him) still hasn’t clarified which was offensive to him: Supporting American law enforcement officers or supporting freedom for Hong Kong.

  • The Houston Rockets’ Russell Westbrook tests positive for coronavirus.
  • RoadRich will be very sad at this story.
  • “Ca-..ca-…ca-Candygram!
  • “Black Conservative Informed By White People That He’s Racist.”
  • “Elizabeth Warren Declares Herself Warlord Of Eastern Oklahoma Autonomous Zone.”
  • “Trump 2020 Campaign To Simply Air Unedited Footage Of Democrats Talking.”
  • My friend Dave Hardy has a free swashbuckling SF novel on Amazon through Sunday.
  • “It’s like confetti, but with human bodies!”
  • Texas 23rd Congressional District Runoff Results on Knife’s Edge

    July 16th, 2020

    Various Wuhan coronavirus delayed runoffs finally happened in Texas on Tuesday, settling the general election slate for November.

    Well, for all races, that is, except the Texas 23rd U.S. Congressional District, the seat Republican Will Hurd is retiring from, where the Republican runoff between Tony Gonzales and Raul Reyes is still too close to call.

    On Wednesday, with all polling locations reporting, Tony Gonzales had a seven-vote lead over his opponent for the 23rd Congressional District Republican nomination in Texas – not counting late mail-in, military, and overseas ballots.

    Former Navy cryptologist Gonzales trailed retired Air Force Lt. Col. Raul Reyes for most of Tuesday evening and into the early hours of Wednesday, but they flipped later Wednesday morning. According to the Texas secretary of state Wednesday, 12,346 people voted for Gonzales while 12,339 voted for Reyes.

    The Bexar County Elections Department still must count mail-in ballots that it receives Wednesday, as long as those ballots were postmarked by Tuesday, Bexar County Elections Administrator Jacque Callanen said. Military and overseas ballots can be counted if the department receives them by Monday, so those results will not be available until next week.

    District 23 covers a large swath of Texas, spanning from western San Antonio to just outside of El Paso. The seat is held by Rep. Will Hurd (R-Helotes), who declined to run for reelection.

    And, with the thinnest of justifications, here’s an Emerson, Lake and Palmer prog rock jam from (gulp!) half a century ago:

    Bari Weiss Resigns In Protest Of The NYT SJW Wokecult

    July 15th, 2020

    The purge of those daring to express non-approved thought at the New York Times continues apace, with op-ed staff editor and writer Bari Weiss penning a letter of protest on her way out the door:

    It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

    I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

    I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

    How dare an editor hired to bring in diverse opinions bring in diverse opinions? Look at those exhibitors of wrongthink! Letting Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nick Gillespie and Glenn Loury express non-approved thoughts just proves how guilty Weiss was!

    But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

    Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor.

    Ouch!

    As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

    My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

    For those in the Party, everything. For those outside the Party, nothing.

    There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

    She should sue. I suspect the discovery process would be instructive.

    I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public.

    I do. The nail that stands up must be hammered down. Weiss wasn’t hired to bring real diverse opinions to the New York Times, she was hired to give the veneer and illusion of same.

    And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

    Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

    Trump Derangement Syndrome and Social Justice Warrior pieties: It’s what’s for dinner. And breakfast. And lunch. And every snack in-between.

    What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

    Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

    I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating: The first and post immediate goal of Social Justice is to enforce ideological conformity on the left. It’s not enough to be a good liberal who reliable votes for Democrats and supports liberal causes. You must swallow the entire panoply of hard left victimhood identity politics talking points. Express unorthodox thoughts on Palestinians or express doubt that someone with XY chromosomes and a penis is a woman and expect to face the woke inquisition for your heresy.

    It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.

    Indeed.

    The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

    Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

    Never underestimate the power of sucking up to continue receiving a paycheck.

    Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

    The ranks of American business are filled with people who oppose the wokecult, but are too scared to speak out.

    All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers.

    Why would any independent-minded young writer or editor come to work for the New York Times at all anymore? In fact, do journalism schools even turn out such creates anymore? That ship probably sailed decades ago. I suspect it’s all woke, all the way down.

    Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

    It’s been like this for quite a while. The only difference is that they’re not even pretending otherwise anymore.

    For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

    None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

    Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

    None of that has been present in the New York Times for a long, long time…

    (Hat tip: Legal Insurrection.)

    Reminder: Your Taxes Are Due Tomorrow!

    July 14th, 2020

    Remember the relief you felt that the Wuhan Coronavirus had delayed tax day from April 15 to July 15?

    Well, that reprieve is expiring, and your taxes are due tomorrow.

    If your taxes are simple (mine aren’t), you can probably use the free IRS filing tool. H&R Block also has a free filing tool.